Named as defendants in a lawsuit that a local man filed last fall against his ex-wife’s parents, three members of the New Canaan Police Department are denying wrongdoing in the way they handled two children caught a custody clash between the two parties that unfolded nearly one year ago.
According to an Answer filed on their behalf last week in U.S. District Court, the police acted in good faith, consulting with state officials prior to releasing the two young children into the care of their maternal grandparents, and “deny any wrongful acts in their handling of the delicate situation related to the Plaintiff and his [children].”
“The acts and conduct of the Defendants, to the extent that they occurred as alleged, which is herein expressly denied, were undertaken in the good faith and performance of their official duties, were without malice, were objectively reasonable under the circumstances of which they were aware, did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiff and, as such, the Defendants have a qualified immunity defense from all liability and suit,” according to the Answer, filed Feb. 2 by attorney John Cannavino Jr. of Stamford-based Ryan Ryan DeLuca LLP.
Despite prior court orders prohibiting the grandparents from even contacting the children, their lies to police and malicious actions led temporarily last spring to the kids coming under their care, according to the original complaint.
It started on Saturday, March 19, 2016, after the children had gone to a sleepover at a friend’s house, the complaint said. At about 12:43 p.m. the following day, the grandparents—who live in Wilton—took the kids from the friend’s house and brought them to New Canaan Police headquarters. There, the grandparents signed false affidavits that accused the children’s father of abuse, the complaint said. The grandparents also concealed court orders from 2011 that said the children must have no contact with them, that sole custody had been awarded to the father and that the grandparents themselves were a danger to the kids, the complaint said.
According to the lawsuit, filed on the plaintiff’s behalf by attorney John R. Williams of New Haven, the three police department members (they’re being sued in their individual capacities) not only failed to protect the father but even worked with his former in-laws in ways that caused severe emotional distress—claims flatly denied in the Answer.
The police “deny the existence of any conspiracy, deny that they had any ‘unlawful objectives,’ deny acting jointly with, in concert with or influenced by the Co-Defendants [grandparents],” according to the response filed on behalf of the officers.
Specifically, according to the complaint, when a state investigator familiar with the case contacted New Canaan police, he was told “to stall in getting back to [the plaintiff] so that [the grandparents] can file an ex parte motion in court.”
A judge ultimately issued the order, which effectively placed the kids in the grandparents’ custody and restrained their father from contacting his own children, the complaint said. The man hired a lawyer and, following evidentiary hearings in March and April, full custody was restored to him, the complaint said.
In the Answer, Cannavino denies that the police conspired against the father in any way: “The Defendants deny the substance of the claimed conversation between [the state investigator] and [one of the police officers], as alleged … The Defendants further deny any actions that were unethical, improper or criminal.”
Regarding the plaintiff’s claim that New Canaan police in 2011 had participated with the Connecticut Department of Children and Families in an “extensive investigation” and that the results of that investigation were on file and available, the Answer asserts: “The Defendants admit that … officers of the New Canaan Police Department had previously been involved in investigating reported allegations of abuse raised against the Plaintiff by his daughters. The Defendants admit that there are police reports regarding the 2011 incidents maintained by the New Canaan Police Department.”
Part of the defense presented in the answer cites the police department members’ “alleged acts” as “discretionary,” meaning they are “immune from liability” under the Doctrine of Government Immunity described in the Connecticut General Statutes.