In Re Kaleb H., 131 Conn. App. 829

Kaleb H. was born February 25, 2005, and the petition in 2010 alleged neglect and improper care in the home.
In May 2010 Kaleb was adjudicated neglected with six months of protective supervision following the mother's nolo contendere plea.
In June 2010 the petitioner obtained a 96-hour hold and Kaleb was placed in the petitioner's custody due to risk of injury from Kaleb's unsupervised departure from the home.
A petition to modify disposition from protective supervision to commitment was filed in June 2010 and an order of temporary custody was sustained on June 25, 2010 based on the parties' agreement.
A psychological/psychiatric evaluation of the respondent (Hrelic) was performed by Dr. Neems, and the court proceeded with the commitment hearing in February 2011.
On February 25, 2011, the court committed Kaleb to the petitioner; the respondent argued the court deprived her of due process by denying a competency evaluation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a competency evaluation violated due process	Hrelic contends due process requires evaluation when competency is in doubt.	Petitioner argues the court acted within discretion and there was no substantial doubt of competency beyond conclusory assertions.	No due process violation; no reasonable doubt shown; court did not abuse discretion.
Whether the record showed a reasonable doubt as to the respondent's competency	Hrelic asserts evidence supports doubt about competence due to alleged lack of understanding of prior adjudication.	Petitioner argues evidence was insufficient and findings from Neems did not show incompetence to assist in defense.	Record lacked specific factual allegations raising reasonable doubt; no abuse of discretion in denying a competency evaluation.
Whether the trial court properly applied the abuse of discretion standard for competency rulings	Hrelic relies on due process and requests heightened scrutiny of the court's ruling.	Petitioner emphasizes deferential review of the trial court's competency decision.	The court correctly applied abuse of discretion standard and acted within its discretion.

In re Alexander V., 223 Conn. 557 (1992) (two-pronged due process framework for competency in parental rights cases; requires reasonable doubt evidence)
State v. Kendall, 123 Conn. App. 625 (2010) (trial court's competency determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (2009) (trial court's demeanor and observations admissible in competency assessment)
State v. Collazo, 113 Conn. App. 651 (2009) (evidence of psychiatric concerns must be more than vague assertions to raise doubt)
State v. Bigelow, 120 Conn. App. 632 (2010) (medication-related concerns insufficient alone to prove incompetence)
State v. Lloyd, 199 Conn. 359 (1986) (relevance of defendant's drug use and medical condition to competency discussed)