In re Rabia K.

• Decision Date: 16 May 2022
• Docket Number: AC 45012
• Citation: 212 Conn.App. 556,275 A.3d 249
• Parties: IN RE RABIA K.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

212 Conn.App. 556

275 A.3d 249

IN RE RABIA K.^*

AC 45012

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Considered April 18, 2022

Officially released May 16, 2022^**

Matthew C. Eagan, filed a brief for the appellant (respondent mother).

Jillian N. Hira, assistant attorney general, William Tong, attorney general, and Evan M. O'Roark, assistant attorney general, filed a brief for the appellee (petitioner).

Bright, C. J., and Alexander and Lavery, Js.

PER CURIAM.

In this neglect proceeding, the respondent mother, Michelle K., appeals from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating Rabia K., the respondent's minor daughter, neglected and committing her to the care and custody of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families.¹ On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly found that (1) Rabia had been neglected and (2) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to prevent Rabia's removal.

After this appeal was ready for argument, Rabia's attorney filed in the trial court a motion to revoke commitment, representing that Rabia had returned home to the respondent in Massachusetts and no longer wanted to be in the custody of the petitioner. After a hearing, the court granted the motion to revoke commitment and closed the case. The petitioner did not oppose the motion and, thereafter, moved to dismiss this appeal as moot, arguing that this court is unable to grant the respondent any practical relief in light of the trial court's order revoking commitment of Rabia. The respondent opposed the motion to dismiss, and this court, sua sponte, ordered the parties to file supplemental memoranda giving reasons, if any, why we should not dismiss this appeal as moot and exercise the remedy of vacatur as to the trial court's judgment adjudicating Rabia neglected so as to avoid any possible collateral consequences as a result of the appeal being rendered moot. After considering the motion to dismiss and opposition thereto, as well as the parties’ supplemental memoranda, we conclude that the respondent's claims are moot and that vacatur is appropriate.

The record discloses the following relevant facts, as found by the court, and procedural history. Rabia's family moved from Massachusetts to Connecticut in 2016. On July 1, 2020, Rabia, who was fifteen years old, walked into the Willimantic Police Department and reported that her family had abused her for years. She informed the police officers that she did not recall attending public school and that she had not seen a doctor since she was eleven years old. After being alerted by the Willimantic Police Department, the petitioner filed a neglect petition on July 30, 2020, alleging that Rabia was being denied proper care and allowed to live under conditions injurious to her well-being. In May, 2021, the respondent was evicted from her residence in Willimantic and moved to Massachusetts, where she previously had resided.

On May 13, 2021, the court, Chaplin, J. , granted the petitioner's motion for an order of temporary custody and issued an ex parte order vesting temporary custody of Rabia in the petitioner. The court, Carbonneau, J. , held a consolidated hearing on the motion for an order of temporary custody and the neglect petition over the course of several days, beginning on August 9, 2021. On August 30, 2021, the last day of the hearing, the court issued its oral decision, adjudicating Rabia neglected and committing her to the care and custody of the petitioner. The court stated: "When a fifteen year old walks alone into a police station and makes allegations of physical abuse, educational ... medical, and emotional neglect, there is a serious problem. Again, I'm not accusing the parents of anything at this point; that's beside the point. Either the girl is suffering terrible abuse at the hands of her family, or she is making false or exaggerated accusations that implicate her mental health. Either way, these are conditions and circumstances injurious to her health, both physical and mental." The court also vacated the order of temporary custody. This appeal followed, challenging both the finding of neglect and the commitment of Rabia to the petitioner.

On March 2, 2022, the court, Chaplin, J. , granted Rabia's motion to revoke commitment and closed the case, returning Rabia to the care and custody of the respondent. The petitioner subsequently moved to dismiss this appeal as moot. In her opposition to the motion to dismiss, the respondent acknowledged that the second issue on appeal, Rabia's commitment to the petitioner, had been rendered moot but claimed that the first issue, the finding of neglect, is not moot because she will face collateral consequences in Massachusetts as a result of the court's adjudicating Rabia neglected.²

"Mootness is an exception to the general rule that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by the occurrence of subsequent events." In re Alba P.-V. , 135 Conn. App. 744, 747, 42 A.3d 393, cert. denied, 305 Conn. 917, 46 A.3d 170 (2012). "Mootness implicates [this] court's subject matter jurisdiction and is thus a threshold matter for us to resolve. ... 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. ... An actual controversy must exist not only at the time the appeal is taken, but also throughout the pendency of the appeal. ... 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. ...

"[D]espite developments during the pendency of an appeal that would otherwise render a claim moot, the court may retain jurisdiction when a litigant shows that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur. ... [T]o invoke successfully the collateral consequences doctrine, the litigant must show that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur. Accordingly, the litigant must establish these consequences by more than mere conjecture ... but need not demonstrate that these consequences are more probable than not. ... Whe[n] there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment ... the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Private Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Torres , 278 Conn. 291, 298–99, 898 A.2d 768 (2006).

Because the underlying case has been closed and Rabia has been returned to the care and custody of the respondent, an actual controversy no longer exists. See In re Kiara R. , 129 Conn. App. 604, 610, 21 A.3d 883 (2011) (appeal rendered moot after minor child returned to respondent mother's care and custody). The respondent, however, contends that the...