What information exists concerning a child’s adoption in Connecticut?
Probate Court files. Probate Courts in Connecticut have jurisdiction over adoption. The Probate Court files contain the identity of the biological parents but also the file has a study performed by DCF which has very detailed information surrounding the circumstances of the parents and the reasons why their parental rights were terminated. These files are confidential and not open to the adopted child.
Birth certificates. All children have a birth certificate. But if a child is adopted in Connecticut the child will have two birth certificates- the original birth certificate and a second issued by the Office of Vital Records stating the name(s) of the adoptive parents and in some instances changing the child’s legal name. An adopted child is permitted to see the second birth certificate but not the original birth certificate which would include the names of the biological parents.
Back in 2006, legislation was approved allowing a child to obtain their original birth certificate but it was eventually vetoed by Governor Rell. There has been discussion that this legislation may be revived in the near future.
There is no proposed legislation which would allow an adopted child access to the Probate Court file. A minority of states do allow an adopted child the opportunity to view the court file.
According to a recent article in the Connecticut Law Tribune, there are two chief sources of opposition to allowing an adopted child access to the original birth certificate. First, the Office of Vital Records claims such a law would place high demands on their staff. Second, the Catholic Church takes the position that a biological parent was promised anonymity during the adoption process.
Should adopted children be allowed to obtain their original birth certificates?
Should adopted children be privy to the Probate Court file or DCF records concerning their adoption?
The debate continues.
Here is a summary of a recent personal injury case according to the Connecticut Law Tribune:
Facts: The Plaintiff saw a vehicle which was “for sale” on Defendant’s property. He leaped over a stone wall to take a look at the vehicle. The Plaintiff landed in a sunken depression and was injured.
Injuries: The Plaintiff fractured his femur and spent two weeks at the hospital waiting for the surgery to subside so that surgery on his leg could be performed. He may eventually need knee replacement.
Plaintiff claims: Negligence in that the Defendant failed to exercise due care in maintaining his property and knew or should known about the dangerous conditon of the property.
Defendant claims: The land owner had no notice of the alleged defect to the property.
Verdict: Economic damages $60,000 for medical bills to date. Non-economic damages of $190,000. Total award $250,000.
This case illustrates the different types of duties owed to those who enter someone’s property. The Plaintiff was considered an “invitee” because the vehicle which was for sale was the reason he entered the Defendant’s property. If there was no vehicle for sale, and therefore the Plaintiff was found to be a trespasser, the result in this case would have been different.
According to the NY Daily News on April 17.
Three years ago a wife was awarded lifetime alimony of $850 per month. It appears that the basis for the award was her claim that she was unable to work due to a injuries sustained in a car accident.
Seems the wife was actually not that injured after all. In fact, she had been belly dancing ever since the divorce. Apparently her own blog postings did her in. For example, she admitted on her blog to “dancing every day for three years” “dancing herself silly”, “swirling around” and other descriptive dance moves.
The judge ordered the alimony terminated and the belly dancer to pay the husband’s legal fees of $5,000. The case presents another example of how one’s ability to be self sufficient post divorce can provide the basis for a modification of alimony. It is also yet another example of online media playing a role in a family law case.
Cohabitation after divorce can lead to alimony modification. In general, Connecticut allows alimony to be modified upon a showing of a “substantial change in circumstances” unless a divorce judgment precludes modification.
The change in circumstances can be a change in the circumstances of either party. The most common scenario I see is a financial change in circumstances of the party obligated to pay the alimony. For example, employment loss or decreased earnings often provide the basis for a modification of alimony. The second most common scenario is a claim that the party receiving alimony is cohabitating.
C.G.S 46b-86b allows a suspension, reduction or termination of alimony upon a showing that the party receiving the alimony is living with another person under circumstances which, the court finds should result in a modification of alimony because the living arrangements cause such a change of circumstances as to alter the financial needs of the party receiving the alimony.
There is a misconception that cohabitation itself provides the basis for a modification. This is not accurate. As shown above the statute sets forth essentially a two-part test:
1) Cohabitation and 2) that because of the cohabitation the person receiving alimony has in essence improved his or her financial position.
The latter prong of the test is typically more difficult to prove. The court will scrutinize the living arrangements and the contributions of each cohabitant to the household and to each other. The analysis is done on a case-by-case basis and is very fact specific.
In addition, if the court finds that the two-part test has been met a termination of alimony is not guaranteed. The court may either suspend the alimony order or reduce the order. Again, this is a case-by-case decision.
I represent parents throughout Fairfield County including Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Trumbull, Stratford, Bridgeport, Westport, Weston, New Canaan, Wilton, Norwalk, Darien, Stamford and Greenwich.
Contact me online or call my Fairfield office at (203) 259-5251 or my Stamford office at (203) 356-1475 to learn more about the law in Connecticut on cohabitation.
I have seen the fact pattern many times in Juvenile Court. Infant. Injuries including retinal hemorrhages, bone fractures and bleeding in the brain. The parent is interviewed (interrogated). They are understandably scared. They are nervous, anxious, trying to offer any possible explanation. They want to cooperate and are searching for answers. Unfortunately, shaken baby syndrome is too often assumed. Or it is used as basis for taking a child until a parent proves to DCF exactly how the injuries occurred.
How about evaluating the other causes of fractures or other injuries? Just how much weight do the DCF medical experts give to the presence or absence of risk factors such as aggression, anger, criminal history involving violence, prior child welfare (DCF) involvement, emotional stress, financial stress and substance abuse?
I clearly understand the need for DCF to protect children. There is no question about the need to protect children. But I also sympathize with those parents who are falsely accused because of a rush to judgment or a default diagnosis.
Check out this article from the NY Times about Shaken Baby Syndrome:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/magazine/06baby-t.html?_r=1
Please contact me to discuss DCF Investigations involving claims of Shaken Baby Syndrome.
There is a bill before the legislature which would increase the amount of damages a pet owner can recover if their pet is attacked.
Currently, pet owners are limited in terms of the money they can recover. Often pet owners can only recover the cost of the replacement value of the pet. The new bill would include additional recovery for economic damages such as reimbursement for veterinary bills and burial expenses.
The bill may also include a provision for non-econmic damages. For example, compensation for pain and suffering as well as emotional distress. This type of compensation has traditionally been barred since courts have treated companion animals as property thereby precluding recovery for non-econmic damages. If the bill permits these types of awards it would allow pet owners the potential for compensation for the true loss of their pet rather than merely reducing recovery to the amount the ower paid to a vet or a breeder.
This is one of most important pieces of legislation in the area of pet law in a long time. If it is passed, the new law will greatly improve the amount of monetary recovery for pet owners.
Feedback is welcomed.
Here is an article about the proposed bill:
http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=40084