|
Does
the type of adjudication entered by a juvenile court affect the
resulting commitment of a child to the Department of Children and
Families ("Department") and provide the Department with grounds
to appeal the "basis" for the commitment? No says the Connecticut
Appellate Court in Allison G., an interesting procedural
decision where the Department's argument to the contrary fell on
deaf ears and engendered a brief, but thoughtful opinion dismissing
the appeal for mootness.
The facts
of the case are undisputed. Allison was born in November 1999 with
a diagnosis of cerebral palsy. During the weekend of November 9-11,
2002, Allison's maternal aunt and uncle sexually abused her while
she resided in their care. On November 15, 2002, the Department
filed a three count petition, alleging inter alia, that
(1) Allison was denied proper care and attention; she was being
permitted to live under conditions injurious to her well-being,
and that she had been abused. The petition also alleged that Allison
(2) was uncared for due to her special needs and (3) she was abused.
On May
7, 2002, the parties met for a pre-trial conference before the court,
at which time they entered into a partial plea agreement where Allison's
parents agreed to admit that the child was uncared for and would
agree to have Allison committed to the Department's custody. The
parents also agreed to comply with remediation measures as a condition
precedent to the child's return home. The parents were unwilling,
however, to admit that their actions (and inactions) played a role
in the sexual assault, thereby constituting neglect.
At the
hearing that immediately followed the conference, the court dismissed
the neglect count without finding and without prejudice and the
Department subsequently filed this appeal. [1]
On appeal,
the Department argued that the type of commitment adjudicated by
the trial court was critical in that it affects future proceedings
involving the child, including possible future prejudice because
of the lack of adjudication on the neglect count. The court didn't
buy this argument, indicating that the Department failed to cite
any authority that supports this position. Despite the "elegant"
argument that the statutory scheme requires appropriate adjudication
that provides fair notice of what the parents must do to regain
guardianship of their parental rights, the statutory scheme contains
no language supporting the Department's proposition. The subsequent
events to follow adjudication, namely revocation, reunification,
termination, etc., are not affected by the type of adjudication
entered. Because the trial court entered an order of commitment,
the appellate court could offer the Department no practical relief,
and as a result the court dismissed the appeal as moot.
The case
may be accessed at the Judicial Branch website by going to http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP84/84ap422.pdf.
(JES)
[1]
In an interesting sidelight, the appellate court strongly rebuked
the judge trial referee by indicating that conducting a settlement
conference and accepting a plea without taking evidence or making
finding on the record was "improper." See footnote 3.
|
