Hepburn v. Brill, 348 Conn. 827

Laurie Hepburn (plaintiff), the maternal aunt of L, sought visitation with L after the death of L's mother (the plaintiff’s sister), who had been L’s primary caretaker since L's birth.
L lived with her mother and the plaintiff for over ten years, with the defendant (biological father) mostly living apart and only occasionally visiting.
After L's mother's death in 2021, L continued to live with the plaintiff, until the defendant took L to live with him full-time and moved her out-of-state.
The plaintiff alleged significant distress, anxiety, and emotional harm to L due to abrupt removal from her long-time home and severance of the plaintiff-child relationship.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's petitions for visitation, finding she failed to sufficiently allege a parent-like relationship or that denial of visitation would cause L real and significant harm under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of the plaintiff's amended petition and the proper standard for evaluating third-party visitation pleadings following statutory amendments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over third-party visitation petitions after 2012 amendments to § 46b-59	Court had broad jurisdiction over family matters, including third-party visitation; issue was statutory authority, not jurisdiction	Statute’s requirements are jurisdictional, so court lacks subject matter jurisdiction if not met	Court has subject matter jurisdiction; requirements guide statutory authority, not jurisdiction
Whether trial court should have allowed/considered the amended petition	Amendments are permitted under liberal family law pleading rules; petition should be considered	Only allegations in initial petition are relevant if motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is pending	Amended petition should be considered under more flexible family law pleading rules
Sufficiency of allegations: parent-like relationship	Alleged facts show plaintiff acted as parent for L, with extended co-residence and primary caregiving	Plaintiff only assisted mother; not enough for parent-like standard	Allegations sufficiently plead a parent-like relationship for statutory standard
Sufficiency of allegations: real and significant harm to child if visitation denied	Alleged emotional, physical, and psychological distress, manifest harm to child	Allegations are too vague or merely show visitation would be beneficial, not necessary	Allegations sufficiently plead specific, imminent harm meeting statutory threshold

Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (Conn. 2002) (established constitutional requirements for third-party visitation, including parent-like relationship and real/significant harm)
Castagno v. Wholean, 239 Conn. 336 (Conn. 1996) (addressed constitutional protection of parental rights in visitation)
Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (Conn. 1999) (explained subject matter jurisdiction of family matters)
DiGiovanna v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (Conn. 2011) (applied Roth standard to visitation; constitutional limits on third-party claims)