IN RE ANDREW C., SC 21078/SC 21079

Judicial District of New Britain

Child Protection; Whether Appellate Court Correctly Concluded that Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction was "Entirely Obvious" When Guardianship Transferred to Foster Parents; Whether Minor Child's Interest in Finality of Judgments Outweighs Jurisdictional Claims; Whether Appellate Court Correctly Concluded that Limitation on Foster Parent's Participation under General Statutes § 46b-129 (p) Implicates Subject Matter Jurisdiction Rather Than Statutory Authority; Whether Appellate Court Correctly Found Strong Policy Interest in Revisiting Guardianship Judgment Two Years Later. The respondent father's two minor children, Ryan and Andrew, were placed in separate foster homes after the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, alleged that they had been neglected. Ryan was placed with Jeanette P., and Andrew was placed with the Aliceas. After the respondent moved to revoke Andrew's commitment and for his return, the trial court, pursuant to Practice Book § 35a-4, granted the Aliceas' motion to intervene and transferred guardianship of Andrew to them in December, 2021. The respondent did not appeal that decision. Meanwhile, the trial court granted Jeanette P.'s motion to intervene and her motion to transfer guardianship of Ryan to her, from which the respondent appealed. In July, 2023, the Appellate Court released its decision in In re Ryan C. (220 Conn. App. 507), concluding that Jeannette P. had been improperly allowed to intervene, as General Statutes § 46b-129 (p) provides a foster parent with only the right to be heard. Accordingly, in October, 2023, the respondent moved to open the December, 2021 judgment transferring guardianship of Andrew to the Aliceas, claiming that they did not have standing to intervene and the trial court did not have jurisdiction such that the order granting that motion was void ab initio. The court granted the respondent's motion to open, denied the Aliceas' motion to intervene, and dismissed their motion to transfer guardianship. The Aliceas and Andrew separately appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court erred in retroactively applying In re Ryan C. The Appellate Court (229 Conn. App. 51) affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion to transfer guardianship was so "entirely obvious" that the December, 2021 judgment transferring guardianship was void ab initio. The court also determined that, even if the lack of jurisdiction was not entirely obvious, a parent's constitutionally protected rights in his or her children are strong policy interests that warranted revisiting, almost two years later, the transfer of guardianship to the Aliceas. The Supreme Court granted the separate petitions for certification to appeal respectively filed by Andrew and the Aliceas pursuant to General Statutes § 51-197f. The court will decide whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded in In re Ryan C. that the limitation on a foster parent's participation in neglect proceedings contemplated by § 46b-129 (p) implicates subject matter jurisdiction rather than a trial court’s statutory authority. The court will also decide whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction was "entirely obvious" at the time of the judgment transferring guardianship so as to render that judgment void ab initio and, if it was not, then the court will decide whether there was a strong policy interest in revisiting the judgment two years later. In Andrew's appeal, if the Supreme Court concludes that the lack of jurisdiction was entirely obvious, then it will decide whether Andrew’s interest in the finality of judgments outweighs any claims implicating subject matter jurisdiction.