|
April 10, 2007
In this
juvenile delinquency appeal, the petitioner, a 13 year old boy,
claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when the court
appointed a guardian ad litem against the express wishes of himself
and his father. The youth also claimed that the trial court erred
when it failed to properly instruct the guardian ad litem as to
her duties in the case. Because these claims had not been raised
at trial, the appellant sought to have the claims reviewed under
the Golding standard. Accordingly, as a threshold matter the appellate
court needed to determine whether the claims were of a "constitutional
magnitude." The appellate court rejected the youth's argument that
the appointment of a guardian ad litem violated his constitutional
rights because although his father enjoys a constitutional right
to act as a parent, the youth failed to cite any case law holding
that the child has a constitutional right in having his parent act
as his guardian in delinquency proceedings, and the child did not
have standing to raise the constitutional rights of his father on
appeal. Accordingly, the court declined to review this claim on
the merits.
The court
also rejected the argument that the guardian ad litem was not instructed
as to her role, as required by Tayquon H., 76 Conn. App. 693 (2003),
because the appointment form sufficiently spells out the duties
and obligations of the guardian ad litem.
|
