In re Ryan C.

220 Conn.App. 507

299 A.3d 308

IN RE RYAN C. ^*

AC 45979, (AC 46006)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 8, 2023

Officially Released July 20, 2023^**

Benjamin M. Wattenmaker, assigned counsel, for the appellant in Docket No. AC 45979 (respondent father).

Joshua D. Michtom, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant in Docket No. AC 46006 (minor child).

Evan O'Roark, assistant attorney general, for the appellee in both cases (petitioner).

Prescott, Suarez and Seeley, Js.

PRESCOTT, J.

The respondent father, Chester C., and his minor child, Ryan C., appeal from the judgment of the trial court ¹ rendered in favor of Ryan C.’s intervening foster parent, Jeanette P., ² denying motions to revoke commitment filed by the respondent and the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, ³ and granting Jeanette P.’s motion to transfer guardianship of Ryan C. to herself. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the court properly allowed Jeanette P. to intervene in the dispositional phase of the neglect proceeding for the purposes of objecting to the motions to revoke commitment and filing the motion to transfer guardianship. ⁴ We conclude that, in the circumstances of the present case, the court improperly allowed Jeanette P. to intervene and to file a motion to transfer guardianship and that her intervention improperly tainted the court's adjudication of the motions to revoke commitment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case for a new trial on the motions to revoke commitment.

In addition to the dispositive claim on appeal, we also review the respondent's and Ryan C.’s claim that the court improperly precluded on relevancy grounds evidence pertaining to Madison C., Ryan C.’s sister, as that evidentiary claim is likely to arise again on remand. ⁵ We conclude that evidence relating to Madison C. was relevant to the motions to revoke the commitment pertaining to Ryan C., and, thus, the court abused its discretion by precluding the evidence.

The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. Ryan C. was born in December, 2015. The respondent and Ryan C.’s mother, Patricia K., have two other children together: Madison C., who was born in 2013, and Andrew C., who was born in 2017.

On April 25, 2017, the Department of Children and Families (department) received a referral alleging that Patricia K. and the respondent were allowing Madison C. and Ryan C. ⁶ to live in deplorable conditions. On May 2, 2017, the petitioner sought and obtained an order of temporary custody for Madison C. and Ryan C., and the children were placed in foster care. On that same day, the petitioner filed neglect petitions on behalf of both children.

Later in 2017, Andrew C. was born. The department sought and obtained an order of temporary custody and filed a neglect petition on behalf of Andrew C. on November 20, 2017. At this time, the department placed Andrew C. in foster care.

On November 30, 2017, the respondent and Patricia K. entered written pleas of nolo contendere as to all three children's neglect petitions, and the children were adjudicated neglected. The court simultaneously issued specific steps to the respondent that he should take to be reunified with his children. The department placed Ryan C. and Madison C. with Jeanette P., who was a licensed foster parent. Ryan C. has remained with Jeanette P. since November, 2017. ⁷

On February 1, 2019, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the respondent's and Patricia K.’s parental rights with respect to Madison C., Ryan C., and Andrew C. on the grounds that the children had previously been adjudicated neglected and that the respondent and Patricia K. had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). The trial on the petitions to terminate parental rights commenced on August 5, 2019. On August 16, 2019, while the trial was still ongoing, the petitioner withdrew the petitions as to the respondent for all three children because the department had failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with his children. At this time, the court issued specific steps to the respondent to facilitate his reunification. The trial continued, however, as to Patricia K., and, on November 6, 2019, the court granted the petitions to terminate Patricia K.’s parental rights as to all three children. ⁸

On October 30, 2019, the petitioner filed a motion to review the permanency plan relating to Ryan C. On January 2, 2020, the court approved the petitioner's motion and approved a permanency plan of reunification.

