Child Visitation

Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries

Child Visitation

Actions in Connecticut

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

U.S. Supreme Court: “The liberty interest at issue in this case — the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children — is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed. 49 (2000).
“Connecticut courts likewise have recognized the constitutionally protected right of parents to raise and care for their children . . . . When legislation affects a fundamental constitutional right, it must be strictly scrutinized.” Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 41 (2008). (emphasis added).

· Third Party: “The term ‘third party’ refers to any private individual other than a parent of the child, as distinguished from the state.” Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 27, fn 1 (2008).

“Accordingly, any third party, including a grandparent or a great-grandparent, seeking visitation must allege and establish a parent-like relationship as a jurisdictional threshold in order both to pass constitutional muster and to be consistent with the legislative intent.” Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 225, 789 A.2d 431 (2002).

· Parent-Child Relationship: “First, the petition must contain specific, good faith allegations that the petitioner has a relationship with the child that is similar in nature to a parent-child relationship.

· Harm: The petition must also contain specific, good faith allegations that denial of the visitation will cause real and significant harm to the child. As we have stated, that degree of harm requires more than a determination that visitation would be in the child’s best interest. It must be a degree of harm analogous to the kind of harm contemplated by §§ 46b-120 and 46b-129, namely, that the child is ‘neglected, uncared-for or dependent.’ The degree of specificity of the allegations must be sufficient to justify requiring the fit parent to subject his or her parental judgment to unwanted litigation. Only if these specific, good faith allegations are made will a court have jurisdiction over the petition.” Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 234-35, 789 A.2d 431 (2002).

· Proof: “Second, once these high jurisdictional hurdles have been overcome, the petitioner must prove these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Only if that enhanced burden of persuasion has been met may the court enter an order of visitation. These requirements thus serve as the constitutionally mandated safeguards against unwarranted intrusions into a parent's authority.”

· “We can envision circumstances in which a nonparent and a child have developed such substantial emotional ties that the denial of visitation could cause serious and immediate harm to that child.” Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 225 (2002).

Sections in this chapter:

§ 1. Child Visitation Action

§ 2. Third Party Visitation Actions

§ 3. Temporary or Pendente Lite Visitation Orders

§ 4. Preference of the Child

§ 5. Modification of Visitation Orders

§.6. Contempt of Visitation Orders

§ 7. Habeas Corpus Visitation Proceedings

§ 8. Relocation and Child Visitation Orders, Effective 10/1/06

§ 8A. Relocation and Child Visitation Orders, Prior to 10/1/06

§ 9. Out of State Child Custody Orders

Appendix A: House debate on passage of H.B. 5536

Table in this chapter

Table 1 ALR Annotations on Child Visitation

Table 2 Pub. Act 06-168

Table 3 Sibling Visitation in Connecticut

Table 4 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

Web sites:

http://www.larcc.org/pamphlets/children_family.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/child_custody.html

http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/div_ency.html#Subtopic82

http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/15family/sites.html

Section 1 Child Visitation Action

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to actions seeking court ordered visitation.

DEFINITIONS:

· “We recognize that, in many households, grandparents, as well as people who have no biological relationship with a child, undertake duties of a parental nature and that states have sought to ensure the welfare of children by protecting those relationships.” Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 220, 789 A.2d 431 (2002).

· “Therefore, we acknowledge that a person other than a blood relation may have established a more significant connection with a child than the one established with a grandparent or some other relative. Conversely, we recognize that being a blood relation of a child does not always translate into that relative having significant emotional ties with that child. Indeed, as § 46b-59 implicitly recognizes, it is not necessarily the biological aspect of the relationship that provides the basis for a legally cognizable interest. Rather, it is the nature of the relationship that determines standing.” Ibid., 221

· “Proof of the nature of a parent-like relationship between a person seeking visitation and the child would provide the jurisdictional safeguard necessary to prevent families from having to defend against unjustified petitions for visitation.” (emphasis added). Ibid. 22-222

· Petition for visitation: “First, the petition must contain specific, good faith allegations that the petitioner has a relationship with the child that is similar in nature to a parent-child relationship. The petition must also contain specific, good faith allegations that denial of the visitation will cause real and significant harm to the child. As we have stated, that degree of harm requires more than a determination that visitation would be in the child's best interest. It must be a degree of harm analogous to the kind of harm contemplated by §§ 46b-120 and 46b-129, namely, that the child is ‘neglected, uncared-for or dependent.’ The degree of specificity of the allegations must be sufficient to justify requiring the fit parent to subject his or her parental judgment to unwanted litigation. Only if these specific, good faith allegations are made will a court have jurisdiction over the petition.

