In re Riley B.
Citations
- 342 Conn. 333
Syllabus
The proposed intervenor, J, filed a motion to intervene subsequent to the termination of her parental rights with respect to her minor child, R, in an effort to obtain a posttermination order of visitation with R. J's parental rights had been terminated on the grounds that she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, as required by the applicable statute (§ 17a-112), and that termination was in R's best interest. During the termination proceedings, J did not request visitation with R in the event that her parental rights were terminated. J appealed from the judgment terminating her parental rights but did not request a stay of execution of that judgment pending appeal. More than six months after that appeal had been filed, J filed a motion for visitation, which the trial court denied, concluding that it did not have authority to order visitation after her parental rights were terminated and that, 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. 334 MARCH, 2022 342 Conn. 333 In re Riley B. even if it had such authority, there was no basis for granting visitation under the circumstances. The trial court dismissed her subsequent motion to intervene on grounds of res judicata in light of its decision on her motion for visitation. After the dismissal of J's motion to intervene, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment terminating J's parental rights. On appeal from the trial court's dismissal of J's motion to inter- vene, held that J's appeal was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, J having had no colorable claim to intervention in R's juve- nile case as a matter of right: following the termination of her parental rights, J lacked a direct and substantial inter
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- biological mother ‘‘has no colorable claim to intervention as of right’’ because, following termination of biological mother’s parental rights, ‘‘she lacks a direct and substantial interest’’ in visitation (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-08-09· cited 442×
- Zizka v. Water Pollution Control AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-04-16· cited 388×
- Michaud v. WawruckSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-12-20· cited 166×
- Roth v. WestonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-01-29· cited 160×
- Castagno v. WholeanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-11-26· cited 103×
- In re Jonathan M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-01-16· cited 98×
- Div. of Youth & Family v. BgsNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1996-07-01· cited 89×
- In Re Noreen G.California Court of Appeal· 2010-02-09· cited 86×
- In Re Davonta V.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-02-12· cited 83×
- Nye v. MarcusSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-12-24· cited 73×
- Labbe v. Pension CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-06-28· cited 69×
- Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 65×
- Doe v. DoeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-07-05· cited 55×
- In Re Interest of Stacey D.Nebraska Court of Appeals· 2004-08-03· cited 49×
- Adoption of RicoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2009-05-07· cited 41×
- King v. SultarSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-06-06· cited 41×
- C.W. v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court· 2001-05-25· cited 32×
- BNY Western Trust v. RomanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-03-23· cited 29×
- In Interest of DitterNebraska Supreme Court· 1982-11-24· cited 22×
- Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-06-25· cited 22×
Other cases named In re Riley B.
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.