House Bill 5440 will become effective on October 1, 2012.
Here it is:
AN ACT CONCERNING VISITATION RIGHTS FOR GRANDPARENTS AND OTHER PERSONS.
I disagree with those who believe that this new Act is a “victory” for grandparents. In no way does this Act make it easier for a grandparent or third party to obtain an order for visitation.
The new Act simply sets forth what case law already established. In order for grandparents or other third parties to be awarded visitation they must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that:
- A parent-like relationship exists between them and the child; and
- The child will suffer real and substantial harm if the visitation is denied. (This means a degree of harm analogous to a claim that the child is neglected under Connecticut child welfare statutes).
What is new is the list of factors that a judge may consider when deciding whether a parent-like relationship exists.
These factors appear to impose additional requirements on grandparents and other third parties seeking visitation in Family Court.
The three most important of these are:
- The existence and length of the relationship between the grandparent and child;
- The specific parent-like activities of the person seeking visitation toward the child; and
- The fitness of the person seeking visitation.
The Bill also specifies that even if a court orders visitation, the visitation schedule will not prevent a custodial parent from relocating. Therefore, in some cases, a custodial parent’s decision to move would effectively terminate visitation.
Finally, the judge can order any party to pay the other’s fees, including those charged by the guardian ad litem or any expert. This will likely discourage some grandparents from fully litigating a visitation petition.
I think the objective of the new law was to be “grandparent friendly”. If so, the drafters failed.
Connecticut has made improvements to granting foster parents additional opportunities to advocate for the best interest of their foster child.
The link below sets forth some general information to assist a foster parent when a child they are caring for has a case pending in Juvenile Court.
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/Publications/JM157.pdf
In addition, there are other measures a foster parent can attempt in Juvenile Court. However, they are unique to the circumstances of the foster child’s case.
One is a Motion to Intervene. If granted, the foster parent is considered a party and may participate directly in the case. This right includes filing motions and calling witnesses at trial or other contested hearings.
Another option (VERY fact driven) is to file a writ of habeas corpus if DCF plans to change the child’s placement immediately. The purpose of this writ is to obtain an interim court order to prevent DCF from removing a foster child from a foster parent’s care. It is essentially an injunction.
If DCF plans to remove a foster child, but not immediately, then a foster parent may request a removal hearing. To have standing to request such a hearing, the foster child must have lived with the foster parent for at least a year. This is a DCF administrative hearing and not a Juvenile Court procedure.
A final thought. Do not rely on the DCF social worker for legal advice. They may or may not provide you with accurate information. And this may or may not be intentional.
Please contact me if you have questions about foster parent rights in Connecticut Juvenile Court.
A cable TV worker was sent to a condominium complex in Milford to do an installation. When leaving the building, he slipped and fell on ice hittting his head and injuring his back. The ice had apparently bee there for days, maybe even weeks.
Pictures taken the day of the fall were evidence of how poorly maintained the area was.
In addition, condo maintenance workers acknowledged that the steps were prone to ice buildup caused by a water overflow from the gutters above. The workers would sand the area daily but never made efforts to chop up or remove the ice.
The injured worker was 34 only years old and despite two surgeries, he still had a 40% permanent partial disability of his back. As a result, it was unlikely that he would be able to work for longer than four hours at a time and therefore would be relegated to sedentary work.
A vocational expert opined that the injury would cost the worker in excess of $1 million in lost earning capacity. Furthermore, the cost of future of medical care was estimated at $600,000.
Generally, slip and fall cases require the injured party to prove:
- There was a dangerous condition (i.e. ice, safety violations);
- The owner of the property (and/or or his agents) knew or should have known of the dangerous condition;
- The owner of the property (and/or his agents) failed to act as an ordinary prudent person in cleaning or fixing the condition.
#2 is usually the hardest to prove. In this case, the pictures and the admissions of the maintenance workers were invaluable in satisfying this requirement.
A new form available on the State of Connecticut Judicial Website provides help for completing a Financial Affidavit.
A few good points the form makes:
The value of the personal property is the fair market value of the item today – not how much you paid for it.
Do not leave any items blank – enter either a “0” or “Not applicable.”
Bank accounts should reflect an average monthly balance.
It is acceptable to use estimates as long as you state that the figure is an estimate.
Here is the form:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/fm006H.pdf
It goes without saying that texting while driving is extremely dangerous. Unfortunately, careless drivers continue to do it.
In fact, operating a motor vehicle while texting or talking on a cell phone may be considered more than just ordinary negligence. It may be reckless conduct which can result in double or triple damages to the injured party.
Recently, a Connecticut woman was awarded $1 million when she was injured in a head on collision caused by a texting driver.
But, how can you prove that a driver is texting and driving?
The easiest way is an admission by the driver to the police at the scene. Not likely, but it does happen from time to time.
Another option is to obtain statements from witnesses. For example, a passenger or a driver of another car who saw the driver texting or using a cell phone.
Finally, lawyers can issue subpoenas for the driver’s cell phone records. In this case, the records revealed that the driver sent a text one minute before the crash.
Apparently, there were other factors which led to this large settlement. The texting driver was uncooperative and displayed a poor attitude with police at the scene. It was later learned that the texting driver had been involved in three other car accidents. She was also fired from her job as a nanny for allegedly forging a check and stealing money.
Just the type of defendant the jury will hammer at trial.
The plaintiff? An elderly great-grandmother. The ideal, sympathetic plaintiff.
Please email me or call (203) 259-5251 if you have been injured in a car accident which involves texting while driving.
A major auto insurance company recently released a report ranking which cities are the “most dangerous” for U.S. drivers. The study was compiled through an analysis of data from auto insurance claims.
Bridgeport placed 19th on the list, and New Haven placed 21st. According to the report, Bridgeport drivers were involved in an accident every 7.1 years on average. New Haven drivers weren’t much better, at an accident every 7.3 years. Compare these numbers with the national average of once every 10 years.
The auto insurer studied Census data during a two-year time period beginning on Jan. 1, 2009 and ending on Dec. 31, 2010. The study paid attention to populations within city limits as opposed to metropolitan statistical areas.
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, received the honor of being “America’s Safest Driving City” according to the study. A driver in Sioux Falls gets into an accident every 13.8 years on average.
Even one accident in ten years seems startling to some drivers, especially those with good driving records. While we cannot control what other drivers do on the road, we can drive safely and attentively to reduce the number of accidents we are involved in during our lifetime.
Some tips provided by the auto insurer can go a long way for safety:
- Always be aware of what’s going on near your destination before you leave home.
- Get traffic reports and plan alternate routes accordingly.
- Be alert and aware of the drivers and other obstacles around you; a pedestrian could step out seemingly at random, emergency vehicles are always flying down streets, and other forms of transportation can pull out in front of you.
- Keep a safe distance between you and other vehicles at all times.
- Leave home with plenty of time to reach your destination. Not only will you arrive in one piece, you will also arrive with time to spare.
And, perhaps most importantly: Put down your cell phone, makeup, hamburger, or whatever else may take your eyes and focus off of the road. This is true anywhere, but especially true in Bridgeport and New Haven, where accidents don’t just happen, but happen far too often.
Learn about what to do after a car accident by visiting our pages on motor vehicle accidents.
Source: Allstate, Bridgeport and New Haven Roads Among Top 25 Most Dangerous in Country on 2012 “Allstate America’s Best Driver’s Report,” Aug. 28, 2012.