126 Conn. App. 588
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Geraldine F. Warner, paternal grandmother, sought visitation with her minor grandchild under General Statutes § 46b-59.
- Warner’s petition did not allege a parent-like relationship or that denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm to the child.
- Connecticut court records show prior agreements for supervised visitation beginning in 2008, with later moves toward unsupervised visitation in 2009.
- In May 2009, the court awarded Warner unsupervised visitation; the defendant (Bicknell) argued she had not received proper notice of the May 11, 2009 hearing.
- Warner filed motions to modify and reconsider; the trial court denied those motions, and Warner appealed challenging standing and notice arguments.
- The appellate court held Warner lacked standing under Roth v. Weston because the petition lacked the required parent-like relationship and related harm allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Warner satisfy Roth standing requirements? | Warner maintained a significant relationship with the child and sought visitation due to harm to the child if denied. | Warner did not allege a parent-like relationship or specific harm, so Roth prerequisites were not met. | No; Warner failed to meet Roth’s two-part standing test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002) (two-part standing test for third-party visitation)
- Denardo v. Bergamo, 272 Conn. 500 (2005) (Roth retroactively appplies to grandparent visitation and requires Roth standards)
- Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn.App. 125 (2007) (requires Roth-aligned allegations for jurisdiction over third-party visitation)
- Clements v. Jones, 71 Conn.App. 688 (2002) (jurisdiction relies on Roth-aligned pleading for third-party visitation)
- Hayes v. Beresford, 184 Conn. 558 (1981) (principle that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver)