Third-party visitation rights can be a controversial topic between parents and the other people in their children’s lives. Most of the time, everyone involved in a third-party visitation dispute has the best intentions for the child. However, these various parties also have different preferences and/ or lifestyles. These differences lead to Third-Party Visitation disputes. Sometimes, it is a grandparent seeking visitation with their grandchild. Other times, the third-party is not a blood-relative, but plays an important role in the child’s life and development.
Regardless of whether you are the third party seeking visitation of a child, or the parent defending against a third-party visitation request, the information in this blog post will be beneficial to your case. Read on to know the most important laws and cases concerning third-party visitation rights in Connecticut. We will also show you where you can find an experienced family law attorney, who will provide the absolute best advice on third-party visitation.
Parents have an initial advantage
In a visitation dispute, parents have more rights than a third-party. Parental rights come from the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gives parents broad decision making power in their children’s lives. The state will only interfere if the child is at risk of harm. According to the Supreme Court, the right to choose who the child spends time with is a fundamental parental right. (Troxel v. Granville, U.S. Supreme Court, 2000).
Important Case: Troxel v. Granville | The Supreme Court struck down a state visitation law that used the “Best Interests of the Child” standard, holding that a parent’s preference should have heavier weight than a third party. The case caused many states to review their laws around third party visitation in light of the explicit preference for parental decision making.
If Parents Have An Advantage Over Third Parties, What Does the Third Party Need to Prove?
A. The Third Party Must Prove a “Parent- Like Relationship” Between Themself and the Child
The party seeking visitation rights will need to cite examples where they have played an important role throughout the child’s life.
Important Law: C.G.S. § 46b – 59 | Petition for Right of Visitation with Minor Child
The court may consider – but is not limited to – the following nine factors in deciding whether there is a parent-like relationship:
- The existence and length of a relationship between the person and the minor child prior to the submission of a petition pursuant to this section;
- The length of time that the relationship between the person and the minor child has been disrupted;
- The specific parent-like activities of the person seeking visitation toward the minor child;
- Any evidence that the person seeking visitation has unreasonably undermined the authority and discretion of the custodial parent;
- The significant absence of a parent from the life of a minor child;
- The death of one of the minor child’s parents;
- The physical separation of the parents of the minor child;
- The fitness of the person seeking visitation; and
- The fitness of the custodial parent
Note for Grandparents: In addition to these nine factors, the court will also consider “the history of regular contact and proof of a close and substantial relationship between the grandparent and the minor child.” CGS 46b-120 (d)
Landmark case – Visitation Request DENIED – Roth v. Weston, CT. supreme Court, 2002
The two plaintiffs, who were the child’s grandmother and aunt, regularly visited with or telephoned the child, as much as several days per week. They participated in the child’s birthday celebrations, took the child to parks, and stayed with the child at their home. The Plaintiffs frequently stayed overnight at the house with the child, and occasionally the child slept at Roth’s home while the parents were away. Based on these facts, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided there was NOT a parent-like relationship between the Plaintiffs and the child. While there was a positive relationship between the plaintiffs and the child, the plaintiffs did not necessarily play the role of primary caregiver at any point. This case is over 20 years old, but the court has not strayed far from the parent-like relationship test, setting a high burden for the Plaintiff in third party visitation requests.
B. The Third Party Must also Prove that “Real and significant harm” will occur
Even if there is a parent- like relationship between the third party and the child, this is not enough to overrule the parent’s preference. The third party will also need to prove that, without their requested visitation, the child will face “real and significant harm.”
“Real and Significant Harm” = the child is neglected in some way; it is a high burden for the Plaintiff.
Under C.G.S. § 46b – 120, a child may be “neglected” if they:
(A) have been abandoned,
(B) are being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally, or
(C) are being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to the well-being of the child;
Real and significant harm – Higher burden than “Best interests of the child”
Most family matters involving children depend on the “Best Interests of the Child” standard, which has 17 total factors. The standard operates exactly how it sounds. The court will make decisions based on the child’s needs and, after a certain age, their preferences. Third-party visitation is different, however, because parents have a Constitutional right to make caretaking decisions on behalf of their child. The Real and Significant Harm standard requires specific facts showing harm. It is NOT ENOUGH to argue that visitation would simply benefit the child, if this goes against the parent’s wishes. It is also NOT ENOUGH to simply allege that there is harm, without specific facts to support your argument.
A non- parent and a child may have such a close, parent-like relationship that to sever the relationship would cause harm to the child. Roth v. Weston. An experienced family law attorney will listen to you, and your story, to craft the best possible argument on your behalf. Your attorney will present your perspective in a compelling manner for the court.
Compare two recent cases: Hepburn v. Brill (CT. 2024) and Hunter v. Shrestha (CT. App. 2020)
Hepburn v. Brill – Visitation GRANTED – Plaintiff was primary caretaker and provider of emotional support at one point of child’s life; child was abruptly taken away from shared living situation after the child’s mother passed. The child became very emotional and distressed after relationship ended, with specific, compelling facts alleged in plaintiff’s argument.
Hunter v. Shrestha – Visitation DENIED – Plaintiffs provided extensive financial and emotional support to the child’s parents after child’s birth, and visited the family frequently. Plaintiffs argued that denying visitation would sever the child’s connection with the mother’s side of the family. Court decided that plaintiffs did not prove the requisite level of harm.
If you are a third party seeking visitation rights, you should know…
The plaintiff has a high burden. You must convince the court of both a parent-like relationship AND real and significant harm to the child.
If you are a parent defending themself against a third party seeking visitation, you should know…
Fit parents have a Constitutional right to raise their child as they see fit. This includes who their child is allowed to spend time with.
whether you are the Plaintiff or the Defendant…
You need a reputable family law attorney to fight on your behalf. Our attorneys have decades of experience in child custody and visitation. Let us make the best possible argument on your behalf! Call Lori Bartinik, Esq. today for a consultation at 860-445-8521.
Click here to see our clients’ reviews (4.9 Google rating).
Click here to read some of our recent Blog Posts.