In Re Jessica M.
303 Conn. 584
| Conn. | 2012Background
- Jessica M., then seventeen, filed a petition in Hartford Superior Court (Nov. 5, 2009) alleging she was neglected and uncared-for under §46b-120 and §46b-129(a).
- The Department of Children and Families intervened (Dec. 17, 2009) and a trial date was set for Jan. 4, 2010, before her eighteenth birthday.
- The court continued due to interpreter problems and a motion in limine; transferred the case to the Middletown Child Protection Session; another trial date was set for Feb. 26, 2010, after she turned eighteen.
- On Feb. 5, 2010, the Department moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction over adults and lack of authority to adjudicate or provide relief after age eighteen, and mootness.
- On March 16, 2010, the court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the petition was moot upon petitioner's eighteenth birthday, granting the motion to dismiss.
- The Appellate Court affirmed; this Court adopted the Jose B. rationale, concluding the trial court lacked authority to adjudicate or provide dispositional relief after age eighteen, rendering the petition moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction after 18th birthday | Petitioner argues jurisdiction persisted until adjudication relief could be provided. | Department contends lack of jurisdiction over adults and no statutory authority post-18. | Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction after eighteen. |
| Whether mootness or collateral consequences saves the petition | Collateral consequences (e.g., potential federal immigration status) could keep issues alive. | No authority to adjudicate or grant relief post-18; collateral consequences cannot create authority. | Mootness affirmed; collateral consequences exception rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jessica M., 125 Conn.App. 584 (2010) (mootness and lack of jurisdiction in Appellate Court context)
- In re Jose B., 303 Conn. 569 (2012) (trial court lacks authority to adjudicate or dispossess after age eighteen)
- Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Rocque, 267 Conn. 116 (2003) (mootness when intervening circumstances change legal landscape)
- Williams v. Ragaglia, 261 Conn. 219 (2002) (collateral consequences doctrine limited in mootness)