Background
In March 2024, a mother presented to a hospital reporting sexual assault and was placed on a psychiatric hold. Her minor child, Brian—non-verbal with significant medical needs including a brain shunt, feeding tube, and hip dysplasia—remained in the waiting area with his maternal grandmother. Hospital staff observed the grandmother striking Brian and found her unable to care for him. The Department of Children and Families obtained an ex parte temporary custody order on March 12, 2024. The mother was released after 48 hours and returned to New York, promising to retrieve Brian on March 11 but never returned.
On March 22, 2024, the trial court held a preliminary hearing on the temporary custody order and sustained it “without prejudice.” The mother subsequently failed to request a contested hearing within the ten-day period permitted by statute. She filed a motion to vacate the custody order on May 28, 2024, but the trial court consolidated the custody proceeding with the neglect petition. Following a consolidated trial in January and February 2025, the court sustained the temporary custody order, adjudicated Brian neglected, and committed him to the custody of the Department of Children and Families. The mother appealed, challenging the temporary custody order and claiming the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence.
The Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed the mother’s appeal as moot. Because the trial court had adjudicated Brian neglected and committed him to the custody of the department, the underlying temporary custody order had been superseded and no practical relief could flow from reviewing it. The court rejected the mother’s argument that her challenge qualified for review under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine.
Under this exception, an otherwise moot question may be reviewed if three criteria are met: (1) the challenged action must be of limited duration with a strong likelihood that most cases will become moot before appellate review can conclude; (2) there must be a reasonable likelihood the question will recur and affect the same party or a reasonably identifiable group; and (3) the question must have public importance. The mother failed the first criterion because she did not avail herself of available opportunities to challenge the temporary custody order. Specifically, she failed to request a contested hearing within ten days of the preliminary hearing, failed to appeal the order immediately (as she had a right to do), and failed to challenge the trial court’s consolidation of the custody and neglect proceedings on appeal. The court held that the appeal became moot due to the mother’s own inaction, not because temporary custody orders are inherently of limited duration.