Second, once these high jurisdictional hurdles have been overcome, the petitioner must prove these allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Only if that enhanced burden of persuasion has been met may the court enter an order of visitation. These requirements thus serve as the constitutionally mandated safeguards against unwarranted intrusions into a parent's authority.” Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 234-235, 789 A.2d 431 (2002).

· Custody vs. Visitation: “Specifically, visitation petitions challenge the decision of a fit parent who is presumed to be acting in the child’s best interest to deny or limit the petitioner's request for visitation . . . The harm alleged in a visitation petition results from the child’s lack of access to the petitioner rather than from the parent-child relationship . . . . ” Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 61 (2008). Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 47 (2008).

· “. . . the parent-child relationship itself is at issue in a custody dispute, whereas it is not in a visitation dispute, in which the third party merely seeks the right to visit the child and the parents are presumed to be loving and caring.” Ibid. 61.

· Harm: “

Child Custody Actions in Connecticut

STATUTES:

Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007)

· § 45a-604. Definitions

· § 45a‑606. Father and mother joint guardians

· § 46b-54. Counsel for minor children. Duties.

· § 46b-56. Orders re custody, care, education, visitation and support of children. Best interests of the child. Access to records of minor child by noncustodial parent. Orders re therapy, counseling and drug or alcohol screening.

· § 46b-57. Third party intervention re custody of minor children. Preference of the child

· § 46b-59. Court may grant right of visitation to any person.

· § 46b-59a. Mediation of disputes re enforcement of visitation rights

· § 46b‑61. Orders re Children where parents live separately. Commencement of proceedings

· § 46b-64. Orders of court prior to return day of complaint

· §§ 46b-115 to 46b-115gg Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act

LEGISLATIVE:

· Saul Spigel, Chief Analyst, Department of Children and Families Visitation Criteria, Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, Report No. 2004-R-0799 (October 5, 2004).

“You asked about the Department of Children and Families (DCF) criteria for deciding whether a child in foster care can visit overnight with a biological parent.”

COURT RULES

Connecticut Practice Book (2008)

· Chapter 25, Superior Court - Procedure in Family Matters

§ 25-4. Action for visitation of minor child

§ 25-5. Automatic orders upon service of complaint

§ 25-7. Pleadings in general; Amendments to complaint or application

§ 25-9. —Answer, cross complaint, claims for relief by defendant

§ 25-23. Motions, requests, orders of notice, and short calendar

§ 25-24. Motions

§ 25-26. Modification of custody, alimony or support

§ 25-27. Motion for contempt

§ 25-28. Order of notice

§ 25-30. Statements to be filed

§ 25-38. Judgment files

§ 25-50. Case management

§ 25-57. Affidavit concerning children

§ 25-59. Closure of courtroom in family matters

§ 25-59a. Sealing files or limiting disclosure of documents in family matters

§ 25-60. Family Division evaluations and studies

§25-61. Family Division

§ 25-62. Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

LEGISLATIVE

HISTORY:

· 1983 CONN. ACTS 96. An act concerning visitation rights. “as initially enacted . . . permitted only grandparents to petition for visitation. Castagno v. Wholean [ 239 Conn. 336, 684 A.2d 1181], supra, 239 Conn. 347-48. In 1983, however § 49-59 . . . was amended to its current form to allow ‘any person’ to petition for visitation . . . . “ Roth v. Weston, 29 Conn. 202, 219, 789 A.2d 431(2002).

· 1974 CONN. ACTS 169, § 12, 17 H.R. Proc., Pt. 6, 1974 Sess., p. 2805 [§ 46b-61] “...expands the jurisdiction of the superior court involving minor children and further states that the section can be used in controversies not only involving a husband and wife but in controversies involving parents of minor children or children if they are no longer married or were never married.”

