156 Conn.App. 109
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Marriage dissolved in Aug. 2012 by uncontested judgment; separation agreement awarded plaintiff sole legal custody and primary residence of three minor children.
- Postdissolution status conference held Aug. 29, 2013 addressed disputes involving guardian ad litem (GAL) Dr. Joan Oppenheim and access to the children.
- GAL sought private, out-of-presence meetings with the children and had arranged psychiatric evaluation; plaintiff refused private access and sought GAL's removal (motion pending).
- Trial court ordered plaintiff to allow GAL and the children’s therapists to meet privately with the children and ordered plaintiff not to contact the GAL directly without GAL counsel present.
- Oppenheim was later removed as GAL; a new GAL was appointed Nov. 25, 2013 and the court issued a Dec. 18, 2013 order permitting the plaintiff to be notified of and listen to communications between the new GAL and treaters (but not participate).
- Plaintiff appealed only the Aug. 29, 2013 postdissolution orders, claiming denial of due process for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court ordered GAL and therapists may meet privately with children (ad hoc order at status conference) | Sargent: order issued without notice or opportunity to be heard; denied due process | Order concerned GAL’s investigatory role and was appropriate to protect children/treatment process | Moot — GAL removed; subsequent order superseded contested order; no practical relief available |
| Court ordered plaintiff not to contact GAL except through GAL's counsel | Sargent: order restrained contact without hearing; due process violation | Order limited contact in context of GAL–party relations and counsel’s request for protection | Moot — order tied to GAL role; removal of GAL extinguished relation and rendered order ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cornelius, 131 Conn. App. 216 (Conn. App. 2011) (discusses mootness as implicating appellate subject-matter jurisdiction)
- State v. Begley, 122 Conn. App. 546 (Conn. App. 2010) (defines mootness as change in condition of affairs between parties)
- Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care Associates, 186 Conn. 247 (Conn. 1982) (a case becomes moot when intervening circumstances eliminate the controversy)