|
This
case represents the second Connecticut appellate decision issued
in 2001 involving
the Department of Children and Families’ ("DCF") attempt to
extend the
commitment of a juvenile offender beyond the initial eighteen month
period (see In
re Jason C. and In re Greily L. in Kidscounsel case library).
Here, the
appellate court tackled the issue of whether the statutory notice
requirement for an
extension of a juvenile’s commitment to DCF’s custody
is mandatory or
permissive. Carlos Q., a juvenile, was convicted as a delinquent
on July 23, 1998,
following his pleas of guilty to sexual assault charges. The Superior
Court remanded him
into the custody of DCF for a period not to exceed eighteen months.
Nine days before the
commitment was set to expire, DCF filed a petition to extend the
commitment – without
providing notice to either the juvenile or his parents.
The issue
on appeal was whether the notice requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat.
§
17a-10(d), requiring DCF to petition the court for an extension
of commitment at time
"not more than sixty days nor less than thirty days" prior to the
expiration of
the original commitment of the child, was permissive or mandatory.
The court found that
because § 17a-10(d) incorporated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46(b)-141(b),
which provides that
DCF "shall" provide at least fourteen days notice prior to a hearing
for such an
extension of a commitment, DCF was required to provide notice within
the thirty day window
period if they chose to extend the commitment at all. Failure to
do so placed the statute
(§ 17a-10(d)) in constitutional jeopardy, creating an unacceptable
due process violation.
The court also distinguished In re Adrien C., 9 Conn. App.
512 (1987) on the ground
that the Adrien C. court did not take into consideration
the due process
implications of § 46b-129, the notice requirement statute at issue
in that case.
|
