green
Positive treatment
5.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Merkel v. Hill
In making its discretionary determination as to whether to modify an existing order relating to custody or a parental access plan, "the trial court is bound to consider the [children's] present best interests and not what would have been in [their] best interests at some previous time." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Collins v. Collins , 117 Conn. App. 380 , 391-92, 979 A.2d 543 (2009) ; see O'Neill v. O'Neill , 13 Conn. App. 300 , 303-304, 536 A.2d 978 (court abused discretion by fashioning order based on past conduct and outdated evidence rather than present abilit…
discussed
Cited "see"
Petrov v. Gueorguieva
"In the exercise of its awesome responsibility to find the most salutary custodial arrangement ... the court must however take account of the parents' past behavior, since it must evaluate their present and future parenting ability and the consistency of their parenting for the purpose of determining which parent will better foster the children's growth, development and well-being." Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275 , 283, 440 A.2d 899 (1981) ; accord O'Neill v. O'Neill, 13 Conn.App. 300 , 304, 536 A.2d 978 ("a party's prior conduct ... may have a direct bearing on his or her present fitness to …
examined
Cited "see"
Wiegand v. Wiegand
(4×)
See LaBow v. LaBow, 13 Conn. App. 330, 334 , 537 A.2d 157 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stahl v. Bayliss
(2×)
See O'Neill v. O'Neill, 13 Conn.App. 300, 303 , 536 A.2d 978 (concluding that trial court, by relying on outdated evidence, failed to consider child's present best interest when it determined custody), cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Destiny Q., (Nov. 19, 2001)
See In re Shavoughn K ., 13 Conn. App. 91 , 92 , 534 A.2d 1243 (1987), cert. denied, 207 Conn. 805 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988); In re Interests of Fatima McC ., Superior Court, child protection session at Middletown (November 26, 1997, Quinn, J .); In re Oliver B ., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford (July 22, 1994, Foley, J .); In re Kelly S ., Superior Court, judicial district of Tenth District at Willamantic, Docket No. N90-159 (December 5, 1991, Teller, J .); In re Cornelia B ., Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, juvenile matters, Docket No. 528120 (…
cited
Cited "see"
Krafick v. Krafick
Gregory, The Law of Equitable Distribution (1989) § 1.03, pp. 1-6; see O’Neill v. O’Neill, 13 Conn. App. 300, 310-11 , 536 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Joshua Z.
See In re Shavoughn K., 13 Conn. App. 91 , 534 A.2d 1243 (1987), cert. denied, 207 Conn. 805 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Roach v. Roach
See O’Neill v. O’Neill, 13 Conn. App. 300 , 536 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988); Deteves v. Deteves, 2 Conn. App. 590 , 481 A.2d 92 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carasso v. Carasso
See Bleuer v. Bleuer, supra, 59 Conn. App. 169 ; see also LaBow v. LaBow, 13 Conn. App. 330, 345 , 537 A.2d 157 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988). “[E]very reasonable presumption will be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling, and [n] othing short of a conviction that the action of the trial court is one which discloses a clear abuse of discretion can warrant our interference.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bleuer v. Bleuer, supra, 169 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
North Park Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Pinette
This supervisory power includes, inter alia, “the power to make appropriate postappeal orders”; Guss v. Guss, 1 Conn. App. 356, 365 , 472 A.2d 790 (1984) (Borden, J., concurring), quoting In re Juvenile Appeal (83-BC), 189 Conn. 66, 81 , 454 A. 2d 1262 (1983); see also O’Neill v. O’Neill, 13 Conn. App. 300, 304 , 536 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 207 Conn. 806 , 540 A.2d 374 (1988); and the power to “modify or vacate any order made by the trial court, or a judge thereof, in relation to the prosecution of the appeal.” Practice Book § 4183.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Shavoughn K.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 10, 1988.
Margaret P. Levy, in support of the petition., Patricia Lilly Harleston, assistant attorney general, in opposition.
Published
The mother’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 13 Conn. App. 91, is denied.