343 Conn. 730
Conn.2022Background
- Two children (Vada V. and Sebastian Jr.) were adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF; petitioner filed termination petitions alleging parents failed to rehabilitate.
- Virtual two‑day termination trial held via Microsoft Teams during COVID‑19; respondents participated remotely, at times via a shared cell phone, and communicated with counsel by text, e‑mail, and messaging apps.
- Trial court repeatedly inquired about and accommodated remote communications, paused for connectivity issues, offered recesses, and allowed conferencing; both parents testified remotely; technological glitches occurred intermittently.
- Trial court found reasonable reunification efforts and, by clear and convincing evidence, that each parent failed to rehabilitate; it terminated parental rights and found termination in the children’s best interests.
- Respondents raised three unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal: (1) state constitutional right to an in‑person trial, (2) federal due process right to physically confront witnesses, and (3) failure to provide indigent respondents with adequate devices/internet to participate visually and audibly.
- Supreme Court affirmed, adopting reasoning from companion cases, holding the record inadequate to review several claims and rejecting the state‑constitutional claim on Golding grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article first §10 and article fifth §1 guarantee a fundamental right to an in‑person civil termination trial | Respondents: state constitution secures a common‑law right to an in‑person, public civil trial | Petitioner: no such constitutional guarantee; claim fails Golding second prong | Court: Adopted In re Annessa J.; respondents failed to show a fundamental state‑constitutional right to in‑person trial; claim fails |
| Whether virtual trial denied respondents’ federal due process right to physically confront witnesses | Respondents: virtual format denied physical confrontation and impaired cross‑examination | Petitioner: record lacks factual predicates to find a confrontation violation; Golding bars review | Court: Even assuming a right, record lacks factual findings to assess violation or government interests; claim fails for lack of adequate record |
| Whether failure to provide exclusive devices/internet to indigent respondents violated federal due process/equal protection and state open‑access | Respondents: lack of exclusive devices/internet prevented meaningful visual/audio participation and spontaneous conferral with counsel | Petitioner: record shows court inquiries and accommodations; respondents didn’t request relief at trial; record inadequate for review under Golding | Court: Record is silent or undermines key factual predicates (multiple devices, court offered accommodations, unspecified participation mode); claim not reviewable on appeal but court emphasized importance of digital‑access fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Annessa J., 343 Conn. 642 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (companion decision resolving identical confrontation and state‑constitutional issues)
- In re Aisjaha N., 343 Conn. 709 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (companion decision addressing digital‑access and public‑policy concerns for virtual hearings)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (modification of Golding framework)
- In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626 (Conn. 2013) (discussion of record adequacy for Golding review)
- State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572 (Conn. 2007) (party’s burden to develop record under Golding)
- State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2006) (appellate courts decline to speculate in absence of factual findings)