In Re Henrry P. B.-P., 173 A.3d 928

Background

Henrry, a Honduran youth who entered the U.S. at 17 to join his mother in Connecticut, had petitions filed on his behalf ~5 weeks before his 18th birthday: (1) removal of his father as guardian/appointment of a coguardian and (2) a petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-608n(b) requesting Probate Court findings needed to apply for federal "special immigrant juvenile status" (SIJS).
The Probate Court set an initial hearing date after Henrry would turn 18 and ordered a DCF (department) study; petitioner sought waiver and later filed an emergency request for findings before Henrry’s birthday, which the Probate Court denied as requiring grant of the guardianship petition as a prerequisite.
Henrry turned 18 before any Probate hearing; petitioner and Henrry appealed to Superior Court, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Henrry was no longer a minor; appeals to the Appellate Court were consolidated and the Appellate Court affirmed dismissal, reasoning § 45a-608n(b) and related statutes apply only to persons under 18.
On certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court the central question became whether the Probate Court retained authority under § 45a-608n(b) to make the juvenile-status findings when the minor turned 18 during the pendency of a petition filed while he was still a minor.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court: it held the Probate Court’s authority to make § 45a-608n(b) findings is not divested simply because the subject turned 18 while the petition was pending; the statute permits filing and hearings during the pendency of guardianship proceedings and does not expressly condition the court’s authority on a grant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Probate Court loses authority under §45a-608n(b) to make SIJS predicate findings if the child turns 18 during pendency	Reyna/Henrry: No — statute allows a petition "at any time during the pendency" and contains no express cutoff; denying authority frustrates the statute's purpose to enable federal SIJS applications	Appellate Court/Probate: Yes — statutory scheme refers to "minor" (under 18) and requires guardianship removal/appointment before findings, so authority ends at 18	Ct. Held: Probate Court retains authority to make §45a-608n(b) findings when petition was filed while subject was a minor and the subject turned 18 during pendency; reverse Appellate Court
Whether In re Jose B. and In re Jessica M. require dismissal/mootness here	Reyna/Henrry: Those cases are distinguishable; they involved §46b-129 commitment/adjudication claims and predate §45a-608n	Appellate Court: Those precedents show courts cannot adjudicate or provide dispositional relief after 18, so petitions become moot upon majority	Ct. Held: Not controlling here — §45a-608n (enacted 2014) specifically authorizes the state courts to make SIJS findings and contemplates coordination with federal law; Jose B. and Jessica M. do not dictate the result

Key Cases Cited

In re Jose B., 303 Conn. 569 (Conn. 2012) (holding trial court lacked statutory authority under §46b-129 to adjudicate or provide dispositional relief after petitioner turned 18)
In re Jessica M., 303 Conn. 584 (Conn. 2012) (companion to Jose B.; collateral-consequences doctrine cannot supply lacking statutory authority after age 18)
In re Pedro J.C., 154 Conn. App. 517 (Conn. App. 2014) (Appellate Court expedited remand to secure findings before minor’s 18th birthday; underlying petition predated §45a-608n)
Recinos v. Escobar, 473 Mass. 734 (Mass. 2016) (reviewed federal SIJS scheme and state court role; noted federal definition of "child" extends to under 21 and emphasized state court child-welfare findings are predicate for federal SIJS)
In re Matthew F., 297 Conn. 673 (Conn. 2010) (discussed probate appeal statute §45a-186 and continuing jurisdiction in appeals from probate)