|
The question
of mootness once again confronted the Appellate Court in Claudia
F. and the court answered in a resounding fashion by determining
that a respondent mother's voluntary termination of her parental
rights rendered an appeal of a neglect adjudication moot. The case,
however, is interesting in that it features an interesting sidebar
as to whether an underling finding of neglect, followed by a voluntary
termination of parental rights, results in damaging consequences
to an individual who is thereby placed on the state's child abuse
registry pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101k.
In October
2003, the Department of Children and Families ("Department") filed
neglect petitions on behalf of the respondent mother's three minor
children. In February 2004, the trial court sustained an Order of
Temporary Custody, and the respondent did not appeal that judgment.
In May 2004, the court issued a decision adjudicating the children
neglected and committed them to the Department. The respondent filed
an appeal from that decision in July, but then consented to termination
of her parental rights in November 2004.
The question
for the appellate court was whether during the pendency of the appeal,
her consent to termination of parental rights rendered her appeal
moot. The respondent mother argued that despite the appearance that
no controversy existed to appeal, the court should retain jurisdiction
because of the collateral consequences that stems from the neglect
adjudication. Her claim rested on the notion that as a result of
the underlying finding of neglect, it was reasonably likely that
she would be listed on the state's child abuse registry. She further
contended that inclusion on the registry is stigmatizing, that her
records could be obtained by a state agency, and that ultimately
such information could enter the public domain. To this extent,
the respondent relied heavily on the case of Williams v. Ragalia,
261 Conn. 219 (2002).
The court
found this argument unpersuasive. First, the court opined that the
judgment of neglect was not directed at the respondent as a parent,
but at the condition of the children. Second, the respondent's concerns
about dissemination of the Department's records would not be remedied
by an appeal of the neglect finding, because the Department's records
of the respondent's conduct (i.e. medical neglect, domestic violence,
mental health issues) would still be in the records because the
respondent did not appeal from the temporary custody order. In addition,
the court distinguished this case from the recent Supreme Court
case of Allison G., 276 Conn. 146 (2005), which revolved
around parents' admitting to a finding that a child had been "uncared
for," but not that she had been subjected to sexual abuse because
of their neglect.
The case
may be found at the Judicial Branch website by going to http://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP93/93AP152.pdf
.
(JES)
|
