Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. 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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

IN RE JOHNSON R.* IN RE ARMIN R. IN RE MAX R. (SC 18638)
Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued February 8--officially released April 5, 2011

David J. Reich, for the appellant (respondent father). Colleen Valentine, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon and John Tucker, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (petitioner).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. This certified appeal is limited to the following issues: (1) whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the record is inadequate for review of the respondent father's1 claim that his due process rights were not adequately protected in the termination of parental rights proceeding because he had been declared incompetent; and if not, (2) whether the trial court sufficiently ensured that his due process rights were protected. In re Johnson R., 297 Conn. 925, 998 A.2d 168 (2010). The respondent appeals from the decision of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgments terminating his parental rights with respect to his three minor children, Johnson R., Armin R. and Max R. (children). On November 21, 2006, the children were adjudicated neglected and committed to the care, custody and guardianship of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner).2 On April 3, 2008, the trial court granted the respondent's motion for a competency evaluation, and on June 19, 2008, the court found the respondent neither competent nor restorable to competency and appointed a guardian ad litem for him. On July 3, 2008, pursuant to General Statutes

Download In re Johnson R..pdf

Connecticut Law