In re Jose B.
Decision Date | 31 January 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 18753.,18753. |
Citation | 303 Conn. 569,34 A.3d 975 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | In re JOSE B.* |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael S. Taylor, Hartford, with whom were Sarah Eagan and, on the brief, Stacey Violante Cote, for the appellant(petitioner).
Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, with whom were Mary–Anne Ziewacz Mulholland, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, George Jepsen, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee(intervenor).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN and HARPER, Js.
The petitioner, Jose B., appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition seeking to have himself adjudicated as neglected and as an uncared-for youth, filed pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–129 (a).1In re Jose B.125 Conn.App. 572, 11 A.3d 682(2010).On appeal, the petitioner claimed that the trial court improperly dismissed the petition as moot because, two days after he filed it, he reached his eighteenth birthday.Id., at 573–74, 11 A.3d 682.The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of dismissal.Id., at 584, 11 A.3d 682.We then granted the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the neglect petition?”In re Jose B.,300 Conn. 916, 13 A.3d 1103(2011).We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court's opinion sets forth the following facts and procedural history.“On July 15, 2009, two days before his eighteenth birthday, [the petitioner] filed two ex parte motions with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford seeking an order of temporary custody and an order of emergency commitment to the department of children and families (department).On the same date, the petitioner filed the petition seeking to have himself adjudicated as neglected and uncared for.[The petitioner] alleged that his mother was a resident of Puerto Rico and that his father's identity and whereabouts were unknown.He further alleged that he had been living with his uncle, having been placed there by his mother approximately four years earlier.Following his uncle's incarceration, [the petitioner] became homeless.
In re Jose B.,supra, 125 Conn.App. at 574–75.
Before we address the merits of the petitioner's claim, we first take this opportunity to address the ongoing confusion as to whether the failure to plead or prove an essential fact to obtain relief under § 46b–129 (a) implicates the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction or its statutory authority.This issue arose in In re Matthew F.,297 Conn. 673, 700, 4 A.3d 248(2010), in which the question was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under § 46b–129 (a) when he had failed to allege that, after reaching the age of eighteen, he was enrolled full-time in secondary school, technical school, college or a state-accredited job training program, as required by § 46b–129 (j).A majority of this court concluded that his failure to establish this factual predicate deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.Id.The majority acknowledged, however, that In re Matthew F.,supra, at 699 n. 19.The majority ultimately concluded in In re Matthew F. that that case was “not the proper occasion to reconcile this discrepancy because neither party primarily frames its claims as implicating the authority of the Superior Court.”(Emphasis in original.)Id.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Rogers argued that, to the extent that the cases were inconsistent, the better rule was set forth in Gurliacci, and, therefore, the trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction, but merely lacked statutory authority.Id., at 708–709, 590 A.2d 914( Rogers, C.J., concurring).Although the parties in the present case also have not briefed the question of whether the failure to allege an essential fact under § 46b–129 (a) implicates the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction or its statutory authority, neither party will be prejudiced if we address the question, and we conclude that the time has come to resolve the issue.
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Conn. Coal. for Justice in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell
... ... 677 claim of specific harm at trial does not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. See In re Jose B. , 303 Conn. 569, 579, 34 A.3d 975 (2012) (rejecting "bizarre result that the failure to prove an essential fact at trial deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction"). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the complaint raised a colorable claim that the ... ...
-
In re Ava W.
... ... 673, 689, 4 A.3d 248 (2010), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Jose B ., 303 Conn. 569, 34 A.3d 975 (2012). A The following legal principles guide our inquiry into whether the respondent has been aggrieved by the trial court's order denying her posttermination visitation with the child and, consequently, whether this court has appellate jurisdiction over her ... ...
-
Wolfork v. Yale Med. Grp.
... ... 467 omitted.) In re Jose B. , 303 Conn. 569, 574, 580, 34 A.3d 975 (2012). Whatever the reason, it appears that, over time, the Solomon exception occasionally has become unmoored from its animating principle, causing us to characterize as immediately appealable any order opening a judgment in which the trial court's ... ...
-
Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Conn. Res. Recovery Auth.
... ... See, e.g., In re Jose B. , 303 Conn. 569, 574, 34 A.3d 975 (2012) ("the distinction between challenges to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and challenges to the exercise of its statutory authority is not always clear" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We also recognize the "rule that every presumption ... ...