216 Conn.App. 225
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Diane Delena (plaintiff), the maternal grandmother, filed a verified petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59 (Apr. 6, 2021) seeking visitation with her two minor grandchildren.
- Defendants Gregory and Leticia Grachitorena (paternal grandfather and stepgrandmother) became the children’s legal guardians after the biological parents’ rights were terminated (termination completed in 2017).
- Plaintiff testified (the only evidence at the hearing) that she had provided parent-like care before termination but that defendants cut off visitation after becoming guardians.
- Plaintiff gave inconsistent testimony about her last contact (testified both to seeing them in 2017 and again before the COVID-19 pandemic), and stated she had seen the children only once in four years.
- The trial court found plaintiff’s testimony not credible, concluded her relationship with the children had changed substantially and was not parent-like, and denied the petition; plaintiff appealed arguing misapplication of § 46b-59 factors and undue emphasis on time.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, finding the factual determinations not clearly erroneous and that the court permissibly considered the length and disruption of contact under § 46b-59.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument / Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delena showed a parent-like relationship under § 46b-59 by clear and convincing evidence | Delena: trial court misapplied § 46b-59 factors and erred in finding no parent-like relationship | Defendants/court: plaintiff’s testimony not credible; minimal contact and substantial change in relationship since guardianship | Held: Affirmed — plaintiff failed to meet clear-and-convincing burden; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the court improperly emphasized the length of time since last contact | Delena: court overemphasized time gap and gave it undue weight | Court: length and disruption of relationship are proper nonexclusive factors (§ 46b-59(c)(1)-(2)) | Held: Affirmed — considering time was permissible and supported the finding |
| Whether the court failed to consider § 46b-59(d) (regular contact/close relationship) and whether it had to decide real and significant harm | Delena: court did not apply subsection (d) and failed to address whether denial would cause real and significant harm | Court: record shows it considered regular contact/close relationship via its findings; once no parent-like relationship was found, it was not required to reach the harm element (§ 46b-59(b)) | Held: Affirmed — no error in application of § 46b-59(d); court not required to decide harm after finding no parent-like relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeanette-Blethen v. Jeanette-Blethen, 172 Conn. App. 98 (Conn. App. 2017) (standard of appellate review: clearly erroneous for factual findings)
- DiGiovanna v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (Conn. 2011) (appellate review of parent-like relationship and harm under § 46b-59 is clearly erroneous standard)
- DE Auto Transport, Inc. v. Eurolite, LLC, 186 Conn. App. 270 (Conn. App. 2018) (trier of fact’s exclusive province to weigh credibility)
- Firstenberg v. Madigan, 188 Conn. App. 724 (Conn. App. 2019) (§ 46b-59(c) factors are nonexclusive)