In re Aisjaha N.

I

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** IN RE AISJAHA N.* (AC 43680) DiPentima, C. J., and Moll and Harper, Js.** Syllabus The respondent mother appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating her minor child, A, neglected. On appeal, the mother claimed that the trial court violated her due process rights when it denied her counsel’s oral motion for a continuance of the neglect trial because the mother was allegedly hospitalized. The mother had previously been found to be incompetent and was appointed a guardian ad litem. On the day of trial, the mother failed to appear. Counsel for the mother moved for a continuance, indicating to the court that she had been informed by the mother’s social worker that she could not attend because she had been hospitalized and asked that the trial not proceed without her. The mother’s guardian ad litem also objected to proceeding without her. Counsel for A objected to the continuance and contended that further delay would not be in the best interest of A. The court denied the motion and the trial proceeded without the mother. A was adjudicated neglected and committed to the custody of the peti- tioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families. Held that the respon- dent mother’s due process rights were not violated by the trial court’s denial of her motion for a continuance of the neglect trial; this court, considering the three-pronged test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge (424 U.S. 319), determined that the mother failed to present any authority for her proposition that a neglect proceeding necessarily implicates the fundamental right to parent one’s child, and her reliance on cases involving the termination of parental rights was misplaced because ter- mination proceedings differ vastly from neglect proceedings, as a peti- tion for neglect does not seek the permanent and irrevocable ending of parental rights, the mother had both an attorney and a …

Original document

Add comment

By Tucker

Recent Posts

Recent Comments