148 Conn. App. 193
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Neglect adjudication of Natalie J. leading to commitment to the petitioner; default judgments entered against Angela J. for failure to appear; social study dated September 15, 2011 relied on in commitment; June 21, 2012 permanency plan transferring guardianship to Jacqueline S.; Angela J. filed motions (open/reconsider/new trial) and later a motion to reinstate guardianship treated as motion to revoke commitment; June 10, 2013 hearing on revocation where court granted motion to dismiss for lack of prima facie case.
- Court took judicial notice of the social study and other pleadings; Angela J. was given opportunity to be heard; evidence focused on whether the cause for commitment still existed as of 2013, not retrial on 2011 facts.
- Court instructed that the default ruling estopped challenging 2011 facts and allowed only show that circumstances in 2013 no longer exist.
- Tape recording of a May 14, 2012 phone call was excluded as irrelevant and hearsay; Angela J.’s response to summary of facts and other documents were addressed for relevance.
- Court granted petitioner's motion to dismiss the revocation petition, finding Angela J. failed to present evidence showing cause for commitment no longer exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed for lack of prima facie case | Angela J. contends prima facie case shown | Petitioner argues no such showing exists | Yes, dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the court properly took judicial notice of the social study | Social study inaccurate; not present at December 22, 2011 hearing | Court may judicially notice prior pleadings and social study in revocation context | Yes, proper to take judicial notice |
| Whether the court properly took judicial notice of Angela J.’s response to summary of facts | Response should be admitted as full exhibit | Not relevant; not admitted as full exhibit; judicial notice allowed | Yes, court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the tape recording was properly excluded | Tape contains relevant evidence showing lack of current cause | Recording inadmissible hearsay; not relevant to revocation issue | Yes, exclusion proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stacy G., 94 Conn. App. 348 (2006) (guidance on applying § 46b-129(m))
- In re Allison G., 276 Conn. 146 (2005) (consideration of accompanying facts in revocation context)
- In re Cesar G., 56 Conn. App. 289 (2000) (look to original conduct when revoking commitment)
- In re Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 382 (2004) (allowance of judicial notice of party-related facts)
- Suprenant v. Commissioner of Welfare, 21 Conn. Supp. 154 (1958) (nonbinding authority cited by party; later distinguishable)