*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** PETER REK ET AL. v. KIRK PETTIT ET AL. (AC 45210) Bright, C. J., and Suarez and Seeley, Js. Syllabus The plaintiffs, legal guardians of the minor child C, appealed from the orders of the trial court requiring C to suspend contact with his long-term personal counselor, L, and engage with a new therapist with the goal of working toward the resumption of visitation with the defendants, C’s maternal grandparents. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion with the trial court, seeking an order that, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ appeal, there was no automatic appellate stay in effect. Subsequently, the trial court issued an order that there was no automatic stay of the custody and visitation orders and that the plaintiffs were to comply with the trial court’s orders. Thereafter, the trial court denied the plain- tiffs’ motion for a discretionary stay. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed motions for review of the trial court’s orders determining that there was no automatic appellate stay and denying their motion for a discre- tionary stay. Held: 1. This court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for review of the trial court’s order determining that there was no automatic appellate stay in effect but concluded that the plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that the trial court incorrectly determined that there was no automatic appel- late stay; the trial court’s orders pertained to the manner and extent of visitation, as well as contact with the defendants, and visitation orders expressly were exempt from the automatic appellate stay under the relevant rule of practice (§ 61-11 (c)). 2. This court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for review of the trial court’s order denying their motion for a discretionary stay and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion only insofar as the court ordered the parties to engage with a new therapist for the purpose of facilitating visitation, but it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals