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 SHAWN S. ET AL.* (SC 16639)
Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Argued September 23--officially released December 17, 2002

Douglas M. Crockett, with whom were Anne Louise Blanchard and, on the brief, Betty J. Gailor, for the appellants (respondents). Susan Quinn Cobb, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Eliot D. Prescott and Mark F. Kohler, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (petitioner). Maria Morelli-Wolfe filed a brief for Greater Hartford Legal Assistance et al. as amici curiae.
Opinion

ZARELLA, J. The respondents, the parents of S and D, their minor children, appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgments of the trial court committing S and D to the custody of the commissioner of children and

families (commissioner). The Appellate Court dismissed the appeals on the ground that the respondents had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. In re Shawn S., 66 Conn. App. 305, 313, 784 A.2d 405 (2001). Thereafter, we granted the respondents' petition for certification limited to the following issue: ``Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss this appeal on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies?'' In re Shawn S., 258 Conn. 948, 788 A.2d 97 (2001). The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the respondents were required to exhaust their administrative remedies. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court on alternate grounds. The record discloses the following facts and procedural history that are relevant to this appeal. On February 17, 1999, the commissioner filed separate petitions, pursuant to General Statutes

Download 262cr9.pdf

Connecticut Law