The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a trial court’s ruling that allowed the former spouse of Margaret Sullivan to determine her parental visitation rights with one of their children, a decision that Sullivan believes could have far reaching impact on Connecticut’s troubled family court system.

Following some alcohol-related issues in this long-running battle over visitation rights, the trial court awarded sole custody to the father. The court also ruled that a therapist would recommend Sullivan’s visitation rights for her daughter and that the father — in consultation with a therapist — could change Sullivan’s visitation rights with their son if he thought those visits were having a negative impact, which ultimately led to her not being able to see her son at all.

Sullivan, representing herself, appealed, arguing the trial court had improperly delegated its authority to her ex-husband, and both the Appellate Court and Supreme Court agreed.

“We conclude that the trial court’s order authorizing the plaintiff to exercise unilateral control over the defendant’s visitation with R was an improper delegation of judicial authority because the court delegated to the plaintiff, in consultation with the child’s therapist, the authority to suspend or terminate the defendant’s visitation with R,” the decision says. “Allowing the custodial parent to make visitation decisions for the non-custodial parent creates a situation ripe for misjudgment and abuse.”

Reached for comment, Sullivan says she’s “relieved and grateful” for the Supreme Court’s decision.

“This battle has been long and difficult, and it is one that I never should have had to fight,” Sullivan said. “During this journey, I have met many other mothers facing similar rulings, and I understand the deep frustration and heartache they feel. While I am relieved by the outcome, this experience has shattered my faith in the judicial system, especially in the lower Superior Court. However, the decisions of the Appellate and Supreme Courts have helped restore my faith, albeit slightly.” 

Family court reform advocates have, for a decade, been calling for changes to be enacted in how Connecticut’s judicial system handles contentious, high-conflict divorce and custody cases, including the use of court-appointed therapists and guardian ad litems (GAL) to recommend custody and visitation schedules to the court while simultaneously being paid tens of thousands of dollars by one or both parents. 

In Sullivan’s case, however, the father and therapist were not making recommendations to the judge but were rather given the authority by the court to alter Sullivan’s visitation rights.

While most divorce and custody cases are emotionally difficult and contentious, roughly 5 percent become high-conflict cases that involve hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of litigation, hundreds of motions filed, and often claims of abuse, psychological disorders, and threats. 

The 2021 disappearance and presumed murder of Jennifer Dulos by her husband Fotis Dulos during an ongoing divorce and custody battle has been highlighted by women in Connecticut as an example of how tragic these proceedings can become and claim that Connecticut’s family court system often ignores domestic abuse, or even enables it further, by allowing these proceedings to stretch on for years.

Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson and Raheem L. Mullins, however, authored a concurring opinion, saying they agreed the trial court improperly delegated its authority, but believe the court should be allowed to confer “limited authority” on a custodial parent if there is a demonstrated need to protect the child from “the potential for physical, emotional, or psychological harm,” or that the order only allows for cancellation of a particular visiting schedule, but not an “indefinite suspension of that right.”

“Given the trial court’s finding in this case that the actions of the defendant mother, M. H., posed a risk of emotional or psychological harm to the parties’ minor children, this case presents a paradigmatic example of one in which it would have been appropriate for the trial court to provide appropriately limited discretion over visitation to the plaintiff father, R. H,” Robinson wrote. “Because the trial court’s order went too far by allowing the plaintiff to indefinitely suspend the defendant’s visitation, however, I agree that the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiff’s motion to modify custody should be reversed.” 

Sullivan had filed complaints against the GAL in her case and accused one of the children’s therapists of “insurance fraud,” according to the Supreme Court decision, which were all used against her by the trial court in determining visitation rights. Over the course of her legal fight, Sullivan has also joined the ranks of family court reformists and hopes this decision will help other families in the future.

“I acknowledge that my experience highlights significant issues within the family court system, where many individuals are forced to navigate complex legal battles without legal representation. This is bittersweet. Not everyone could have done this pro se or afforded an attorney to handle these appeals,” Sullivan said. “I believe that this decision could have far-reaching implications for other parents facing similar struggles. “I remain committed to advocating for family court reform and hope that my case will inspire others to continue fighting for justice.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.