|
The Supreme
Court held that the trial court’s failure to provide the petitioning
parent with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the
merits of her request for guardianship denied her due process of
law. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded
for further proceedings.
The case
originally began in the juvenile court several years earlier after
the state filed a neglect petition against the mother. The parties
subsequently agreed to transfer guardianship of the minor child
to the grandmother. Five years later, the mother moved the juvenile
court for reinstatement of her guardianship rights. Shortly thereafter,
counsel for the child informed the court that the child was no longer
residing in state, but rather had moved to live with the biological
father in South Carolina. The court asked the parties to brief the
issue of whether it retained jurisdiction over the guardianship
matter and whether an evidentiary hearing was required as to the
jurisdictional issues in the case. The court set down a date for
further hearing on the jurisdictional questions.
At the
follow-up hearing, the court reviewed the child’s counsel’s recommendation
that the child’s best interests were served by remaining in South
Carolina with his father. Counsel for the mother was not present
and did not file a brief regarding the jurisdictional issues. A
covering attorney was present, however he did not address the jurisdictional
matter or the merits of the mother’s petition. The court again voiced
its skepticism regarding whether it retained jurisdiction over the
child’s guardianship and ultimately concluded that the child’s best
interests were served by remaining with his father in South Carolina.
The Supreme
Court held that pursuant to the plain language of the Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court retained jurisdiction
over the guardianship case because at least one parent continued
to reside in the state and the court had made a previous custody
determination in the matter. The Court also held that the trial
court improperly expanded the scope of the final hearing to include
a decision regarding the merits of the mother’s petition, and that
the mother had not received adequate notice and an opportunity to
be heard on the matter. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment
was reversed.
Sarah
Healy Eagan, Esq.
Director, Child Abuse Project
Center for Children's Advocacy
University of Connecticut School of Law
|
