175 Conn. App. 271
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Two children (born 2008, 2009) were removed from their mother in 2011; DCF later sought termination of the respondent father S.N.’s parental rights in 2012; trial spanned 2014–2016 and termination judgments were entered in November 2016.
- The trial court found DCF made reasonable reunification efforts and that the father failed to achieve necessary personal rehabilitation (including supervision/safety concerns after an alleged sexual abuse by another child in the household), and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- The parents jointly sought permission to have the children (ages 6–7) testify; the court denied testimony and— with agreement of counsel—invited the children to visit the courthouse to observe the courtroom and meet court staff (no testimony or cross-examination intended).
- During that visit a DCF visitation supervisor was present and repeated a spontaneous comment by one child; the judge made an on-the-record summary of the visit afterwards and directed the guardian ad litem to report what occurred.
- The father did not object at trial to the meeting or to the supervisor’s presence and did not seek recusal or mistrial; he later appealed claiming the ex parte meeting (and supervisor presence / lack of record) violated his right to a fair trial and that the court should have declared a mistrial sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s ex parte meeting with the children (with a DCF supervisor present) deprived father of a fair trial (Golding review) | Father: meeting in presence of DCF supervisor and lack of contemporaneous record denied fair trial / confrontation | State: record adequate; judge put summary on record, guardian ad litem later testified about children’s comments; any constitutional error harmless because statutory findings supporting termination were unchallenged | Affirmed — even if a constitutional violation occurred, any error was harmless under Golding because father did not challenge dispositive factual findings supporting termination |
| Whether reversal is required under plain error for the ex parte meeting and supervisor presence | Father: meeting was plain error that undermines fairness and public confidence | State: plain error is extraordinary and father failed to show clear, obvious error producing manifest injustice; dispositive findings stand | Denied — plain error not shown; reversal would undermine public confidence given unchallenged factual basis for termination |
| Whether the court should have declared a mistrial sua sponte or recused itself due to appearance of impropriety | Father: presence of DCF supervisor and judge’s observations created appearance of bias requiring recusal or mistrial | State: father consented to the meeting, learned after it occurred that supervisor was present, did not object or seek recusal at trial; no indication of bias or secret conduct like cited precedents | Denied — no appearance of impropriety, no preservation of objection at trial, and facts distinguishable from cases requiring recusal |
| Whether failure to have a detailed contemporaneous record of the visit mandates reversal | Father: absence of full record prevented review and cross-examination of witnesses present at visit | State: judge promptly summarized visit on the record, asked parties if they wanted more, and directed guardian ad litem to report; record adequate for appellate review | Denied — appellate record was adequate and defendant did not show prejudice affecting outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (establishes four-part test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 733 (modification/clarification of Golding review in child protection context)
- In re Tayler F., 296 Conn. 524 (due process right to confrontation/cross-examination in civil child-protection proceedings)
- Cameron v. Cameron, 187 Conn. 163 (recusal/appearance of impartiality required where judge expressed preconceived views)
- Abington Ltd. Partnership v. Heublein, 246 Conn. 815 (ex parte site visit created appearance of impropriety requiring disqualification)
- In re Elijah G.-R., 167 Conn. App. 1 (overview of adjudicatory and dispositional phases in termination proceedings)
- In re Sydnei V., 168 Conn. App. 538 (plain error framework in appellate review)