Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Connecticut » Supreme Court » 2010 » In re Matthew F.
In re Matthew F.
State: Connecticut
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: SC18583
Case Date: 08/03/2010
Preview:****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

IN RE MATTHEW F.* (SC 18583)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js.* Argued May 28--officially released August 3, 2010

John E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman and Amor C. Rosario, assistant attorneys general, for the appellant (department of children and families). Rosemarie T. Weber, for the appellee (respondent father). Kimberly A. Pisinski, for the appellee (petitioner). Anne Louise Blanchard and Jillian Griswold filed a brief for Connecticut Legal Services, Inc., et al., as amici curiae.

Opinion

KATZ, J. The department of children and families (department) appeals from the order of the trial court granting the motion for services filed by the petitioner, Matthew F., which required the department to, inter alia, provide and pay for appropriate private placement services for Matthew, who had been committed to the department's care prior to his eighteenth birthday, until he attains the age of twenty-one.1 The department's principal claim on appeal is that the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters lacked jurisdiction over the motion because it was filed after Matthew had attained the age of eighteen and there is no statutory basis for the court's jurisdiction to compel the department to provide services to an individual beyond the age of eighteen. Although we disagree with the department's underlying premise, we conclude that, under the facts established by the trial court, there was no basis for that court's exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case with direction to dismiss the motion for services. The record reveals the following facts, as found by the trial court or otherwise undisputed, and procedural history. The respondent parents (parents) adopted Matthew and an unrelated girl, both of whom eventually manifested serious mental health issues that the parents had difficulty managing, necessitating intervention by the department starting when Matthew was fourteen years old. After substantiating allegations of physical abuse against Matthew, the department loosely monitored him and made some effort to support the family, but concentrated its efforts toward assisting Matthew's sister.2 Matthew's parents kept the department informed about his behavioral problems and repeatedly requested help and advice from the department. Matthew's parents also sought to have him voluntarily admitted to the department's care, pursuant to General Statutes
Download In re Matthew F..pdf

Connecticut Law

Connecticut State Laws
Connecticut Court
Connecticut Agencies
    > Connecticut DMV

Comments

Tips