195 Conn.App. 393
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (maternal grandfather and step-grandmother) filed a third-party visitation petition under General Statutes §46b-59 seeking regular and overnight visitation with the defendant’s minor child.
- Their verified petition alleged a parent-like relationship: they were primary caregivers for about three years before July 15, 2016, with the child living with them multiple days per week.
- Plaintiffs asserted denial of visitation would cut the child off from her maternal family, make the child feel abandoned (citing the mother’s prior abandonment when the child was one), compound early childhood trauma, and harm the child.
- The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Roth v. Weston, arguing the petition failed to plead the required specific, good-faith allegations of relationship and harm.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding the petition did not plead with sufficient specificity the degree of harm (real and significant harm akin to neglect/uncared-for) required by Roth. The Appellate Court affirmed as to the second Roth element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the third-party visitation petition under Roth v. Weston | Plaintiffs argued their verified petition adequately alleged a parent-like relationship and that denial of visitation would cut the child off from maternal family, cause feelings of abandonment, and compound early trauma | Defendant argued the petition lacked specific, good-faith factual allegations that denial would cause real and significant harm analogous to neglect or being uncared-for as required by Roth | Court held petition failed to plead the requisite specificity on the harm element; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether procedural irregularities warranted reversal of dismissal | Plaintiffs raised procedural objections to how dismissal occurred | Defendant relied on jurisdictional defect to oppose relief | Appellate court declined to address procedural claims because jurisdictional deficiency was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002) (establishes two high jurisdictional thresholds for nonparent visitation: parent-like relationship and specific allegations that denial will cause real and significant harm akin to neglect/uncared-for)
- Warner v. Bicknell, 126 Conn. App. 588 (2011) (jurisdictional defects can be raised at any time and must be resolved before proceeding)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 (2007) (trial court must scrutinize visitation petition to ensure it contains specific, good-faith allegations of relationship and harm)
- Fuller v. Baldino, 176 Conn. App. 451 (2017) (review of jurisdictional rulings is plenary)
- Firstenberg v. Madigan, 188 Conn. App. 724 (2019) (reiterates requirement that petitions plead specific allegations that child will suffer real and significant harm akin to neglect if visitation denied)
- Clements v. Jones, 71 Conn. App. 688 (2002) (general allegations of emotional benefit or strong bond do not satisfy Roth’s harm requirement)