March 1, 2025
AC 47764
Mother and Father appealed the trial court’s denial of their application for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus, claiming that the court misinterpreted the finality and meaning of a DCF hearing officer’s decision, which they argued required DCF to place their child in a residential treatment program.
The Court held that the trial court properly denied the respondent’s application. The hearing officer’s decision did not direct DCF to place the child in residential care but rather required DCF to revise its case plan and to explore residential treatment if appropriate for the goal of reunification. Because the hearing officer’s decision did not create a clear, ministerial duty requiring placement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
The Court concluded that the respondents were not entitled to compel the specific placement sought, as DCF retained discretion in implementing the revised case plan and exploring placement options. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP231/AP231.165.pdf
