IN RE SANDY J. M.-M.[*]
Considered January 18, 2018 [**]
Alvord, Sheldon and Prescott, Js.
petitioner, Sandy J. M.-M., asks this court, by way of a
motion filed on January 9, 2018, to reverse summarily the
trial court's dismissal of her appeal from a decision of
the Probate Court denying her petition seeking special
immigrant juvenile status findings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101
(a) (27) (J) (2012); General Statutes § 45a-608n
We conclude that the resolution of this appeal is controlled
by our Supreme Court's recent decision in In re
Henrry P. B.-P., 327 Conn. 312, 173 A.3d 928 (2017), and
that summary reversal is appropriate in the circumstances of
this case. Accordingly, we grant the petitioner's motion
and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
to the relevant pleadings, the petitioner was born in
Guatemala at the beginning of March, 1999, and she entered
the United States when she was still a minor. Proceedings to
remove her from the United States have commenced. On February
14, 2017, when she was seventeen years old, the petitioner
initiated, pursuant to § 45a-608n (b), this proceeding
requesting special immigrant juvenile status findings.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-610, the petitioner
also filed with the Probate Court a petition to remove her
father as her guardian. On March 30, 2017, the Probate Court,
Yamin, J., dismissed and denied, respectively, the
petitions because the petitioner had reached her eighteenth
birthday and the court presumably concluded that it lacked
the authority to make the requested findings because she was
no longer a minor.
1, 2017, the petitioner appealed to the Superior Court from
the Probate Court's dismissal and denial of the
petitions. In that appeal, the petitioner asserted in part
that the Probate Court had improperly dismissed and denied
the petitions because even though she had reached her
eighteenth birthday, the Probate Court retained the statutory
authority to render the requested findings.
25, 2017, the Superior Court, Ginocchio, J.,
dismissed the appeal from Probate Court, citing to a Superior
Court decision that held that it lacked the authority to
adjudicate a neglect petition if the minor child turned
eighteen years old during the pendency of the petition. See
In re Jessica M., 303 Conn. 584, 587-88, 35 A.3d
1072 (2012). On June 29, 2017, the petitioner filed this
appeal challenging the propriety of the trial court's
dismissal of her probate appeal. On July 27, 2017, this court
granted the petitioner's motion to stay the deadline for
her to file an appellant's brief until thirty days after
the final disposition by our Supreme Court in In re
Henrry P. B.-P.
Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Henrry P.
B.-P., supra, 327 Conn. 316, on December 14, 2017,
holding that the Probate Court does not lose its authority to
make special immigrant juvenile status findings pursuant to
§ 45a-608n (b) when the child who is the subject of the
petition reaches the age of eighteen during the pendency of
the petition. We agree with the petitioner that In re
Henrry P. B.-P. controls the resolution of this appeal.
our rules of practice do not contain an express provision
authorizing a summary disposition of an appeal on the merits,
this court has the authority to suspend the rules
‘‘[i]n the interest of expediting decision, or
for other good cause shown . . . .'' Practice Book
§ 60-3. If the disposition of an appeal is plainly and
undeniably mandated by a decision of our Supreme Court, as in
this case, summary disposition is warranted and further
adjudication of the appeal would waste precious judicial
resources. Summary disposition is particularly warranted if,
as in this case, such relief is unopposed and our failure to
act expeditiously might prejudice a party by preventing the
timely assertion of her rights.
motion is granted, the judgment of the Superior Court is
reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
according to law.
accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes
§ 46b-142 (b) and Practice Book § 79a-12, the names
of the parties involved in this appeal are not disclosed. The
records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection
only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon
order of the Appellate Court.
February 9, 2018, the date that this decision was released as
a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and