IN RE HYRUM D. (2025)

230 Conn. App. 91 (Jan. 2025)

Petition to adjudicate respondents’ minor children neglected; motion to revoke commitment pursuant to statute (§ 46b-129 (m)).

DCF appeals from revoked commitment of mother’s children to custody of father and returning children to respondent mother’s custody.

• Argued court exceeded statutory authority in revoking commitment w no motion pending and w/o giving all parties notice & full evidentiary hearing.

Trial Court found children neglected, denied DCF’s motion to transfer guardianship and respondent’s (mother) motion to revoke commitment

• Court vacated order denying mother’s motion to revoke commitment, revoked commitment of children to custody of father.

Respondent mother arrested in connection w incident where she was intoxicated on PCP and alcohol w her kids.

• DCF invoked 96hr hold on children due to concerns ab mother’s mental health and substance abuse issues.
• Father was out of state at time.
• DCF got ex parte orders for temp. custody (Nov. 2019) & filed neglect petitions alleging denial of proper care and attention & permitted to live under conditions injurious to their wellbeing.
• Dec. 2019 DCF places kids w foster mother in accordance w DCF’s request.

Jan 2021: both parents entered nolo plea to neglect petition. Ct accepted both pleas, found children neglected, committed them to father’s care & ordered final steps.

• Mother’s issues found to be centered around substance use & mental health.

June 2021 permanency plan was transfer of guardianship w concurrent plan permanent transfer of guardianship.

May 2022: DCF filed motion to transfer guardianship. Feb 2023: parents filed motion to revoke commitment to DCF and to have kids returned to them.

• Ct consolidated both motions for trial over 2023.
• Dec. 2023 DCF moved to open evidence, claiming that police conducted investigations of mother where mother admitted to being homeless & having suicidal intent (found w knife in her hand).
• Ct granted motion to open evidence in Jan. 2024 → DCF submitted police reports from 2023 as exhibits.
  • DCF social worker testified that mom became homeless in Nov. 2023 and hadn’t obtained stable housing since then.

May 2024: Ct denied DCF’s motion to transfer guardianship and parents’ motion to revoke commitment (w/o prejudice).

• Parents met burden of proof that cause for commitment no longer exists & it’s in best interest of kids to return them to care & custody of mother
• DCF failed to prove it wouldn’t be in best interests of children to return them to mother.

June 2024 status review: mother appeared w/o atty, father didn’t appear but atty present.

• Denying parents’ motion w/o prejudice meant any other motions can be filed w/o waiting 6 mo.
• Gaps in evidence of police reports on timing & findings, so police reports not sufficient.
• Ct basically admitted they were at a stuck point and wanted parties’ advice on suggestions.
  • Dad’s atty stated at time of trial his position was kids should be returned to mother, but counsel hasn’t heard from father since so can’t request anything.
  • Still remaining issue of mom’s unstable housing → BUT mom said she’d since moved somewhere else & DCF can check it out whenever, she’s on probation for incident w father but he dropped restraining order so she’s been in contact w him. She’s been at every visit and has been looking for work and cooperating w probation.
• Ct didn’t give explanation or notice to parties that it intended to take evidence at status review → but put mom under oath & asked ab document stating she was still in therapy.
• Ct vacated its order denying parents’ motion to revoke commitment & granted the motion, ordering custody to be returned to mother.
  • Increased mother’s visitation from 2 to 3x per week until order was facilitate, ordered that foster mom can’t be involved w those visits.
  • Father’s counsel expressed concern that ct had minimal info on mother’s housing and Ct will prob need an evidentiary hearing bc their decision is based on mother having no residence → ct needs to look into whether mom has actually obtained stable housing.
• Ct stayed its order revoking commitment until August 2024, scheduled status review for 1 week prior to that.

Appeal & DCF motion to reargue in trial ct bc court required to hold evidentiary hearing before granting a contested motion to revoke commitment (cited cases holding that requirement)

• July 2024 Ct issued memo decision denying motion to reargue on the papers.
  • Said they’d reviewed cited cases & found they’re diff rom here bc trial was over several days, evidence was reopened and further evidence presented, and further info provided on record during status review.
  • Multiple days of evidence and appeal, no need to toll period for filing appeal/
• Appeal was then amended to challenge denial of the motion to reargue.
• Mom argues ct not required to hold evidentiary hearing bc already had trial on parties’ motions and failure to hold evidentiary hearing (if required) was harmless.

App. Ct doesn’t find that trial court’s error (of not providing evidentiary hearing) was harmless.

• Scope of court’s statutory authority:
  • State Sup Ct. says statute doesn’t expressly require evidentiary hearing, but it implicitly mandates one (at least when a motion for revocation of commitment is contested).
  • When a motion for revocation of commitment is neither uncontested nor the subject of undisputed facts, court is required to conduct evidentiary hearing (In re Shanaira C., where they deprived intervenor of full opportunity to present evidence and examine witnesses → didn’t receive hearing to which she was entitled).
• Trial court sua sponte solicited evidence from respondent while denying it was holding an evidentiary hearing
  • Ct failed to provide petitioner notice it intended to take additional evidence on petitioner's motion at status review proceeding
• Court effectively prevented petitioner from meeting her burden as to best interests of children by preventing her from participating fully in proceeding
  • Court’s short June 2024 hearing revoking children’s commitment prevented petitioner from participating fully in the June 2024 proceeding.
• Court’s actions were in clear breach of holding in In re Nasia B. (Conn. App.) → bc neither parties nor foster mother had notice that court was going to open and revoke the child’s commitment, the court acted outside the scope of its authority under § 46b-129 (m) and (p) which are intended to provide for orderly administration of justice, protect due process rights of petitioner, respondents and foster mother, and to protect best interest of the child.
  • Respondent argues (and trial ct agreed) that this case is diff from Nasia bc motion to revoke was filed here and trial ct heard testimony and received evidence over 6 days on whether cause for commitment no longer existed, mother ignores that trial ct already denied that motion bc of evidence in record in Jan 2024.
    • Bc court improperly held a truncated evidentiary hearing where it took evidence only from mother w/o providing parties notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard on contested issue, In re Nasia B. dictates that the judgments revoking the children’s commitment to the petitioner must be reversed.