154 Conn.App. 835
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Child Santiago G. was placed with a foster family after a neglect adjudication in 2012 and Maria G. was identified as the biological mother seeking guardianship.
- The Commissioner sought to transfer guardianship to Maria G. or revoke the commitment; respondent mother filed Motion to Revoke Commitment in Oct. 2013.
- In Feb. 2014 the Commissioner moved to open the 2012 neglect judgment based on mutual mistake; evidence showed Maria G. may have been the biological mother and that the child’s trafficking claim was unresolved.
- Judge Mottolese held a lengthy evidentiary hearing from Jan.–May 2014, weighing best interests and the potential harms of reunification with Maria G. versus remaining with the foster family.
- The court ultimately denied the motions to revoke/open, concluding that removing the child from the foster family would likely cause greater harm and that continued placement with the foster family was in his best interests.
- This court affirmed, holding the proceedings properly considered the child’s best interests and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the challenged issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether best interests analysis was properly applied under §46b-129(j) when the original commitment issue existed. | Mother contends (m) governs; no existing cause for commitment. | Court properly performed best interests analysis under (j) for guardianship transfer. | Best interests analysis properly employed under (j); rejection of (m) argument was harmless error. |
| Whether the court erred in crediting Mantell’s testimony over other experts in the best interests finding. | Mantell’s testimony should be less weighty than Rosado/Grueneberg. | Trial court properly weighed credibility and adopted Mantell’s conclusions. | Court did not err; Mantell’s view on attachment and harm supported by record. |
| Whether denial of the motion to open based on newly discovered evidence was proper. | New evidence about timing of Maria G.’s sentencing could yield a different result. | Timing of sentencing was not material to best interests; no different result expected. | Denial of motion to open affirmed; no likely different outcome. |
| Whether the proceedings properly treated the motion to transfer guardianship under §46b-129(j) rather than (m). | The motion sought transfer to Maria G., a third party outside (m)’s scope. | Subsection (j) governs dispositional transfer to non-parent guardian; (m) not applicable. | Correctly treated under (j); best interests analysis conducted consistent with (j). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Avirex R., 151 Conn. App. 820 (Conn. App. 2014) (motion to transfer guardianship analyzed under §46b-129(j); harmonizes subsections)
- In re Cameron C., 103 Conn. App. 746 (Conn. App. 2008) (trusts appellate review of trial court credibility and best interests standard)
- In re A.R., 123 Conn. App. 336 (Conn. App. 2010) (dispositional analysis under §46b-129; best interests framework)
- In re Sena W., 147 Conn. App. 435 (Conn. App. 2013) (weight given to trial court’s factual determinations; credibility considerations)
- In re Kyara H., 147 Conn. App. 829 (Conn. App. 2014) (affirmed broad discretion in best interests custody determinations)