On July 8, 2020, Madison C.’s commitment to the petitioner was revoked. She was returned to the respondent's custody with a period of six months of protective supervision. ⁹

After delaying Ryan C.’s reunification with the respondent to allow for additional time for Madison C. to adjust to her reunification, the petitioner planned to reunify Ryan C. with the respondent on July 30, 2020. On July 28, 2020, two days before the petitioner planned to reunify Ryan C. with the respondent, Jeanette P. filed an ex parte emergency motion to intervene for the sole purpose of seeking an emergency motion to stay, an ex parte emergency motion to stay the removal of Ryan C. from her home, a motion to intervene for purposes of seeking the transfer of guardianship of Ryan C. to her, and a motion to modify the current disposition of commitment and transfer guardianship to herself (motion to transfer guardianship). On that same day, the respondent filed an objection to Jeanette P.’s motion to transfer guardianship. Also on that same day, the court granted Jeanette P.’s ex parte emergency motion to intervene and ex parte emergency motion to stay. In granting the ex parte emergency motion to stay, the court required that the respondent's visitation with Ryan C. be supervised and prohibited overnight visitation with him until further notice.

On October 22, 2020, the respondent filed a motion to revoke the commitment of Ryan C., requesting that Ryan C. be returned to his custody. On June 22, 2021, Jeanette P. filed an "amended motion to intervene corrected," which sought intervention for the same purposes as the original motion in addition to seeking to object to the respondent's motion to revoke commitment. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a motion to revoke commitment. ¹⁰ In her motion to revoke commitment, the petitioner stated that "[t]he respondent ... has engaged and participated in services and has continued to develop a better understanding of his children's needs as the case progresses, and he continues to show growth and increased knowledge. ... The cause for the commitment no longer exists and revocation of commitment is in the best interest of [Ryan C.]."

On June 25, 2021, the court held a hearing on Jeanette P.’s motions to intervene. ¹¹ At the hearing, Jeanette P. argued that she should be allowed to permissively intervene in the matter pursuant to Practice Book § 35a-4, General Statutes § 46b-121, and our Supreme Court's decision in In re Ava W ., 336 Conn. 545, 248 A.3d 675 (2020). Jeanette P. argued that the court should, in its discretion, allow her to intervene because it was in the child's best interests. Jeanette P. also argued that the other factors set forth in Practice Book § 35a-4, including the timeliness of the motions, her interest in the case, whether her interest was adequately represented by the existing parties, and whether her intervention may cause delay or other prejudice, all weighed in favor of intervention.

The petitioner, the respondent, counsel for Ryan C., and the guardian ad litem for Ryan C. all opposed the court's granting Jeanette P.’s motions to intervene. The parties opposing the motions to intervene agreed that Jeanette P. had a right to be heard but argued that no legal authority permitted her to intervene and become a party to the proceedings. ¹²

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court, in an oral ruling from the bench, granted Jeanette P.’s motions to intervene for the purposes of filing a motion to transfer guardianship and objecting to the motions to revoke commitment. In granting Jeanette P. intervention, the court stated: "The issue of intervention has gone many different ways, but, in the end, it is up to the discretion of the trial court. Despite what Horton v. [Meskill , 187 Conn. 187, 445 A.2d 579 (1982)], ¹³ says ... In re Ava W. [supra, 336 Conn. 545, 248 A.3d 675] has quite frankly turned a lot of things into a free-for-all in juvenile court, and, quite frankly, I think has allowed a lot of things to happen that may not have happened in the past. I think, in the end, the motion to intervene certainly is a motion that would come under action based on the best interest of the child. I realize that this is probably going to delay the proceedings. Simply looking at what counsel is prepared to do for today's hearing, it's probably enough to fill any judge with foreboding at the thought. However, I think my hands are fairly tied by In re Ava W. " (Footnote added.)

On October 29, 2021, trial commenced on Jeanette P.’s motion to transfer guardianship, the petitioner's motion to revoke commitment, and the respondent's motion to revoke commitment. ¹⁴ The trial continued on nonconsecutive days starting on November 1, 2021, and concluding on June 8, 2022. During the trial, Jeanette P. presented testimony from several witnesses, including the respondent; an office director for the department who oversaw Ryan C.’s case; and Derek Franklin, a forensic psychologist who had evaluated Ryan C., the respondent, and Jeanette P. The respondent testified on his own behalf and presented testimony from several witnesses, including social workers for the department who had worked on Ryan C.’s case, and the guardian ad litem, who testified that it was in Ryan C.’s best interests for the court to grant the motions...