*********************************************** 

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. 

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 advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears 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. 

*********************************************** 
M. M. v. H. F.*

(AC 42136)

Elgo, Devlin and Harper, Js.

Argued October 17—officially released November 19, 2019

Procedural History

Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other

relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, and tried to the court, Hon. Lloyd

Cutsumpas, judge trial referee; judgment dissolving the

marriage and granting certain other relief; thereafter,

the court, Ficeto, J., denied the defendant’s request for

leave to file a motion for modification, and the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

H. F., self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

M. M., self-represented, the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this postjudgment marital dissolution matter, the defendant, H. F., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her request for leave to

file a motion to modify custody and visitation of the

parties’ minor child.1 The trial court denied the defendant’s request for leave to file a motion to modify on

the ground that she failed to allege facts sufficient to

constitute a substantial change in circumstances, and,

further, that her motion simply reiterated allegations

that she previously had presented to the court. On the

basis of our careful and thorough review of the record,

we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in so

holding.

The judgment is affirmed.

* In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the

victims of family violence, we decline to identify the victim or others through

whom the victim’s identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e.

1 Because the defendant had a history of filing motions for contempt and/

or modification ‘‘without sufficient cause or without alleging a substantial

change in circumstance[s],’’ the trial court issued an order on July 19, 2017,

requiring the defendant to seek leave of the court pursuant to Practice Book

§ 25-26 (g), prior to filing further motions.