*1 a result of the blood transfusion were not “obvious or in everyday (Internal quotation common life.” marks Id. omitted.) Second, the notations were contends evidence on causation did not create “a probability lay jury so a strong that can form a reason- (Internal quotation able belief.” omitted.) marks Id. expert testimony inteipret Absent notations, lay jury would be comprehend unable to the notations to form a reasonable regarding Third, belief causation. professional negligence alleged by lay not “so as to even gross person.” be clear to a (Internal omitted.) Id.
We properly conclude that the court determined that the notations found in hospital the decedent’s records could not be lieu of expert testimony introduced in required generally to establish causation in claim for malpractice. medical Accordingly, properly the court summary rendered favor of the judgment defendants. judgment is affirmed. opinion judges this the other concurred. TAMARA SHOCKLEY v. EDWARD OKEKE A. C.
(AC 25935) Schaller, Flynn DiPentima, Js. *2 officially Argued May released October Shockley, pro se, appellant (plaintiff). TamaraA. se, appellee Okeke, pro (defendant). Edward C. Opinion plaintiff, Shockley, Tamara A. DiPENTIMA, J. The Court dis- appeals judgment her from the Probate Court’s denial of missing her her son’s name. The alia, incorrectly inter claims, determined that it lacked improperly
over the that it thereafter reached its regarding the merits of her claim and that conclusion her son’s name was legal flawed. judgment trial in part part. court is affirmed and reversed in attorneys are employed
Both are who plaintiff, United Nations.1 The citizen, American defendant, resides Norwalk. The Edward Okeke, C. in Paris, birth resides France. The Nigerian parties had a together, wedlock, child bom out of on May 25, pursuant 2000. On June 1, 2000, to General 46b-172, Statutes the defendant executed an acknowl- paternity edgment the child. The name of the the acknowledgment child appearing paternity is *3 July 17, Nnamdi Ikwunne On 2000, Okeke. the child’s certificate, birth which bears the name Nnamdi Shockley-Okeke, depart- Ikwanne was filed with the public ment of health. custody has plaintiff, child, who sole of the filed a application change for of name in the Probate judicial Stamford, 15, on
Court, May 2001, district seeking the name of her son from “Nnamdi Shockley-Okeke” Ikwanne to “Cameron Nnamdi Shock- ley-Okeke.” The hearing court held a regarding plaintiff on June 2001. The that argued adapting child would have easier time to an lifestyle American if he had a addition, Western name. In she maintained that she had been “Cam- calling child eron” since he defendant, was six weeks old. The who objected to the name change, testified that his son’s important part name was an Nigerian the defendant’s On 14, 2001, November the court denied the heritage. plaintiffs application, holding that insufficient evidence offered that been to demonstrate the minor child would suffer substantial detriment as a of being result Nnamdi Shockley-Okeke. called Ikwanne The court fur- ther noted was that hesitant the name parties, proceedings appeared Both at trial and on pro se. a objection, absent over the defendant’s the child reason. substantial Supe- appealed to the decree,
From that that the Probate alia, inter Court, claiming, rior of the inter- on the basis a decision improperly rendered adequately consider defendant, did not est of the to consider and failed presented she had evidence that 14, 2004, May child. On best interest of the Only plain- appeal de novo. Court heard the testimony. The hearing presented attended the tiff July 14, of decision its memorandum court issued The court concluded 2004, dismissing appeal. authority to Court, lacked it, as well as the Probate was child name because change the child’s Moreover, court deter- party to the action. child, lacked as the standing, mined that the The court party the real interest. plaintiff, not the was, child hold proceeded legal paternity, “Nnamdi acknowledgment as found on ” reargu- filed motion Ikwunne Okeke. 3, 2004, ment, August clarification and articulation on This followed. which was denied.
I challenges Superior Court’s con- first Superior that both Probate Court and the clusion jurisdiction requested to Court lacked effect properly the minor child was not before change, as agree We that standing. court and the lacked appli- jurisdiction Court had to consider the the Probate for name but conclude that the change, cation jurisdiction over the as the Court lacked We before that court. further properly child was not bring lacked standing conclude that the Court. jurisdic- party exercise of the court’s seeking the “[A] clearly facts that dem- alleging tion bears the burden 80 proper party judicial
onstrate that
is the
to invoke
Capasso
Restoration,
resolution of the dispute.”
Inc.
Haven,
New
88 v.
App.
754, 759,
A of name in change sought Supe- be either rior under General Statutes 52-112 or 46b-l §§ 2 provides: superior eachjudicial (a) § General 52-11 “The in Statutes court jurisdiction complaints praying change name, district shall have of for a of
81
3
Court under General Statutes
or
the Probate
(6),
of name
only
filing change
a
guidance
45a-99.4The
§
by
Book
9-
provided
§
minor is
Practice
request for a
a
for
by
governs
its terms
24,5 which
or
by
through
a
child
his
brought
name change
52-11. As a
General Statutes §
her next friend under
may
only
a
bring
through
a
suit
matter, minor
general
v. Board
Educa
next friend. Mendillo
guardian or
of
Par
n.3,
A.2d 1177
tion,
456,
(1998).
246 Conn.
460
717
See, e.g.,
friend.
Rivera
commonly serve as next
ents
727
Transportation,
Inc.,
21,
248 Conn.
v. Doubts A
Buffet, Inc.,
v.
84
A.2d 204
Clennon Hometown
(1999);
Rapoport,
Doe v.
182,
(2004);
Conn.
In
case before
the
chose
a
to seek
change
her son’s name before the
Court
Probate
pursuant
45a-99. She did so
form PC-
filing
§
application
for
of name
change
(minor), and
accompanying affidavit,
provided
both
the Probate
Court.
form
Together, the
and the affidavit make it clear
application
for a
name was filed
on behalf of her son. Form PC-900 indicates
parent
is
for a
on
petitioning
minor,
behalf
the affidavit identifies
child
party
as the
applying
Moreover,
the name change.
the Probate
recognized
Court
filing
was
application
son,
behalf
of her
as the
notice
hearing before
Probate
Court was
addressed
Shockley, parent
“Tamara A.
and next friend to Nnamdi
provides
part: “(a)
any proceed
§
General Statutes 45a-132
in relevant
ing
probate
Superior
Family
including
a
before
court of
or the
Court
Division,
Support Magistrate
probate
acting upon
whether
otherwise,
judge magistrate may appoint
guardian
or
or
ad litem for
incompetent,
person,
appoint
may
or
undetermined or unborn
or
guardian
incompetent,
one
ad
two or
litem for
more of such minors or
persons,
appears
judge magistrate
undetermined or unborn
if it
to the
or
persons
individuals,
designated
that one or more
or as members of a
otherwise,
may
proceedings,
or
class
have or
have an interest in the
minors, incompetent persons
persons
or
that one more of them are
or
proceeding.
undetermined or unborn at the time of the
appointment
“(b)
mandatory,
shall not be
but shall be within the
magistrate.
judge
discretion of the
. .
or
.”
Here,
disapproval
guardian
noted
Court
with
that no
litem
ad
appointed
Superior Court,
for the minor child in the Probate Court or
appointment requested by
party.
nor was such an
either
We note that the
appoint guardian
pending
decision to
ad litem for a minor child in cases
or
before
Probate Court
rests
sound discretion
(b).
§
of the court. General
Statutes 45a-132
If
court is concerned that
being represented
court,
interest
the best
of the child
may
sponte appoint
pursuant
(a).
sua
45a-132
counsel
are
obligation
request
appointment
no
under
such an
themselves.
plain
a minor.” Because
Shockley-Okeke,
Ikwanne
her
on behalf of
tiff properly brought
*7
before the
prochein
ami
standing
she had
son,
supra, 70 Conn.
Kealy,
Court. See McCarrick v.
Probate
before the
properly
the
was
Accordingly, as
child
646.
authority
entertain the
to
Court, that court
Probate
v. Board
See Mendillo
application.
of name
of
II
Superior Court,
claims that
next
Court and it lacked
that the Probate
determined
having
name,
for a
authority
change
to hear the
the merits
proceeded
consider
improperly
jurisdiction,
lacked
concluding
After
that it
petition.
interest of
that was not in the best
court found
name,
the name
would
child to
his
that the child’s
severely prejudice
legal
the father and
Okeke,
as evidenced
name was Nnamdi Ikwunne
acknowledgment
paternity.
court
discretion to consider the merits of
lacks
“[A]
.
jurisdiction
.
.
.”
a case over which it is without
Dept.
omitted.) Peters
marks
v.
