Boisvert v. Gavis, 210 A.3d 1

Background

Maternal grandparents (Boisvert) filed a petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59 seeking visitation with their grandson B after the mother died and the father (Gavis) obtained custody.
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the grandparents had a parent-like relationship with B and that denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm, and granted visitation (weekends for grandmother; Wednesdays for grandfather) with limited terms.
The father terminated visitation unilaterally, later offered a much smaller, unilateral visitation schedule, and repeatedly refused to comply with the court order; the trial court found him in contempt twice and imposed remedial sanctions.
Postjudgment, the father sought a no-contact term prohibiting B’s contact with the maternal aunt (Riddell) and argued the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because his voluntary offer mooted the dispute; he also argued the visitation order must affirmatively require third parties to follow a fit parent’s decisions and that the quantity of visitation violated his due process rights.
The trial court denied the no-contact motion and motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; this Court consolidated appeals and affirmed the trial court on all issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the father’s postjudgment voluntary offer of reduced visitation divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction or moot the action?	Plaintiffs: offer was not bona fide and did not moot an order entered after Roth-compliant findings.	Gavis: his offer eliminated the deprivation of visitation, so the court lost jurisdiction / case became moot.	Held: Offer did not divest jurisdiction or moot the action; father failed heavy burden to show voluntary cessation would not recur.
Must § 46b-59 or due process require a term directing third parties to follow a fit parent’s decisions during visitation?	Plaintiffs: statute and due process permit courts to set terms under best-interest framework; no absolute command required.	Gavis: order must include an affirmative requirement that third parties abide by a fit parent’s decisions re: care, education, health, religion, associations.	Held: Neither § 46b-59 nor due process requires such a broad provision; courts may tailor terms and must give special weight to parental preferences on fundamental matters when raised in good faith.
Was the trial court required to enter a no-contact order re: aunt (Riddell) to protect parental rights?	Plaintiffs: no evidence aunt posed risk; request untimely and unsupported.	Gavis: constitutional right to control child’s associations justified no-contact order.	Held: Father’s request was untimely and nonspecific; trial court properly denied it for lack of evidence and explanation.
Does the amount/duration of visitation ordered violate the father’s fundamental parental rights (as-applied challenge)?	Plaintiffs: visitation was narrowly tailored to prevent real and significant harm and implement Roth factors.	Gavis: the amount exceeded what strict scrutiny permits and unconstitutionally interferes with parental rights.	Held: Court declined to review under Golding—the record is inadequate and trial court did not make particularized findings about why that amount was necessary; issue not preserved for appellate review.

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality) (establishes parental due-process presumption and cautions against broad nonparental visitation statutes)
Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002) (Connecticut requires third parties to prove by clear and convincing evidence a parent-like relationship and that denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm)
DiGiovanna v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (2011) (trial courts craft terms/conditions under § 46b-59 to implement visitation once Roth factors are met)
Denardo v. Bergamo, 272 Conn. 500 (2005) (addressed retroactive application of Roth to pre-Roth orders; distinguished here)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation exception to mootness; heavy burden to show offending conduct will not recur)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)