In re Hunter T.

── In re Hunter T. ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 12, 2026 Author: Elgo 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 Hunter T. IN RE HUNTER T.* (AC 49092) Elgo, Wilson and Pellegrino, Js. Syllabus The respondent father appealed from the trial court’s judgment adjudicat- ing his minor child neglected and committing the child to the custody of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families. The father claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly determined that the commitment of the child to the petitioner was in the child’s best interest. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that committing the child to the custody of the petitioner, rather than the respondent father, was in the child’s best interest, as the court could have reasonably relied on its factual findings, including the fact that the father previously had been convicted of risk of injury to a child in connection with a sexual offense and was reported to have a moderate risk of reoffending, and those findings were supported by the evidence in the record. Argued February 9—officially released May 12, 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 Hartford, Juvenile Matters, and tried to the court, Hon. Stephen F. Frazzini, judge trial referee; judgment adjudicating the minor child neglected and committing him to the custody of the petitioner, from which the respondent father appealed to this court. Affirmed. David B. Rozwaski, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent father). Timothy J. Holzman, assistant attorney general, with whom were Elizabeth Lewis, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, William Tong, attorney general, and * In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes §§ 46b- 142 (b) and 54-86e and Practice Book § 79a-12, the full 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 12, 2026, the date that this decision was released as a slip opin- ion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.  In re Hunter T. Nisa Khan, former assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner). Josh Michtom, assigned counsel, for the minor child. Opinion ELGO