176 Conn. App. 451
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiff Mark Fuller, who lived with the defendant and the child for years and was treated as the child’s father, filed a third-party petition for visitation under Gen. Stat. § 46b-59 after ending his romantic relationship with defendant Ann Baldino.
- The petition alleged a long-term parent-like relationship (since ~2006), involvement in major decisions and medical care, and that denial of visitation would cause the child "real and significant harm."
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Roth v. Weston, arguing the petition failed to allege the requisite parent-like relationship harms.
- Plaintiff submitted an affidavit elaborating his role (primary parent for a period, cared for the child’s severe health conditions, child becomes upset when separated) and objected to dismissal without an evidentiary hearing.
- Trial court found the parent-like relationship sufficiently alleged but concluded the petition failed to allege the specific, serious type of harm (neglect, abuse, abandonment, or comparable harm) Roth requires and dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.
- Plaintiff appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding emotional distress allegations alone and generalized claims about caregiving were insufficient to establish jurisdiction under Roth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition pleaded jurisdictional prerequisites under Roth v. Weston | Fuller contends his pleaded parent-like bond and child’s emotional suffering satisfy Roth’s harm requirement | Baldino argues allegations do not show real and significant harm akin to neglect/abandonment and so lack jurisdiction | Court held allegations of emotional hurt and general caregiving were insufficient to meet Roth; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether trial court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | Fuller says dismissal without hearing violated due process and prevented proof of harm | Baldino says dismissal appropriate because the petition itself failed Roth’s specificity requirement | Court affirmed dismissal without hearing because the pleading (and affidavit even if considered) lacked the specific allegations Roth demands |
| Whether emotional harm alone can meet Roth’s harm standard | Fuller: child’s suffering and bond constitutes sufficient harm | Baldino: emotional distress alone is not the level of harm required | Court held emotional harm must be of a degree analogous to neglect/abandonment; mere emotional upset is insufficient |
| Whether allegations about caregiving and health concerns suffice as specific harm | Fuller points to his role caring for the child’s severe health conditions and uncertainty about current care | Baldino contends these facts, without more, do not allege neglect or lack of care | Court held caregiving assertions alone did not allege abuse/neglect/abandonment as Roth requires; specificity lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (establishes jurisdictional prerequisites for third-party visitation petitions)
- Crockett v. Pastore, 259 Conn. 240 (reiterates need to allege real and significant harm beyond best-interest claims)
- DiGiovanna v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (clarifies harm requirement does not equate to alleging parental unfitness)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 (motions to dismiss for failure to satisfy Roth should be decided on the application itself)
- Clements v. Jones, 71 Conn. App. 688 (health-care and best-interest allegations without more do not meet Roth harm standard)
- Martocchio v. Savoir, 153 Conn. App. 492 (petition must state with specificity the harm that will result from denial of visitation)