From the Globe article in the previous post:
The state Department of Children and Families has made a dramatic change in the 16-month saga involving Connecticut teenager Justina Pelletier, asking a juvenile court judge to return the girl to her parents’ custody.
The development came after DCF removed its longstanding opposition to Justina’s going home to her parents, saying that Lou and Linda Pelletier, who have been fighting for the girl’s return, have met the conditions asked of them. Now, all parties will be looking to see if the judge agrees.
. . .
DCF filed its request to the judge late Friday for Justina to go back to her parents’ care, and attorneys for the Pelletiers, from West Hartford, Conn., were notified about it on Monday.
....
A family reunification plan that Polanowicz described in a May 5 letter listed four conditions Justina’s parents would have to meet for DCF to support their regaining custody, including that they follow through on Tufts Medical Center’s care plan for Justina and participate in family therapy.
In the state’s new court filing, general counsel Andrew Rome wrote that the parents had met their obligation to present “sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances.”
A spokesman for Polanowicz said in a statement that DCF had filed papers in court “to support our shared goal of bringing Justina home.”
Based on the judge’s March ruling, the parents would not be able to petition for reconsideration until June 20, at the earliest. But Philip Moran, the Salem attorney representing Justina’s parents, said he planned to file a motion Tuesday requesting that the judge return custody without a hearing. The DCF filing also suggested that a hearing might not be necessary.
Again, I'm not super familiar with how family court/state custody issues work, but I didn't think that DCF typically asked for a child to be returned to the parents. The parents file a request motion, and DCF doesn't oppose it and may assent to it or submit affidavits or briefs in support of that motion. I didn't think DCF had standing to ask on behalf of the parents that she be returned, but that could be a misunderstanding by the reporter, or maybe I'm just wrong.
Then it says they had removed their opposition, so maybe that was the dismissal referenced. Then it says the parents met the conditions, so that would indicate a change in circumstances. And the judge does not have to agree they met all conditions, just that it would be in her best interest to go back.
Then it says DCF filed papers to support her return home - that to me indicates they didn't request she be returned, but instead offered support to the parents' motion. Just a legal distinction, but it's worth noting, because otherwise it seems to not make sense. But then it says the parents weren't able to submit such a motion yet, so it is confusing.
A motion for reconsideration is not rare, imo. You have to really believe that the Judge got it wrong (or have a scorched earth type approach to a case), but I wouldn't say "rare." And they don't depend on the facts changing, necessarily, also imo. In my experience, they're mostly to say, as I mentioned, that the Judge got it wrong -- the facts, the law, or the law as it applies to the facts. That said, I agree with you about the title of the motion. It's not your typical nomenclature. Is the pleading available anywhere?
It's not available, but I think everything is sealed and the parents leak information selectively. I should have said success is rare, but there's very little addressing motions for reconsideration. I thought that the difference between a motion for reconsideration and an appeal was that an appeal deals with the judge getting the law or application of the law wrong, and a motion for reconsideration deals with a factual change, not an error. In this case, the article mentions the parents have met the burden of showing a change in circumstances, so I guess that's the standard they are using to try and modify the decision.
ETA: And if they are truly asking for her to be returned to her parents, CT DCF will not be taking over unless they decide there's something to investigate. They aren't asking her to be transferred to the custody of CT authorities.
