NJ & CT News

CONNECTICUT

State's High Court Says 'No Attorney's Fees From Grandparents'

In January, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held, in Fennelly v. Norton, — A.2d —, 2010 WL 124438 (Conn. 1/19/10), that the statute permitting trial courts to order a parent to pay reasonable attorney's fees in a proceeding concerning visitation does not authorize award of attorney fees against grandparents or other third parties who petition for such visitation.

The case involved paternal grandparents of children who were in the custody of their mother while the children's father was in prison. They sought visitation rights but their petition was dismissed. They appealed. The mother, who makes just $50,000 a year and is the sole support of the children, protested that these proceedings were becoming expensive and moved for an award of attorney's fees, which the Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Alvord, J., awarded. Judge Alvord based the authority to grant the award on Connecticut's General Statutes ' 46b-62, which, in pertinent part, states, “In any proceeding seeking relief under the provisions of this chapter ' the court may order either spouse or, if such proceeding concerns the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child, either parent to pay the reasonable attorney's fees of the other in accordance with their respective financial abilities ' ” (emphasis supplied). Judge Alvord noted that the law itself does not state whether it can be applied to non-parental third parties, and no case law in Connecticut had yet clarified this point. Lacking any Connecticut authority, the court looked to the interpretations other states had given to their similar statutes and found a split: Some authorize an award of attorney fees against a third party seeking visitation and others do not. The trial court next noted that the Connecticut Supreme Court, in Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002), has said that grandparents, in order to be successful in seeking visitation with grandchildren, must “show that they enjoy a parental type relationship” with those grandchildren. Here, the grandparents had been unable to make such a showing, but had repeatedly brought the children's mother into court to defend against their efforts. The mother therefore contended that the grandparents had “stepped into the shoes of a parent” for purposes of ' 46b-62, and that it was illogical to allow them to claim to have parental status for the purpose of asserting visitation rights, but not for the purpose of being subject to an award of attorney's fees. Considering the discrepancies between the grandparents' financial means and the mother's, and given the lack of guidance from the statutory language and the case law, the trial court held that it was fair and equitable to award attorney's fees to the children's mother.

The grandparents appealed and the Supreme Court of Connecticut sided with them, finding that the statute permitting trial courts to order a parent to pay reasonable attorney fees in visitation proceedings, which specifically refers to parents only, does not authorize award of attorney's fees against grandparents or other third parties who are petitioning for visitation. If the legislature had intended a contrary result, the appellate court concluded, it would have stated so, as it did in other provisions of the code section specifically addressing third parties intervening in visitation proceedings.

NEW JERSEY

Defamation Claims Involving Jewish Law Not Justiciable in State Court

New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled in Abdelhak v. The Jewish Press, A-2023-08, that an Orthodox Jewish man could not pursue his defamation claims against his ex-wife, her friends and a Jewish newspaper because a jury would necessarily have had to become entangled in the intricacies and traditions of the Jewish faith in order to decide the case, thus violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The plaintiff had sued the defendant Jewish newspaper for falsely printing his name on a “Seruv list” of men ordered in contempt by a rabbinical court for failing to give their wives a “Get,” a husband's permission for divorce. The appeals court said the defamation case would require a jury to determine how a Seruv listing is viewed within the Orthodox Jewish community and whether an Orthodox Jew would be offended by another's refusal to provide a “Get.” The decision affirmed a Bergen County judge's decision to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

CONNECTICUT

State's High Court Says 'No Attorney's Fees From Grandparents'

In January, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held, in Fennelly v. Norton, — A.2d —, 2010 WL 124438 (Conn. 1/19/10), that the statute permitting trial courts to order a parent to pay reasonable attorney's fees in a proceeding concerning visitation does not authorize award of attorney fees against grandparents or other third parties who petition for such visitation.

The case involved paternal grandparents of children who were in the custody of their mother while the children's father was in prison. They sought visitation rights but their petition was dismissed. They appealed. The mother, who makes just $50,000 a year and is the sole support of the children, protested that these proceedings were becoming expensive and moved for an award of attorney's fees, which the Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Alvord, J., awarded. Judge Alvord based the authority to grant the award on Connecticut's General Statutes ' 46b-62, which, in pertinent part, states, “In any proceeding seeking relief under the provisions of this chapter ' the court may order either spouse or, if such proceeding concerns the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child, either parent to pay the reasonable attorney's fees of the other in accordance with their respective financial abilities ' ” (emphasis supplied). Judge Alvord noted that the law itself does not state whether it can be applied to non-parental third parties, and no case law in Connecticut had yet clarified this point. Lacking any Connecticut authority, the court looked to the interpretations other states had given to their similar statutes and found a split: Some authorize an award of attorney fees against a third party seeking visitation and others do not. The trial court next noted that the Connecticut Supreme Court, in Roth v. Weston , 259 Conn. 202 (2002), has said that grandparents, in order to be successful in seeking visitation with grandchildren, must “show that they enjoy a parental type relationship” with those grandchildren. Here, the grandparents had been unable to make such a showing, but had repeatedly brought the children's mother into court to defend against their efforts. The mother therefore contended that the grandparents had “stepped into the shoes of a parent” for purposes of ' 46b-62, and that it was illogical to allow them to claim to have parental status for the purpose of asserting visitation rights, but not for the purpose of being subject to an award of attorney's fees. Considering the discrepancies between the grandparents' financial means and the mother's, and given the lack of guidance from the statutory language and the case law, the trial court held that it was fair and equitable to award attorney's fees to the children's mother.

The grandparents appealed and the Supreme Court of Connecticut sided with them, finding that the statute permitting trial courts to order a parent to pay reasonable attorney fees in visitation proceedings, which specifically refers to parents only, does not authorize award of attorney's fees against grandparents or other third parties who are petitioning for visitation. If the legislature had intended a contrary result, the appellate court concluded, it would have stated so, as it did in other provisions of the code section specifically addressing third parties intervening in visitation proceedings.

NEW JERSEY

Defamation Claims Involving Jewish Law Not Justiciable in State Court

New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled in Abdelhak v. The Jewish Press, A-2023-08, that an Orthodox Jewish man could not pursue his defamation claims against his ex-wife, her friends and a Jewish newspaper because a jury would necessarily have had to become entangled in the intricacies and traditions of the Jewish faith in order to decide the case, thus violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The plaintiff had sued the defendant Jewish newspaper for falsely printing his name on a “Seruv list” of men ordered in contempt by a rabbinical court for failing to give their wives a “Get,” a husband's permission for divorce. The appeals court said the defamation case would require a jury to determine how a Seruv listing is viewed within the Orthodox Jewish community and whether an Orthodox Jew would be offended by another's refusal to provide a “Get.” The decision affirmed a Bergen County judge's decision to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.