In re Jewelyette M.
Citations
- 351 Conn. 511
Syllabus
The foster parents of the minor child, J, appealed from the decision of the trial court to remove them as intervenors in the dispositional phase of neglect proceedings concerning J. Although the foster parents were initially granted intervenor status, the trial court later granted the motion of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, to remove them as intervenors during the pendency of the neglect proceedings in light of the Appellate Court's then recent decision in In re Ryan C. (220 Conn. App. 507), in which the court concluded that nonrelative foster parents are precluded by statute (§ 46b-129 (p)) from intervening in neglect proceedings. After the foster parents were removed as intervenors, and while their appeal from that removal was pending, the trial court held a hearing on the petitioner's motion to revoke the commitment of J to the petitioner's custody and ultimately granted the motion and transferred guardianship of J to J's biologi- cal father. Subsequently, the foster parents filed a writ of error challenging the court's decision on the motion to revoke. On appeal from the trial court's removal of them as intervenors, the foster parents claimed that In re Ryan C. was wrongly decided and that the trial court improperly had removed them as intervenors under that authority. In their writ of error, the foster parents claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had deprived them of their right to be heard and to comment under § 46b-129 (p) by barring them from attending the entire revocation hearing and from giving a sworn statement after hearing the evidence. Held: The trial court improperly removed the foster parents as intervenors on the basis of In re Ryan C., this court having concluded that In re Ryan C. was wrongly decided and must be overruled, and, accordingly, this court reversed the trial court's order removing the foster parents as intervenors and granted In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142 (b) a
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- trial court’s finding of “ ‘no credible evidence’ ” was not limited circumstance in which Lapointe applies (emphasis in origi- nal)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Elgo
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
89 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×
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court· 1982-02-22· cited 9,761×
- Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court· 2000-06-05· cited 6,943×
- County of Los Angeles v. DavisSupreme Court· 1979-03-27· cited 1,768×
- Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & ReformSupreme Court· 1977-06-13· cited 1,061×
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSupreme Court· 1974-01-21· cited 995×
- A.M. v. A.C.Supreme Court of Colorado· 2013-02-25· cited 315×
- In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD)Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-02-15· cited 307×
- Juvenile Appeal v. Commissioner of Children & Youth ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-06-12· cited 277×
- In re Valerie D.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-08-18· cited 261×
- Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health CareSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-06-11· cited 202×
- In re Baby Girl B.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-12-08· cited 196×
- Roth v. WestonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-01-29· cited 160×
- In re Alexander V.Connecticut Appellate Court· 1991-09-17· cited 150×
- In Re Juvenile AppealSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-06-22· cited 149×
- Yontef v. YontefSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-08-11· cited 145×
- Cannata v. Department of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-07-17· cited 109×
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-05-25· cited 102×
- State v. HoytSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1880-03-15· cited 101×
- In re Alexander V.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-08-18· cited 97×
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.