Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Bruce Bedrick appeals the trial courtâs decision in favor of his wife Deborah Bedrick. Deborah filed suit seeking dissolution of her marriage in August, 2007. She sought permanent alimony, an equitable distribution of the partiesâ real and personal property, and other relief. Bruce filed a cross-complaint seeking to enforce a postnuptial agreement that the parties executed in December, 1977 but most recently modified in 1989. The agreement provided that in the event of dissolution, neither party would pay alimony. Instead, Deborah would receive a cash settlement. The 1989 amendment listed the cash settlement to be $75,000. The agreement further provided that Deborah would waive her interests in Bruceâs businesses, and not be liable for Bruceâs personal and business loans. The trial court concluded that because there was not much case law addressing the validity of postnuptial agreements in Connecticut to use as a guide, it may not enforce an agreement that was not fair and equitable. The court concluded that the postnuptial agreement was not fair and equitable, and declined to enforce it. Bruce appealed the decision and lost. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that postnuptial agreements are valid and enforceable, and generally must comply with contract principles. The Court also concluded that the terms of such agreements should be both fair and equitable at the time of execution, and not unconscionable at the time of dissolution. The Court found that the terms of the Bedricksâ agreement were unconscionable, and it affirmed the lower courtâs decision.

The Appellee-Petitioner, Commissioner of Children and Families, sought to terminate the parental rights of Respondent-Father to his child, Samantha S. After trial began, Respondent entered into an agreement to terminate his rights. After examining Respondent to ensure his consent was valid and termination was in the child's best interest, the trial court terminated Respondent's parental rights. Thereafter, Respondent learned that Petitioner had agreed to consider his petition for a declaratory ruling given Petitioner's purported duty to promote open adoption, and filed a motion to reopen his case to seek that option. The lower court ruled that Respondent's imperfect knowledge of the status of the declaratory judgment could not be used as a defense against terminating his parental rights, and Respondent appealed. This Court reviewed the entire record and dismissed Respondent's appeal.