In Re Jose B.
11 A.3d 682
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Petitioner Jose B. filed a petition to adjudicate him neglected and uncared-for under §46b-129(a) shortly before turning eighteen.
- Jose alleged his mother resided in Puerto Rico and his father was unknown, and he had been living with his uncle before becoming homeless.
- The Department of Children and Families intervened for dismissal and the trial court later granted the department’s motion to dismiss.
- The trial court held it lacked authority to retroactively commit an eighteen-year-old and thus found the case moot, with no collateral consequences or other exceptions applying.
- Our Supreme Court’s decision in In re Matthew F. guided the analysis, leading the appellate court to apply its reasoning to determine jurisdictional limits under the relevant statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition | Jose contends jurisdiction existed because petition was filed before eighteen. | The department argues no authority to commit an eighteen-year-old retroactively; lacking jurisdiction. | Lacked jurisdiction under §46b-129(j); trial court properly dismissed. |
| Whether the petition was moot | Mootness could be avoided by collateral consequences or repeat-evading review. | Mootness doctrine applies since no direct relief could be afforded. | Not reached/undecided due to jurisdictional lack (mootness arguments not controlling). |
| Whether collateral consequences or capable of repetition yet evading review saved the petition | Exceptions apply to preserve review. | Exceptions did not apply. | Not necessary to decide given lack of jurisdiction; argument not dispositive. |
| Whether the court properly inferred in Jose’s favor and relied on statutory interpretation | Courts should infer in favor of recovering benefits and broader authority. | Statutory definitions limited to under-18 individuals; no retroactive power. | Statutory framework did not authorize retroactive commitment; jurisdiction not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Matthew F., 297 Conn. 673 (Conn. 2010) (held jurisdictional questions depend on statutory predicates; Matthew did not establish jurisdiction here)
- In re A.R., 123 Conn.App. 336 (Conn. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation guiding juvenile matters)
- In re David L., 54 Conn.App. 185 (Conn. App. 1999) (discusses disposition options for neglected or uncared-for youths)
- In re Ralph M., 211 Conn. 289 (Conn. 1989) (statutory interpretation in child welfare context)