CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT REVERSES IN JUVENILE CASE, ORDERS HEARING BEFORE ADOPTION CAN RENDER MOTIONS MOOT

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that a trial court cannot rush an adoption proceeding to bypass ruling on a timely filed objection by foster parents, according to an opinion officially released on July 15, 2026.The state's highest court reversed a lower court's decision that had dismissed a motion from long-term foster parents as moot simply because the child's adoption had already been finalized.The unanimous ruling, authored by Chief Justice Mullins, marks the second time the protracted legal battle over the minor child, Jewelyette M., has reached the Supreme Court. The decision firmly establishes that trial courts must rule on outstanding, properly filed motions before them rather than managing their dockets in a way that artificially creates mootness.A Prolonged Custody DisputeJewelyette M., born in 2015, was committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families (DCF) as an infant. After her mother’s parental rights were terminated in 2017 and her father was incarcerated, she was placed with foster parents John N. and Diana N., with whom she lived for several years.A programmatic shift occurred in 2021 when the DCF notified the foster parents of intentions to remove the child to place her with a paternal aunt. The foster parents intervened to contest the removal, sparking years of litigation regarding the scope of foster parent intervention rights—a dispute the Supreme Court previously resolved in the foster parents' favor in March 2025.Following that initial high court remand, and after the child's biological father passed away, the trial court appointed the DCF Commissioner as the child’s statutory parent during an April 2025 virtual hearing. The foster parents' attorney initially raised no objection to the appointment.Procedural Timelines Defeated by Adoption DecreeAccording to court documents, the foster parents filed a timely "motion to open" the statutory parent appointment on June 2, 2025, after their counsel determined she had mistakenly agreed to the order under the belief that no other legal avenues were available.Though the foster parents' attorney alerted the trial court to the pending motion to open, the trial court proceeded to sign off on the child’s adoption by her paternal aunt and uncle on June 5, 2025—just three days later.When the trial court finally held a scheduled hearing on the foster parents' motion on June 18, 2025, it declared the matter moot, stating it could offer "no practical relief" since the adoption decree was already final.The Supreme Court rejected this sequence of events."The trial court's decision to proceed with the adoption before holding the hearing on the foster parents' motion to open was tantamount to a refusal to consider that motion," Chief Justice Mullins wrote, adding that the lower court "abdicated its fundamental obligation to decide all matters properly presented to it."Best Interest Analysis Ordered on RemandWhile the Supreme Court stopped short of explicitly vacating the final adoption decree, it remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the merits of the foster parents' motion.The high court uniquely directed the lower court to center its upcoming review on a comprehensive analysis of Jewelyette’s best interests, pointing to fresh disclosures that the child is no longer residing with the adoptive parents and has since moved to a different town with a maternal aunt."Paramount to the process is identification of the best path for Jewelyette moving forward," the court concluded.The case is In re Jewelyette M. (SC 21227). Brandon B. Fontaine represented the intervening foster parents. Deputy Solicitor General Evan O'Roark and Attorney General William Tong represented the DCF Commissioner. John R. Weikart served as assigned counsel for the minor child.