Background
Ivan Perez and Nina Carusillo married after Perez’s former wife, the biological mother of his two daughters, died. During the marriage, Carusillo became closely involved in the children’s care, supported their schooling, medical appointments, religious activities, and personal needs, and developed a loving parental bond with them. Perez encouraged the relationship and allowed the children to call Carusillo “mom,” but declined Carusillo’s requests to adopt them.
When Perez filed for dissolution, Carusillo petitioned to be adjudicated the children’s de facto parent under Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-490. The trial court found that she proved the first six statutory requirements by clear and convincing evidence, but denied the petition after concluding that continuing the relationship was not in the children’s best interests. It emphasized Perez’s opposition, relying heavily on custody factors in § 46b-56 (c), and awarded Carusillo third-party visitation instead.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the denial of Carusillo’s de facto-parent petition and remanded for reconsideration under the proper legal framework. The court held that the trial court improperly imported wholesale the custody-and-visitation factors in § 46b-56 (c) into the § 46b-490 (a) (7) best-interest inquiry and improperly centered its analysis on Perez’s wishes as to custody.
The statutory question is whether continuing the relationship between the petitioner and child serves the child’s best interests. That is a holistic, fact-intensive inquiry focused on the child and the relationship, not a mechanism for giving a legal parent a veto. The court said that the Parentage Act’s competing-parentage factors in § 46b-475 (a) offer useful guidance, including the child’s age, the duration and nature of the parental relationship, and harm from nonrecognition. The court also held that the Act does not restrict de facto parentage based on sexual orientation, marital status, or family structure, and that Perez’s refusal to consent to adoption was relevant but not dispositive of whether he fostered or supported the relationship.
Key Takeaways
- A de facto-parent petition timely filed before a child turns 18 is not moot merely because the child reaches adulthood while the case is on appeal.
- In a de facto-parent case, the best-interest analysis must focus on the child’s welfare and the petitioner-child relationship, rather than primarily on a legal parent’s custody preferences.
- Connecticut’s Parentage Act applies without distinctions based on a petitioner’s sexual orientation, marital status, or family structure.
Why It Matters
The decision supplies Connecticut trial courts with a framework for evaluating the final de facto-parentage criterion. Although custody-related considerations may sometimes be relevant, courts cannot treat a fit legal parent’s objection as controlling when the statutory requirements otherwise may be met.
The ruling also confirms that legal recognition of a parent-child relationship can carry practical consequences beyond minority, including family-status interests such as inheritance and medical decision-making.