Page 29 - CLT112320

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS NOVEMBER 23, 2020 ¦ 29

FAMILY LAW thority to order visitation, the order should be
upheld on the ground that a visitation would
Family Law Courts Have Authority not accord with the child’s best interest. The
to Issue Post-Termination Visitation court was unpersuaded, remanding for further
Orders factual findings on that issue.

CASE: In re Ava W. PERSONAL INJURY • LAND USE AND

COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court PLANNING
DOC. NO.: SC 20465
COURT OPINION BY: D’Auria
DATE: August 10, 2020 • PAGES: 32 Apparent Inconsistency in Jury’s
Replies to Special Interrogatories Not
The court reversed a judgment and remand-
ed, holding that trial courts have authority to
issue post-termination visitation orders that Fatal to Verdict

are requested within the context of termina- CASE: Fisk v. Town of Redding
tion proceedings, so long as such orders are COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
necessary or appropriate to the best interests DOC. NO.: SC 20333
of the child. Kiarah P. gave birth to Ava. W., COURT OPINION BY: Kahn
who tested positive for opiates. Kiarah failed to DATE: November 09, 2020 • PAGES: 16
comply with rehabilitation requirements, and
the Department of Children and Families peti- The court reversed a judgment and remanded,
tioned to terminate her parental rights. At the holding that, although a retaining wall con-
hearing, Ava’s counsel asked the trial court to structed by a town was inherently dangerous,
consider an order of post-termination or post- the town’s use of the land was reasonable in
adoption visitation between the child and the light of surrounding circumstances. The town
mother. The trial court ordered termination of Redding constructed a retaining wall at one
and denied post-termination visitation. On ap- end of parking lot used by a local bar. The en-
peal, the mother challenged only the court’s trances and exits of the parking lot were con-
denial of post-termination visitation. The Su- nected to an adjacent road that bordered the
preme Court reversed and remanded, holding park on one side. The wall ran between the
that the trial court had authority to order post- parking lot and the intersection of the roadway
termination visitation pursuant to its broad eq- and a street. The intersection sat partly below
uitable powers. At the outset, the court rejected the parking lot. A guard rail was constructed at
the Department’s contention that the mother the end of the parking lot, and there was dense
landscaping between the guardrail and the top
lacked standing to challenge the order regard- of the wall. The town elected not to build a
ing post-termination visitation. The mother fence on top of the wall. Gregg Fisk lived close
had a specific personal and legal interest, she by. He frequented the bar and was familiar
had suffered an injury, and the case was not with the area. Usually, when Fisk left the bar,
moot as a result of the decision. On the mer- he walked through the lot, and out of the desig-
its, the court found that General Statutes §46b- nated exit. But on occasion, he elected to cross
121(b)(1) provides broad authority to issue the lot, climb over the rail, push through the
any order necessary or appropriate to secure landscaping, and step onto the wall. He fell and
the welfare, protection, proper care and suit- was injured. He sued the town, alleging that the
able support of a child, including an order for wall was inherently dangerous and constituted
post-termination visitation. The court rejected an absolute nuisance. The case went to trial.
a contention that other legislation, at §17a-112, The jury was presented with special interroga-
reflects a legislative intention to limit or abro- tories. One of them asked the jury to determine
gate the ability of courts’ common-law abil- whether the wall was inherently dangerous; an-
ity to order post-termination visitation. The other asked the jury to determine whether the
Department’s argument failed to consider a use of the land, i.e., the wall, was unreason-
wide range of termination circumstances not able or unlawful. The jury found in favor of the
covered by § 17a-112 (b) through (h), includ- town. As to the interrogatories, the jury found
ing those in the present case. Regarding ap- that the wall was inherently dangerous, but
propriate disposition, the Department argued that the town’s use of the land was reasonable.
that, even assuming the trial court did have au- Fisk moved to set aside the verdict on the ground

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune