Skip to main content

In re Andrew C.

Citations

  • 351 Conn. 784

Syllabus

The intervening foster parents and the minor child, A, filed separate appeals, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court. In 2017, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families had obtained an order of temporary custody and placed A in the care of the foster parents. In response to the respondent father's motion to revoke A's commitment years later, the foster parents filed a motion to intervene, which was granted in 2020. In 2021, a court denied the respondent's motion to revoke commitment, granted the foster parents' motion to transfer guardian- ship of A to the foster parents, and rendered judgment thereon. In 2023, the Appellate Court decided In re Ryan C. (220 Conn. App. 507), holding that nonrelative foster parents are prohibited by statute (§ 46b-129 (p)) from intervening in neglect proceedings. In response to In re Ryan C., the respondent filed in 2023 a motion to open and vacate the 2021 judgment transferring guardianship of A to the foster parents on the ground that the court in In re Ryan C. determined that foster parents do not have standing to intervene and, consequently, that the court in 2021 had no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the foster parents' motion to transfer guardianship, rendering the resulting 2021 judgment void. The trial court agreed with the respondent, granting the respondent's motion to open, vacating the order granting the foster parents' motion to intervene, and vacating the judgment transferring guardianship of A to the foster parents. The Appellate Court thereafter upheld the trial court's decision to grant the motion to open and vacate, reasoning that, in light of In re Ryan C., the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction in 2021 was entirely obvious so as to render that court's judgment transferring guardianship invalid. In the present appeals, the foster parents and A claimed that the Appellate Court had incorrectly concluded that there was a lack of subject matter juri

Judges: Mullins; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.