FORMS:

Official Forms

· JD-CL-12. Appearance

· JD-FM-75. Application for Waiver of Fees

· JD-FM-160. Answer

· JD-FM-161. Custody / Visitation Application

· JD-FM-162. Order to Attend Hearing and Notice to the Defendant

· JD-FM-158. Notice of Automatic Orders

· JD-FM-164. Affidavit Concerning Children

· JD-FM-164A. Addendum to Affidavit Concerning Children

· JD-FM-167. Motion for Notice by Publication or Mail in Family Cases

· JD-FM-168. Order of Notice by Publication or Mail in Family Cases

· JD-FM-160. Answer

· JD-FM-176. Motion for Orders Before Judgment (Pendente Lite)

· JD-FM-6. Financial Affidavit

· JD-FM-173. Motion for Contempt

· JD-FM-174. Motion for Modification

· JD-FM-183. Custody/Visitation Agreement

· JD-FM-185. Motion for Intervention in Family Matters

· JD-FM-202. Request for leave

UNOFFICIAL FORMS

· Mary Ellen Wynn & Ellen B. Lubell, Handbook of Forms for the Connecticut Family Lawyer 97 (1991).

Modification of Automatic Orders

· Barbara Kahn Stark et al., Friendly Divorce Guidebook For Connecticut 369 (1998).

Visitation Schedule

· Family Law Practice in Connecticut, Law Practice Handbooks, Inc. 10-62 (1996).

Sample Visitation Order, p. 10-62.

CASES:

· Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24 (2008) “. . . a court could exercise jurisdiction over a petition for third party visitation against the wishes of a fit parent only if the petition contains ‘specific, good faith allegations that the petitioner has a relationship with the child that is similar in nature to a parent-child relationship. The petition must also contain specific, good faith allegations that denial of the visitation will cause real and significant [emotional] harm to the child. As we have stated, that degree of harm requires more than a determination that visitation would be in the child's best interest. It must be a degree of harm analogous to the kind of harm contemplated by §§ 46b-120 and 46b-129, namely, that the child is `neglected, uncared-for or dependent.' The degree of specificity of the allegations must be sufficient to justify requiring the fit parent to subject his or her parental judgment to unwanted litigation. Only if these specific, good faith allegations are made will a court have jurisdiction over the petition.”

· Raffino v. Bottass, FA054019188S (April 11, 2006, J.D. Hartford), 41 Conn. L. Rptr. 181, 183 (June 12, 2006), 2006 WL 1149131 (Conn. Super. 2006). “This court recognizes the anguish that the grandparents are suffering in not being able to spend as much time with their grandchildren as they previously did and their concern that the children will suffer too. However, the court also recognizes that the father must devote his energies to re-establishing his family unit with the children, and, as the courts have indicated, there is a presumption that he is acting in the best interests of the children. It is that very principle that is so protected that the Connecticut Supreme Court has declared that a very high standard must be met so as to appropriately protect the father's right to not have to defend his decisions in a court of law. While adherence to the underlying principle may be very difficult for the grandparents at this time, the grandparents might consider that just as parents must give their children two things — roots and wings, grandparents must continue to do that for the parents of their grandchildren.”

· Foster v. Foster, 84 Conn. App. 311, 320, 853 A.2d 588 (2004). “As the plaintiff has no constitutionally protected right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding, we decline to require the court, in every custody or visitation dispute confronted with a pro se litigant, to grant a continuance simply because the request is founded on a parent’s right to raise a child without undue interference. Although we recognize the value of family integrity, we acknowledge also that the state has an interest in the orderly presentation of cases and the ability of the court to manage its docket. We therefore conclude that, balancing all the interests, the court’s refusal to grant a continuance did not result in a constitutional deprivation.”

· Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 789 A.2d 231 (2002). Petition for visitation by maternal grandmother and maternal aunt pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59.

“In the absence of a threshold requirement of a finding of real and substantial harm to the child as a result of the denial of visitation, forced intervention by a third party seeking visitation is an unwarranted intrusion into family autonomy. Accordingly, in the absence of any such requirement of harm, § 46b-59 does not justify interference with parental rights.” (229)

“… the petition must contain specific, good faith allegations that the petitioner has a relationship with the child that is similar in nature to a parent-child relationship. The petition must also contain specific, good faith allegations that the denial of the visitation will cause real and significant harm to the child… Second, the petitioner must prove these allegations by clear and convincing evidence.” (235)

· Laspina-Williams v. Laspina-Williams, 46 Conn. Supp. 165, 171, 742 A.2d 840 (1999). Petition for visitation rights with the biological child of the defendant; the child was conceived through alternative insemination and had been jointly raised by the plaintiff and defendant who were same-sex partners. “ … the defendant allowed, even encouraged, the plaintiff to assume a significant role in the life of the child such that she is a party entitled to seek visitation with the child.”

