188 Conn. App. 724
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Unmarried parents (Firstenberg and Madigan) litigated custody of their child; they entered a parenting access agreement on June 24, 2015 resolving custody between them.
- The child’s maternal grandfather (Eric Firstenberg, self-represented) filed multiple motions to intervene; the operative August 27, 2015 motion purported to seek third-party visitation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59 but focused almost entirely on alleging the father’s unfitness.
- The motion was largely devoted to alleging the defendant’s misconduct and seeking sanctions/nullification of the parenting agreement; it contained only conclusory statements about a "loving relationship" and no verified allegations of parental-type care or of harm to the child if visitation were denied.
- The trial court initially granted intervention under § 46b-59(b), then vacated that order on reargument and denied the motion after analyzing it under the custody statute, § 46b-57.
- On appeal the court treated the motion as a petition for visitation and considered whether it met § 46b-59(b)’s jurisdictional prerequisites: specific, good-faith allegations of (1) a parent-like relationship and (2) that denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm.
- The appellate court concluded the petition failed both jurisdictional elements (and also was not verified), reversed the denial, and remanded with direction to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Firstenberg's Argument | Madigan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to intervene should be treated as a § 46b-59 petition for third‑party visitation | It was a visitation petition alleging a parent‑like relationship and harm and thus should have been considered under § 46b-59 | Even if treated as a visitation petition, it fails § 46b-59 jurisdictional requirements | Court assumed arguendo it was a visitation petition but found it did not meet § 46b-59(b) jurisdictional requirements and lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the petition pleaded a parent‑like relationship sufficient for jurisdiction under § 46b-59(b) | Conclusory statements of a loving relationship and prior contact suffice | Petition lacks specific, good‑faith factual allegations of parental‑type caregiving or the statutory § 46b-59(c) factors | Held insufficient: conclusory expressions of love did not plead the required parent‑like relationship |
| Whether the petition pleaded that denial of visitation would cause "real and significant harm" under § 46b-59(b) | Argued harm was implicated by allegations about the father’s fitness | Petition contains no allegations tying denial of visitation to neglect/uncared‑for conditions; therefore no jurisdiction | Held insufficient: no specific allegations that denial would cause neglect or similar real and significant harm |
| Whether the trial court erred by analyzing the motion under § 46b-57 (custody/intervention) instead of § 46b-59 (visitation) | Motion sought visitation under § 46b-59; court should have applied that statute | Even under § 46b-59 the petition fails jurisdictional thresholds and should be dismissed | Court treated it as visitation for purposes of review, held petition lacked jurisdiction, and directed dismissal (not mere denial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (Conn. 2002) (establishes specific pleading requirements to avoid constitutional issues: parent‑like relationship and real and significant harm)
- Crockett v. Pastore, 259 Conn. 240 (Conn. 2002) (clarifies that the nature of the relationship, not labels, determines parent‑like status)
- Clements v. Jones, 71 Conn. App. 688 (Conn. App. 2002) (standard of review for subject matter jurisdiction is plenary)
- Manter v. Manter, 185 Conn. 502 (Conn. 1981) (intervention is discretionary and derivative; intervenor takes controversy as framed by original parties)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 (Conn. App. 2007) (courts determining Roth/§ 46b-59 jurisdiction generally should not look beyond the four corners of the petition)
- Fuller v. Baldino, 176 Conn. App. 451 (Conn. App. 2017) (cases reiterating limits on considering materials outside the petition when assessing jurisdictional pleading requirements)