In re Teagan K.-O.

335 Conn. 745

242 A.3d 59

IN RE TEAGAN K.-O.^*

SC 20245

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 27, 2019

Officially released June 24, 2020^**

Joshua Michtom, assistant public defender, with whom was Don M. Hodgdon, New London, for the appellant (respondent father).

Evan O'Roark, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, Clare Kindall, solicitor general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.^***

McDONALD, J.

This case requires us to consider whether a Connecticut trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to adjudicate a newborn child neglected on the basis of "predictive neglect"¹ when the parents relocated to another state shortly before the child's birth, purportedly with no intention of returning, and that state determined that Connecticut would be a more convenient forum to adjudicate this matter. The respondent father appeals from the trial court's decision denying his motion to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, to adjudicate the respondents' child, Teagan K.-O., neglected. The father contends that, irrespective of the fact that a petition to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to another child of theirs was pending in Connecticut when they relocated to Florida, a Connecticut trial court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Teagan's neglect petition because any neglect of her would never occur in this state. The commissioner contends that the determination by a Florida court that this state would be a more appropriate forum provided a proper basis for the Connecticut trial court's subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which has been adopted by both states.² See General Statutes §§ 46b-115 through 46b-115gg ; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.501 et seq. (West 2012). We agree with the father's jurisdictional argument. The trial court, therefore, improperly denied his motion to dismiss the neglect petition.

The record reveals the following facts that are undisputed for the purposes of the present appeal.³ The respondents, both raised in Connecticut, have a lengthy history of involvement with the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. Each had been placed in the department's custody as a teenager due to various mental health issues. The respondents' involvement with the department continued after they had children.

The respondent mother's first child, A, born in Connecticut in 2012, was conceived with someone other than the respondent father. In 2013, the department became involved with A due to concerns about the mother's mental health, her parenting ability, and domestic violence, as well as concerns about possible physical abuse of A. A was adjudicated neglected, and, thereafter, sole custody was awarded to A's father.

The respondents subsequently had three children together; the first two children were born in Connecticut. Their first child, G, was removed from the respondents' custody within one month of his birth in 2015, in light of the mother's history and an incident of domestic violence in G's presence. Subsequently, G was adjudicated neglected and placed in the commissioner's custody. The respondents' second child, J, was removed from the respondents' custody immediately after his birth in 2016, on the ground that the respondents had not addressed mental health and parenting issues. In March, 2017, J was adjudicated neglected and committed to the commissioner's custody. At that same time, the respondents' parental rights with respect to G were terminated.

In April, 2018, the commissioner filed a petition seeking to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to J. The mother was then near full-term in her pregnancy with Teagan. The respondents paid a relative to drive them to Gainesville, Florida, where they signed a one year lease for an apartment.

In May, 2018, Teagan was born in a Gainesville hospital. The hospital contacted the Florida Department of Children and Families after information came to light that the respondents' other children had been removed from their care. Two days after Teagan's birth, when she was ready to be discharged from the hospital, the Florida department took emergency custody of her.⁴ The Florida department contacted the Connecticut department to report that the mother had given birth.

One day after the Florida department took emergency custody of Teagan, the commissioner filed a motion in the Connecticut Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford (trial court) seeking temporary custody of Teagan and a petition seeking to adjudicate Teagan neglected on the ground that she would be subject to conditions injurious to her well-being if she remained in the respondents' care or that she was denied proper care and attention.⁵ The motion for temporary custody was denied on the ground that the child was not in Connecticut.

Shortly thereafter, the Florida department filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Juvenile Division (Florida court), a "motion to transfer jurisdiction" to the Connecticut trial court on the basis of the family's history with service providers and child protective services in this state. The respondents opposed the motion. A Florida general magistrate held a contested hearing on the motion, at which the respondents were represented by separate counsel. Following the hearing, the magistrate issued a report and a recommendation to grant the motion.

The recommendation rested on the following factual findings. An open dependency case in Connecticut was then pending on a petition for termination of the respondents' parental rights with respect to Teagan's sibling, J. The commissioner wanted to add Teagan to the open dependency case. The respondents had admitted to the Florida department that they traveled to Florida before Teagan's birth to avoid further involvement with the Connecticut department. Witnesses and persons with knowledge of the issues pertaining to Teagan's possible neglect and to the possible termination of the respondents' parental rights as to J reside in Connecticut. The respondents previously had been involved with the Connecticut department as children, and their parental rights with respect to another child had been terminated. Teagan's guardian ad litem and the Connecticut department both supported the transfer of jurisdiction. The Florida court had verified with the Connecticut trial court, Driscoll, J. , that the Connecticut court wanted to, and would, accept jurisdiction.⁶

The magistrate acknowledged that the respondents opposed the transfer of jurisdiction and that, in support of their opposition, they had presented a copy of their Florida lease and represented that the father was employed in Gainesville.⁷ The magistrate also acknowledged that the respondents had offered to consent to Teagan's dependency if the Florida court retained jurisdiction, to eliminate the need for witnesses and to allow the court to rely solely on documentation from the Connecticut department to establish a reunification plan. The magistrate noted, however, that the Florida department and Teagan's guardian ad litem represented that they had no intention of offering or supporting reunification should the Florida court retain jurisdiction and, instead, would seek to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to Teagan on the basis of the respondents' prior history.

The magistrate's report concluded: "Connecticut is a more convenient forum state, and the court finds that it is in the best interests of the child ... and will promote the efficient administration of justice to transfer jurisdiction to Connecticut." The following day, after the parties waived the period for filing exceptions to the magistrate's report, the Florida court ratified and adopted the magistrate's recommendation to transfer jurisdiction to the Connecticut court.

The commissioner then renewed her request for an ex parte order for temporary custody of Teagan in the trial court, which the court, Driscoll, J. , granted. Teagan was brought to Connecticut and placed with the same foster family caring for her sibling, J.

The father filed a motion to dismiss the pending neglect petition on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.⁸ Appended to the motion were copies of the respondents' Florida lease, a pay stub from the father's Florida employment, and the father's Florida voter registration card, which was issued after the Florida court proceeding. The commissioner opposed the motion, contending that the Florida court's inconvenient forum determination established a basis for the Connecticut trial court's subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. After a contested hearing on the motion, the trial court, Hon. Michael A. Mack , judge trial referee, opened the evidence twice—once to take evidence that the father had appealed from the Florida court's decision granting the motion to transfer, and again to take evidence that the First District Court of Appeal of Florida had issued a per curiam, summary affirmance.

The Connecticut trial court denied the father's motion to dismiss. The court cited two reasons. First, the trial court reasoned that a Florida District Court of Appeal had affirmed that jurisdiction rests with Connecticut courts, after the respondents had had an opportunity to present evidence in that forum on the matter and had failed to present such evidence. Second, the trial court determined that the respondents could not seek equitable redress because they did not come to the court with clean hands, given their admission to the Florida department that they had traveled to Florida to avoid involvement with the Connecticut department.⁹

Ultimately, the trial court concluded that "it has...