· Temple v. Meyer, 208 Conn. 404, 544 A.2d 629 (1988).

· Ridgeway v. Ridgeway, 180 Conn. 533, 541, 429 A.2d 801 (1980). “In this case, the evidence showed … that the plaintiff’s psychologicalk instability was such that it posed a threat to the children’s sell-being.” Visitation limited to one day per week

· Raymond v. Raymond, 165 Conn. 735, 742, 345 A.2d 48 (1974). “It has never been our law that support payments were conditioned on the ability to exercise rights of visitation or vice versa. The duty to support is wholly independent of the right of visitation.”

WEST KEY NUMBERS:

· Child Custody

# 175. In general

# 176. Discretion

# 177. Grounds in general

# 178. Welfare and best interest of child

# 179. Existence of factors other than best interest of the child

# 180. Right of biological parent as to third persons in general

# 181. Ability of parties to cooperate

# 182. Person entitled in general

# 183. Custody of siblings

# 184. Geographic considerations

# 185. Religion

# 186. Primary caregiver

# 187. Rewarding or punishing party

# 188. Behavior of parties in general

# 189. Motives

# 190. Litigation conduct

# 191. Sexual behavior or preference of party

# 192. —In general

# 193. —Homosexuals

# 194. —Effect on child

# 195. Cohabitation with third party

# 196. Previous interference with lawful custody or visitation

# 197. Abuse of neglect of child

# 198. Physical condition of custodian

# 199. Use of drugs or alcohol

# 200. Commission of crime

# 201. Mental condition

# 202. Previous abandonment or relinquishment by custodian

# 203. Agreements, contracts, or stipulations

# 204. Child preference

# 205. Age of child

# 206. Health and physical condition of child

# 207. Mental health or condition of child

# 208. Performance of child in school

# 209. Physical custody arrangement

# 210. —In general

# 211. —Hours

# 212. —Holidays

# 213. Transporting and transferring child

# 214. Placement of child with third parties

# 215. Visitation conditions

# 216. —In general

# 217. —Supervised visitation

# 218. —Payment of child support, attorney’s fees, alimony

# 219. —Excluding other persons from being present during visitation

# 220. —Place of visitation

# 221. —Notice to custodial parent

# 222. —Counseling

# 223. —Restriction on conduct

# 224. —Bond

# 225. Control and authority of parties

# 226. —In general

# 227. —Religion

# 228. —Education

# 229. —Extracurricular choices

# 230. —Discipline or punishment

# 231. Employment status

· Children out of Wedlock

# 20.9. Visitation and joint custody

TEXTS & TREATISES:

· 8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al., Connecticut Practice: Family Law and Practice with Forms (2000).

Chapter 42. Custody and visitation

§ 42.40. Visitation—General considerations

§ 42.41. Visitation schedules—Allocation of vacations, holidays and the like

§ 42.42. Visitation—Checklist of holidays, vacations and special events

§ 42.43. —Parental access via mail, telephone, and the like

§ 42.44. —Supervision or denial of visitation rights

§ 42.45. —With third parties

§ 42.46. Parenting education program

· Family Law Practice in Connecticut(1996)

Chapter 10. Child custody and visitation

[10.37]. Authority to enter orders concerning visitation

[10.38]. Limitations on visitation

[10.39]. General considerations involving visitation

· 3 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody & Visitation Law and Practice (2006)

Chapter 16. Visitation

§ 16.01. Introduction and general considerations

§ 16.02. The right of a parent to visitation following dissolution of marriage

§ 16.03. Putative father’s right to visitation

§ 16.04. Manner of visitation

§ 16.05. Child’s preference

§ 16.06. Excessive or infrequent contact with the child

§ 16.07. Effect of visitation on child’s emotional development

§ 16.08. Religious difference

§ 16.09. Effect of the parent’s sexual conduct on visitation

§ 16.10. Behaviors and conditions affecting visitation

§ 16.11.Jurisdictional restrictions on visitation

§ 16.12. Nonparent visitation

§ 16.13. Stipulations and agreements

§ 16.14. Bibliography

· Donald T. Kramer, Legal Rights of Children (2005 Rev. 2d ed.)

