Juvenile Appeal, In re

• Decision Date: 18 January 1983
• Citation: 454 A.2d 271,189 Conn. 58
• Parties: In re JUVENILE APPEAL (83-AB). * Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 271

454 A.2d 271

189 Conn. 58

In re JUVENILE APPEAL (83-AB). ^* Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 30, 1982.

Decided Jan. 18, 1983.

Jeffrey D. Askew, Andrew Chulick, Bridgeport, Edward Czaczkes, Norwich, Edward N. Lerner, Hartford, Milo J. Altschuler, Seymour, for appellants.

Daniel F. Schopick, Bridgeport, Daniel H. Kennedy, Jr., West Hartford, for minor children.

Maurice Myrun, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellee (com'r, dept. of children and youth services) in all cases.

Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PETERS, ARTHUR H. HEALEY, PARSKEY and SHEA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Each of these appeals is from a judgment terminating parental rights pursuant to General Statutes § 17-43a. In each of docket numbers 10540, 10676 and 10753/10795, the judgment of the court contains no indication of the standard of proof applied by the trial judge in arriving at a decision; ¹ we assume, therefore, that the trial court applied the civil standard of a fair preponderance of the evidence. Anonymous v. Norton, 168 Conn. 421, 424, 362 A.2d 532, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 294, 46 L.Ed.2d 268 (1975); see In re Appeal of Bailey, 158 Conn. 439, 443, 262 A.2d 177 (1969). In docket numbers 10663 and 11452, the trial court specifically applied the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. Practice Book § 1049. By order of this court, all of these appeals were heard on the sole question of whether the cases should be reversed and remanded for a new trial in light of the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Santosky v. Kramer, --- U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

In Santosky v. Kramer, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that due process requires the state to prove the allegations in a petition to terminate parental rights by clear and convincing evidence before those rights could be terminated. In light of that decision, there is error in each of these cases, and a new trial ² is required in which the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof is applied.

There is error, the judgments are set aside, and new trials are ordered.

* In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142(b) and Practice Book § 3161, the names of the parties involved in this appeal are not disclosed and the records and briefs will not be distributed to the various libraries of the state. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the Supreme Court.

1 In docket number 10540, no memorandum of decision is contained in the file.

In docket number 10753/10795, the case was referred to a state referee (Hon. Thomas D. Gill) who found the allegations of neglect to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and recommended that parental rights be terminated. The trial court heard additional testimony before rendering a judgment. Its memorandum...