Elizabeth E. Daigle v. Leala B. Daigle (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED PETITION FOR VISITATION—GRANDPARENTS & THIRD PARTIES

The issue presented before the court is whether plaintiff, the minor child's maternal grandmother, should be permitted visitation with the minor child.

More specifically, on or about November 1, 2013, the maternal grandmother filed a verified complaint seeking visitation with the minor child, Rayne.   Plaintiff alleged that she had a “parent-like” relationship with the minor child insofar as she was the “primary care giver and sole provider for Rayne.”   Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, her daughter, abruptly left the plaintiff's home thus subjecting the minor child to mental and emotional abuse.   The defendant denied the allegations and the matter was scheduled for a hearing on January 15, 2014 where both parties were represented by counsel.

The minor child, Rayne, was born August 17, 2010 when the defendant was 20 years old.   Defendant and Rayne resided with the plaintiff.   Defendant was a first time, inexperienced mother and as a result the plaintiff assisted defendant with the care of the minor child.   Plaintiff testified credibly that she had a close relationship with her granddaughter.   She assisted in the daily care of the child, particularly when the defendant sought part-time employment.

The plaintiff has not seen the minor child with any frequency since the defendant left plaintiff's home.   Plaintiff asserts that defendant is raising the child in an “unstable” household and that she should be able to oversee her granddaughter's cognitive and physical well-being.   Plaintiff also testified that she assisted the defendant financially while defendant resided with her.

Plaintiff further testified that defendant had little or no experience as a mother and that defendant was not receptive to her “guidance.”   She believes that she should monitor the situation as she does not know if her daughter is capable of raising the child.   Plaintiff testified that the defendant has a history of mental health issues and has had several emergency room visits since the birth of the minor child for such issues.   She indicated that defendant's home does not seem stable although she has never been to the home.

The plaintiff testified that she has seen the child on approximately three occasions since the defendant left her home.   On each occasion, the child was appropriately dressed, acted in an age appropriate manner, and was happy to see her grandmother.   Specifically, during the Peach Festival in late summer 2013 the child spent a significant portion of time interacting with the adults, enjoying the festivities and dancing with plaintiff.

Defendant testified that her daughter is prospering and is enrolled in Kindercare.¹  The minor child's preschool records demonstrate no concern for the child's cognitive or physical well-being.   The child attends preschool three times per week.   Defendant and the minor child reside with defendant's paternal grandmother in the paternal grandmother's home, along with defendant's boyfriend, Greg. She stated that she cares for her grandmother, cooks, does laundry and engages in daily activities with her daughter.   Those activities include reading, coloring and frequent walks at Bolton Notch.

Defendant described a very “volatile” relationship with her mother.   She described the plaintiff as a very controlling person who has no respect for her.   She agrees that she has had mental health issues in the past but indicates that she is doing well and is not in need of medication.   She attributes many of her past issues to the conflict between her and the plaintiff.   Most significantly, she describes her current home as a “safer and more stable environment” as compared with the situation she had with her mother.   The defendant left her mother's home in June 2013 following escalating tension between the two.

“The family entity is the core foundation of modern civilization.   The constitutionally protected interest of parents to raise their children without interference undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection of the greatest possible magnitude.”   Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 228 (2002) citing Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).  “The right of third parties to seek ․ visitation is limited by the rights of fit parents to raise their children free from interference.”  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The current standard for third-party visitation matters is governed by § 46b–59.   Said statute provides in relevant part:

(b) Any person may submit a verified petition to the Superior Court for the right of visitation with any minor child.   Such petition shall include specific and good-faith allegations that (1) a parent-like relationship exists between the person and the minor child, and (2) denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm.

Subsection (2) of § 46b–59 defines “real and significant harm” as neglected or uncared for as defined in § 46b–120(6) and (8).   More specifically, subsections 6 and 8 read as follows:

(6) A child or youth may be found “neglected” who, for reasons other than being impoverished, (A) has been abandoned, (B) is being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, or (C) is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to the well-being of the child or youth;

(8) A child or youth may be found “uncared for” who is homeless or whose home cannot provide the specialized care that the physical, emotional or mental condition of the child or youth requires.   For the purposes of this section, the treatment of any child or youth by an accredited Christian Science practitioner, in lieu of treatment by a licensed practitioner of the healing arts, shall not of itself constitute neglect or maltreatment.

In order for the plaintiff to prevail, she must prove by clear and convincing evidence that denial of visitation would cause the minor child real and significant harm.   The court has considered all the credible evidence presented to it along with its observation of the demeanor and attitude of the parties.   All the exhibits have been carefully reviewed and considered, as well as relevant common law, including, without limitation, the statutory criteria set forth in § 46b–59.   The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to meet her burden that a denial of visitation would result in real and significant harm to the minor child.

The court notes that prior to the commencement of the hearing, plaintiff's counsel made a verbal motion to appoint a guardian ad litem and for a psychological evaluation of the minor child.   The court indicated that it believed that granting the motion was premature given the high legal standard that plaintiff was required to meet and that absent a prima facie showing of “real and significant” harm, that court would not grant the aforementioned motions.   The plaintiff's motions for psychological evaluation and the appointment of a guardian ad litem are denied.

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff's Verified Petition for Visitation—Grandparents & Third Parties is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Ficeto, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Defendant's father, Raymond Daigle, testified he pays $1,200 to $1,400 monthly for the child's daycare expenses.   Plaintiff and Raymond Daigle are divorced..  FN1. Defendant's father, Raymond Daigle, testified he pays $1,200 to $1,400 monthly for the child's daycare expenses.   Plaintiff and Raymond Daigle are divorced.

Ficeto, Anna M., J.