| |
Parents, proceeding pro se, filed numerous appeals
arising out of the trial court's denial of their motion to revoke
commitment, the denial of their right to be heard on certain motions,
and the denial of their motion for contempt. The parents also claimed
on appeal that the "specific steps" orders violated their constitutional
rights and that the court improperly allowed the Department to determine
the nature and extent of family visitation. The appellate court
dealt quickly with the majority of the parents' claims, determining
that their arguments were either not preserved or were inadequately
briefed. Of note, however, is the appellate court's treatment of
the parents' claims regarding visitation.
The trial court, in the wake of numerous motions
and orders dealing with family visitation, determined that the commissioner
should perform her "statutory duty" pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 17a-10a to determine extent of parents' visitation with their
children. The court determined that such determinations are the
Department's "responsibility." On appeal, the parents' claimed that
the trial court wrongfully ceded authority to the Department to
determine the visitation schedule. The appellate court noted that
§ 17a-10a requires the Department to ensure that each child in its
custody is provided family visitation, the frequency of which shall
be based on a consideration of the child's best interests, and that
each child's visitation plan be incorporated into the family treatment
plan. The court also pointed out that "elsewhere in the statutory
scheme" parents are provided the right to request an administrative
hearing should they disagree with a provision of a treatment plan.
The court noted that the record did not include information that
the parents had availed themselves of the administrative hearing
process.
The implication of the court's short analysis
of the parents' claim is that a parent must exhaust his or her administrative
remedies prior to filing a visitation motion with the court. The
decision does not include an analysis of the jurisdictional question
[see e.g., In re Leighton V., 1998 WL 738057 (holding that the juvenile
court has jurisdiction over all proceedings concerning uncared for,
neglected or dependent children and youth within this state); see
also In re Christopher M. 2008 WL 249744 (holding that a father
did not have to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing
a motion regarding visitation in the juvenile court)]. Additionally,
this case did not deal with, nor did the the appellate court address,
whether a child or youth may seek immediate judicial relief regarding
requests for visitation and other aspects of their care and treatment,
as provided by the plain language of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-16(i)(
see also In re Leighton V., 1998 WL 738057 *2-3).
|
