In Re Jose B., 303 Conn. 569

Jose B. filed a petition under 46b-129(a) to be adjudicated neglected and uncared-for, two ex parte motions for temporary custody and emergency commitment were also filed two days before his eighteenth birthday.
The Department of Children and Families moved to intervene to dismiss the neglect petition, which the trial court granted after determining mootness due to aging out at 18.
Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, holding the petition moot once Jose B. reached age 18 and the court lacked authority to adjudicate or provide relief post-18.
The Supreme Court granted certification to decide whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction or merely lacked statutory authority to adjudicate an eighteen-year-old as a child or youth.
The court analyzes whether § 46b-129(a) grants authority to adjudicate a person as neglected or uncared-for only if the person is under 18, and thus cannot retroactively apply after 18.
The court ultimately holds that the failure to plead an essential fact under § 46b-129(a) affects statutory authority, not jurisdiction, and that the trial court lacked authority to adjudicate after the eighteenth birthday, making the petition moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petitioner's age defeats trial court authority under 46b-129(a)/(j).	Jose B. argues the court has authority to adjudicate before aging out and provide relief.	Department contends the petitioner aged out and the court lacks authority to adjudicate post-18.	The court lacks authority to adjudicate after age 18.
Does failure to plead an essential fact under § 46b-129(a) affect subject matter jurisdiction or statutory authority.	Failure to plead may still allow adjudication if the court has jurisdiction.	Failure to plead essential facts under the statute undermines the court's ability to grant relief, implicating statutory authority.	Failure to plead essential facts concerns statutory authority, not jurisdiction.
Is the petition moot once the petitioner reaches age 18.	Mootness should not bar consideration if authority exists to provide relief retroactively.	Mootness applies because the court cannot provide relief after 18 and lacks authority to adjudicate.	The petition is moot because the trial court lacked authority to adjudicate after 18.

Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531 (1991) (distinguishes jurisdictional vs. statutory authority and permits testing with statutory challenges)
Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (1999) (distinguishes jurisdiction from statutory authority in judicial challenges)
Cantoni v. Xerox Corp., 251 Conn. 153 (1999) (separates jurisdictional power from proper exercise of statutory authority)
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 177 Conn. 47 (1979) (authority to enter support orders tied to age of majority)
In re Matthew F., 297 Conn. 673 (2010) (discusses jurisdiction vs. statutory authority for § 46b-129(a)/(j) claims)
Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (2009) (distinguishes challenges to statutory authority from jurisdiction)