In re Brian C.

── In re Brian C. ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 06, 2026 Author: Suarez Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  In re Brian C. IN RE BRIAN C.* (AC 48939) Suarez, Clark and Wilson, Js. Syllabus The respondent mother appealed from the trial court’s judgment for the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, sustaining an ex parte order granting temporary custody of the respondent’s minor child, B, to the petitioner and adjudicating B neglected. The respondent claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence at the hearing sustaining the order of temporary custody. Held: This court dismissed the respondent mother’s appeal as moot, as the trial court’s order adjudicating B neglected and committing him to the custody of the petitioner superseded the order of temporary custody. The respondent mother’s claim that her challenge to the order of temporary custody remained eligible for review under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine failed under the first required criterion of that doctrine under Loisel v. Rowe (233 Conn. 370), namely, that the challenged action was of such limited duration that a strong likelihood that the substantial majority of cases raising a question about its validity will become moot before appellate litigation can be concluded, as she failed to pursue opportunities to challenge the order of temporary custody, including by failing to request a contested hearing or to pursue an appeal of the trial court’s order sustaining the order of temporary custody prior to the adjudication of B as neglected. Argued January 13—officially released May 6, 2026** Procedural History Petition by the Commissioner of Children and Families to adjudicate the respondents’ minor child neglected, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, Juvenile Matters, where the court, Daw- son, J., issued an ex parte order of temporary custody vested in the petitioner; thereafter, the court, Burgdorff, J., sustained the order of temporary custody without prejudice; subsequently, the court, Lopez, J., granted * In 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 court. ** May 6, 2026, the date that this decision was released as a slip opin- io