## Facts

- Peter Nicita (father) and Allison Kittredge (mother) divorced after having two children.
- Their dissolution judgment incorporated a parenting plan granting joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the mother, and generous parenting time to the father.
- The plan required the parents to discuss and agree on major child-rearing decisions to the greatest extent possible, and it stated neither parent would use custody terms to frustrate or control the other parent’s lifestyle.
- After the divorce, the parents repeatedly failed to carry out the plan’s cooperation requirements and engaged in extensive post-judgment conflict and motion practice.
- The mother, who is Jewish, unilaterally decided to raise the children in the Jewish faith and enrolled them in Hebrew school.
- The father, who is Catholic, initially resisted the religious plan but later agreed the children would be raised Jewish; despite that agreement, he sent mixed messages to the children about religion and refused to take them to Hebrew school during his parenting time.
- The mother also decided on significant matters without meaningful consultation, including moving with the children away from the father’s town; the father learned of the move from a neighbor rather than from the mother.
- The mother frequently acted in ways that diminished the father’s role, including failing to list him as the children’s father (or even as an emergency contact) on forms and scheduling activities that conflicted with his parenting time.
- The mother remarried, and the relationship between the father and the mother’s new husband was hostile.
- One child developed stomach problems that the court associated, at least in part, with the ongoing parental conflict.
- The father filed a motion to modify the parenting plan (with related requests by the parties), asking the Superior Court to change the existing arrangements to protect the children and make the plan workable.

## Issues

1. When a stipulated joint-custody parenting plan proves unworkable due to ongoing parental conflict, may the court modify the plan and replace it with a more specific, court-crafted parenting plan?
2. What custody, parenting-time, and decision-making provisions are required to reduce conflict and protect the children’s welfare when both parents repeatedly act unilaterally and undermine the other?
3. May the court order a consistent religious-upbringing arrangement and require both parents to support it during their respective parenting time?

## Decision

- The court granted modification relief and replaced the parties’ unworkable stipulation with more detailed, court-ordered parenting directives.
- The court maintained the mother as the children’s primary physical custodian while tightening structure around parenting time, scheduling, and parental responsibilities.
- The court imposed clearer rules to limit unilateral conduct that interfered with the other parent’s relationship with the children (including interference through scheduling and notice failures).
- The court ordered a consistent approach to the children’s religious upbringing: the children would be raised in the Jewish faith, and each parent was required to support that plan during parenting time, including participation in Hebrew school.
- The court’s orders were aimed at reducing the children’s exposure to parental hostility and preventing confusion and stress linked to inconsistent messages from the parents.

## Legal Principles

- In post-judgment custody and visitation matters, the controlling standard is the children’s best interests, not the parents’ preferences or the desire to enforce an agreement for its own sake.
- A trial court has continuing authority to modify custody and parenting orders; when a stipulated parenting plan proves unworkable in practice, the court may substitute a specific, detailed parenting plan designed to protect the children.
- Joint legal custody assumes the parents can communicate and make major decisions together; when that assumption fails and the children are harmed, the court may impose precise decision-making rules and conduct requirements to reduce conflict.
- Major child-rearing issues—such as religious education, relocation affecting the parenting schedule, and participation in activities—may be regulated through detailed court orders when needed to protect the children’s welfare.
- A pattern of unilateral actions and efforts to marginalize the other parent (for example, withholding notice of a move, omitting the other parent from forms, or scheduling activities that disrupt parenting time) may justify more prescriptive parenting-time and decision-making terms.

## Conclusion

Nicita v. Kittredge holds that when parents’ agreed joint-custody plan breaks down in practice and exposes children to ongoing conflict, the Connecticut Superior Court may modify the stipulation and impose a detailed, court-designed parenting plan, including clear directives on decision-making, scheduling, and a consistent religious-upbringing arrangement requiring both parents’ support.


Nicita v. Kittredge, 2004 WL 2284292 (2004)