Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-135

Current with legislation from the 2024 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 46b-135 - (Formerly Sec. 51-316). Right to counsel and cross-examination

(a) At the commencement of any proceeding concerning the alleged delinquency of a child, the child shall have the right to counsel and be so informed by the judge, and that if the child and the parent or parents or guardian of the child are unable to afford counsel, counsel will be provided for the child. Such counsel and the child shall have the rights of confrontation and cross-examination. If a parent fails to comply with a court order entered in the best interests of the alleged or adjudicated delinquent child and is facing potential imprisonment for contempt of court, such parent, if unable to afford counsel, shall be entitled to have counsel provided for such parent pursuant to this subsection.

(b) At the commencement of any proceeding on behalf of a neglected, uncared-for or abused child or youth, the parent or parents or guardian of the child or youth shall have the right to counsel, and shall be so informed by the judge, and that if they are unable to afford counsel, counsel will be provided for them. Such parent or guardian of the child or youth shall have the rights of confrontation and cross-examination.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-135

(1967, P.A. 630, S. 8; 1969, P.A. 794, S. 11, 12; P.A. 75-602, S. 5, 13; P.A. 76-436, S. 23, 681; P.A. 95-225, S. 19; P.A. 07-159, S. 6; P.A. 11-240, S. 9.)

Amended by P.A. 11-0240, S. 9 of the the 2011 Regular Session, eff. 7/1/2011.

Annotation to former section 17-66b: Cited. 158 Conn. 439. Annotations to present section: Subsec. (a): Cited. 195 Conn. 303; 207 Conn. 725; 211 Conn. 289. Juvenile is entitled to counsel at both adjudicatory and dispositive phases. 39 CS 400. Subsec. (b): Subsec. does not indicate an intent to disturb the rules of evidence governing admission of hearsay statements. 296 C. 524. Cited. 23 CA 207; Id., 410; 25 CA 536; 42 CA 664. In parental rights termination case, trial court did not violate respondent's right of confrontation under Subsec. by deciding not to question child in camera where trial court found that child's testimony was not necessary based on all the evidence in case and that requiring child to testify would victimize her. 49 CA 763. Parent's right to confrontation and cross-examination not violated by admission of the children's statements under the residual exception to the hearsay rule because, although available, the children would be harmed if called to testify. 111 CA 28; judgment affirmed, see 296 Conn. 524. In action for termination of parental rights, the court did not deny respondent her procedural due process rights when conducting a trial on the merits with only her counsel present as the court still required petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence not only the grounds for termination, but that it was in the child's best interest for respondent's parental rights to be terminated. Id., 210. Although provision supports father's argument that he was a legally necessary party with right of confrontation, it does not require that the court or petitioner repeatedly attempt to locate a properly served, nonappearing, defaulted respondent throughout a hearing nor require that a new trial be ordered when a nonappearing, defaulted respondent is incarcerated after the beginning of a hearing, makes no attempt to contact the court and is later located by the petitioner. 117 CA 521. Cited. 41 CS 145.