Mathews test in Connecticut

2014So long as the procedure afforded ade- quately protects the individual interests at stake, there is no reason to impose substantially greater burdens . . . under the guise of due process.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Glenn, 103 Conn. App. 264, 275 , 931 A.2d 290 (2007). ‘‘The bottom-line question is whether the denial rendered the [proceeding] fundamentally unfair in view of the Mathews factors.’’ In re Shaquanna M., 61 Conn. App. 592, 606 , 767 A.2d 155 (2001).

2014So long as the procedure afforded ade- quately protects the individual interests at stake, there is no reason to impose substantially greater burdens . . . under the guise of due process.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Glenn, 103 Conn. App. 264, 275 , 931 A.2d 290 (2007). ‘‘The bottom-line question is whether the denial rendered the [proceeding] fundamentally unfair in view of the Mathews factors.’’ In re Shaquanna M., 61 Conn. App. 592, 606 , 767 A.2d 155 (2001).

2024Thus . . . we will not address an unpreserved constitutional claim [i]f the facts revealed by the record are insufficient, unclear or ambiguous as to whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 581 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007).

2024Thus . . . we will not address an unpreserved constitutional claim [i]f the facts revealed by the record are insufficient, unclear or ambiguous as to whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 581 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007).

2024We conclude that the court did not violate Pattis’ procedural due process rights in initiat- ing, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence,25 and, therefore, we further conclude that § 2-29 et seq.’’ Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 608 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007). 25 Pattis argues that ‘‘[t]he present case may be the first time in Connecticut that a Superior Court judge instituted disciplinary proceedings against an attorney because she read or saw a repo

2024We conclude that the court did not violate Pattis’ procedural due process rights in initiat- ing, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence,25 and, therefore, we further conclude that § 2-29 et seq.’’ Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 608 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007). 25 Pattis argues that ‘‘[t]he present case may be the first time in Connecticut that a Superior Court judge instituted disciplinary proceedings against an attorney because she read or saw a repo

2024We conclude that the court did not violate Pattis’ procedural due process rights in initiat- ing, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence,25 and, therefore, we further conclude that § 2-29 et seq.’’ Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 608 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007). 25 Pattis argues that ‘‘[t]he present case may be the first time in Connecticut that a Superior Court judge instituted disciplinary proceedings against an attorney because she read or saw a repo

2024We conclude that the court did not violate Pattis’ procedural due process rights in initiat- ing, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence,25 and, therefore, we further conclude that § 2-29 et seq.’’ Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 608 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007). 25 Pattis argues that ‘‘[t]he present case may be the first time in Connecticut that a Superior Court judge instituted disciplinary proceedings against an attorney because she read or saw a repo

2024We conclude that the court did not violate Pattis’ procedural due process rights in initiat- ing, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence,25 and, therefore, we further conclude that § 2-29 et seq.’’ Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 608 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007). 25 Pattis argues that ‘‘[t]he present case may be the first time in Connecticut that a Superior Court judge instituted disciplinary proceedings against an attorney because she read or saw a repo

2024We conclude that the court did not violate Pattis’ procedural due process rights in initiat- ing, sua sponte, disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of conduct that occurred outside of its presence,25 and, therefore, we further conclude that § 2-29 et seq.’’ Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 608 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007). 25 Pattis argues that ‘‘[t]he present case may be the first time in Connecticut that a Superior Court judge instituted disciplinary proceedings against an attorney because she read or saw a repo

2025In sum, in balancing the three Mathews factors, we conclude that the respondent has failed to demonstrate that an ‘‘alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the [respondent] of a fair trial . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alexis, 194 Conn. App. 162, 173 , 220 A.3d 38 , cert. denied, 334 Conn. 904 , 219 A.3d 800 (2019).

2022In response to the defendants’ arguments, however, the Superior Court succinctly addressed the Mathews factors in its memoran- dum of decision. 6 Our Supreme Court has held that ‘‘the procedures required by the UAPA exceed the minimal procedural safeguards mandated by the due process clause.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, 228 Conn. 651, 661 , 638 A.2d 6 (1994).

2022In response to the defendants’ arguments, however, the Superior Court succinctly addressed the Mathews factors in its memoran- dum of decision. 6 Our Supreme Court has held that ‘‘the procedures required by the UAPA exceed the minimal procedural safeguards mandated by the due process clause.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, 228 Conn. 651, 661 , 638 A.2d 6 (1994).

