171 Conn. App. 393
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Henrry (a Honduran youth) and his mother Reyna filed Probate petitions ~5 weeks before he turned 18: (1) remove his deceased father as guardian/appoint a coguardian; and (2) request Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings under Conn. Gen. Stat. §45a-608n to support a USCIS SIJ petition.
- Petitioner moved to waive the DCF (department) study because delay would push resolution past Henrry’s 18th birthday; Probate ordered a DCF study and scheduled a hearing after his majority.
- An emergency Probate motion for §45a-608n findings was denied as requiring a prior removal/appointment ruling; Henrry turned 18 before any hearing or DCF report was completed.
- Appeals to the Juvenile Court were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/mootness after Henrry reached majority; two consolidated appeals to the Appellate Court followed.
- The Appellate Court applied controlling Supreme Court precedent (In re Jose B.; In re Jessica M.) and held Probate courts lack statutory authority to make guardianship or §45a-608n SIJ findings after the subject attains 18, so the appeals were properly dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Probate/Superior could make SIJ findings after petitioner turned 18 | Reyna: Probate could and should make SIJ findings during pendency; judicial or equitable relief (nunc pro tunc) can preserve SIJ route | State/Probate: Statutory scheme limits jurisdiction to minors; no authority to act after 18; claims moot | Held: No statutory authority; courts lacked power after Henrry reached 18; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Probate erred by denying emergency SIJ hearing and requiring DCF study | Reyna: Denial/ delay abused discretion; waiver or expedited hearing available; denial violated due process and frustrated legislative intent | Probate: §§45a-619/609 allow (and in neglect claims require) DCF investigation; court acted within discretion | Held: Denial and ordering DCF study were within Probate discretion; timeliness issue does not confer post‑majority authority |
| Whether Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to hear appeal after Henrry turned 18 | Reyna: Juvenile Court should hear de novo/remand or exercise equitable/incidental jurisdiction | State: Appeal becomes moot when court cannot grant practical relief; Juvenile/Probate statutory limits control | Held: Juvenile Court properly dismissed appeals as moot/lacking authority once subject reached majority |
| Whether equitable relief or nunc pro tunc order could preserve SIJ findings | Reyna: Equity and due process permit nunc pro tunc relief to avoid deportation risk | State: No statutory basis; courts may not create post‑majority jurisdiction by equity or collateral‑consequences doctrine | Held: Court declined to create such authority; legislature may amend statutes if change desired |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jose B., 34 A.3d 975 (Conn. 2012) (trial court lacks statutory authority to adjudicate neglect/uncared‑for after age eighteen; petition becomes moot)
- In re Jessica M., 35 A.3d 1072 (Conn. 2012) (collateral‑consequences doctrine cannot supply statutory authority to adjudicate after majority)
- In re Pedro J.C., 105 A.3d 943 (Conn. App. 2014) (remand must proceed expeditiously so SIJ findings can be made before petitioner turns eighteen)