In re Ava W.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

In re Ava W.

DecidedMay 4, 2021

DocketSC20465

StatusPublished

This text of In re Ava W. (In re Ava W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Ava W., (Colo. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing 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 Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest 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 the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** IN RE AVA W.—CONCURRENCE

MULLINS, J., concurring. I agree with the result. In the present case, it was the child who originally sought posttermination visitation. The child consistently requested posttermination visitation throughout the termination proceeding and joins the respondent’s appeal, asserting that the trial court has authority to consider that request for posttermination visitation. For that reason, I agree with the majority that the court in the present case had the authority to consider posttermination visitation orders under General Statutes § 46b-121 (b) (1). Accordingly, I concur in the majority opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing 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 Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest 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 the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** IN RE AVA W.—CONCURRENCE

MULLINS, J., concurring. I agree with the result. In the present case, it was the child who originally sought posttermination visitation. The child consistently requested posttermination visitation throughout the termination proceeding and joins the respondent’s appeal, asserting that the trial court has authority to consider that request for posttermination visitation. For that reason, I agree with the majority that the court in the present case had the authority to consider posttermination visitation orders under General Statutes § 46b-121 (b) (1). Accordingly, I concur in the majority opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re Ava W., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ava-w-conn-2021.