In Re Lukas K.
14 A.3d 990
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Petitioner mother petitioned to terminate respondent father's parental rights to Lukas K.; trial conducted in Connecticut, while respondent was incarcerated in New Hampshire and participated by telephone for a short period.
- Trial court granted termination after finding abandonment and no ongoing parent-child relationship, with Lukas living with the petitioner and her husband since birth.
- Respondent admitted no contact with Lukas, no child support, and acknowledged incarceration; court found threats and abuse in the past; ultimately held termination in Lukas's best interests.
- Respondent challenged the denial of his request for a trial transcript and a continuance to recall witnesses and respond to evidence.
- Appellate Court affirmed, and this Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether an incarcerated parent has due process right to a transcript and continuance; court applied Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and affirmed no such right under the facts.
- Court concluded the respondent lacks a due process right to a transcript and continuance here, though acknowledged that in cases with credible rebuttal claims and when feasible for justice, safeguards should be provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an incarcerated parent has a due process right to a trial transcript and continuance | Petitioner argues no such right is required under these facts | Respondent contends transcript and continuance were necessary to ensure due process | No due process right found under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (three-factor Mathews balancing test for procedural due process)
- In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263 (Conn. 1992) (parental rights are a fundamental interest warranting protection)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (Docket No. 10155), 187 Conn. 431 (Conn. 1982) (due process satisfied when incarcerated parent reviewed transcript and testified by telephone)
- In re Deana E., 61 Conn.App. 185 (Conn. App. 2000) (imprisonment alone does not excuse failure to maintain contact with child)
- Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (trial procedure requirements balanced against burdens; fair trial not perfect trial)
- State v. Long, 268 Conn. 508 (Conn. 2004) (plenary review of due process questions in criminal procedure)