In re Naomi
AC44413
| Conn. App. Ct. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Naomi, a minor adjudicated uncared for and committed to the Commissioner of Children and Families (DCF), suffered severe scoliosis (≈75° curvature) and treating physicians strongly recommended corrective surgery beginning in 2017.
- Naomi and her father supported the surgery; her biological mother (respondent) objected on religious grounds.
- Naomi’s attorney filed a motion for court authorization of the nonemergency surgery on February 3, 2020; DCF’s medical review board and the commissioner supported the procedure.
- The hearing was delayed (partly due to COVID-19) and was held on October 26, 2020; the trial court granted the motion as being in Naomi’s best interest.
- The mother appealed and sought a stay of the order; the trial court denied the stay, this court denied emergency relief, and Naomi underwent surgery on January 13, 2021.
- The commissioner moved to dismiss the appeal as moot; the mother argued the case fit the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception (Loisel). The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot and did not reach the constitutional merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / capable of repetition, yet evading review | Respondent: medical-treatment disputes are inherently time-limited; Loisel exception applies so appellate review should proceed despite surgery being completed | Commissioner: appeal is moot; Loisel exception not met because delays here (late filing, COVID-related court delay, college-timing urgency) are atypical and appellate stays/expedited review are available | Appeal dismissed as moot; Loisel exception not satisfied (first factor—action not "of limited duration" such that majority of similar cases would evade review) |
| Constitutional claim re: parental right to direct child’s healthcare and religious upbringing (standard of review) | Respondent: trial court violated her fundamental parental rights and best-interest standard is unconstitutional; urges balancing standard (per concurring view in In re Elianah T.-T.) | Commissioner: DCF, as guardian, acted to obtain necessary medical care; asserted mootness and did not contest that trial court applied best-interest standard | Merits not reached because appeal is moot |
| Stay of trial-court authorization pending appeal | Respondent: requested stay to prevent surgery pending appeal | Commissioner and trial court: denied stay based on case specifics and timing; appellate emergency relief denied | Trial court denied stay; this court denied emergency relief; surgery proceeded before merits could be adjudicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Loisel v. Rowe, 660 A.2d 323 (Conn. 1995) (articulated three-part test for the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception)
- Wendy V. v. Santiago, 125 A.3d 983 (Conn. 2015) (discussed mootness and referenced paradigmatic examples of the exception)
- In re Emma F., 107 A.3d 947 (Conn. 2014) (applied Loisel factors in juvenile context)
- Wallingford v. Dept. of Public Health, 817 A.2d 644 (Conn. 2003) (explained functionally insurmountable time constraints and mootness doctrine)
- Stamford Hospital v. Vega, 674 A.2d 821 (Conn. 1996) (emergency medical-treatment case illustrating truly insurmountable time constraints)
- In re Cassandra C., 112 A.3d 158 (Conn. 2015) (example of expedited appellate review in juvenile medical-treatment dispute)
- In re Elianah T.-T., 165 A.3d 1236 (Conn. 2017) (discussed standards for authorizing medical treatment over parental objection)
- Russo v. Common Council, 832 A.2d 1227 (Conn. App. 2003) (discussed examples of medical disputes that may implicate the exception)