By Sarah Eagan
Inez Galloza
Editorial support: Paul Chill
May 24, 2010


Purely statutory.*
CGS § 46b-142:
◦ “The Department of Children and Families, or any
party at interest aggrieved by any final judgment or
order of the court, may appeal to the Appellate
Court . . . .”

20-day deadline to file.
◦ Can be extended to 40 days. (P.B. §35a-21)

Limited Time for Appellate Review: 40 days if
Motion for Extension of Time is granted
◦ Inform client of decision immediately
◦ Ascertain client’s position and need for appellate
review
 Effects of untimely determination
◦ Refrain from discussions with the client regarding
viability of appeal
◦ Request for Appellate Review Counsel thru CCPA
immediately
◦ Motion for Extension of Time
◦ Transcript Order—Non Appeal (See Form)
◦ Application for Appointment of Counsel/Waiver of
Fees (See Form)
◦ If Appellate Review Counsel finds no basis for
appeal, then client has right to retain other counsel.
P.B. § 35a-21

Communicate with Appellate Review Counsel

Trial Counsel pursuing appeal
◦ Consultation with Appellate Counsel
◦ Bench decisions, P.B. § 64-1

Moot session with CCPA

Expedited Time Frames in Child Protection
Cases
◦
◦
◦
◦
Stricter enforceability of Appellate Rules
Motion for Extension of Time
Motion to Dismiss, sua sponte
Pending Report



Children are parties to all proceedings, PB
32a-1
Children may appeal termination judgment.
In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 155-57, 962
A.2d 81, 98-99 (2009).
Parent and child’s rights intertwined. In re
Christina M., 280 Conn. 474, 487, 908 A.2d
1073, 1083 (2006).



Consider taking an appeal, as opposed to default
position statement
Consider requesting Appellate Review Counsel
PRACTICE TIP:
◦ Children may file a brief within 10 days of the
filing of the appellee’s brief. P.B. § 67-13
◦ Issue: what appellate procedures apply to
children when filing a brief in support of the
appellant?
◦ Children should file separate appeal.



OTC is a final judgment
Must be immediately appealed In re Nashiah
C., 87 Conn. App. 210, 216, 866 A.2d 669,
673, cert denied, 273 Conn. 926, 871 A.2d
1031 (2005).
Visitation Orders appealable (family law):
“temporary visitation orders are so related
to the custody orders as to render them
immediately appealable.” Traff v. Bettcher,
34 Conn. App. 421, 424 n.2 (1994).


Underlying or attendant issues may not be
appealable.
For example, in a termination of parental rights
appeal, the court may not reconsider an underlying
finding of neglect that was made in a previous
proceeding. In re Stephen M., 109 Conn. App.
644, 953 A.2d 668 (2008). The only way to
challenge the neglect finding is to appeal in a
timely manner from the original adjudication.



Must be practical relief that a court can provide the
parties through its determination of the matter.
“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." Williams v.
Ragaglia, 261 Conn. 219, 225 (2002).
Can be raised at any time. In re Kachainy C., 67
Conn. App. 401 (2001).



Neglect adjudication moots OTC claim. See In re
Forrest B., 109 Conn. App. 772, 953 A.2d 887
(2008)
Children reaching age 18 mooted parents’ appeal
of neglect adjudication. In re Elisabeth H., 45 Conn.
App. 508, 512, 696 A.2d 1291, 1293 (1997)
BUT SEE: Court does not lose jurisdiction over 18
year old’s case simply by virtue of youth having
reached age of majority. In re Shonna K., 77
Conn. App. 246, 259, 822 A.2d 1009, 1017 (2003)


Must appeal alternative grounds for court’s
findings.
See In re Jorden R.,293 Conn. 539, 979 A.2d 469
(2009)
(vacating the appellate court's holding that the trial
court erroneously found that the mother was
unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification
services where the trial court found a) that the
state had made reasonable efforts and b) that the
mother was unable and unwilling to benefit from
such efforts and the mother only appealed the
latter finding.)
 Capable
review”
of repetition yet evading
OR
 “Collateral
consequences”
THREE CRITERIA:




