DocketNumber: No. FA 99-0421004
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3777, 26 Conn. L. Rptr. 693
Judges: ROBAINA, JUDGE. CT Page 3778
Filed Date: 3/28/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The pertinent facts alleged in support of the motion to dismiss are as follows. The defendants, the biological parents of the child, began a relationship in 1991. They lived together off and on but were never married. The defendant father was incarcerated for a significant amount of time during their relationship. On November 4, 1993, the child was born. At the time of the child's birth the defendant father was incarcerated. In 1994, after the defendant father was released from prison, the mother and father lived together for approximately one month. That was the only time the mother, father and child lived together. The defendant father is currently incarcerated, with an anticipated release date of 2007. There is no indication that the defendant father has acknowledged the paternity of the child, or that he has supported the child. There is no denial by the mother as to the issue of paternity. The child's contact with the plaintiffs took place primarily in 1995. The defendant mother reports that there were approximately four visits which took place over some four weeks. There has been no significant contact since that time. Other than those sporadic visits, there is no history of a relationship between the plaintiffs and the minor child, nor is there any present relationship between the plaintiffs and the minor child.
The defendant mother's past "contact" with the courts has been an application for relief from abuse against the defendant father (Docket No. 367270), which was granted by the court and also extended to their son Robby, on November 4, 1994. In August of 1995, the defendant mother petitioned the East Haven Probate Court to change Robby's surname to hers, Gabucci. The name change petition indicates the father's address as unknown, and service was made by publication. The defendant mother's affidavit and memorandum state there was notice and that the petition was granted without objection.
The defendant mother has since remarried and resides with her son, who is now six years old, and her husband. They have lived CT Page 3779 together for approximately two years.
The defendant moves to dismiss this action on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, relying uponCastagno v. Wholean,
A motion to dismiss "admits all well pleaded facts, the complaint being construed most favorably to the plaintiff."Duguay v. Hopkins,
In Castagno v. Wholean, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the issue of "whether, pursuant to General Statutes §
The threshold requirement that a showing of "a disruption of the family sufficient to justify state intervention" be made, has been satisfied in several ways. Those include a prior petition to the court for custody, Matthews v. Thomasen, No. 0478796 J.D. of Hartford at New Britain (1977) (Keller, J.),
This court finds that the defendant's prior application for Relief From Abuse is not sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement indicated by the Supreme Court's holding in Castagnov. Wholean, supra. Neither is the separation of the parties which is significantly remote in time. See McClure v. Perkins, No. 0548540 J.D. of New London (1999) (Solomon, J.),
The defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
Robaina, J.