In re Annessa J.
Citations
- 343 Conn. 642
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 46b-121 (b) (1)), ''[i]n juvenile matters, the Superior Court shall have the authority to make and enforce such orders directed to parents . . . as the court deems necessary or appropriate to secure the welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support of a child subject to the court's jurisdiction or otherwise committed to or in the custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families.'' Pursuant further to this court's decision in In re Ava W. (336 Conn. 545), a trial court has the authority to consider, at the time it determines whether to terminate a parent's parental rights, the parent's motion for posttermination visitation with the parent's child or children, and this 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 Appellate Court. Moreover, in accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3) (2018), as amended by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-103, § 106, 136 Stat. 49; we decline to identify any person protected or sought to be protected under a protection order, protective order, or a restraining order that was issued or applied for, or others through whom that person's identity may be ascertained. Furthermore, in accordance with our policies of protecting the privacy interests of victims of family violence or sexual assault, we decline to identify the victim or others through whom the victim's identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. 343 Conn. 642 JUNE, 2022 643 In re Annessa J. authority originates from the trial court's authority to make and enforce orders pursuant to § 46b-121 (b) (1). The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, sought to termi- nate the respondents' parental rights wit
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “trial courts must adhere to the ‘necessary or appropriate’ standard set forth in [General Statutes] § 46b-121 (b) (1), not the ‘best interest of the child’ standard, when ruling on motions for posttermination visitation”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In re Aisjaha N.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-20· cited 7×
- William W. Backus Hospital v. StoningtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-07-12· cited 4×
- In re Vada V.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-20· cited 4×
- DeCicco v. Dynata, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2026-01-27· cited 1×
- In re Nevaeh T.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2026-06-17
Cites
60 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1972-04-03· cited 5,889×
- Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court· 1923-06-04· cited 3,363×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of M.M., a Child, and concerning C.M.Supreme Court of Colorado· 1986-10-20· cited 1,068×
- In re Eden F.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-09-21· cited 208×
- State Ex Rel. Amy M. v. KaufmanWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1996-04-08· cited 185×
- Michaud v. WawruckSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-12-20· cited 166×
- In re Hailey ZZ.New York Court of Appeals· 2012-06-07· cited 161×
- Roth v. WestonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-01-29· cited 160×
- Adams v. RubinowSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1968-11-20· cited 156×
- In Re Juvenile AppealSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-06-22· cited 149×
- Gentile v. AltermattSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1975-08-05· cited 149×
- In re Juvenile AppealSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-08-05· cited 148×
- Kelley Property Development, Inc. v. Town of LebanonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-07-06· cited 125×
- Brunetti v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 2007-02-20· cited 116×
- State v. BrunettiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-07-11· cited 116×
- State v. StanleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-08-25· cited 103×
- State v. DennisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1963-01-15· cited 101×
- Div. of Youth & Family v. BgsNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1996-07-01· cited 89×
Other cases named In re Annessa J.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.