Third Party Custody Actions

Third Party Custody Actions Legal Definition

Third Party Custody Actions in Connecticut

Under Connecticut Statute § 46b-56(a): in cases in which a third party seeks to intervene in a custody proceeding brought pursuant to § 46b-56 (a), the party must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence facts demonstrating that he or she has a relationship with the child (see Children Protection in Connecticut) akin to that of a parent, that parental custody clearly would be detrimental to the child (see Children Protection in Connecticut) and, upon a finding of detriment, that third party custody would be in the child’s best interest. McDermott v.Dougherty, 385 Md. 320, 353-354, 869 A.2d 751 (2005). Cited in Fish v. Fish, 285 Connecticut 24, 45 (2008). Ibid. p. 89. o Under Connecticut Statute § 46b-57: In cases in which the trial court considers awarding custody to a third party who has not intervened pursuant to § 46b-57, the court may award custody to the third party provided that the record contains proof of . . . facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence . . . demonstrating that he or she has a relationship with the child (see Children Protection in Connecticut) akin to that of a parent, that parental custody clearly would be detrimental to the child (see Children Protection in Connecticut) and, upon a finding of detriment, that third party custody would be in the child’s best interest. McDermott v. Dougherty, 385 Md. 320, 353-354, 869 A.2d 751 (2005). Cited in Fish v. Fish, 285 Connecticut 24, 89 (2008). o Under Connecticut Gen. Statute § 46b-56b. The rebuttable presumption and the standard of harm articulated in the third party custody statute thus protect parental rights because they preclude the court from awarding custody on the basis of a purely subjective determination of the child’s best interests or the judge’s personal or lifestyle preferences. As a result, we conclude that the statute is facially constitutional. McDermott v. Dougherty, 385 Md. 320, 353-354, 869 A.2d 751 (2005). Cited in Fish v. Fish, 285 Connecticut 24, 89 (2008).

Note: Definition based in the Connecticut Judicial Branch Family Glossary