Chapter 3. Visitation rights

§ 3:1. Visitation rights; Generally

§ 3:2.—Noncustodial parents

§ 3.3. —Stepparents and adoptive parents

§ 3.4. —Foster parents

§ 3.5. —Grandparents, generally

§ 3.6. —Natural grandparents of adopted grandchildren

§ 3.7. —Siblings and other family members

§ 3.8. Other third parties

§ 3.9. Factors considered in granting or denying visitation rights; Child abuse and sexual abuse

§ 3.10. —Mental instability or physical handicap of parent

§ 3.11. —Use and abuse of alcohol or drugs

§ 3.12. —Sexual preferences or conduct of the noncustodial parent

§ 3.13. —Wishes of the child

§ 3.14. —Parent’s domicile or place of residence

§ 3.15. —Previous surrender of parental rights

§ 3.16. —Parent’s incarceration

§ 3.17. —Parent’s or child’s religion

§ 3.18. Terms of visitation

§ 3.19. Modification

§ 3.20. Child’s best interest

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

· 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent & Child § 38-40 (2002).

§ 38. Right to visitation

§ 39. —Denial to noncustodial parent

§ 40. —By third party

· See Table 1 for ALR Annotations

COMPILERS:

· Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. EMAIL.

Table 1 ALR Annotations on Child Visitation

ALR Annotations Child Visitation
Adult Child	Andrea G. Nadel, Annotation, Parent’s Or Relative’s Rights Of Visitation Of Adult Against Latter’s Wishes, 40 ALR4th 846 (1985).
AIDS	Claudia G. Catalano, Annotation, Child Custody And Visitation Rights Of Person Infected With AIDS, 86 ALR4th 211 (1991).
Alimony or support payment	· Alice Wright Cain, Annotation, Right To Credit Against Child Support Arrearages For Time Children Spent In Custody Of Noncustodial Parent Pursuant To Visitation Or Court Order, 118 ALR5th 385 (2004). · Edward L. Raymond, Annotation, Withholding Visitation Rights For Failure To Make Alimony Or Support Payment, 65 ALR4th 1155 (1988).
Drugs	Mary E. Taylor, Annotation, Parent’s Use of Drugs as a Factor in Award of Custody of Children, Visitation Rights, or Termination of Parental Rights, 20 ALR5th 534 (1994).
Extramarital sexual relationships	Diane M. Allen, Annotation, Propriety Of Provision Of Custody Or Visitation Order Designed To Insulate Child From Parent’s Extramarital Sexual Relationship, 40 ALR4th 812 (1985).
Grandparents	· George L. Blum, Annotation, Grandparents’ Visitation Rights Where Child’s Parents Are Living, 71 ALR5th 99 (1999). · George L. Blum, Annotation, Grandparents’ Visitation Rights Where Child’s Parents Are Deceased, Or Where Status Of Parents Is Unspecified 69 ALR5th 1 (1999).
Incarcerated parent	George L. Blum, Annotation, Right of jailed or imprisoned parent to visit from minor child, 6 ALR6th 483 (2005).
Interference with visitation	Debra E. Wax, Annotation, Interference By Custodian Of Child With Noncustodial Parent’s Visitation Rights As Ground For Change Of Custody, 28 ALR4th 9 (1984).
Post Adoption	Danny R. Veilleux, Annotation, Postadoption Visitation By Natural Parent, 78 ALR4th 218 (1990).
Religion	· George L. Blum, Annotation, Religion As A Factor In Visitation Cases, 95 ALR5th 533 (2002).
Relocation of custodial parent	Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Custodial Parent’s Relocation As Grounds For Change Of Custody, 70 ALR5th 377 (1999). [Cont’d]
Requiring presence of both parties in court	Lee R. Russ, Annotation, Necessity Of Requiring Presence In Court Of Both Parties In Proceedings Relating To Custody Or Visitation Of Children, 15 ALR4th 864 (1982).
Same sex relationship	Robin Cheryl Miller, Annotation, Child Custody and Visitation Rights Arising From Same-Sex Relationship, 80 ALR5th 1 (2000)
Sexual abused	Christopher Vaeth, Annotation, Denial Or Restriction Of Visitation Rights To Parent Charged With Sexually Abusing Child, 1 ALR5th 776 (1992),
Sexual conduct of parent	Robin Cheryl Miller, Annotation, Restrictions on Parent’s Child Visitation Rights Based on Parent’s Sexual Conduct, 99 ALR5th 475 (2002).
Smoking	Harriet Dinegar Milks, Annotation, Smoking as Factor in Child Custody and Visitation Cases, 36 ALR5th 377 (1996).
Stepparent	Wendy Evans Lehmann, Annotation, Award Of Custody Of Child Where Contest Is Between Natural Parent And Stepparent, 10 ALR4th 767 (1981).
Third party	Alan Stephens, Annotation, Parental Rights Of Man Who Is Not Biological Or Adoptive Father Or Child But Was Husband Or Cohabitant Of Mother When Child Was Conceived Or Born, 84 ALR4th 655 (1991).
Transsexuality	Michael P. Sullivan, Annotation, Parent’s Transsexuality As Factor In Award Of Custody Of Child, Visitation Rights, Or Termination Of Parental Rights, 59 ALR4th 1170 (1988).

