In re Ava W.
Citations
- 336 Conn. 545
Syllabus
The respondent mother appealed from the order of the trial court denying a request for visitation with her minor child subsequent to the court's termination of her parental rights with respect to that child. The court had terminated the respondent's parental rights pursuant to statute (§ 17a-112), finding that she had abandoned the child, that she had failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation such that she could resume a responsible position in the child's life, and that termination was in the best interest of the child. During the termination proceedings, the child's counsel had requested that the court consider issuing an order of posttermination or postadoption visitation between the child and the respondent, who agreed with that request. The court denied the request for visitation, concluding, inter alia, that it lacked the authority to evalu- ate whether posttermination visitation would be necessary or appro- priate to secure the welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support of the child in accordance with the statute (§ 46b-121 (b) (1)) affording courts certain authority in juvenile matters. On appeal from the trial court's order denying the request for posttermination visitation, the respondent claimed, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked authority to order posttermination visitation. The peti- tioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, claimed on appeal that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed. The petitioner specifically asserted that the respondent was not aggrieved by the trial court's order, that the visitation issue became moot when the court terminated the respon- dent's parental rights, and that the respondent lacked standing to appeal because she failed to appeal from or seek or obtain a stay of the judgment terminating her parental rights. Held: 1. The respondent was aggrieved by the trial court's order denying the request for po
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
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.