In re Christina M.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

In re Christina M.

884 A.2d 1024, 276 Conn. 903

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 28, 2005

DocketSC 17512

StatusPublished

This text of 884 A.2d 1024 (In re Christina M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Christina M., 884 A.2d 1024, 276 Conn. 903 (Colo. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition by the respondent mother for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 90 Conn. App. 565 (AC 25540), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court does not have a constitutional obligation to appoint an independent attorney to advocate for the express wishes of a child, who is the subject of a termination of parental rights petition, when those [904]*904wishes conflict with the position advocated by the child’s present counsel?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17512. Decided September 28, 2005 Cheryl A. Juniewic, in support of the petition. Paula D. Sullivan, assistant attorney general, in opposition.

“2. If the answer to the first question is ‘no,’ whether deprivation of that right by an attorney who advocates a position contrary to the express wishes of the child causes ‘structural error’ in a termination proceeding creating a presumption of prejudice?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The petition by the respondent mother for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 90 Conn. App. 565 (AC 25540), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court does not have a constitutional obligation to appoint an independent attorney to advocate for the express wishes of a child, who is the subject of a termination of parental rights petition, when those [904]*904wishes conflict with the position advocated by the child’s present counsel?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17512. Decided September 28, 2005 Cheryl A. Juniewic, in support of the petition. Paula D. Sullivan, assistant attorney general, in opposition.

“2. If the answer to the first question is ‘no,’ whether deprivation of that right by an attorney who advocates a position contrary to the express wishes of the child causes ‘structural error’ in a termination proceeding creating a presumption of prejudice?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

884 A.2d 1024, 276 Conn. 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-christina-m-conn-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack