Case Name: IN RE JESSICA M.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1999-09-28
Citations: 250 Conn. 747
Docket Number: SC 16013
Parties: IN RE JESSICA M.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 747–752

Head Matter:
IN RE JESSICA M.
(SC 16013)
Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and McDonald, Js.
Argued May 25
officially released September 28, 1999
Eliot D. Prescott, assistant attorney general, for the petitioner.
Linda Pearce Prestley, child advocate for the amicus curiae (office of the child advocate).
Martha Stone, for the amicus curiae (Center for Children’s Advocacy).
In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142 (b) and Practice Book § 79-3, 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 Appellate Court.
Reporter of Judicial Decisions The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

Opinion:
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This particular certified appeal arises from a petition by the commissioner of children and families for, inter alia, termination of the respondents' parental rights in their minor child, Jessica M. The trial court dismissed that petition, and the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The commissioner filed a subsequent petition for termination, which the trial court granted, terminating the parental rights of the respondent mother, Julie M., to Jessica M. Julie M. has not appealed that termination. Prior to the trial of the second petition for termination, the respondent father, Mark M., voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to Jessica M.
The commissioner has moved to vacate the judgments of the Appellate Court and the trial court in the present case on the grounds that this appeal is now moot and the issues decided by those courts have not been subject to review by the Supreme Court. After examining the record and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that this appeal, through no fault of the parties, has been rendered moot and should be dismissed. See Conetta v. Stamford, 246 Conn. 281, 295, 715 A.2d 756 (1998) (when events occur that preclude appellate court from granting practical relief through disposition of merits, case is moot); Blesso Fire Systems, Inc. v. Eastern Connecticut State University, 245 Conn. 252, 256, 713 A.2d 1283 (1998) (same). We further have determined that the judgments of the Appellate Court and the trial court in this matter should be vacated. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 22, 115 S. Ct. 386, 130 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1994) (when appeal rendered moot through no fault of parties, established federal practice is for appellate court to grant motion for vacatur of judgment under appellate review); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S. Ct. 104, 95 L. Ed. 36 (1950) (same); compare U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, supra, 29 (mootness by reason of settlement does not require appellate court vacatur of judgment under appellate review); see also Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. DeMilo & Co., 233 Conn. 254, 269, 659 A.2d 148 (1995) (citing aforementioned cases with approval).
The appeal is dismissed and the judgments of the Appellate Court and the trial court are vacated.
We granted the petition of the commissioner of children and families for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; In re Jessica M., 49 Conn. App. 229, 714 A.2d 64 (1998); limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's judgment that the respondents' parental rights could not be terminated on the grounds of: (1) failure to rehabilitate; or (2) acts of parental commission or omission?" In re Jessica M., 247 Conn. 915, 722 A.2d 806 (1998).