In any controversy before the Superior Court as to the custody of minor children, and on any complaint under this chapter or section
46b-1 or
51-348a, if there is any minor child of either or both parties, the court, if it has jurisdiction under the provisions of chapter 815p, may allow any interested third party or parties to intervene upon motion. The court may award full or partial custody, care, education and visitation rights of such child to any such third party upon such conditions and limitations as it deems equitable. Before allowing any such intervention, the court may appoint counsel for the minor child or children pursuant to the provisions of sections
46b-12 and
46b-54. In making any order under this section, the court shall be guided by the best interests of the child, giving consideration to the wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capable of forming an intelligent preference.
(P.A. 73-373, S. 17; P.A. 74-169, S. 10, 18; P.A. 78-230, S. 32, 54; 78-318, S. 29; P.A. 03-19, S. 106; P.A. 14-3, S. 3; P.A 15-14, S. 13.)
History: P.A. 74-169 made minor changes in wording and made appointment of counsel for child or children optional rather than mandatory, substituting “may” for “shall”; P.A. 78-230 restated provisions; P.A. 78-318 qualified court's power to allow third party intervention and to award custody, etc. to third party by adding “if it has jurisdiction under the provisions of chapter 815o”; Sec. 46-47 transferred to Sec. 46b-57 in 1979 and references to other sections within provisions revised as necessary to reflect their transfer; P.A. 03-19 made technical changes, effective May 12, 2003; P.A. 14-3 added reference to Sec. 46b-12; P.A. 15-14 made a technical change.
Annotations to former section 46-47:
Cited. 174 C. 244.
Cited. 7 CA 720.
Cited. 33 CS 100.
Annotations to present section:
Motion to intervene under statute was barred by absence of controversy; timeliness and “interested third parties” discussed. 185 C. 502. Cited. 193 C. 393. Former intervention not a requirement to a valid order of custody. 196 C. 10. Cited. 235 C. 82; 236 C. 582; 239 C. 336; 241 C. 767. In order to uphold constitutionality of section, court imposed a standing requirement that a third party allege a parent-like relationship with the child for third party custody awards and third parties seeking intervention in existing custody proceedings. 285 C. 24.
Cited. 2 CA 132; judgment reversed, see 234 C. 51; 11 CA 43; 34 CA 129; 35 CA 421; 40 CA 675.
Cited. 35 CS 237.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1981–2019 · leading case:
Fish v. Fish, 939 A.2d 1040 (Conn. 2008).
Fish v. Fish, 939 A.2d 1040 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 40× “The Appellate Court finally observed that the trial court had determined that it was in the child's best interest to award joint custody to the plaintiff and Husaluk pursuant to the governing custody statutes, namely, General Statutes §§ 46b-57, [12] 46b-56 [13] and 46b-56b.”
Manter v. Manter, 441 A.2d 146 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 24× “Manter under General Statutes § 46b-57, which permits interested third parties to intervene in custody controversies before the Superior Court.”
Doe v. Doe, 710 A.2d 1297 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 12× “, General Statutes § 46b-56 (a) 26 (court may assign custody of child “to the parents jointly, to either parent or to a third party”); General Statutes § 46b-56b 27 (statutory presumption in dispute “involving a parent and a nonparent”); General Statutes § 46b-57 28 (in…”
Fish v. Fish, 881 A.2d 342 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 10× “See General Statutes §§ 46b-57, 4 46b-56 5 and 46b-56b.”
Firstenberg v. Madigan, 205 A.3d 716 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 7× “The appellant, Eric Firstenberg (appellant), the child's maternal grandfather, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to intervene in the custody action under General Statutes § 46b-57. 1 On appeal, the appellant raises a number of claims, including that…”
Denardo v. Bergamo, 863 A.2d 686 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 6× “The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for third party *504 intervention pursuant to General Statutes §§ 46b-57 4 and 46b-59; see footnote 2 of this opinion; and a motion for visitation pendente lite.”
McGaffin v. Roberts, 479 A.2d 176 (Conn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 46b-57 11 permits such intervention of “any interested third party .”
Castagno v. Wholean, 684 A.2d 1181 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 46b-57 provides: “Third party intervention re custody of minor children.”
Roth v. Weston, 789 A.2d 431 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× ““(b) In making or modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation, the court shall (1) be guided by the best interests of the child General Statutes § 46b-57 provides: “Third party intervention re custody of minor children.”
Schult v. Schult, 699 A.2d 134 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 4× “The child’s maternal grandmother, Joan Radin, intervened in the dissolution action pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-57. 1 The trial court appointed both an attorney and a guardian ad litem for the child.”
Gennarini v. Gennarini, 477 A.2d 674 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 4× “, General Statutes § 46b-57. 5 Thus, the necessity of such information is undercut, because it cannot be said that that category of information is so important that the court would almost invariably want or need it.”
Schult v. Schult, 672 A.2d 959 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 4× “On January 3, 1992, Radin filed a motion for third party intervention pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-57, 6 asserting that she was the child’s maternal grand *680 mother.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.