Romeo v. Bazow

Citations

• 195 Conn. App. 378

Syllabus

The plaintiffs appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their third-party petition for visitation as to the minor children of the defendant. On their petition, the plaintiffs checked the boxes stating that they have a relationship with the children that is parent-like and that denial of visitation will cause real and significant harm to the children, and they referenced an attached affidavit. In the attached affidavit, the plaintiffs averred that they are the children's maternal grandparents, and they detailed their involvement with the children. They also averred that the defendant was preventing them from having any relationship with the children because she was angry with the plaintiffs and that, in doing so, the children were being harmed by deracinating them from their extended family and family roots. The defendant moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to plead the necessary factual allegations to satisfy the second jurisdictional prerequisite set forth in Roth v. Weston (259 Conn. 202), specifically, that the denial of visitation will cause real and significant harm to the children. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an expert witness disclosure, in which they indicated that a clinical and forensic psycholo- gist would testify as to the real and significant harm that would result from the sudden exclusion of the plaintiffs from the children's lives. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, determining, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' petition failed to satisfy the second jurisdictional element set forth in Roth. Held: 1. The trial court properly limited its consideration to the allegations con- tained in the plaintiffs' petition and the attached affidavit in ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss; contrary to the plaintiffs' claim that that court