|
STANDING/RIGHT
TO EVIDENTIARY HEARING
The Supreme
Court determined in this case that the intervener-appellant, the
biological father's girlfriend, had standing to participate in a
contested motion to revoke commitment/transfer of guardianship hearing,
notwithstanding the trial court's previous denial of the intervener's
motions for visitation and custody. The Court also held that parties
have a statutory right to an evidentiary hearing on any contested
motion to revoke commitment.
Shanaira
had been removed from her father and his girlfriend's house and
placed in DCF's temporary custody. The girlfriend successfully intervened
in the case, but her motions for guardianship and visitation were
denied. Shanaira was then adjudicated neglected and committed to
DCF. Subsequently, DCF filed a motion to revoke commitment and transfer
guardianship to the biological mother. The intervener, though present
for the contested hearing, was not permitted to call or question
witnesses.
On appeal,
the appellate court agreed with the intervener that she had standing
to participate in the contested hearing. However, the court found
that the intervener's due process rights were not violated because
the nature of her interest in the case had changed since her motions
for guardianship and visitation had been denied. Additionally, the
court held that the limited participation afforded the intervener
was harmless because the testimony she wanted to elicit occurred
without her calling and questioning witnesses. Justice Borden, sitting
on the appellate panel, vigorously dissented, objecting to the informal
proceedings employed by the trial court and opining that such proceedings
surely violated the intervener's right to be heard on an important
contested custodial issue.
The Supreme
Court granted cert to review the case. The Court confirmed that
the intervener did indeed have standing to participate in the contested
revocation hearing and appeal the court's decision, despite the
court's previous denials of her motions for visitation and guardianship.
The Court further held that the denials of these motions did not
necessarily diminish the intervener's interest and ability to meaningfully
contribute to the custodial hearing. The Court noted that a motion
to intervene is granted if it is in the best interest of the child.
In this case, the intervener's motion was granted because she was
in a close relationship with Shanaira, who called her "Mommy." As
such, per Practice Book § 35a-4, the intervener became a party to
the neglect proceeding. It was proper to permit the intervener to
participate in the contested dispositional hearing and to offer
evidence regarding Shaniara's best interests.
Additionally,
the Court determined that the trial court improperly restricted
the intervener's participation in revocation of commitment hearing,
holding that § 46b-129(m) and Practice Book § 35a-14 (c) implicitly
require a full evidentiary hearing on a contested dispositional
motion. The Court reasoned that § 46b-129(m) and Practice Book §
35a-14 (c) require the court to make specific factual findings in
a contested revocation of commitment hearing, and allocates burdens
of proof to the parties. A full evidentiary hearing must be afforded
to allow the parties to present evidence so they can both establish
facts and meet their burdens of proof.
The court
noted that, despite the fact that some of the testimony that the
intervener wanted to elicit had already been admitted, there was
still harm to the intervener because her own questions might have
led the court to a different conclusion on the custodial issue.
As such the case was remanded for a new dispositional hearing.
--EM/SHE
|
