The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Juvenile Law

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5075

AC45092 - In re Omar I. ("The self-represented respondent, Ammar I., whose parental rights had been terminated in a prior proceeding, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open and set aside the adoptions of his three minor children, Omar I., Safiyah I. and Muneer I., on the ground that he lacked standing under In re Zen T., 165 Conn. App. 245, 252–54, 138 A.3d 469, cert. denied, 322 Conn. 905, 138 A.3d 934 (2016), cert. denied sub nom. Heather S. v. Connecticut Dept. of Children and Families, 580 U.S. 1135, 137 S. Ct. 1111, 197 L. Ed. 2d 214 (2017). On appeal, the respondent claims that he did not receive timely and proper notice of the court's July 27, 2021 ruling regarding his amended petition for a new trial so that the court incorrectly determined that he lacked standing to challenge the adoption decrees issued on August 20, 2021. We conclude that, because the court correctly determined that notice of its July 27, 2021 decision had been sent properly to the respondent the same date as its issuance, the respondent's parental rights had been adjudicated fully and fairly prior to the issuance of the adoption decrees. Thus, the court properly determined that the respondent lacked standing to challenge the adoption decrees. See In re Zen T., supra, 252–54; see also Practice Book § 7-5 ('[t]he clerk shall give notice, by mail or by electronic delivery, to the attorneys of record and self-represented parties' (emphasis added)).

We further conclude, however, that the form of the court's judgment is improper. The court should have dismissed, rather than denied, the motion to open and set aside. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court with direction to dismiss the motion to open and set aside.")


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5072

AC45111 - In re Paulo T. ("The respondent father, Horace W., appeals from the granting of the motion for reinstatement of guardianship rights filed by the petitioner mother, Mae T., with respect to their minor child, Paulo T. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) improperly applied a presumption that reinstatement of the petitioner's guardianship rights was in the best interests of Paulo, (2) erroneously found that the factors that had led to the removal of the petitioner's guardianship rights had been resolved satisfactorily, (3) erroneously found that reinstatement of the petitioner's guardianship rights was in the best interests of Paulo, and (4) improperly dismissed the respondent's motion to open the judgment. We disagree with these claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

  • Posted in: