Paul Woolsey v. David Smith (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff's application for a writ of habeas corpus concerning child custody is dismissed because the claims alleged by the plaintiff are moot and plaintiff's present application fails to set forth new evidence or additional facts.   Plaintiff's claims are essentially the same as previously alleged and previously denied.   This court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

This court has carefully considered the facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint including facts implied from the allegations and has construed them in a manner most favorable to the plaintiff.   Lebejko v. Lebejko, 2007 Conn.Super. LEXIS 602.   Kyle, who was a minor child when similar proceedings were instituted several years ago, is now an adult.   Since Kyle is now 18 this court has been divested of any jurisdiction over him.   He is no longer a child as defined by UCCJEA or Connecticut Statutes.   Graham v. Graham, 2002 Conn. Super 5. The plaintiff also argues that prior judgments of the court in Texas are void.   Woolsey v. Smith, 925 S.W.2d 84, 1996 Texas App. LEXIS 1351;  Woolsey v. The Adoption Alliance, 2001 Texas App. LEXIS 4047.   However there is no basis to support plaintiff's argument.

The application filed by the applicant-plaintiff is dismissed.

OWENS, J.T.R.

Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.