Custody Parentage Laws | Connecticut

Yes.

Yes. More information on adopting in CT can be found, here.

When a married couple divorces, the parties are encouraged to make their own agreement about custody and visitation. If they can’t reach an agreement, a Superior Court judge will make a custody and visitation determination based the best interests of the child (Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46b-56(b). A court considers all relevant factors, keeping in mind a child’s growth, development, well-being, and the continuity and stability of their environment (Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 16, 490 A.2d 996, 999 (1985)).

In all contested cases, the judge will appoint a family relations officer to investigate in order to help the judge arrive at a decision. The investigation can touch on matters of “parentage and surroundings of any child, [the child’s] age, habits and history, inquiry into the home conditions, habits and characters of his parents or guardians and evaluation of his mental or physical condition” (Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46b-6).

Yes (Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46b-56(a)). Four kinds:

“Sole legal custody” means that only one parent has the right to make major life decisions for the child, including matters of education, medical care, and emotional, moral and religious development.

“Shared legal custody” means that both parents are involved in and make these decisions.

“Sole physical custody” means that a child lives with and is under the supervision of only one parent, subject to reasonable visitation with the other parent, unless a court finds that visitation is not in the child’s best interests.

“Shared physical custody” means that the child resides with both parents in a way which ensures frequent contact with both.

The court may also award custody to a third party if it finds it to be in the child’s best interests (Id).

As stated above, Connecticut courts base custody arrangements on the best interests of the child.  As a general rule, a parent’s sexual orientation or marital status should have no bearing on a child’s best interests.

Nevertheless, your former partner may try to argue that your sexual orientation is detrimental to your child. Any number of reasons can be cited, such as that the LGBT parent’s sexual orientation is causing other people to tease or ostracize the child, that the parent is a bad role model, or that the parent’s new partner is not good for the child. In the overwhelming majority of circumstances, these matters can be answered to the satisfaction of a judge in a way which does not penalize the gay parent or the child. Contact GLAD for further resources for dealing with such a situation.

It may make a difference with respect to future modification of court orders for custody. People can seek to modify court orders for custody when there has been a change in circumstances which alters the child’s best interests (see generally, Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 46b-56). If a spouse did not know of your sexual orientation at the time of the court proceedings but learns it later, they may argue that this is a change of circumstances and that the custody issues should be litigated anew.

It shouldn’t be. One of the additional responsibilities of being a gay or lesbian parent is helping one’s children deal with this possibility or reality. Of course, children can be teased about everything from the size of their ears to their parents’ accent to their lack of fashion sense, so all parents need to help their children develop coping mechanisms and strategies when peer harassment arises.

As a legal matter, particularly instructive is a U.S. Supreme Court case, Palmore v. Sidoti, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Florida court’s change of custody from the mother to the father. The reason custody had been switched was because the white mother was involved with a black man whom she later married. The Supreme Court acknowledged the reality of bias and prejudice, and that the child might be teased, but refused to cater to those prejudices or give them the force of law by changing the custody arrangement that previously existed. In a statement of constitutional principle applicable to all, the Court unanimously stated, “The Constitution cannot control prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”

Courts have the power to do this, but should not do so unless it is clearly in the best interests of the child.  Connecticut courts have rejected the notion that any particular lifestyle, in and of itself, will harm a child and insist on specific proof.

Same-sex couples with children who are breaking up should:

1. Support the rights of LGBT parents;
2. Honor existing relationships regardless of legal labels;
3. Honor the children’s existing parental relationships after the break-up;
4. Maintain continuity for the children;
5. Seek a voluntary resolution;
6. Remember that breaking up is hard to do;
7. Investigate allegations of abuse;
8. Not allow the absence of agreements or legal relationships to determine outcomes;
9. Treat litigation as a last resort; and
10. Refuse to resort to homophobic/transphobic laws and sentiments to achieve a desired result.

For more detailed information about these standards see the publication Protecting Families: Standards for LGBT Families at: Protecting Families: Standards for LGBT Families.