In Re Jessica M.
11 A.3d 689
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Jessica M., age 17, filed a petition in Hartford Superior Court for Juvenile Matters on Nov 5, 2009 alleging neglect and uncared-for status under 46b-120.
- Department of Children and Families successfully intervened on Dec 17, 2009 and a trial date was set for Jan 4, 2010 before Jessica’s eighteenth birthday.
- The court postponed the January 2010 trial due to interpreters and a motion in limine; a February 26, 2010 trial was scheduled about five weeks after Jessica turned 18.
- On Feb 5, 2010 the department moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction over an adult and lack of authority to commit an adult retroactively; also argued mootness.
- The trial court granted the department’s motion to dismiss, holding no subject matter jurisdiction and mootness; Jessica appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, adopting the reasoning in In re Jose B. and concluding there was no statutory basis for a retroactive commitment and no jurisdiction under §46b-129(j).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over an adult petitioner | Jessica argues court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate neglected/uncared-for status of an eighteen-year-old petitioner. | Department contends Superior Court Juvenile Matters lacks jurisdiction over individuals over seventeen and cannot adjudicate them as neglected or uncared for. | Lacked jurisdiction under §46b-129(j); no authority for retroactive commitment. |
| Retroactive commitment authority | There could be statutory authority to commit an eighteen-year-old retroactively. | No statutory authority for retroactive commitment exists. | No statutory authority for retroactive commitment; jurisdiction absent. |
| Mootness and exceptions | Collateral consequences or capable-of-repetition exceptions could save the petition from mootness. | Mootness applies; no exceptions apply. | Question deemed moot due to lack of jurisdiction; but appellate analysis relies on jurisdictional grounds rather than mootness exceptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jose B., 125 Conn.App. 572 (2010) (jurisdictional predicate under §46b-129(j) not established; no retroactive commitment authority)
- In re Matthew F., 297 Conn. 673 (2010) (statutory framework guiding juvenile court jurisdiction and age-related capacity)