Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Unanimously on Parental Rights Proceedings
Parental rights advocates in Connecticut may have more to celebrate today, after the state Supreme Court ruled that parents involved in proceedings to terminate parental rights have a right to challenge the quality of work done by lawyers representing their children.
In a precedent-setting and unanimous ruling, the court recognized the high-stakes nature of termination proceedings for both parents and children. "The rights of the [parents] are inextricably intertwined with those of their children," Justice Joette Katz wrote.
"Inadequate representation of the children ... could harm the [parents] because those roles help shape the court's view of the best interests of the children, which serves as a basis upon which termination of parental rights is determined."
The justices stopped short of deciding whether a child's right to representation in termination proceedings, which is now dictated by state law, rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee.
They said the record of the case, after a three-day hearing, did not support the parents' contention that the lawyer representing their children, who favored termination of their relationship, did not adequately protect or convey the wishes of the children.
"We conclude that the record of this case does not support the existence of a conflict of interest, as claimed," Katz wrote.
The court's ruling upholds the trial court's termination of the parents' relationship with their three daughters.
To protect the identities of the minors, no last names are used in the ruling. The Department of Children and Families, in its petition to terminate parental rights, alleged the children were neglected and abused, and that their parents had failed to benefit from efforts by social workers to reunite them.
The parents maintained that a second lawyer or guardian should have been appointed to represent their children's purported statements that they wanted to remain with their parents.
The court noted, in its ruling released Monday, that the only statement that appeared in conflict with the children's lawyer's advocacy of termination was a comment made to a psychologist by one daughter nearly four years ago, when she was 61/2, that she wanted to "go home with mommy and daddy."
At the time "Christine M." was living in a foster home she didn't like and had no memories, according to the psychologist, of any abuse or violence she had experienced.A subsequent foster mother, with whom Christina and her sisters were living at the time of the hearing in December of 2003, testified Christina told her she wanted to live with them forever.
"The record is insufficient to support a determination that the trial court knew or reasonably should have known that a particular conflict existed between what Christina wanted at the time of the trial and what the attorney had advocated," Katz wrote.
Sarah Eagan, staff attorney for the child abuse project at the Center for Children's Advocacy, said the decision "is very significant." The center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of eight child welfare and protective agencies.
"I think it's a very positive thing to be taken from the case for lawyers, that the court is acknowledging a termination proceeding is one of the most profound things that can occur, and that the rights of parents and their children must be zealously guarded by both the parties, and their lawyers," Eagan said.
Katz wrote, "Both the [parents] and the children have a mutual interest in the preservation of family integrity, and the termination of parental status is irretrievably destructive of that most fundamental family relationship."
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who represented DCF on appeal, said the ruling should not be read to invite wholesale challenges by parents whose parental rights have been terminated.
"As we read it, the decision assures that parents must have a solid reason to challenge the effectiveness of the child's counsel," Blumenthal said.
In a precedent-setting and unanimous ruling, the court recognized the high-stakes nature of termination proceedings for both parents and children. "The rights of the [parents] are inextricably intertwined with those of their children," Justice Joette Katz wrote.
"Inadequate representation of the children ... could harm the [parents] because those roles help shape the court's view of the best interests of the children, which serves as a basis upon which termination of parental rights is determined."
The justices stopped short of deciding whether a child's right to representation in termination proceedings, which is now dictated by state law, rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee.
They said the record of the case, after a three-day hearing, did not support the parents' contention that the lawyer representing their children, who favored termination of their relationship, did not adequately protect or convey the wishes of the children.
"We conclude that the record of this case does not support the existence of a conflict of interest, as claimed," Katz wrote.
The court's ruling upholds the trial court's termination of the parents' relationship with their three daughters.
To protect the identities of the minors, no last names are used in the ruling. The Department of Children and Families, in its petition to terminate parental rights, alleged the children were neglected and abused, and that their parents had failed to benefit from efforts by social workers to reunite them.
The parents maintained that a second lawyer or guardian should have been appointed to represent their children's purported statements that they wanted to remain with their parents.
The court noted, in its ruling released Monday, that the only statement that appeared in conflict with the children's lawyer's advocacy of termination was a comment made to a psychologist by one daughter nearly four years ago, when she was 61/2, that she wanted to "go home with mommy and daddy."
At the time "Christine M." was living in a foster home she didn't like and had no memories, according to the psychologist, of any abuse or violence she had experienced.A subsequent foster mother, with whom Christina and her sisters were living at the time of the hearing in December of 2003, testified Christina told her she wanted to live with them forever.
"The record is insufficient to support a determination that the trial court knew or reasonably should have known that a particular conflict existed between what Christina wanted at the time of the trial and what the attorney had advocated," Katz wrote.
Sarah Eagan, staff attorney for the child abuse project at the Center for Children's Advocacy, said the decision "is very significant." The center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of eight child welfare and protective agencies.
"I think it's a very positive thing to be taken from the case for lawyers, that the court is acknowledging a termination proceeding is one of the most profound things that can occur, and that the rights of parents and their children must be zealously guarded by both the parties, and their lawyers," Eagan said.
Katz wrote, "Both the [parents] and the children have a mutual interest in the preservation of family integrity, and the termination of parental status is irretrievably destructive of that most fundamental family relationship."
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who represented DCF on appeal, said the ruling should not be read to invite wholesale challenges by parents whose parental rights have been terminated.
"As we read it, the decision assures that parents must have a solid reason to challenge the effectiveness of the child's counsel," Blumenthal said.
posted by Michael Burns at 5:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home