Opinion
In a proceeding to obtain the custody of a child, his welfare is the controlling issue. In determining custody much must be left to the court's discretion. The court is not bound by expert testimony even if it is uncontradicted. Held that the court could reasonably conclude, in the present case, that the custody of a child of three and one-half years should be transferred from the child's grandparents to his father.
Argued November 5, 1965
Decided December 9, 1965
Habeas corpus to obtain the custody of a minor child, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the court, Klau, J.; judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendants. No error.
James N. Egan, with whom, on the brief, was Edward R. Smoragiewicz, for the appellants (defendants).
Eli L. Cramer, for the appellee (plaintiff).
In this habeas corpus proceeding, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, transferring to him custody of his son, Curtis D. Stiwinter, Jr., who is about three and one-half years of age, from the defendants, who were the child's maternal grandparents and with whom the child had lived since his birth. The defendants have appealed.
While certain corrections and additions to the finding are sought, we can make none which would materially affect the result.
In a case involving the custody of a child, his welfare must be the controlling consideration, and in determining custody much must be left to the discretion of the trial court. It is not bound by expert testimony even if the testimony is uncontradicted. Clearly in this case the court weighed the circumstances with great care. We cannot hold that the trial court could not reasonably conclude that the plaintiff should have the custody of the child. Claffey v. Claffey, 135 Conn. 374, 377, 64 A.2d 540; Claffey v. Claffey, 146 Conn. 104, 109, 148 A.2d 140.