317 Conn. 773
Conn.2015Background
- Mother (respondent) had two children removed; DCF filed termination petitions in Nov. 2012 based on neglect and failure to rehabilitate; contested hearing set for Nov. 2013.
- At the November 2013 hearing mother was represented by counsel but did not personally testify, did not object to the petitioner’s exhibits, and indicated she could not bring herself to consent though she agreed the court could decide on the papers.
- Trial court terminated parental rights after finding statutory grounds and best interests satisfied; mother appealed arguing the court failed to canvass her about waiving trial rights and not contesting evidence.
- Appellate Court affirmed, holding Golding review failed because mother cited no controlling Connecticut precedent recognizing a right to a personal canvass at trial.
- Supreme Court granted certification to (1) assess interpretation of Golding’s third prong for unpreserved constitutional claims and (2) decide whether due process requires a personal canvass before a termination trial; it also considered use of supervisory authority to require canvass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of Golding third prong for unpreserved constitutional claims | Appellant: third prong does not require existing Connecticut precedent; a constitutional violation may be recognized on first impression. | State: Appellate Court correctly required precedent or Eldridge-style analysis. | Court: Golding’s third prong does not demand prior Connecticut precedent; party need only show a constitutional violation exists and deprived a fair trial. |
| Whether due process (14th Amend.) requires trial court to canvass a represented parent who does not testify, object, or call witnesses | Appellant: Lack of canvass risks involuntary or uninformed waiver of fundamental rights; Mathews balancing favors canvass. | State: Parent had counsel, notice, and opportunity; canvass would not materially reduce erroneous deprivation and could burden proceedings. | Court: Due process does not require a canvass when parent is represented, present, and counsel declines to contest evidence. |
| Whether to invoke supervisory authority to require a canvass before termination trials | Appellant: Even if not constitutionally required, supervisory power should impose canvass to protect fundamental rights and fairness. | State: Supervisory rule would intrude on attorney-client strategy and is difficult to craft; procedural bodies should address it. | Court: Exercise supervisory authority to require a brief, pre-trial canvass of all parents before a termination trial describing rights and consequences. |
| Remedy and procedural effect | Appellant: Remand for new proceedings consistent with required canvass. | State: Opposed to supervisory-imposed rule and retroactive remedy. | Court: Reverse Appellate Court; remand to trial court for further proceedings consistent with opinion (canvass required at trial start). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (recognition and four-part test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (federal due process balancing test for procedural protections)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (parental rights are protected by due process in termination proceedings)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interests)
- Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (standards for invoking this court’s supervisory authority)
- State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (use of supervisory power to require competency canvass for self-representation)
- State v. Gore, 288 Conn. 770 (use of supervisory power to require canvass for jury-trial waiver)