In re Paulo T.

Syllabus

The respondent father appealed to this court from, inter alia, the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for reinstatement of guardianship rights filed by the petitioner mother with respect to their minor son, P. P lived with the mother for most of his life. After she pleaded nolo contendere to the allegation that P had been uncared for due to her homelessness, the trial court vested primary custody and sole guardian- ship of P in the father and ordered the mother to comply with certain specific steps, including participating in substance abuse treatment and obtaining adequate housing and legal income. Following her participa- tion in an intensive outpatient treatment program and her residence in a sober house, the trial court granted the mother's motion for reinstate- ment of her guardianship rights and ordered that the parties have joint guardianship of P, with primary physical custody vested in the mother. The trial court also issued orders with respect to the father's visitation rights. Thereafter, the father filed a motion to open the judgment on the ground that the mother had failed to comply with the trial court's visitation orders. The trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the motion, and the father appealed to this court. Held: 1. Contrary to the father's claim, the trial court did not apply a presumption that reinstatement of the mother's rights was in the best interests of P: the presumption established by our Supreme Court in In re Zakai F. (336 Conn. 272), that reinstatement is in the best interests of the child when a parent who has filed a motion to reinstate his or her guardianship rights has demonstrated that the reasons that led to the removal of his or her guardianship rights have been resolved satisfactorily, did not apply to this case because it was a dispute between two parents and the presumption applies only when the current guardian is a nonparent; moreover, although the trial court mentioned the presumption in its dec