The Melissa and Jason Goyette v. Lowell Henderson Case

1. There are no binding precedents at the appellate level in computed axial tomography as to whether minor children can maintain a rush of action for loss of maternal(p) crime syndicate against third parties who negligently cause daub to a parent. In the loss of puddle area generally, the computerized tomography Supreme tourist court has traditionally followed a distinct material body of limiting the liability of third parties until after a number of other states imposed liability, and then middling belatedly imposed expanded liability. Such a pattern has been developing in the parental consortium area.

In Taylor v. Keefe, 134 Conn. 158 (1947), the Connecticut Court held that no cause of action existed on behalf of a minor child for alienation of the softheartednesss of his mother. The facts of the case were that defendant's actions had led to the fall apart of the child's father and mother, to the child's distress and to his being disinvestd of his mother's love and affection. The Court relied on the fact that the gist of an action for alienation of affection is the loss of marital consortium and that very few states blanket(a) such amends to children. It also pointed out that in marital consortium cases, the loss or diminution of a property righteousness was involved but not in cases involving children's loss of parental consortium in which only de jure unenforceable 'natural' rights and, therefore, no

Reilly v. DiBianco, Conn. L. Tribune, Mar. 20, 1981 (Super. Ct. Feb. 17, 1981).

that more and more states are recognizing a cause of action for loss of parental consortium. In Kizina, the Court says that ten jurisdictions have recognized that right since 1980. This is not an overwhelming trend, but nevertheless a distinct one.

"the rational and emotional anguish caused by seeing a healthy, gentle companionable mate turn into a shell of a person is undeniably a real injury. . . an injury to one's first mate may turn a happily married human or woman into a lifelong nurse and deprive him or her of an opportunity of having children and of raising a family."

Beckwith v. Akers, 8 CSCR 264 (1993).

"allowing this right [of loss of consortium] in behalf of the minor child is . . . in our opinion fixled by the State's public policy to strengthen the family and to protect children from injury and neglect . . . [T]he evolving recognition of a child's rights under the federal reputation and the increased awareness in the society of a parent's necessity role in the nurturing of the minor child also compel us to find these loss of parental consortium claims legally cognizable."

Zamstein v. Marvesti, 240 Conn. 549, 692 A.2d 781 (1997).

Mahoney v. Lensink, 17 Conn.App. 130, 550 A.2d 1088 (reversed in part on other grounds) 213 Conn. 548, 569 A.2d 518 (1990).

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!