In re Paulo T., 347 Conn. 311

Petitioner (mother) filed a motion in juvenile court to reinstate her guardianship rights over her minor son, Paulo; the trial court granted the motion and entered visitation orders for the respondent (father).
In its oral decision the trial court recited a legal statement that a parent is "entitled to a presumption that reinstatement of guardianship rights is in the best interests of the child."
The respondent father appealed, arguing that the presumption does not apply where both parties are the child’s parents.
The Appellate Court agreed that the presumption does not apply in a parent-versus-parent contest but affirmed because the record showed the trial court did not actually rely on any presumption.
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification on two questions: whether the presumption applies between two parents, and whether the trial court had applied the presumption in this case.
The Supreme Court avoided deciding the first question (parties agreed the presumption does not apply between parents) and held that the trial court did not apply the presumption but instead used the statutory §46b-56(c) best-interests balancing test, based on the court’s articulation and the decision as a whole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mae)	Defendant's Argument (Horace)	Held
Does the reinstatement presumption apply where both parties are the child’s parents?	Presumption should govern reinstatement if removal factors resolved.	Presumption does not apply in disputes between two parents.	Not decided by the Supreme Court (parties agreed with Appellate Court that it does not apply; left for another day).
Did the trial court actually apply the reinstatement presumption when granting reinstatement?	Trial court’s recitation of the presumption does not mean it used it; outcome was based on best-interests factors.	Trial court misstated law and may have relied on presumption.	Trial court did not apply the presumption; it performed a neutral best-interests analysis under §46b-56(c); Appellate Court affirmed.

In re Zakai F., 336 Conn. 272 (2020) (announcing reinstatement presumption once removal factors are resolved)
In re Jason R., 306 Conn. 438 (2012) (read opinions as a whole to determine governing standard)
Cookson v. Cookson, 201 Conn. 229 (1986) (mentioning an improper standard does not require reversal when statutory criteria control)
Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 338 Conn. 330 (2021) (ordering articulation to clarify trial-court reasoning)
State v. Walker, 319 Conn. 668 (2015) (articulation dispels ambiguity about factual and legal basis of decision)
In re Paulo T., 213 Conn. App. 858 (2022) (Appellate Court opinion agreeing presumption doesn’t apply between parents but affirming on the ground the presumption was not applied)