Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration but denied relief in this case addressing the mandatory vaccination of a child.In 2017, the Supreme Court held that Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-10(c) did not authorize the Commissioner of Children and Families to vaccinate a child placed in her temporary custody over the objection of that child’s parents. In this motion for reconsideration, the Commissioner advanced, for the first time, arguments concerning the effect of Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-93 and 17a-98. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that it is not proper to use a motion for reconsideration simply as a means for giving the losing party a second chance to try a new argument. View "In Re Elianah T.-T." on Justia Law

Vaccinations are not “medical treatment” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-10(c), and therefore, the statute does not authorize the Commissioner of Children and Families to vaccinate a child temporarily placed in her custody over the objection of that child’s parents.The children’s parents in this case entered pleas of nolo contendere as to neglect allegations and agreed to commit their two children temporarily to the care and custody of the Commissioner. The parents, however, objected to vaccination of the children for common childhood diseases in accordance with the Department of Children and Families’ usual practice. The trial court granted the Commissioner permission to vaccinate the children, concluding that the Commissioner had the authority and obligation to vaccinate the children pursuant to section 17a-10c. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute does not authorize the Commissioner to vacate children committed to her temporary custody without parental consent. View "In re Elianah T.-T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing Mother’s appeal from the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights as to her son and remanded the case with direction to affirm the trial court’s judgment. On appeal, Mother argued (1) the Appellate Court erred in concluding that Mother had failed adequately to brief one of the two independent grounds for reversing the trial court judgment, and that therefore her appeal was moot; and (2) the trial court incorrectly determined that the Department of Children and Families made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her son and that she was unable to benefit from those efforts. The Supreme Court held (1) the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Mother’s appeal as moot; but (2) the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Respondent was unable to benefit from reunification efforts, and the resolution of this issue constitutes an independent basis for affirming the trial court’s judgment. View "In re Elijah C." on Justia Law

The trial court entered judgment dissolving the marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant. During the pendency of the divorce action, Plaintiff sold shares of stock and exercised certain stock options without first receiving permission from Defendant or the trial court. The trial court found that Plaintiff’s transactions violated orders automatically entered under Practice Book 25-5 but that the violations were not willful. Because the transactions caused a significant loss to the marital estate, the trial court awarded a greater than even distribution of the marital property to Defendant. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s financial orders, concluding that, in an absence of a finding of contempt, the trial court lacked the authority to afford Defendant a remedy for Plaintiff’s violations of the automatic orders. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in considering Plaintiff’s violations of the automatic orders in its division of the marital assets. View "O'Brien v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

The trial court properly denied Mother’s motion for visitation with the minor child on the ground that North Carolina was the more appropriate forum to decide the issues raised in the motion.Mother filed a motion to modify the trial court’s orders of visitation after a neglect proceeding. The trial court ruled that a coordinate court in North Carolina was as capable of deciding the nature and extent of Mother’s contact with the child where the state of North Carolina had exercised jurisdiction in this matter and both Father and the child resided in North Carolina. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that it did not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over Mother’s motion for visitation; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that North Carolina was a more convenient forum for addressing Mother’s motion for visitation; and (3) Mother did not preserve her claim that the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing before declining to exercise jurisdiction over her motion, and Mother was not entitled to review of her constitutional claim under State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). View "In re Natalie S." on Justia Law

The Department of Children and Families was not required to continue providing reunification efforts to Mother in this case despite the trial court’s grant of custody and guardianship to Father.The trial court adjudicated the minor child neglected and granted temporary custody and guardianship to Father. On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court did not err in failing to order the department to make additional reunification efforts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly determined that continuing reunification efforts for Mother were not required because temporary custody and guardianship had been placed with Father. View "In re Natalie S." on Justia Law

Melissa was the biological mother of Santiago, the minor child at issue in this case. Santiago was in the care of Maria from his birth until he was three years old. At that time, the Commissioner of Children and Families filed a motion for an order of temporary custody of Santiago on the basis of neglect. The trial court adjudicated Santiago neglected on the basis of abandonment by his biological parents and ordered him committed to the custody of the Commissioner. Thereafter, the Department of Children and Families filed a motion to terminate Melissa’s parental rights. Maria filed an amended motion to intervene as of right and permissively. The trial court denied the motion to intervene. Maria appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Maria failed to plead a colorable claim of intervention as of right, and therefore, the trial court’s denial of her motion to intervene as of right was not a final judgment for purposes of this appeal. View "In re Santiago G." on Justia Law

In 2011, the trial court dissolved the marriage of Father and Mother. The judgment incorporated the parties’ separation agreement, which incorporated a parenting plan in which the parties agreed to share custody of the children. The agreement also provided for unallocated alimony and child support. In 2012, the parties entered into a postjudgment parenting plan pursuant to which the children would primarily reside with Father. Father subsequently filed a motion for modification of child support. Thereafter, without permission from the court, Father unilaterally decreased his unallocated support payments to Mother. In response, Mother filed a motion for contempt, which the trial court denied. The court granted Father’s postjudgment motion for modification of child support and also reduced Father's alimony payments. The Appellate Court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the Appellate Court erred in concluding that the trial court improperly denied Mother’s motion for contempt; and (2) the Appellate Court did not err in concluding that the trial court improperly granted Husband’s motion for modification of unallocated alimony and child support. View "Gabriel v. Gabriel" on Justia Law

The Commissioner of Children and Families filed a petition for termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor child. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother failed to demonstrate that her right to procedural due process was violated by the trial court’s consideration of the prior voluntarily termination of Mother’s parental rights with respect to another child when Mother was a minor; and (2) the trial court did not err in finding that the Department of Children and Families had made reasonable efforts toward reunification, that Mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from those reasonable efforts, and that Mother had failed to rehabilitate. View "In re Jayce O." on Justia Law

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Father to his child. The trial court filed the memorandum of decision terminating Father’s parental rights approximately two weeks after publication of the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Yasiel R. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the trial court’s failure to canvass Father prior to the commencement of the trial in accordance with the rule promulgated pursuant to the exercise of the Supreme Court’s supervisory authority in In re Yasiel R. applies retroactively to the present case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that applying the canvass rule announced in In re Yasiel R. to the instant case would exceed the scope of the exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority in that case. View "In re Daniel N." on Justia Law