In Re Elianah T.-T., SC19902 Order on Motion

The Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner) sought reconsideration after this court's decision in In re Elianah T.-T., 326 Conn. 614, 165 A.3d 1236 (2017), which held that Gen. Stat. § 17a-10(c) did not authorize vaccinating a child in the commissioner’s temporary custody over parental objection.
In the motion for reconsideration the commissioner advanced a new statutory argument: that §§ 17a-93 and 17a-98 confer broader guardianship authority (distinct from § 17a-10(c)) that would permit vaccination of minors in the commissioner’s custody.
The commissioner acknowledged she had not raised the §§ 17a-93/17a-98 argument in earlier briefing and requested the court to reconsider its prior holding in light of those statutes and related constitutional issues.
The court granted the motion for reconsideration (procedurally), but denied the substantive relief sought — it refused to adopt the newly raised statutory theory at this late stage.
The court explained that motions for reconsideration are intended to call attention to overlooked controlling law or factual misapprehensions, not to permit a losing party to present new arguments on a second bite at the apple.
The court noted it would be willing to consider the commissioner’s statutory arguments in a future case where they are properly preserved and briefed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the commissioner may use a motion for reconsideration to raise a new statutory argument (re: §§ 17a-93 & 17a-98)	Commissioner: grant reconsideration and adopt new statutory interpretation permitting vaccination authority	Respondents (parents): late-raised argument should be denied as waived and not a proper use of reconsideration	Court: Granted reconsideration procedurally but denied relief; new argument was untimely and not a proper basis to overturn prior decision
Whether §§ 17a-93 and 17a-98 supply broader guardianship authority allowing commissioner to vaccinate children in temporary custody	Commissioner: §§ 17a-93/17a-98 confer broader guardianship power beyond § 17a-10(c), authorizing vaccination	Respondents: Prior decision stands; issue not timely raised, statutory scope as previously interpreted controls	Court: Did not decide the merits of these statutory claims here; left open for future cases where arguments are properly presented

In re Elianah T.-T., 326 Conn. 614, 165 A.3d 1236 (Conn. 2017) (prior decision holding § 17a-10(c) did not authorize commissioner to vaccinate over parental objection)
Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123, 84 A.3d 840 (Conn. 2014) (court may raise issues sua sponte when parties misconstrue law and failure to raise would create unsound precedent)
Hudson Valley Bank v. Kissel, 303 Conn. 614, 35 A.3d 260 (Conn. 2012) (standards for motions for reconsideration; such motions not for a second bite at the apple)
Morrissey-Manter v. Saint Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 166 Conn. App. 510, 142 A.3d 363 (Conn. App. 2016) (appellate courts treat inadequately briefed issues as abandoned)