«The district court concluded for purposes of the statutory modification requirement, that MA - E's «emotional development is impaired in the environment of [Adler's] sole
legal and physical custody because [Adler] will not permit the child to have a normal relationship with [Espinosa], and [Adler] will cause [MA - E] distress by systematically undermining [Espinosa's] involvement with the child.»
Beyond 100 miles, however, the proposed relocation can have an impact on child
and spousal support,
legal and physical custody and property distribution
because the courts recognize that the relocation fundamentally changes the relationship between the child
and the noncustodial parent, particularly the costs of visitation.
Often fathers win
physical custody because men generally have greater financial resources
and can continue the court battles with more
legal assistance over a longer period of time.
Further, as respecting possible modification,
because of past issues of the defendant failing to comply with orders of the court; providing token compliance with orders of the court while ignoring the spirit
and intent of the orders (including the orders dated December 1, 2010); the defendant's lengthy pattern of contemptuous conduct; the expenses
and financial waste caused by the defendant; the substantial financial drain on the resources of the plaintiff
and the guardian ad litem caused by the defendant; the pattern of parental alienation; prior false reports of abuse
and / or neglect to governmental entities;
and the need for repose on the part of the minor child, it is anticipated that in addition to satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, no modification motion is permitted to be filed by defendant regarding the sole
physical and / or sole
legal custody arrangements, except in the case of the plaintiff's total
and permanent disability as determined by the Social Security Administration, unless the following conditions are satisfied...» Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr, 2011 WL 1566201 at * 4 (Conn.Super.).