Connecticut Appellate Court
100 Conn. App. 436, 918 A.2d 944 (2007))
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.
Filed in Tags: Abuse and Neglect
« Back to Case Library