"The
respondent mother's first child, A, born in Connecticut
in 2012, was conceived with someone other than the respondent
father. In 2013, the department became involved with A due to
concerns about the mother's mental health, her parenting
ability, and domestic violence, as well as concerns about
possible physical abuse of A. A was adjudicated neglected
and, thereafter, sole custody was awarded to A's father.
"The
respondents subsequently had three children together; the
first two children were born in Connecticut. Their first
child, G, was removed from the respondents' custody
within one month of his birth in 2015, in light of the
mother's history and an incident of domestic violence in
G's presence. Subsequently, G was adjudicated neglected
and placed in the [petitioner's] custody. The
respondents' second child, J, was removed from the
respondents' custody immediately after his birth
in 2016, on the ground that the respondents had not addressed
mental health and parenting issues. In March, 2017, J was
adjudicated neglected and committed to the [petitioner's]
custody. At that same time, the respondents' parental
rights with respect to G were terminated.
"In
April, 2018, the [petitioner] filed a petition seeking to
terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect
to J. The mother was then near full-term in her pregnancy
with Teagan. The respondents paid a relative to drive them to
Gainesville, Florida, where they signed a one year lease for
an apartment.
"In
May, 2018, Teagan was born in a Gainesville hospital. The
hospital contacted the Florida Department of Children and
Families after information came to light that the
respondents' other children had been removed from their
care. Two days after Teagan's birth, when she was ready
to be discharged from the hospital, the Florida department
took emergency custody of her. The Florida department
contacted the Connecticut department to report that the
mother had given birth.
"One
day after the Florida department took emergency custody of
Teagan, the [petitioner] filed a motion in the Connecticut
Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Water-ford(trial
court) seeking temporary custody of Teagan and a petition
seeking to adjudicate Teagan neglected on the grounds that
she would be subject to conditions injurious to her
well-being if she remained in the respondents' care or
that she was denied proper care and attention. The motion for
temporary custody was denied on the ground that the child was
not in Connecticut.
"Shortly
thereafter, the Florida department filed in the Circuit Court
of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Juvenile Division
(Florida court), a motion to transfer jurisdiction to the
Connecticut trial court on the basis of the family's
history with service providers and child protective services
in this state. The respondents opposed the motion. A Florida
general magistrate held a contested hearing on the motion, at
which the respondents were represented by separate counsel.
Following the hearing, the magistrate issued a report and a
recommendation to grant the motion.
"The
recommendation rested on the following factual findings. An
open dependency case in Connecticut was then pending on a
petition for termination of the respondents' parental
rights with respect to Teagan's sibling, J. The
[petitioner] wanted to add Teagan to the open dependency
case. The respondents had admitted to the Florida department
that they traveled to Florida before Teagan's birth to
avoid further involvement with the Connecticut department.
Witnesses and persons with knowledge of the issues pertaining
to Teagan's possible neglect and to the possible
termination of the respondents' parental rights as to J
reside in Connecticut. The respondents previously had been
involved with the
Connecticut department as children, and their parental rights
with respect to another child had been terminated.
Teagan's guardian ad litem and the Connecticut department
both supported the transfer of jurisdiction. The Florida
court had verified with the Connecticut trial court,
Driscoll, J., that the Connecticut court wanted to,
and would, accept jurisdiction.
"The
magistrate acknowledged that the respondents opposed the
transfer of jurisdiction and that, in support of their
opposition, they had presented a copy of their Florida lease
and represented that the father was employed in Gainesville.
The magistrate also acknowledged that the respondents had
offered to consent to Teagan's dependency if the Florida
court retained jurisdiction, to eliminate the need for
witnesses and to allow the court to rely solely on
documentation from the Connecticut department to establish a
reunification plan. The magistrate noted, however, that the
Florida department and Teagan's guardian ad litem
represented that they had no intention of offering or
supporting reunification should the Florida court retain
jurisdiction and, instead, would seek to terminate the
respondents' parental rights with respect to Teagan on
the basis of the respondents' prior history.
"The
magistrate's report concluded: Connecticut is a more
convenient forum state, and the court finds that it is in the
best interests of the child . . . and will promote the
efficient administration of justice to transfer jurisdiction
to Connecticut. The following day, after the parties waived
the period for filing exceptions to the magistrate's
report, the Florida court ratified and adopted the
magistrate's recommendation to transfer jurisdiction to
the Connecticut court.
"The
[petitioner] then renewed her request for an ex parte order
for temporary custody of Teagan in the trial court, which the
court, Driscoll, J., granted. Teagan was brought to
Connecticut and placed with the same foster family caring for
her sibling, J.
"The
father filed a motion to dismiss the pending neglect petition
on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Appended to the motion were copies of the respondents'
Florida lease, a pay stub from the father's Florida
employment, and the father's Florida voter registration
card, which was issued after the Florida court proceeding.
The [petitioner] opposed the motion, contending that the
Florida court's inconvenient forum determination
established a basis for the Connecticut trial court's
subject matter jurisdiction under the UCC-JEA. After a
contested hearing on the motion, the trial court, Hon.
Michael A. Mack, judge trial referee, opened the
evidence twice-once to take evidence that the father had
appealed from the Florida court's decision granting the
motion to transfer, and again to take evidence that the First
District Court of Appeal of Florida had issued a per curiam,
summary affirmance.
"The
Connecticut trial court denied the father's motion to
dismiss. The court cited two reasons. First, the trial court
reasoned that a Florida District Court of Appeal had affirmed
that jurisdiction rests with Connecticut courts,...