(Internal
Services,
Social
434, 441,
The judgment the action dismissing subject for lack of jurisdiction matter is affirmed. The judgment is reversed as to the determination of the merits of the plaintiffs appeal to the Court and the case is remanded with direction to vacate portion that the judgment.
In opinion this FLYNN, J., concurred.
SCHALLER, J.,
I
dissenting.
agree
majority
with the
jurisdiction
the Probate Court had
adjudicate
the name change application brought on behalf of the
minor child
pro
plaintiff
se
mother,
A.
Tamara
Shockley. I also agree that the trial
improperly
court
addressed the
merits of the
from the Probate
Court after
concluding
subject
lacked
matter
jurisdiction.
I respectfully disagree, however, with the
majority’s conclusion that the Superior Court did not
subject
matter
concerning
mother’s
from probate. my
view,
brought
probate
appeal as well as the change of
capacity
parent
and next
friend of her minor child.
she had
Accordingly,
in that capacity Court, and that
court
jurisdiction.
My conclusion,
however, raises a threshold issue
the author
regarding
ity
proceed pursuant
to our recent decision in Lowe
v. Shelton,
At point, this a detailed discussion of Lowe is neces- sary in explain my order to views on present appeal. *10 In Lowe, child, a student at Shelton high school, attempted to establish a jazz club at his school. Id., 752. His was denied the student coun- from the a letter parents received Id. The minor’s cil. for the reasons headmaster, indicating school’s parents acting his student, through denial. Id. city civil against commenced a action friends, next and school education, high Shelton, board alleged The student Id., 751. the headmaster. applica- his letter for the denial of reasons listed in the it was asserted tion constituted libel “because [he] Id., a liar.” 752-53. judgment court rendered trial, the
Following parents, 753. The student’s Id., favor of the defendants. appeal without coun- lawyers, brought not who were reaching age his prior of their son sel behalf pending, prior majority. Id. While the court, the student became to oral before this argument requested we Id. At oral years age. argument, eighteen give in order to supplemental briefs simultaneous we whether opportunity “(1) to discuss [had] jurisdiction over because subject matter th[e] appear- without the plaintiffs parents was filed attorney improper if it was for the (2) ance of an appeal, file whether the defect plaintiffs parents to Id. curable.” [was] juris-
We first concluded that we had student, who appeal brought diction to hear the majority. Id., 754. The then had reached the age we was whether question second answered Lowe nonlawyer brought parents properly attorney. Id., of an 755. We appearance without they nonattomeys, Id. “As concluded that did not. to maintain this plaintiffs parents lacked authorization attorney. . . . appearance of an appeal without the appear pro representing authorization to se limited to permit individuals cause, one’s own and does a, appear representative capacity.” (Citations se pro emphasis in internal omitted; original; Id., Despite 756. that flaw how- omitted.) *11 88 filing appeal
ever, we concluded that of an on behalf by nonlawyer parent implicate of a did not our and was, fact, in curable appearance by filingof an the former minor student. Id., 759. present pro plaintiff, although case, se
lawyer, practice licensed to law in Connecticut. There nois indication that she has been admitted to practice pro short, hac vice.1In she is not authorized practice jurisdiction. appear, to law in this It would therefore, that this case falls within the ambit Lowe brought parent because she and next friend of her minor child. parties
Because the have neither raised nor had the opportunity authority problem to address the Lowe and presents because Lowe a curable defect, opportunity given must be to brief address ultimately Moreover, issue. if we determine that a authority present appeal, Lowe defect exists in the given opportunity must be correct appear having defect for counsel her minor child. See G. v. Solnit, n.10, Phoebe 79 743A.2d pointed potential
Having out the and unresolved problem with this as a result of case, the Lowe majority I now turn to the conclusion of the proceeding representative capacity was not in a applica- brought in the Court. The parent tion for a of name in the Probate Court as majority gleans and next friend. The that from the lan- application guage of the the child’s name. provides part: attorney Practice Book 2-16 in relevant “An who is in good standing may, upon special at the bar of . . . another state and infre quent good upon application pre occasion cause shown written state, permitted sented a member of the bar of this be in the discretion participate court, may prescribe of the to such extent as the court presentation of a cause or court of . . . .” this state of the majority ambiguous language reconciles and, fact, ambiguous language she determining Probate Court decree favor *12 The Pro- of the child. behalf brought Probate,” Appeal from Allowing Court’s “Decree bate of Nnamdi Ikwanne which is entitled “In the Matter Con- Shockley-Okeke, formerly Stamford, in residing District, person,” acknowledges in a minor necticut said by the order “says aggrieved that the that she is petition . . . denying and decree her appeal . . and moved an name of her son . has . ...” I note on one of the Probate Superior Court forms, Hearing, of Notice of Court’s entitled “Order as Return,” petitioner is listed “Tamara Notice and Ikwanne parent A. and next friend to Nnamdi Shockley, party, was not Shockley-Okeke, a minor.” The mother a individually, before the Probate Court and only as on behalf of the proceeding parent in that minor child. then authorizes
