In this important case, the
state Supreme Court tackled the issue of what constitutes a statutorily
permissible transfer procedure from a juvenile facility to an adult
Department of Correction facility. The case involved Steven M.,
a boy committed to the state Department of Children and Families
("Department") as an eight year old in 1991. Diagnosed with dysthemia,
mild mental retardation and borderline personality disorder, the
state charge Steven with disorderly conduct resulting from overly
aggressively behavior in 1999. In January 2000, Steven pleaded guilty
to two counts of disorderly conduct, and was committed to Long Lane,
where in March 2003, he once again was charged with disorderly conduct.
On March 22, 2000, the Department filed a motion to transfer Steven
to an adult facility, and a hearing was scheduled to determine the
appropriateness of transfer.
At the transfer hearing,
the court declined to take evidence, but heard arguments from the
parties, including a guardian ad litem appointed to represent Steven’s
best interests. The court granted the transfer motion, the appellate
court reversed the order, and this appeal followed.
In a unanimous decision,
the court found that the case met the notorious three-part exception
to the mootness doctrine, concluding that the case was "capable
of repetition, yet evading review." Most importantly, however, the
analysis focused on the requirements governing transfer proscribed
by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-12a. The court concluded that the statute
mandated that the "best interest of the child" be considered as
a factor, but not the dispositive factor in determining whether
transfer is appropriate. When a juvenile presents a danger to self
or others, or cannot safely be maintained by the Department, a hearing
is required in Superior Court to determine whether transfer is appropriate,
taking into consideration the best interest of the child.
Here, while the court did
not hold a competency hearing before transferring, the failure to
do so constituted "harmless error." The court concluded that the
trial court had solicited enough discussion and argument on the
matter, and enough evidence surfaced through presentations by the
guardian ad litem to justify Steven’s transfer. Thus, Steven’s interests
were adequately represented, and the transfer was deemed appropriate.
