Katherine Stover v. Nathaniel Stover (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action for dissolution of marriage.   There are four minor children of the marriage who live with the plaintiff mother, Katherine Stover, in Connecticut.   The defendant father, Nathaniel Stover, lives in another state.   The defendant's parents, R. Douglas Stover and Kris A. Stover (“the grandparents”), who live in Michigan, have filed motions to intervene (# 128 and # 129) in this case for the purpose of seeking visitation rights with the children.   The plaintiff objects to these motions (# 135) while the defendant supports them.   A hearing was held on March 31, 2011 at which time all parties were represented and heard.

The grandparents had normal visits with the grandchildren while the plaintiff and defendant lived in North Carolina.   They would visit in North Carolina as often as possible and welcomed the children and their parents for week-long visits in Michigan when they could be arranged.   The plaintiff and the children lived with them in Michigan for about a month at one time.   But, the grandparents have not seen the children since a Christmas visit in December 2006.   Troubles developed in the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant, and the plaintiff moved to Connecticut with the children.   The plaintiff has sole custody of the children with no visitation by the defendant.   There is presently a criminal protective order which prohibits contact between the defendant and the plaintiff and children.

The grandparents admit that they do not have a parent-like relationship with the children.   However, they love their grandchildren and wish to re-establish a normal grandparent-like relationship with them.   Unfortunately for them, the grandparents do not meet the standing requirement to be able to intervene to obtain court-ordered visitation.   This requirement to allege a parent-like relationship applies to third parties seeking intervention in existing custody proceedings for the purpose of seeking visitation.  Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002);  Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24 (2008).   For this reason, the court must deny the motions to intervene and must sustain the plaintiff's objection.   There is nothing which would prevent the plaintiff from re-establishing contact with the grandparents at an appropriate time and facilitating visitation with the children on an informal basis outside of court.

BY THE COURT,

Pickard, J.

Pickard, John W., J.