336 Conn. 545
Conn.2021Background
- Infant born in 2017 tested positive for opiates; DCF obtained temporary custody and placed the child with a relative. Final neglect adjudication followed.
- DCF petitioned to terminate respondent mother’s parental rights under §17a-112 after the mother failed to complete services and had intermittent incarceration; the court found statutory grounds and terminated her rights.
- During the termination trial, child’s counsel (and the respondent) requested the court consider posttermination (postadoption) visitation; the court asked for briefs.
- The trial court denied the requested posttermination visitation, reasoning it lacked authority absent compliance with the cooperative postadoption statute (§17a-112(b)–(h)).
- The respondent appealed only the denial of posttermination visitation (not the termination), and the Connecticut Supreme Court considered whether the appeal was justiciable and whether courts have authority to order posttermination visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aggrievement / standing to appeal visitation denial | Respondent not aggrieved because parental rights were terminated; therefore no appellate standing. | Respondent had a personal, legal interest in the visitation request and suffered an injury from denial. | Respondent was aggrieved; appellate standing exists. |
| Mootness of visitation issue after termination | Termination severs parent–child relationship and moots visitation claims premised on parental rights. | Posttermination visitation sought was not premised on parental rights but on child welfare; a live controversy remained. | Not moot: live, adverse controversy capable of relief existed. |
| Requirement to seek stay / appeal termination to preserve visitation claim | Parent must appeal or obtain a stay of the termination judgment to challenge visitation orders. | No stay was required because respondent did not seek to delay termination; appeal concerns different remedy (posttermination contact) and would waste resources to force an appeal of termination. | No stay or appeal of termination was required to pursue this discrete visitation claim. |
| Authority to order posttermination visitation — effect of §46b-121 vs §17a-112(b)–(h) | §17a-112(b)–(h) (cooperative postadoption agreements) shows legislature limited posttermination contact to statutory process. | §46b-121(b)(1) grants broad juvenile-court authority to issue any orders necessary or appropriate for the child’s welfare, including posttermination visitation; §17a-112(b)–(h) governs voluntary cooperative agreements and does not abrogate common-law/§46b-121 authority. | Trial court erred: §46b-121(b)(1) authorizes posttermination visitation where necessary/appropriate for child’s welfare; §17a-112(b)–(h) does not abrogate that authority. |
| Alternative ground — best interest merits of denial | Even if authority existed, trial court correctly declined visitation as not being in child’s best interest. | Trial court never reached the §46b-121 standard or fully considered evidence on whether posttermination visitation is necessary/appropriate for the child’s welfare. | Cannot affirm on merits: remand required for a dispositional hearing under §46b-121(b)(1) standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michaud v. Wawruck, 209 Conn. 407 (Conn. 1988) (upheld enforceability of postadoption visitation agreements and remanded to consider child’s best interest)
- In re Candace H., 259 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2002) (appeal mooted after parent voluntarily consented to termination while appeal pending)
- In re Appeal of Kindis, 162 Conn. 239 (Conn. 1972) (historical description of common-law juvenile jurisdiction and child-welfare authority)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (Docket No. 9489), 183 Conn. 11 (Conn. 1981) (trial court is best positioned to weigh factors bearing on child-welfare determinations)
- Boisvert v. Gavis, 332 Conn. 115 (Conn. 2019) (discussion of mootness and when changes in circumstances render issues nonjusticiable)
- In re Matthew F., 297 Conn. 673 (Conn. 2010) (presumption favoring jurisdiction; treatment of juvenile court jurisdictional principles)
- In re Adoption of Rico, 453 Mass. 749 (Mass. 2009) (example recognizing possible posttermination/postadoption contact orders)