Title- Connecticut: Appellate Court holds that there is no deprivation of due process and her constitutional rights were safeguarded during proceeding before the superior court in Connecticut. BY: Rebecca H.

Link for opinion- http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

The Connecticut Court of Appeals held in 134 Conn. App. 382; 38 A.3d 130; 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 118 that the Connecticut court had subject matter jurisdiction to make the initial child custody determination.

The Maternal mother and father challenged a judgment adjudication their child neglected and committing the child to the custody of the commissioner of children and families.  They argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.  The trial court found that at the time of the institution of the proceedings, the mother and father were residents of Connecticut.  Also found that Connecticut was the child’s home state

The respondent father and the respondent mother filed separate appeals to this court from the judgment of the trial court.  The respondent mother, had given birth to the child in Massachusetts.  The personnel from the deparment of children and families had sought and obtained an order of temporary custody, which then the departments social worker removed the child from the hospital in Massachusetts and places her in a foster care in Connecticut.  The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the order of temporary custody filed by the respondents.  The commissioner filed for a second order of temporary custody and a neglect custody.  Trial court denied the second motion.  The findings that Massachusetts was not the child’s home state, and has been in foster care in Connecticut since she was born supported that the subject matter jurisdiction under 46b- 115k (a) to make the initial child custody determination. 

Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of a court to adjudicate the type of controversy present by the action before it.  The court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the action before it. 

The respondent mother has failed to establish a right to have a Massachusetts court exclusively make the ignition child custody determination, and there is no deprivation of due process because a hearing was not conducted there.  Her constitutional rights were safeguarded during the proceeding before the Superior Court in Connecticut.  The judgment was affirmed