In re Ceana R.
172 A.3d 870
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- DCF filed neglect and abuse petitions as to respondent father’s two daughters; trial court ultimately adjudicated them neglected and abused and committed them to the commissioner.
- The father had four court-appointed attorneys over ~8 months; the first three filed to withdraw citing breakdowns in the attorney-client relationship and conflicts.
- The court warned repeatedly (on multiple occasions and by multiple judges) that if the fourth appointed attorney (Condio) withdrew, the father would not get a fifth appointed lawyer and would have to represent himself or hire counsel.
- The father filed a grievance against Attorney Condio and, at trial, sought her removal; after initial denial, the court treated the grievance filing as effectively terminating the attorney-client relationship and permitted Condio to withdraw.
- The court found that, by his conduct (including filing the grievance after multiple warnings), the father knowingly and voluntarily waived his statutory right to appointed counsel; trial proceeded, the father later failed to appear at a set date, a default was entered, and the children were adjudicated neglected and abused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Pablo R.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a grievance constituted a de facto termination of the attorney-client relationship, permitting counsel to withdraw | Filing a grievance is a concrete step signaling de facto termination; court discretion to permit withdrawal was proper | Filing a grievance did not automatically require discharge; complaints were vague and strategic disagreements, not cause for withdrawal | Court: Grievance supported de facto termination under DeLeo; withdrawal was within discretion |
| Whether the father waived his statutory right to appointed counsel by conduct (so no fifth appointment required) | Father had been warned repeatedly, knew consequence of discharge, demonstrated understanding of proceedings; conduct showed waiver | Father wanted representation; conduct did not amount to waiver; he lacked ability to represent himself | Court: Waiver by conduct; father knowingly and voluntarily relinquished right to appointed counsel |
| Whether the court erred by failing to reissue the warning before allowing withdrawal | Prior multiple warnings suffice; no abuse to decline repeating same warning | Court should have warned again at time of withdrawal | Court: No abuse; prior warnings were adequate |
| Whether constitutional ineffective-assistance or Sixth Amendment protections apply here | Statutory right in neglect proceedings, not full Sixth Amendment protections; different standard than criminal cases | Father's reliance on criminal cases (Vega, Morgan) applies to deny withdrawal | Court: Sixth Amendment protections do not extend; criminal-law precedents inapposite |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLeo v. Nusbaum, 263 Conn. 588 (Conn. 2003) (defines formal and de facto termination of attorney-client relationship; filing a grievance can indicate de facto termination)
- DiStefano v. Milardo, 276 Conn. 416 (Conn. 2005) (attorney-client relationship established when advice is sought and received)
- Straw Pond Associates, LLC v. Fitzpatrick, Mariano & Santos, P.C., 167 Conn. App. 691 (Conn. App. 2016) (Describes DeLeo as instructive defining legal representation)
- State v. Vega, 259 Conn. 374 (Conn. 2001) (holding that filing a grievance alone is insufficient to prove violation of Sixth Amendment; criminal context)
- In re Daniel A., 150 Conn. App. 78 (Conn. App. 2014) (discusses implied waiver by conduct where respondent had previous appointed counsel and was warned about self-representation)