Dart v. Mecum

• Decision Date: 25 July 1955
• Citation: 116 A.2d 668,19 Conn.Supp. 428
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Helena DART v. Ethel D. MECUM, Superintendent of Long Lane School. *

Page 668

116 A.2d 668

19 Conn.Supp. 428

Helena DART v. Ethel D. MECUM, Superintendent of Long Lane School.

Superior Court of Connecticut ^*

July 25, 1955.

Istas & Chisaski, New Haven, for plaintiff.

John J. Bracken, Atty. Gen., and Ernest H. Halstedt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

ALCORN, Judge.

The applicant for this writ of habeas corpus is a minor, over the age of sixteen years, who is presently held at the Long Lane School under a commitment from the Juvenile Court for the second district. She seeks her release upon the ground that her confinement is illegal and that she has been denied admission to bail. No evidence was presented upon the second ground, namely, that she had been denied bail.

The facts may be summarized as follows: The applicant was born on February 17, 1939. Upon a petition alleging her to be delinquent a hearing was held in the Juvenile Court on December 13, 1954, and continued until January 17, 1955. After the latter hearing the applicant, with her parents and their other children, traveled from their home in Connecticut to Florida and thence to Louisiana while the applicant's father searched unsuccessfully for work en route. The father had regular employment in Connecticut and surrendered seven years seniority rights in his union by leaving his employment here. In Louisiana he ran out of funds but obtained financial aid to bring his family back to Connecticut. The family returned to this state on February 7, 1955, and have lived here since. No act of delinquency was committed by the applicant thereafter, but on March 25, 1955, she was taken into custody by the police, held in the custody of the juvenile authorities, and the parents were notified to appear at a hearing at the Juvenile Court on March 28, 1955. In the interim the applicant had become sixteen years of age. After the hearing on March 28, 1955, she was committed to Long Lane School and has been confined there ever since.

It is the claim of the applicant's father that he was required to take his family out of the state because the Juvenile Court directed that unless he did so the applicant would be committed. In opposition it is claimed that the suggestion of moving out of the state came from the applicant's father and was accepted by the court. However the idea originated, it is clear that the family left the state solely as a result of the proceedings at the Juvenile Court hearing on January 17. As will appear from what is said hereafter, it is unnecessary to determine the source of the suggestion.

The applicant contends that the hearing of March 28, 1955, was a new proceeding and, it having been instituted after the applicant had reached the age of sixteen, the Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction to order the commitment. The respondent contends that the hearing of March 28 was but a continuation of the prior proceedings on January 17, 1955. It is clear that no new petition for action by the court was filed prior to the March 28 hearing. The petition upon which the January 17 hearing was held is not in evidence, but there is no dispute that there was such a petition alleging delinquency.

The Juvenile Court is a court of record. General Statutes, § 2821. Its proceedings constitute 'a civil inquiry, to determine whether, in a greater or less degree some child should be taken under the direct care of the state and its officials.' Cinque v. Boyd, 99 Conn. 70, 83, 121 A. 678, 683. As a court of record, it can speak only through its record. Atwood v. Lockwood, 76 Conn. 555, 558, 57 A. 279. A record in judicial proceedings always includes a judgment, which is 'the termination and sentence of the law pronounced by the court upon the matter contained in the records.' Smith v. Jewell, 71 Conn. 473, 476, 42 A. 657, 659. In order to determine the issues litigated, the record and the memorandum of decision of the trier may be searched. Tolman v. McLay, 114 Conn. 98, 101, 157 A. 647. The record of the Juvenile Court discloses that no judgment file was prepared following the hearing on January 17, 1955. There is, however, a docket entry signed by the judge, reciting as follows:

'Disposition Jan. 17, 1955--Helena is committed to Supt. of Long Lane School, execution of commitment is suspended. Child to reside with parents in Dover, New Jersey.'

Docket entries are entries of judicial proceedings and, when duly authenticated, constitute proper proof that such proceedings have been had. Smith v. Brockett, 69 Conn. 492, 502, 38 A. 57. Such a notation in the docket amounts to an entry 'made when a judgment is rendered in order to preserve accurately and put upon immediate public record the acts of the court.' State v. Lindsay, 109 Conn. 239, 242, 146 A. 290, 292. Such an entry may stand as adequate evidence of a judgment. Id., 109 Conn. 243, 146 A. 290; O'Connell v. Remington, 102 Conn. 401, 409, 128 A. 710.

In the absence of a judgment file, the docket entry as quoted evidences the judgment pronounced at the conclusion of the hearing on January 17, 1955. Its terms are unambiguous. The applicant was committed to Long Lane School and the execution of the commitment was suspended. She was not placed under the supervision of a probation officer. The suspension of execution of the commitment was unconditional and without time limit. The applicant was going to live with her parents in...