In re Daniel N., 150 A.3d 657

Daniel (b. 2006) was committed to the Department of Children and Families in 2013 and remained in its custody; the department filed a petition to terminate parental rights of both parents in December 2013.
The termination trial against respondent father was fully contested and held over several days in February and June 2015; respondent was represented by counsel, testified, and cross-examined witnesses.
The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights shortly after this court issued In re Yasiel R., which announced a supervisory-rule requirement that parents be canvassed before submitting termination matters on the papers or before trial.
The trial court did not canvass the respondent; after judgment the respondent appealed, arguing Yasiel R. required reversal; the Appellate Court reversed and ordered a new trial.
The Commissioner of Children and Families sought and obtained certification to appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which reviewed whether the Yasiel R. canvass rule applied to this fully contested trial that concluded before Yasiel R. was announced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the canvass rule announced in In re Yasiel R. applies to termination trials that concluded before Yasiel R. was released	Petitioner: Yasiel R. supervisory rule was prospective and should not be applied to fully contested trials concluded before the decision	Respondent: Judicial decisions are generally retroactive; Yasiel R. requires reversal because no canvass was given	Court: Yasiel R. supervisory relief was limited to its extraordinary facts; the canvass rule does not automatically apply to all cases with trials concluded before Yasiel R.
Whether failure to canvass in this fully contested case requires automatic reversal	Petitioner: Automatic reversal would unduly burden countervailing interests (child permanence, reliance on prior law) and is not warranted here	Respondent: Failure to canvass is the basis for reversal regardless of how the case was tried	Court: No automatic reversal; relief in Yasiel R. was tied to extraordinary circumstances (summary procedure without assurance of understanding); this fully contested, adversarial trial did not present those circumstances

In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (announced supervisory "canvass" rule for parental-termination proceedings and provided relief based on extraordinary facts)
State v. Carrion, 313 Conn. 823 (Conn. 2014) (distinguishes supervisory-rulemaking from using supervisory power to reverse judgments; outlines when relief is appropriate)
State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (Conn. 2014) (describes scope and limits of appellate supervisory authority)
Neyland v. Bd. of Educ., 195 Conn. 174 (Conn. 1985) (articulates Chevron Oil prospective/retroactivity test often applied to common-law decisions)
In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2008) (discusses importance of finality and permanence in termination-of-parental-rights cases)
State v. Ubaldi, 190 Conn. 559 (Conn. 1983) (notes need to balance countervailing interests before reversing under supervisory authority)