The decree from the Probate Court appeal to the Court. in plaintiff was the Probate Court Because the representative permission to capacity sought in appeal capacity, the same it is reasonable conclude present appeal that she thereafter in that brought the representative capacity. same however, appeal majority, interprets probate differently appeal in determining documents plaintiff on brought by “fails to indicate that it is ” for that conclu- Apparently, behalf her son. basis specific is language sion the absence on behalf being brought that indicates that the respectfully so, minor. I doing of a submit that majority princi- fails to account for two well established jurisprudence. First, Supreme in our ples “[o]ur repeatedly the law applying has eschewed such hypertechnical manner so to elevate form over sub-
stance.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Martin
Printing,
Inc. v. Sone,
App.
336, 344, 873 A.2d
Second,
(2005).
is well established
that,
“[i]t
whether a
determining
court has
jurisdic-
tion, every presumption
favoring
should be
indulged.”
(Internal
Loricco
omitted.)
Towers Condominium
v. Pantani,
Assn.
App.
43, 48,
The also refers to herself individually in the course of appeal. the plaintiff Because the appeared in solely the Probate Court in the capacity parent and of friend, next and individually which she would —for have no standing find no reason to conclude that —I attempted appeal she to in an individual capacity after the adverse decision on the name change application, parent which she brought as and next I disagree friend. majority’s with the assumption that having received an parent adverse decision as of the minor in the Probate Court, she attempted then appeal to in an individual capacity. Because the language application of both the appeal and the combine language capac- of individual ity with language they representation, should not be measured to according different standards. The Probate Court’s decree allowing appeal limited the right appeal plaintiff in a representative capacity, strongly indicating that appeal brought would be in capacity.
Moreover, appeal from the Probate Court con- tains language clearly indicating plaintiff con- tinued to represent the child’s interest in appeal. asserts, She example, that the Probate Court made defendant basis of the interests decision on the “in inter- rather the best father, Okeke, C. than Edward country.” will live in this of a child who ests to consider Court failed claims that “the also [Probate] . . .” . residing of the child in Connecticut the welfare “wishes in her that she plaintiff also asserted by the same choice as made the child to have the [defen- and the My . . .” reading . dant] one from other no basis to differentiate appeal finds in which the mother capacity in terms she concluding logic Aside acting. only capacity which in the same would of both appeared Court, language in the Probate she consistency interpretation indicates that documents acting conclusion that she was should lead absent clear proceedings, the child both behalf of expressed unequivocal intent as an individual.2 proceed incorrectly deter- I believe that the no standing bring mined that the incorrectly that she had appeal just it determined On the basis of no Probate Court. conclusion, pro- my Court could appeal. ceeded to the merits of the Because deter- so mined that no existed and informed the *14 addressed parties, however, court should my view, because the has stand- the merits. probate appeal Superior on the in the ing proceed Court, ordinarily appropriate would be to reverse the it of the Court and to remand the case judgment probate. for a new trial of the Because jurisdiction by suggest finding 2 I do not Moreover, qua that, is sine non the issue. is clear under Probate Court jurisdiction circumstances, a matter within Probate different Court’s way lack with could be altered would result in respect Court. Under the facts and circumstances here, however, I believe the from the Probate Court was before properly. Superior Court 92 authority proceed
lack of without counsel, however, on the v. Shelton, supra, basis Lowe Conn. App. authority 750, implicates our decide the I would opportunity give to address the problem by Lowe ordering supplemental and, briefs if necessary, I give would the opportunity to problem by cure such appear having counsel representative her behalf child. reasons, For I foregoing respectfully dissent. STATE v. OF CONNECTICUT SIGFREDO DEJESUS
(AC 24176) Lavery, J., Stoughton C. Schaller Js. officially January Argued released October