Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,400+ case briefs...

Nicita v. Kittredge

Superior Court of Connecticut
2004 WL 2284292 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 22, 2004)


Peter Nicita (plaintiff) and Allison Kittredge (defendant) were married and had two children. The couple divorced and agreed to a parenting plan. The agreement stated that all major child-rearing decisions would be discussed in depth and agreed upon by both Nicita and Kittredge to the extent possible. The agreement also stated that Nicita and Kittredge would work together cooperatively and would not use the agreement to frustrate the lifestyle of the other parent. Nicita and Kittredge agreed to joint legal custody of the children. Kittredge had primary physical custody, while Nicita had generous visitation rights. However, neither Nicita nor Kittredge abided by the terms of the agreement. Nicita was Catholic, and Kittredge was Jewish. After the divorce, Kittredge unilaterally decided to raise the children in the Jewish faith. After several motions by both parties, Nicita ultimately agreed with this decision, but continued to give the children mixed messages about religion and refused to take the children to Hebrew school during his parenting time. Kittredge also unilaterally decided to move with the children away from the town in which Nicita lived. Nicita only learned of Kittredge’s move from a neighbor. Nicita and Kittredge consistently attempted to undermine each other in similar ways. For example, Kittredge never listed Nicita as the children’s father, or even as an emergency contact, on activity forms. Additionally, Kittredge would schedule the children for activities that interfered with Nicita’s scheduled parenting time. Kittredge remarried, and her new husband did not get along with Nicita. One of the children began having stomach issues, possibly because of the tension and animosity between the parents. Nicita filed a motion in the Superior Court of Connecticut to modify the divorce agreement.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Prestley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 373,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,400 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial