Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Ruth Cohen’s motion to modify a modification order modifying the alimony provision of the divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Franklin and Ruth Cohen. Franklin moved to modify the alimony provision on the ground that his income had declined significantly. Ruth later moved to modify the modification order on the ground that Franklin’s income had substantially increased. The trial court granted the motion. Franklin appealed, raising four allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Franklin’s allegations of error were unavailing. View "Cohen v. Cohen" on Justia Law

The probate court retains the statutory authority to make findings pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 45a-608n(b) in connection with a petition for special immigrant juvenile status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) when the minor child, who is the subject of the petition, reaches the age of eighteen during the pendency of the petition.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgments of the superior court for juvenile matters dismissing Mother’s and Son’s appeals from the decisions of the probate court. The Appellate Court concluded that section 45a-608n does not provide the probate court with authority to make juvenile status findings after the individual’s eighteenth birthday. The Supreme Court held that, on the contrary, the probate court did not lose its authority to make juvenile status findings pursuant to section 45a-608n(b) when Son turned eighteen years old during the pendency of the petition. View "In re Henrry P. B.-P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration but denied relief in this case addressing the mandatory vaccination of a child.In 2017, the Supreme Court held that Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-10(c) did not authorize the Commissioner of Children and Families to vaccinate a child placed in her temporary custody over the objection of that child’s parents. In this motion for reconsideration, the Commissioner advanced, for the first time, arguments concerning the effect of Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-93 and 17a-98. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that it is not proper to use a motion for reconsideration simply as a means for giving the losing party a second chance to try a new argument. View "In Re Elianah T.-T." on Justia Law

Vaccinations are not “medical treatment” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-10(c), and therefore, the statute does not authorize the Commissioner of Children and Families to vaccinate a child temporarily placed in her custody over the objection of that child’s parents.The children’s parents in this case entered pleas of nolo contendere as to neglect allegations and agreed to commit their two children temporarily to the care and custody of the Commissioner. The parents, however, objected to vaccination of the children for common childhood diseases in accordance with the Department of Children and Families’ usual practice. The trial court granted the Commissioner permission to vaccinate the children, concluding that the Commissioner had the authority and obligation to vaccinate the children pursuant to section 17a-10c. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute does not authorize the Commissioner to vacate children committed to her temporary custody without parental consent. View "In re Elianah T.-T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing Mother’s appeal from the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights as to her son and remanded the case with direction to affirm the trial court’s judgment. On appeal, Mother argued (1) the Appellate Court erred in concluding that Mother had failed adequately to brief one of the two independent grounds for reversing the trial court judgment, and that therefore her appeal was moot; and (2) the trial court incorrectly determined that the Department of Children and Families made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her son and that she was unable to benefit from those efforts. The Supreme Court held (1) the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Mother’s appeal as moot; but (2) the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Respondent was unable to benefit from reunification efforts, and the resolution of this issue constitutes an independent basis for affirming the trial court’s judgment. View "In re Elijah C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing Mother’s appeal from the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights as to her son and remanded the case with direction to affirm the trial court’s judgment. On appeal, Mother argued (1) the Appellate Court erred in concluding that Mother had failed adequately to brief one of the two independent grounds for reversing the trial court judgment, and that therefore her appeal was moot; and (2) the trial court incorrectly determined that the Department of Children and Families made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her son and that she was unable to benefit from those efforts. The Supreme Court held (1) the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Mother’s appeal as moot; but (2) the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Respondent was unable to benefit from reunification efforts, and the resolution of this issue constitutes an independent basis for affirming the trial court’s judgment. View "In re Elijah C." on Justia Law

The trial court entered judgment dissolving the marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant. During the pendency of the divorce action, Plaintiff sold shares of stock and exercised certain stock options without first receiving permission from Defendant or the trial court. The trial court found that Plaintiff’s transactions violated orders automatically entered under Practice Book 25-5 but that the violations were not willful. Because the transactions caused a significant loss to the marital estate, the trial court awarded a greater than even distribution of the marital property to Defendant. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s financial orders, concluding that, in an absence of a finding of contempt, the trial court lacked the authority to afford Defendant a remedy for Plaintiff’s violations of the automatic orders. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in considering Plaintiff’s violations of the automatic orders in its division of the marital assets. View "O'Brien v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

The trial court properly denied Mother’s motion for visitation with the minor child on the ground that North Carolina was the more appropriate forum to decide the issues raised in the motion.Mother filed a motion to modify the trial court’s orders of visitation after a neglect proceeding. The trial court ruled that a coordinate court in North Carolina was as capable of deciding the nature and extent of Mother’s contact with the child where the state of North Carolina had exercised jurisdiction in this matter and both Father and the child resided in North Carolina. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that it did not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over Mother’s motion for visitation; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that North Carolina was a more convenient forum for addressing Mother’s motion for visitation; and (3) Mother did not preserve her claim that the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing before declining to exercise jurisdiction over her motion, and Mother was not entitled to review of her constitutional claim under State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). View "In re Natalie S." on Justia Law

The Department of Children and Families was not required to continue providing reunification efforts to Mother in this case despite the trial court’s grant of custody and guardianship to Father.The trial court adjudicated the minor child neglected and granted temporary custody and guardianship to Father. On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court did not err in failing to order the department to make additional reunification efforts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly determined that continuing reunification efforts for Mother were not required because temporary custody and guardianship had been placed with Father. View "In re Natalie S." on Justia Law

Melissa was the biological mother of Santiago, the minor child at issue in this case. Santiago was in the care of Maria from his birth until he was three years old. At that time, the Commissioner of Children and Families filed a motion for an order of temporary custody of Santiago on the basis of neglect. The trial court adjudicated Santiago neglected on the basis of abandonment by his biological parents and ordered him committed to the custody of the Commissioner. Thereafter, the Department of Children and Families filed a motion to terminate Melissa’s parental rights. Maria filed an amended motion to intervene as of right and permissively. The trial court denied the motion to intervene. Maria appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Maria failed to plead a colorable claim of intervention as of right, and therefore, the trial court’s denial of her motion to intervene as of right was not a final judgment for purposes of this appeal. View "In re Santiago G." on Justia Law