In re Forrest B.

• Citation: 109 Conn.App. 772,953 A.2d 887
• Decision Date: 19 August 2008
• Docket Number: No. 29398.,29398.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re FORREST B. et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

953 A.2d 887

109 Conn.App. 772

In re FORREST B. et al.^*

No. 29398.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 27, 2008.

Decided August 19, 2008.

Gary J. Wilson, Trumbull, for the appellant (respondent mother).

Gregory T. D'Auria, associate attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Colleen Broderick and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (petitioner).

John C. Drapp III and Joseph A. Jaumann, Bridgeport, for the minor children.

BISHOP, LAVINE and PETERS, Js.

LAVINE, J.

The respondent mother¹ appeals from the judgments of the trial court sustaining orders of temporary custody of her two minor children in the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families. On appeal, she claims that the court improperly concluded that the orders of temporary custody should be sustained pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129(b).² Because we conclude that the respondent's appeal is moot, we dismiss it.

The record contains the following facts and procedural history. On October 23, 2007, the department of children and families received an anonymous call concerning the respondent and her two children, who were living in a room at the Stratford Inn Motel. The caller mentioned deplorable living conditions, a lack of financial means and suspicions about substance abuse. Jennifer Panciera, the social worker assigned to investigate the case, visited the family shortly thereafter and conversed with the respondent for approximately two hours. On the basis of the condition of the children, the respondent's lack of supervision over them, the squalor of the room, the family's transience and the family's absence of resources, Panciera determined that the children were in an unsafe environment. The petitioner then invoked a ninety-six hour administrative hold. See General Statutes § 17a-101g.

On October 26, 2007, the petitioner filed ex parte motions for orders of temporary custody as well as neglect petitions. Finding that the children were in immediate physical danger from their surroundings and that continuation in the respondent's custody was contrary to their welfare, the court, Wolven, J., granted the motions, pending the preliminary hearing. The respondent contested the orders of temporary custody. A trial was held on November 8 and 9, 2007, at the conclusion of which, the court, Wilson, J., sustained the orders by way of an oral decision. It is from these judgments that the respondent appeals.³

On January 22, 2008, a hearing on the underlying neglect petitions was held. The respondent failed to attend the hearing, and the court defaulted her for failure to appear. On May 21, 2008, the neglect petitions were resolved as to both parents. Concluding that the children were neglected, the court committed both children to the custody of the petitioner.

On May 23, 2008, the petitioner, pursuant to Practice Book § 67-10,⁴ submitted to us a memorandum of law citing In re Carl O., 10 Conn.App. 428, 523 A.2d 1339, cert. denied, 204 Conn. 802, 525 A.2d 964 (1987), in which this court ruled that an appeal from an order of temporary custody was rendered moot when the children were adjudicated to be neglected. Id., at 434, 523 A.2d 1339. At oral argument on May 27, 2008, the petitioner asserted that because the respondent's children would not be returned to her custody even if she were to prevail on appeal, this court cannot provide her any practical relief. Conceding that the issue is moot, the respondent contends that the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine applies to her appeal. We do not agree with the respondent's contention.

"When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot. . . . It is a well-settled general rule that the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow. . . .

"We note that an otherwise moot question may qualify for review under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception. To do so, however, it must meet three requirements. First, the challenged action, or the effect of the challenged action, by its very nature must be of a limited duration so that there is a strong likelihood that the substantial majority of cases raising a question about its validity will become moot before appellate litigation can be concluded. Second, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the question presented in the pending case will arise again in the future, and that it will affect either the same complaining party or a reasonably identifiable group for whom that party can be said to act as surrogate. Third, the question must have some public importance. Unless all three requirements are met, the appeal must be dismissed as moot." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Steven M., 264 Conn. 747, 754-55, 826 A.2d 156 (2003).

Ou...