In re Jose B.

Decision Date31 January 2012
Docket NumberNo. 18753.,18753.
Citation303 Conn. 569,34 A.3d 975
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesIn 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.

ROGERS, C.J.

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.

“That same day, the [trial] court denied [the petitioner's]ex parte motions.On or about August 18, 2009, the department moved to intervene for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss the neglect and uncared-for petition.The department also filed a motion to dismiss and an accompanying memorandum of law.On September 4, 2009, the court, concluding that the department was a necessary party, granted the motion to intervene.

“The [trial] court heard oral argument on the department's motion to dismiss and, following supplemental briefing, issued its memorandum of decision on January 14, 2010.The court concluded that it lacked the statutory authority to commit an individual who was eighteen years of age or older on a retroactive basis.As a result, it determined that, because it could not afford [the petitioner] any direct practical relief, the case was moot.It further determined that neither the collateral consequences nor the capable of repetition yet evading review exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.Accordingly, the court granted the department's motion to dismiss.”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 “there exists a line of cases that suggests that [this question] should be framed as whether the trial court had the authority to decide this case.See, e.g., Amodio v. Amodio,[247 Conn. 724, 728, 724 A.2d 1084(1999)];Gurliacci v. Mayer,218 Conn. 531, 545, 590 A.2d 914(1991).The discrepancy between those cases and the caseswe follow, holding that the question is jurisdictional;see, e.g., Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc.[292 Conn. 381, 386, 973 A.2d 1229(2009) ];Figueroa v. C & S Ball Bearing[237 Conn. 1, 4, 675 A.2d 845(1996) ]; is troubling.”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.

This court previously has recognized the recurrent difficulty of distinguishing between two kinds of challenges to a tribunal's exercise of its statutory authority.On the one hand, a challenge may allege that a tribunal's action exceeds its statutory authority.Such a challenge raises a jurisdictional claim.On the other hand, a challenge may allege that a tribunal's action misconstrues its statutory authority.Such a challenge raises a claim of statutory construction that is not jurisdictional.Cantoni v. Xerox Corp.,251 Conn. 153, 162, 740 A.2d 796(1999).Thus, [a]lthough related, the court's authority to act pursuant to a statute is different from its subject matter jurisdiction.The power of the court to hear and determine, which is implicit in jurisdiction, is not to be confused with the way in which that power must be exercised in order to comply with the terms of the statute....Amodio v. Amodio,[supra, 247 Conn. at 728, 724 A.2d 1084].

“As this court suggested in Cantoni, 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.As a result, this court's cases addressing the distinction have not always been consistent.In Amodio, for example, the parties had entered into a child support agreement that precluded modification unless the defendant earned more than $900 per week.Id., at 727, 724 A.2d 1084.The agreement was approved as an order of the trial court.Id., at 726, 724 A.2d 1084.When the defendant sought a modification order pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–86 (a), the trial court granted the modification even though the defendant's weekly income did not exceed $900.Id.On appeal, the Appellate Court determined, sua sponte, that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify the support order because the dissolution decree foreclosed such a modification.Id., at 727, 724 A.2d 1084.On appeal, this court concluded that [a]court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the action before it....Once it is determined that a tribunal has authority or competence to decide the class of cases to which the action belongs, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is resolved in favor of entertaining the action....Id., at 728, 724 A.2d 1084.This court noted that § 46b–86 (a) confers jurisdiction on the trial court to modify support orders [u]nless and to the extent that the decree precludes modification ... but concluded that, because support orders can be modified despite such preclusion provisions when they are ambiguous or do not adequately protect the parties, the trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to modify the order.Id., at 730–31, 724 A.2d 1084.This court further concluded that [s]eparate and distinct from the question of whether a court has jurisdictional power to hear and determine a support matter ... is the question of whether a trial courtproperly applies § 46b–86 (a), that is, properly exercises its statutory authority to act....Id., at 730, 724 A.2d 1084.This court remanded the case to the Appellate Court for consideration of that issue.Id., at 732, 724 A.2d 1084;see alsoNew England Retail Properties, Inc. v. Maturo,102 Conn.App. 476, 482, 925 A.2d 1151(under statute prohibiting commencement of action against estate unless legal claim has been rejected by estate, claim that estate had not rejected legal claim did not implicate court's subject matter jurisdiction but was question of statutory authority), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912, 931 A.2d 932(2007).

“In Kennedy v. Kennedy,177 Conn. 47, 49, 411 A.2d 25(1979), this court reached a different result.The issue in that case was whether the Superior Court has the authority to make and enforce support orders pertaining to children over the age of eighteen.Id.The courtconcluded that, because the statutes relating to support orders applied only to minor children, and because the legislature had lowered the age of majority from twenty-one years of age to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
40 cases
  • Conn. Coal. for Justice in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 17 Enero 2018
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 10 Agosto 2020
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 22 Abril 2020
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 12 Noviembre 2019
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT