Connecticut lawChild CustodyRelocationDomestic ViolenceMarriage

Child Custody and Parenting Time in Connecticut

September 26, 2026 · LawDiver Research Team

Start with Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-56, 46b-56a. In Connecticut, Connecticut uses Legal custody and physical custody; parenting plans detail residential schedules and decision-making.. Section 46b-56 lists best-interests factors including the child’s wishes, each parent’s ability to meet needs, stability, and any history of domestic violence or substance abuse. Shared parenting is encouraged when parents can cooperate; the court may order joint legal custody even when physical custody is primarily with one parent. That is the question this guide answers for child custody and parenting time. Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child must generally show the move is for a legitimate purpose and in the child’s best interests. Modification: A material change of circumstances is required to modify final custody orders.

Best-interests factors in Connecticut

Section 46b-56 lists best-interests factors including the child’s wishes, each parent’s ability to meet needs, stability, and any history of domestic violence or substance abuse.

Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time

Legal custody and physical custody; parenting plans detail residential schedules and decision-making.

Shared parenting is encouraged when parents can cooperate; the court may order joint legal custody even when physical custody is primarily with one parent.

How the Connecticut rule applies

Apply the Connecticut authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.

Two parents in Connecticut disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.

Use the labels Connecticut actually uses: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting plans detail residential schedules and decision-making..
Apply the best-interests factors: Section 46b-56 lists best-interests factors including the child’s wishes, each parent’s ability to meet needs, stability, and any history of domestic violence or substance abuse.
Check any parenting presumption: Shared parenting is encouraged when parents can cooperate; the court may order joint legal custody even when physical custody is primarily with one parent.
If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to relocate with the child must generally show the move is for a legitimate purpose and in the child’s best interests. Later changes follow: A material change of circumstances is required to modify final custody orders.

Custody is addressed through parenting education, family services mediation, and, if needed, a GAL. Temporary orders stabilize schedules. Trials apply § 46b-56 factors.

Relocation with a child

A parent seeking to relocate with the child must generally show the move is for a legitimate purpose and in the child’s best interests.

Modifying a Connecticut custody order

A material change of circumstances is required to modify final custody orders.

How custody cases typically move in Connecticut

Custody is addressed through parenting education, family services mediation, and, if needed, a GAL. Temporary orders stabilize schedules. Trials apply § 46b-56 factors.

Case law: custody and parenting time in Connecticut

Deborah Hall v. William Hall

Deborah Hall v. William Hall, 186 Conn. 118 (1982)

Armentano, J. This is an appeal from an award of child custody incident to a decree dissolving a marriage, which award changed the custody previously ordered by the trial court. Shortly after the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a dissolution of her marriage upon the ground of irretrievable breakdown and custody of her minor daughter born May 3, 1976, the trial court aw…

Deborah Hall v. William Hall is worth reading on Connecticut child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Armentano, J. This is an appeal from an award of child custody incident to a decree dissolving a marriage, which award changed the custody previously ordered by the trial court." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Liudmil K. PETROV v. Nataliya GUEORGUIEVA.

Liudmil K. PETROV v. Nataliya GUEORGUIEVA., 167 Conn. App. 505 (2016)

…laintiff, Liudmil K. Petrov, to modify the primary physical custody of the parties' minor child. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly modified primary physical custody of the child when there was no material change in circumstances since the time of the last modification, (2) improperly modified primary physical custody of the child by failing to base i…

Practitioners open Liudmil K. PETROV v. Nataliya GUEORGUIEVA. when Connecticut child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Liudmil K. Petrov, to modify the primary physical custody of the parties' minor child." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

In Re Anthony E. Et Al.

In Re Anthony E. Et Al., 96 Conn. App. 414 (2006)

…eals from the judgment of the trial court modifying a prior custody order and granting shared physical custody of his two minor children to the respondent mother. 1 On appeal, the father claims that the court (1) improperly found a material change in the mother’s circumstances and (2) abused its discretion when it modified the original order of custody without making a finding…

In Re Anthony E. Et Al. is worth reading on Connecticut child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "eals from the judgment of the trial court modifying a prior custody order and granting shared physical custody of his two minor children to the respondent mother. 1 On appeal, the father claims that the court (1) improperly found a material change in the mother’s circumstances an" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Thomas Payton v. Mary Ellen H. Payton — Schaller, J., concurring

Thomas Payton v. Mary Ellen H. Payton — Schaller, J., concurring, 103 Conn. App. 825 (2007)

…ing the best interest of the child or (2) that the original custody order was not based on the best interest of the child. See Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50, 55-56, 732 A.2d 808 (1999). The court clarified in its articulation, however, that ‘[t]he change of custody motion was determined by the court under the best interests of the child standard as set forth in General Statu…

Thomas Payton v. Mary Ellen H. Payton — Schaller, J., concurring is worth reading on Connecticut child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "See Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50, 55-56, 732 A.2d 808 (1999)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

In Re Cameron C.

In Re Cameron C., 103 Conn. App. 746 (2007)

…dent went to Probate Court and obtained immediate temporary custody. She also made a referral to the department, alleging that the mother was not caring for C and had passed responsibility for the child to the respondent. On December 9,2003, the Probate Court issued an order of temporary custody that removed custody from the mother and awarded it to the respondent. The departme…

In Re Cameron C. is worth reading on Connecticut child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Probate Court and obtained immediate temporary custody. She also made a referral to the department, alleging that the mother was not caring for C and had passed responsibility for the child to the respondent." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

In Re Karl J.

In Re Karl J., 110 Conn. App. 22 (2008)

…ent mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment awarding custody and guardianship of her minor child, Karl J., to the child’s paternal aunt and uncle. 1 On appeal, the respondent argues that the court improperly determined that it would be in the best interest of the child to remain in the care and custody of his paternal aunt and uncle. We affirm the judgment of the trial c…

On child custody, In Re Karl J. speaks to the Connecticut dispute in this passage: "Karl J., to the child’s paternal aunt and uncle. 1 On appeal, the respondent argues that the court improperly determined that it would be in the best interest of the child to remain in the care and custody of his paternal aunt and uncle." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Michael Feinberg v. Joanne Feinberg

Michael Feinberg v. Joanne Feinberg, 114 Conn. App. 589 (2009)

…al court granting the plaintiff, Michael Feinberg, physical custody of the parties' minor child. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly relied on outdated evidence and factually unsupported findings to determine that the best interest of the child would be served by primarily residing with the plaintiff and attending Simsbury public schools. We affirm the jud…

Michael Feinberg v. Joanne Feinberg is worth reading on Connecticut child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Michael Feinberg, physical custody of the parties' minor child." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Key takeaways

Best-interests standard: Section 46b-56 lists best-interests factors including the child’s wishes, each parent’s ability to meet needs, stability, and any history of domestic violence or substance abuse.
Labels used in Connecticut: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting plans detail residential schedules and decision-making..
Parenting-time posture: Shared parenting is encouraged when parents can cooperate; the court may order joint legal custody even when physical custody is primarily with one parent.
Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child must generally show the move is for a legitimate purpose and in the child’s best interests.
Modification: A material change of circumstances is required to modify final custody orders.
Primary authority: Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-56, 46b-56a.

Frequently asked questions

What does Connecticut call “custody”?