Ammar I. v. Dept. of Children & Families
Citations
- 351 Conn. 656
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought, inter alia, damages from the defendant, the Department of Children and Families, alleging that it had discriminated against him on the basis of his religion in violation of statute (§§ 46a-58 (a) and 46a-71 (a)) during the course of prior child protection proceedings in which his parental rights were ultimately terminated. The trial court granted in part the defen- dant's motion to dismiss, dismissing the majority of the plaintiff's allegations of discrimination on the ground that they were time barred pursuant to In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142 (b) and Practice Book § 79a-12, the names of the parties involved in this appeal are not disclosed. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the court. 351 Conn. 656 APRIL, 2025 657 Ammar I. v. Dept. of Children & Families statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 46a-82 (f)). The court declined, however, to dismiss certain other timely allegations, namely, those relating to the defendant's alleged discrimination during the termination of parental rights trial. There- after, the court denied the defendant's motion to reargue, rejecting the defendant's argument, raised for the first time in that motion, that the litigation privilege barred the remaining, timely allegations that the trial court declined to dismiss. Subsequently, the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal with the Appellate Court, challenging the trial court's denial of the motion to reargue and the court's determination that the litigation privilege did not bar the remaining, timely allegations. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined that the litigation privilege did not bar the remaining, timely allegations and remanded the case, ordering the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. In response to the Appellate Court's remand order and prior to the plaintiff's f
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.