153 Conn.App. 492
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Henry J. Martocchio and Stephanie Savoir share a child; paternity established in 2006 and autism diagnosed that month.
- Defendants Roland and Tina Savoir initially obtained temporary custody and later guardianship; plaintiff ordered to have supervised then unsupervised visitation.
- Over the years, multiple custody and visitation orders were issued; in 2008 Judge Shluger granted plaintiff sole custody with defendants visiting every other weekend.
- In 2011 Stephanie Savoir’s parental rights were terminated; in 2012-2013 the defendants sought contempt and clarified visitation rights under Roth v. Weston standards.
- Judge Abery-Wetstone concluded defendants satisfied Roth standards, but plaintiff appealed asserting lack of proper Roth analysis and standing determination.
- Court holds no proper Roth analysis occurred in 2008; case remanded to determine whether defendants have standing under Roth to pursue visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court properly assess standing under Roth v. Weston? | Martocchio claims Shluger failed to apply Roth thresholds for parent-like relationship and real harm. | Savoirs argue previous order satisfied Roth, and law of the case binds the issue. | No proper Roth analysis occurred; remand to determine standing. |
| Must Roth claims be pleaded before considering visitation merits? | Martocchio asserts no Roth petition was filed post-2008 and thus jurisdictional criteria were not met. | Savoirs contend prior findings support visitation. | Roth petition requirements were not properly addressed; remand for threshold infirmities. |
| Does termination of Stephanie Savoir’s parental rights auto-terminate defendants’ visitation rights? | Martocchio argues termination ends any nonparent visitation rights with the child. | Savoirs maintain visitation rights are Roth-dependent and persist under proper standing analysis. | Termination does not automatically terminate visitation; remand to assess Roth standing. |
| Can the appellate court address jurisdictional questions raised by lack of Roth analysis at this stage? | Martocchio contends lack of jurisdiction should be reviewed regardless of prior rulings. | Savoirs rely on prior rulings as law of the case. | Court may independently review jurisdiction; reversal and remand for Roth standing analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002) (sets Roth standing thresholds for third-party visitation)
- Castagno v. Wholean, 239 Conn. 336 (1996) (overruled in part by Roth, foundational for §46b-59)
- Denardo v. Bergamo, 272 Conn. 500 (2005) (Roth applied retroactively; standing requirements clarified)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 (2005) (distinguishes issue of jurisdiction from merits under Roth)
- Warner v. Bicknell, 126 Conn. App. 588 (2011) (court may address jurisdictional claims even if not ruled on below)
- DiGiovanna v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (2011) (Roth standards applied in context of medical decision and visitation)