not bar a suit against a noncustodial parent because: (1) when the doctrine first evolved, the prevailing view of families did not include divorce; (2) when the parents are divorced, there is no longer any family harmony to protect; and (3) the noncustodial parent’s home is not the family home. This line of argument fails to account for the many parents who strive to maintain family relationships despite divorce, and also misperceives the underlying purpose of the doctrine. The primary focus of the parental immunity doctrine in Connecticut is the protection of the relationship between the parent and the child. The protection of that relationship enables the parent to raise the child effectively without undue interference from the state. See Mesite v. Kirchenstein, supra, 109 Conn. 84 (<HOLDING>); Dubay v. Irish, supra, 207 Conn. 527-28
recognizing that reciprocal obligations of parent and child are essentials of the family relationship holding that a de facto parents rights do not infringe on the fundamental liberty interests of the other legal parent in a family unit because de facto status can be achieved only through the active encouragement of the biological or adoptive parent by affirmatively establishing a family unit with the de facto parent and child or children that accompany the family holding that a wife with a child from a prior relationship was not entitled to use and possession of the family home recognizing that a foster parent may attain the status of psychological parent when the relationship is not temporary in duration and exists with the consent and encouragement of a childs legal parent or guardian recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child