195 Conn.App. 378
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Richard and Nancy Romeo (maternal grandparents/stepfather-stepmother) filed a third‑party petition for visitation with the defendant’s two minor children, checking boxes that they have a parent‑like relationship and that denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm.
- The petition incorporated an attached, sworn affidavit describing long‑term caregiving: daily/overnight care, schooling, medical care (including asthma treatment), household duties, vacations, and that Richard was the children’s only consistent male role model.
- The affidavit alleged the defendant became angry, moved out, and began restricting the children’s contact with the plaintiffs and extended family, which the plaintiffs said "deracinates" the children from family roots and causes real and significant harm.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under Roth v. Weston, arguing the petition failed to plead specific, good‑faith allegations that denial of visitation would cause harm akin to neglect/abuse/abandonment.
- Plaintiffs later filed an expert witness disclosure (psychologist) asserting likely traumatogenic harm from sudden rupture; the trial court declined to consider that disclosure at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage, scrutinized only the petition and affidavit, and dismissed for failing to allege the required level of harm.
- The appellate court affirmed: expert disclosure could not be used to supplement the petition at the jurisdictional pleading stage, and the affidavit’s generalized allegations did not allege real and significant harm akin to neglect or being uncared‑for.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could consider plaintiffs' expert disclosure when ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Roth | Expert disclosure addressed harm and was part of the record; court should consider it | Motion to dismiss tests sufficiency of the petition; expert disclosure filed later improperly supplements pleading | Court properly limited review to petition and attached affidavit; expert disclosure could not be used to augment jurisdictional allegations |
| Whether the petition alleged "real and significant harm" (Roth second element) sufficient to overcome a fit parent's objection | Affidavit alleged removal from extended family "deracinates" children, undermining emotional growth and moral compass — constituting real and significant harm | Allegations are general, hypothetical, and fail to identify harm akin to neglect, uncared‑for, or dependent status required by Roth | Petition failed to plead the requisite specificity; generalized claims of emotional harm did not rise to neglect/uncared‑for standard; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether cohabitation and prior caregiving alleged a present parent‑like relationship (Roth first element) | Longstanding, daily, parental‑type care and custodial tasks establish a parent‑like relationship | Cohabitation and past caregiving alone do not necessarily establish the parent‑like relationship required by Roth | Court questioned sufficiency of current parent‑like relationship; appellate court did not decide this as dismissal rested on failure to allege harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002) (establishes two‑part test for third‑party visitation: parent‑like relationship and real/significant harm akin to neglect)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 (2007) (trial court must scrutinize petition and may not permit augmentation of jurisdictional allegations at evidentiary hearing)
- Fuller v. Baldino, 176 Conn. App. 451 (2017) (allegations that a child "suffers" or has a "very strong bond" are insufficient to show harm akin to neglect)
- DiGiovanna v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (2011) (addresses the scope of relief after Roth factors are proved; assumes Roth elements satisfied)
- Clements v. Jones, 71 Conn. App. 688 (2002) (health‑related caregiving allegations alone do not necessarily constitute neglect for Roth purposes)