Delena v. Grachitorena
Citations
- 216 Conn. App. 225
Syllabus
The plaintiff grandmother appealed to this court from the order of the trial court denying her petition for visitation with her minor grandchildren brought pursuant to statute (§ 46b-59). The plaintiff, whose testimony was the only evidence presented at the hearing on the petition, claimed that she had had visitation with the children before the termination of the parental rights of the children's biological parents but that the defendants ended that visitation when they became the children's legal guardians. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the court improperly applied the factors set forth in § 46b-59 in determining that she did not have a parent-like relationship with the children and improperly emphasized the length of time since she had last seen them. Held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's petition for visitation with the children, as it found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that she had a parent-like relationship with them: the court, which found the plaintiff's testimony not credible, determined that the plaintiff had seen the children once in four years and that her relationship with them had changed substantially from when it started in that she had had almost no contact with them since the defendants became their legal guardians; moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, the record supported the court's finding that the plaintiff had seen the children only once in four years, and it reasonably could be inferred from the court's decision that, pursuant to the factors in § 46b-59 (d), the court considered whether the plaintiff had had regular contact with and a close and substantial relationship with them; further- more, because the court found that no parent-like relationship with the children existed, it was not required to determine, as the plaintiff claimed, whether the denial of the visitation petition would result in real and significant harm to the children. Argued Sept
Judges: Moll; Clark; DiPentima
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.