\

Section 2 Third Party

Visitation Actions

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to right of nonparents to initiate child visitation actions or to seek visitation by intervening in a pending family action.

SEE ALSO:

Grandparent Rights in Connecticut

CURRENCY:

· 2008 Edition

DEFINITIONS:

· Constitutional Issues: “The relevant statutes concerning visitation and custody are overly broad in exactly the same fashion; they fail to define with particularity those persons who may seek visitation and custody other than parents. Accordingly, we conclude that, to avoid constitutional infirmity, the standing requirement that a third party allege a parent-like relationship with the child should be applied for all of the reasons described in Roth [Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002] to third party custody awards and to third parties seeking intervention in existing custody proceedings.” Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 44 (2008).

· Third Party: “is not defined in the foregoing statutes [Table 8-2] or in any other related statutes. The legislative history of the statutes sheds no additional light on the matter. As we stated in Castagno,[ Castagno v. Wholean, 239 Conn. 336, 684 A.2d 1181(1996)] ‘courts are bound to assume that the legislature intended, in enacting a particular law, to achieve its purpose in a manner which is both effective and constitutional. . . . [T]his presumption of constitutionality imposes upon the trial court, as well as this court, the duty to construe statutes, whenever possible, in a manner that comports with constitutional safeguards of liberty.’” Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 42-43 (2008).

· Custody vs. visitation: “In summary, we conclude that third party custody petitions challenge the liberty interest of a parent in a way that is fundamentally different from visitation petitions . . . . Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 55-56 (2008).

· Harm: “The harm alleged in a visitation petition results from the child's lack of access to the petitioner rather than from the parent-child relationship, which is deemed to be beneficial.” Ibid. p. 47.

STATUTES:

Conn. Gen. Statutes (2007)

· § 46b-57. rders re custody, care, education, visitation and support of children. Best interests of the child. Access to records of minor child by noncustodial parent. Orders re therapy, counseling and drug or alcohol screening.

· § 46b-59. Court may grant right of visitation to any person.

OLR REPORT:

· Susan Price, Grandparents’ Rights, Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research Report No. 2006-R-0383 (September 18, 2006).

“You have asked for an explanation of Connecticut law on grandparents’ custody of, and visitation with, their grandchildren.

· Saul Spigel, Grandparents’ Custody of Grandchildren, Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, Report No. 2003-R-0596 (September 22, 2003).

COURT RULES

Connecticut Practice Book (2006 ed.)

· Chapter 25 Superior Court - Procedure in Family Matters

§ 25-1. Definitions Applicable to Proceedings on Family Matters

§ 25-4. Action for Visitation of Minor Child

§ 25-23. Motions, Requests, Orders of Notice, and Short Calendar

§ 25-59. Closure of courtroom in family matters

§ 25-59a. Sealing files or limiting disclosure of documents in family matters

§ 25-62. Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

FORMS:

Official Forms

· JD-CL-12. Appearance

· JD-FM-75. Application for Waiver of Fees

· JD-FM-161. Custody / Visitation Application

· JD-FM-162. Order to Attend Hearing and Notice to the Defendant

· JD-FM-158. Notice of Automatic Orders

· JD-FM-164. Affidavit Concerning Children

· JD-FM-164A. Addendum to Affidavit Concerning Children

· JD-FM-167. Motion for Notice by Publication or Mail in Family Cases

· JD-FM-168. Order of Notice by Publication or Mail in Family Cases

· JD-FM-176. Motion for Orders Before Judgment (Pendente Lite)

· JD-FM-6. Financial Affidavit

· JD-FM-173. Motion for Contempt

· JD-FM-174. Motion for Modification

· JD-FM-183. Custody / Visitation Agreement

· JD-FM-202. Request to leave

Unofficial Forms

· Mary Ellen Wynn & Ellen B. Lubell, Handbook of Forms for the Connecticut Family Lawyer 114-115 (1991)

Form VI-C-7. Grandparents’ Motion to Intervene

Form VI-C-8. Grandparents’ Motion for Visitation

· 1A Douglas B. Wright & John H. Yeomans, Connecticut Legal Forms §1101.14 (1983).

Application of Grandparents to Intervene and for Visitation Rights pending Action

· Busa v. Busa, 24 Conn. App. 426 (1991), Connecticut Appellate Records & Briefs (November 1990).

Motion to be Made Party Defendants

· 8B Am Jur Pleading and Practice Forms Divorce & Separation

§ 91. Petition - By Grandparent - For Visitation Rights

§ 92. Affidavit - By Grandparent - In Support of Petition for Visitation

§ 930. Petition or Application - By Grandparent - To Modify Child Custody Award Giving Grandparent Visitation Rights

CASES:

· Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24, 46 (2008). “Mindful of the parent's constitutional rights, we concluded in Roth [Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002)] that Connecticut's third party visitation statute, without a judicial gloss, was unconstitutional and interfered with the fundamental right of parents to raise and care for their children because it was too broadly written and provided no standard to guide the court in making a visitation decision, other than the best interests of the child.”

· Denardo v. Bergamo, 272 Conn. 500, 514, 863 A.2d 686(2005). “Our conclusion that Roth applies retrospectively leads to the further conclusion that the trial court was compelled to grant the defendant's motion to terminate visitation. The plaintiffs failed to allege or attempt to prove that their relationship with the child was similar to a parent-child relationship and that denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm to the child. Without those specific, good faith allegations or such proof, either at the time of the filing of their petition or at the time of the hearing on the defendant's motion, the trial court's prior order of visitation was rendered without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to modify and terminate the plaintiffs' visitation rights properly was granted.” (2004).

· Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2061. (2000). “Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children … there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.”

· Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 789 A.2d 231 (2002). Petition for visitation by maternal grandmother and maternal aunt pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59.

· Crocket v. Pastore, 259 Conn. 240, 246, 789 A.2d 453 (2002). Petition for visitation by maternal grandmother “ This case is controlled by our concurrent decision in Roth, wherein we overruled our previous decision in Castagno;…”

· Castagno v. Wholean, 239 Conn. 336, 352, 684 A.2d 1181 (1996), overruled by Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 789 A.2d 431 (2002).

· In Re Felicia B, 56 Conn. App. 525, 743 A.2d 1160 (2000), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 (2000). Paternal grandparents were denied both custody and visitation in a case where the father’s parental rights were terminated. “…they cannot safeguard and provide care in the children’s best interests while clinging to the hope that their son did not sexually abuse their grandchildren” (p. 527).

· Alexander v. Gomez, 34 Conn. L. Rptr. 660 (Conn. Super., Danbury, may 30, 2003) 2003 Conn. Super. Lexis 1586. “The plaintiff argues that applying Roth retroactively would be a substantial injustice to the plaintiff. This court agrees. The court in Roth noted that applying the new standard to the specific complaint allegations in the case before it would be ‘manifestly unfair, because these requirements are newly stated, and the plaintiffs could not have anticipated their adoption.’ Id., 235… For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to modify and eliminate the plaintiff’s visitation rights is denied, without prejudice, and the plaintiff will be allowed an opportunity to amend her application and provide proof that it is consistent with all the requirements of Roth.”

· Pivnick v. Lasky, 34 Conn. L. Rptr. 426 (Conn. Super., Hartford, Mar. 24, 2003), 2003 Conn. Super. Lexis 944. “The question presented by this motion is whether the standard articulated in Roth v. Weston, invalidates the prior orders in this case which have allowed for grandparent visitation… The court concludes that the decision of Roth v. Weston does override the prior court orders in this matter granting visitation rights to third parties against the wishes of a fit custodial parent.”

WEST KEY NUMBERS:

· Child Custody

# 181. Ability of parties to cooperate.

# 270. Particular status or relationship. In general

# 271. Relatives in general

# 272. Stepparents

# 273. Adult siblings

# 274. In loco parentis; de facto parents

TEXTS & TREATISES: