|
In a
short and straightforward case, the Appellate Court reversed a trial
court's denial of a father's motion to transfer guardianship on
evidentiary grounds, and because the trial court would not grant
a continuance to hear evidence from a forensic psychologist.
The father's
travails began back in August 1999 when the Department of Children
and Families ("Department") removed his two year old daughter Stacey
from the custody of the appellant father and his wife. After a court
ordered adjudication of neglect, the Department placed the in the
care of the father's sister and brother-in-law (the "guardians").
In April 2001, the Department transferred legal guardianship to
the guardians and Stacey's commitment was revoked. The father's
parental rights were never terminated. In July 2002, the father
wrote a letter to the court, which was treated as a motion to open
the transfer of guardianship and motion to restore guardianship
to him. Subsequently, in March 2004, the father obtained an order
releasing the Department's files in the matter to a forensic psychologist
for the limited purpose of conducting a forensic examination of
the father which was to be conducted prior to the hearing on the
motion to reopen. Before forensic evaluation was completed, however,
the court held the hearing on the motion to transfer guardianship.
Despite hearing evidence that went directly to the father's parental
capacity - the court denied a motion to continue pending the completion
of the forensic evaluation and denied the motion to transfer guardianship.
On appeal,
the court found two grounds to reverse the trial court and remand
for a new hearing. First, the trial court's admission of three psychological
reports containing allegations by persons other than the author
that the respondent had sexually abused another child, despite the
fact that the respondent had never been arrested in connection with
those allegations. The fact that a trial court has a certain latitude
in disregarding incompetent evidence did not overcome the fact that
the reports were themselves inadmissible hearsay - with allegations
presented (by the evaluators) that were not subject to cross examination
at the hearing. Second, the court's failure to grant the father's
motion for a continuance so that he could present testimony from
the forensic psychologist was an abuse of discretion. It was somewhat
strange that the trial judge would allow the Department's records
to be released to the psychologist but then deny the continuance
until the evaluation was completed. For those reasons, the court
predetermined its view of the evidence that the father sought to
obtain and present.
This
case may be found at the Judicial Branch website by going to www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP94/94AP531.pdf
(JES)
|