First, the challenged action 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, reasonable likelihood that the question will arise
again in the future, and that it will affect either the same
complaining party or a reasonably identifiable group.
Third, the question must have some public importance.
Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370, 382 660 A.2d 323, 330
(1995)
 Must
be reasonably possible
 Must
be in the record



Generally not a problem for parties
Standing of intervening parties. In re Shanaira C., 105
Conn. App. 713, 940 A.2d 817 (2008) (cert pending)
(holding that non-relative intervener had standing to
appeal court’s ruling revoking child’s commitment.)
Foster parents may not have standing. See, e.g.,
Terese B. v. Commissioner of Children and Families, 68
Conn. App. 223 (2002) (foster parent lacked standing to
pursue administrative appeal of DCF hearing officer
decision upholding Department’s removal of foster child
from her care, where right to such hearing granted only
be reg and not statute)


Motion to stay execution of that judgment should
also be filed as soon as possible in order to protect
the parent’s right to visit the child while the appeal
is pending. See Practice Book § 61-12. Unless a
stay of execution is obtained, the termination
judgment extinguishes the parent’s visitation
rights. In re Amy H., 56 Conn. App. 55, 61, 742
A.2d 372, 377 (1999).
Child’s independent right to seek visitation post
TPR. See Michaud v. Wawruck, 209 Conn. 407, 415
(1988); In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177
Conn. 648 (1999); C.G.S. 46b-121.



Whether to grant a stay is within the discretion of
the trial court
Other factors include the likely outcome of the
appeal, the irreparability of harm to the movant,
and the effect of delay upon other parties as well
as the general public. Griffin Hospital v.
Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, 196
Conn. 451, 458-59(1985)
See also In re Alexander T., 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 586,
2002 WL 31957474 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002) (stay
denied where success on appeal is only a
possibility, not a probability).


The Practice Book provides that a temporary
stay may be ordered sua sponte or on written
or oral motion until the time to take an
appeal has expired or, if an appeal has been
filed, until the final determination of the
cause.
See Practice Book § 61-12.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
◦ Best known for procedural due process holding.
◦ But also has substantive due process aspect:
 Court suggests that state would violate due process by
terminating parental rights non-consensually “without
some showing of [parental] unfitness and for the sole
reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's
best interest.” (FN 10; internal quotes, citations omitted.)

MLB v. SLJ, 519 U.S. 102 (1996)
◦ TPR works “unique kind of deprivation” compared to all
other civil actions.
1. Motions for contempt
 In re Marcus.
120 Conn. App. 745 (2010)
 In re Leah S.
284 Conn. 685 (2007)

Rights of Incarcerated parent to due process.
In re Marcus, 120 Conn. App. 745 (2010);In
re Jaime, 120 Conn. App. 712(2010); In re
Lukas, 120 Conn. App. 465(2010).

Permanency/Best Interests Findings. In re
Jordan T 296 Conn. 905 (2010)

Conflicted representation by child’s counsel.
In re Lyric H., 114 Conn. App. 582 (2009).
Predictive Neglect
 In re Francisco R., 111 Conn. App. 529 (2009)
 In re TK, 105 Conn. App. 502 (2009)
 In re Anthony A., 112 Conn. App. 643 (2009)



Evidentiary. Admissibility of children’s
statements. In re Tayler F., 111 Conn. App.
28 (2008), cert granted 290 Conn. 901(2009)
Right to evidentiary hearing in
revocation/guardianship case. In re Shanaira
C., cert granted, 286 Conn. 917 (2008)
Rights of 18 year olds in juvenile court. In re
Matthew F. Supreme Court


Standard of Review in TPR cases:
“clearly erroneous” versus “scrupulous review
and substantial evidence”
See In re Tremaine, 117 Conn. App. 521
2009, In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (2009).
Standard of review when assessing rights of o
non-custodial parent.