IN RE: Avery Sullivan v. Michael Sullivan et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR INTERVENTION # 160

The minor child, Avery Sullivan, date of birth October 21, 1999, child of Michael Sullivan and Laura LaPorta is now the subject of a Motion To Intervene by the minor child's paternal grandmother Jamie Benham.   This file has a tortuous circuit through the Court system dating back to the original complaint of November 14, 2001.   A guardian ad litem has been appointed for the minor child in the person of Attorney Steven Levy. The GAL's position concerning the proposed intervention by the said grandmother is based on a strict reading of the applicable law and statutory interpretation.   That reading is not without merit, however under these somewhat extraordinary circumstances, the Court will entertain the Motion to Intervene by the paternal grandmother.

There is a long history of de facto intervention by the said paternal grandmother from the very early stages of this minor child's life.   Most of that care and parenting support was done with the consent of both the mother and father (son of proposed intervener) due to their own work schedule, other family commitments, and/or lifestyle.   Based on the representations made through pleadings and after two days of testimony, the Court finds that the more credible evidence concerning the status and therefore standing of the paternal grandmother is found to be in her favor.   Although without granting any visitation rights to the said paternal grandmother, the Court feels that she has met the basic criteria for standing to intervene and to pursue certain visitation privileges that would be either agreed to or endorsed by Family Services.

The Court is aware that the standard for visitation under Roth v. Weston case and the Fish v. Fish case set very high standards for any such intervening petitioner to meet.   The Court finds, however, that there is a parent-child relationship here and that the allegations made by the paternal grandmother are based on good faith and it would appear at this stage of the proceedings that the child's welfare both physical and emotional are not being well served by the natural mother and that the father, son of the proposed intervener, has also failed in many ways to act in a responsible parental manner for his son.

The relationship between the intervener and the maternal mother (her daughter-in-law) requires further analysis, but it appears at this stage to be antagonistic if not outright hostile between these two adults who are supposed to have only the best interests of the minor child at heart.   To give the paternal grandmother any more standing than absolutely necessary as an intervener under such a proceeding as this is not reached at this time by the Court.   Guidelines of Roth v. Weston being liberally interpreted, this Court feels that the paternal grandmother does have a sufficient relationship with the minor child as well as concrete fears that the child is not being properly cared for by the mother and therefore, the Court will allow the status of intervention to her.   This granting of intervention status in no way makes any determination concerning visitation privileges or any other contact privileges that a later Court may or may not vest with the said intervener.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT,

ROCHE, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.