Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re Madison C.

201 Conn. App. 184 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Madison C.

9 Citing cases

  1. In re Madison C.

    213 Conn. App. 164 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)

    Because the facts averred in the respondent's petition do not constitute newly discovered evidence within the meaning of § 52-270, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. See In re Madison C. , 201 Conn. App. 184, 241 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020). The respondent filed a consolidated petition for a new trial with respect to the judgments terminating her parental rights as to the three minor children.

  2. In re Skylar B.

    204 Conn. App. 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 638, 72 A.3d 1074 ; see also In re Madison C. , 201 Conn. App. 184, 193, 241 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020) ; In re Anthony L. , supra, 194 Conn. App. at 112–13, 219 A.3d 979. In the present case, the respondent claims that his right to substantive due process was violated by the termination of his parental rights because transfer of guardianship to the relative foster parents would have been a less restrictive means of achieving permanency for Skylar.

  3. In re Madison C.

    335 Conn. 985 (Conn. 2020)

    Alina Bricklin-Goldstein, assistant attorney general, in opposition.The petition by the respondent mother for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 201 Conn. App. 184, ––– A.3d –––– (2020), is denied.

  4. In re Andrew C.

    AC 47268 (Conn. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2024)

    The respondent mother's parental rights were terminated with respect to all three children on November 13, 2019, which was affirmed on appeal. In re Madison C., 201 Conn.App. 184, 241 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020). She has not participated in this appeal.

  5. In re Javonte B.

    226 Conn. App. 651 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    The record is therefore inadequate to review the claim.See In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626, 637, 72 A.3d 1074 (2013) ("the record must reflect whether there is a valid alternative permanency plan to termination and adoption"); see also In re Skylar B., 204 Conn. App. 729, 745, 254 A.3d 928 (2021); In re Riley B., 203 Conn. App. 627, 639, 248 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 336 Conn. 943, 250 A.3d 40 (2021); In re Madison C., 201 Conn. App. 184, 194, 241 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020); In re Julianna B., 141 Conn. App. 163, 171, 61 A.3d 606, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 908, 76 A.3d 625 (2013). In short, we decline to review the respondent's less restrictive alternative claim.

  6. In re Ryan C.

    220 Conn. App. 507 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    This court affirmed the trial court's judgments. See In re Madison C. , 201 Conn. App. 184, 196, 241 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020). On October 30, 2019, the petitioner filed a motion to review the permanency plan relating to Ryan C. On January 2, 2020, the court approved the petitioner's motion and approved a permanency plan of reunification.

  7. Mention v. Kensington Square Apartments

    214 Conn. App. 720 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Madison C. , 201 Conn. App. 184, 190, 241 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020).

  8. State v. Yusef L.

    207 Conn. App. 475 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    In State v. Yusef L., supra, 207 Conn. App. 475, 262 A.3d 1017, this court addressed the issue of whether a defendant's plea was knowingly or voluntarily made after reviewing the canvass conducted by the court.

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Inre Madison C. , 201 Conn. App. 184, 190, 241 A.3d 756, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020). A

  9. In re Riley B.

    203 Conn. App. 627 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that record was inadequate to review respondent mother's claim that trial court deprived her of substantive due process by terminating her parental rights before parties learned whether guardianship could be transferred to maternal relative

    See, e.g., In re Azareon Y. , supra, 309 Conn. at 636–41, 72 A.3d 1074 (affirming this court's determination that respondent's unpreserved substantive due process claim was not reviewable in light of inadequate record on issue of valid alternative permanency plan); In re Madison C. , 201 Conn. App. 184, 189–96, 241 A.3d 756 (concluding that respondent's substantive due process claim was unreviewable because record contained no factual predicates to permit review of claim that lesser restrictive means, other than termination of her parental rights, were available to protect best interests of children), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 985, 242 A.3d 480 (2020) ; In re Adelina A. , supra, 169 Conn. App. at 114, 125–27, 148 A.3d 621 (concluding that respondent's claim was unreviewable because there was no evidence presented concerning alternative permanency plan). The judgment is affirmed.