Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. 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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** THADDEUS SZCZERKOWSKI v. LINDA KARMELOWICZ (AC 18801)
Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Mihalakos, Js. Argued June 1--officially released October 17, 2000 Counsel

Irene P. Romanelli, for the appellant (defendant). Karen S. Gersten, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

MIHALAKOS, J. The defendant, Linda Karmelowicz, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting motions by the plaintiff, Thaddeus Szczerkowski, to modify certain visitation and support orders thus increasing the plaintiff's visitation with the parties' two minor children and applying his child support payments during summer visitation with them to his arrearages, and denying the defendant's motions for reconsideration and for the appointment of counsel for the children. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) failing to find a substantial change in circumstances prior to modifying the visitation schedule, (2) making financial orders without having

the parties' financial orders and financial affidavits in evidence, and after indicating that it would not make financial orders and (3) not appointing counsel for the children. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. Prior to this court's analysis of the facts in this matter, we must consider whether we should review the appeal. The record does not contain a written memorandum of decision or a transcription of the oral decision by the court.1 ``The duty to provide this court with a record adequate for review rests with the appellant.'' Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 607, 710 A.2d 190 (1998). ``It is incumbent upon the appellant to take the necessary steps to sustain its burden of providing an adequate record for appellate review. Practice Book

Download Szczerkowski v. Karmelowicz.pdf

Connecticut Law