DiGiovanna v. St. George
12 A.3d 900
| Conn. | 2011Background
- DiGiovanna sought visitation with Eric and Alexandria under Roth v. Weston; he alleged a parent-like relationship and harm if visitation is denied.
- Trial court found Roth elements proven by clear and convincing evidence but denied visitation due to feared psychological harm to Eric if visitation occurred.
- Psychological evaluations indicated defendant would likely react with intensified opposition, potentially harming Eric during visits.
- Court articulated that § 46b-59 best interest analysis governs how visitation should be implemented, not whether it should be awarded in the Roth sense.
- Judge suggested potential remedies (counseling, conditions) but ultimately concluded visitation would not be in Eric’s best interests.
- This Court reversed on appeal, holding that Roth can override best interest concerns and that the trial court erred in denying visitation without adequate tools to enforce or tailor it; remanded for judgment in plaintiff’s favor and new dispositional hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roth overrides best interest. | DiGiovanna contends Roth requires visitation. | St. George argues best interest can counter Roth findings. | Roth cannot be overridden by best interests; remand for visitation consistent with Roth. |
| Whether trial court could craft implementing measures under 46b-56 (i) or other tools. | Court should order counseling or supervision to enable visitation. | Court should not force therapy or impose safeguards beyond Roth. | Court could consider tools under 46b-56 (c)/(i); improper to deny visitation solely on anticipated harm. |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed Roth against § 46b-59 best interest on remand. | Roth findings establish standing and visitation should follow. | Best interests may justify withholding visitation despite Roth findings. | Best interest analysis must guide implementation, but Roth standing cannot be disregarded. |
| whether to remand with instructions or affirm the decision. | Judgment should be entered for plaintiff. | Record supports balancing interests; remand needed for proper disposition. | Judgment reversed; remand for new dispositional hearing consistent with Roth and best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002) (establishes Roth framework: parent-like relationship and harm akin to abuse/neglect)
- Roth v. Weston, 789 A.2d 431 (2002) (constitutional basis; explicit standards for third-party visitation)
- Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24 (2008) (esteem of best interest standard in third party custody; preponderance vs clear and convincing)
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (2008) (affirmation of independent best interest assessment in custody context)
- In re Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 382 (2004) (recognizing best interest considerations in custody analyses)
- Simms v. Simms, 283 Conn. 494 (2007) (reaffirming review standards in domestic relations)
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (standard appellate deference in domestic relations matters)