Connecticut Supreme Court

733 A.2d 136 (Conn. 1999)

NANCY G. ET AL.

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

15952

Connecticut Supreme Court

Argued November 3, 1998

May 18, 1999

Martha Stone, with whom were Marsha Lawson, law student intern, and, on the

brief, Martin B. Margulies, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Eliot D.

Prescott, assistant attorney general, with whom were Gregory T. D'Auria,

assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney

general, and Susan T. Pearlman and Carolyn Querijero, assistant attorneys

general, for the appellee (defendant).

Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Palmer, McDonald and Peters,

Js.

Callahan, C. J.

OPINION

The plaintiff, Nancy G., appeals from a decision of the adoption subsidy

review board (board) denying her request for a postadoption subsidy for her

son, Jonathan.1 The statutes governing adoption subsidies provide that in

order to be eligible for an adoption subsidy, a child either must be a ward

of the commissioner of children and families (commissioner) or must be

"placed" by a licensed child-placing agency. See General Statutes §§§§

17a-116 and 17a-117.2 The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Jewish

Family Service of New Haven, Inc. (Jewish Family Service), the only licensed

child-placing agency involved in Jonathan's adoption, "placed" Jonathan for

adoption within the meaning of §§ 17a-116. We conclude that it did not and

that the plaintiff, therefore, is not eligible to receive a postadoption

subsidy.

The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. In 1980, the

plaintiff, a resident of New Haven, sought to adopt a child through the

International Mission of Hope in India. At that time, the International

Mission of Hope was affiliated with Crossroads, Inc. (Crossroads), an

adoption agency located in Minnesota. Crossroads provided education and

guidance to persons who were interested in adopting a child from India and

assisted the prospective adoptive parent or parents in the adoption process.

The role of the International Mission of Hope was to identify children in

India for adoption and, once a child had been located for particular

prospective parents, to institute guardianship proceedings in an Indian

court on behalf of the prospective parents so that the child could be

brought to the United States and adoption proceedings could be commenced in

a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States.

The International Mission of Hope and Crossroads provided the plaintiff with

general informational letters regarding Indian children available for

adoption. On November 25, 1980, although the International Mission of Hope

had not yet located a child for her, the plaintiff executed several

documents that would be required to allow the International Mission of Hope

to institute a guardianship proceeding on her behalf in an Indian court once

a child had been identified. Specifically, the plaintiff signed a

declaration stating her intent to take guardianship of an Indian child for

prospective adoption,...