Judge Clears Connecticut Agency in Wrongful Death Suit
A judge ruled the state did not have sufficient cause to remove a child prior to a 2015 drowning incident.
Updated on Oct. 16, 2026 in Law
A Connecticut judge ruled in favor of the Department of Children and Families in a lawsuit regarding the 2015 death of Aaden Moreno. The court concluded the agency lacked probable cause to take custody of the child before he was thrown from the Arrigoni Bridge.
Why it matters
The ruling settles a legal challenge over whether state intervention could have prevented the tragedy. It clarifies the threshold for agency action in cases where immediate danger to a child is disputed.
Judge Daniel Shaban issued a 27-page decision following a four-day trial held in May 2026. The estate of the 7-month-old victim had sought damages between $15 million and $20 million.
The players
Daniel Shaban
He is the judge who presided over the case and authored the final 27-page decision.
Connecticut Department of Children and Families
This is the state agency responsible for child welfare and protection services in Connecticut.
Aaden Moreno
He was the 7-month-old victim whose death prompted the wrongful death lawsuit.
Tony Moreno
He is the individual responsible for throwing the child off the Arrigoni Bridge.
The details
The court examined whether the state had grounds to issue a 96-hour hold on the child or order temporary custody before his death. The judge determined no imminent threat existed at the time that would have legally justified the agency removing the child from his home.
Timeline
July 5, 2015: Aaden Moreno died by drowning after being thrown from the Arrigoni Bridge.
May 2026: A four-day trial was conducted at the Superior Court in Waterbury.
October 15, 2026: Judge Daniel Shaban released the ruling in favor of the state department.
Political Context
This ruling highlights the high legal bar for state intervention under current Connecticut child custody statutes. Critics and advocacy groups often argue that such high thresholds for intervention can lead to missed opportunities to protect vulnerable children from harm.
This decision impacts residents by confirming that state child welfare agencies are limited by specific legal definitions of imminent threat when considering custody holds. Families and taxpayers should note that these legal precedents define the scope of authority for state intervention in private lives.
The takeaway
This case underscores the complex legal balance agencies face when weighing parental rights against child safety requirements. Residents should understand that state intervention is strictly governed by evidentiary standards regarding immediate harm.
Further reading
For more on state judicial proceedings, read the latest reports in Connecticut Law.