2022If the meaning of a statute can be fairly ascertained a statute will not be void for vagueness . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 302 Conn. 912 , 27 A.3d 371 (2011). 5 The plaintiff neither cited nor analyzed the Mathews factors in his brief to the Superior Court.

2022If the meaning of a statute can be fairly ascertained a statute will not be void for vagueness . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 302 Conn. 912 , 27 A.3d 371 (2011). 5 The plaintiff neither cited nor analyzed the Mathews factors in his brief to the Superior Court.

2014So long as the procedure afforded ade- quately protects the individual interests at stake, there is no reason to impose substantially greater burdens . . . under the guise of due process.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Glenn, 103 Conn. App. 264, 275 , 931 A.2d 290 (2007). ‘‘The bottom-line question is whether the denial rendered the [proceeding] fundamentally unfair in view of the Mathews factors.’’ In re Shaquanna M., 61 Conn. App. 592, 606 , 767 A.2d 155 (2001).

2014So long as the procedure afforded ade- quately protects the individual interests at stake, there is no reason to impose substantially greater burdens . . . under the guise of due process.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Glenn, 103 Conn. App. 264, 275 , 931 A.2d 290 (2007). ‘‘The bottom-line question is whether the denial rendered the [proceeding] fundamentally unfair in view of the Mathews factors.’’ In re Shaquanna M., 61 Conn. App. 592, 606 , 767 A.2d 155 (2001).

2014Courts have recognized that “[a] petition to terminate parental rights threatens the respondent’s constitutionally protected interest [in retaining her parental rights in her children].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kyara H., 147 Conn. App. 829, 849 , 83 A.3d 1249 , cert. denied, 311 Conn. 923 , 86 A.3d 466 (2014); see also Santosky v. Kramer, supra, 455 U.S. 754 -55. “[P]arents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, in the absence of neglect or abuse. . . .

2014Courts have recognized that “[a] petition to terminate parental rights threatens the respondent’s constitutionally protected interest [in retaining her parental rights in her children].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kyara H., 147 Conn. App. 829, 849 , 83 A.3d 1249 , cert. denied, 311 Conn. 923 , 86 A.3d 466 (2014); see also Santosky v. Kramer, supra, 455 U.S. 754 -55. “[P]arents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, in the absence of neglect or abuse. . . .

2010Connecticut v. Doehr, [supra, 11 ] . . . instructs us to address this issue by using the tripartite test of Mathews v. Eldridge [supra, 334-35 ].”); Calfee v. Usman, 224 Conn. 29, 36 , 616 A.2d 250 (1992) (discussing defendant’s claim for prejudgment remedy under three part Mathews test).

2010Connecticut v. Doehr, [supra, 11 ] . . . instructs us to address this issue by using the tripartite test of Mathews v. Eldridge [supra, 334-35 ].”); Calfee v. Usman, 224 Conn. 29, 36 , 616 A.2d 250 (1992) (discussing defendant’s claim for prejudgment remedy under three part Mathews test).

2009See, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 569-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test and concluding that criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process at sentencing does not include right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 492-93, 496-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews test and concluding that trial court’s order rectifying transcript without evidentiary hearing did not violate criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process); State v. Washburn, 34 Conn. App. 557, 564-66 , 642 A.2d

2009See, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 569-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test and concluding that criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process at sentencing does not include right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 492-93, 496-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews test and concluding that trial court’s order rectifying transcript without evidentiary hearing did not violate criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process); State v. Washburn, 34 Conn. App. 557, 564-66 , 642 A.2d

2009Although this court has in the past unquestioningly applied the Mathews test in the criminal context; see, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 572-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test to conclude that there is no federal due process right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 493-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews factors in concluding no per se right to evidentiary hearing on state’s motion to rectify transcript); State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 471 , 625 A.2d 791 (1993) (Mathews test applicable to due process issues under state constitut

2009Although this court has in the past unquestioningly applied the Mathews test in the criminal context; see, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 572-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test to conclude that there is no federal due process right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 493-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews factors in concluding no per se right to evidentiary hearing on state’s motion to rectify transcript); State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 471 , 625 A.2d 791 (1993) (Mathews test applicable to due process issues under state constitut

2009Although this court has in the past unquestioningly applied the Mathews test in the criminal context; see, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 572-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test to conclude that there is no federal due process right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 493-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews factors in concluding no per se right to evidentiary hearing on state’s motion to rectify transcript); State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 471 , 625 A.2d 791 (1993) (Mathews test applicable to due process issues under state constitut

2009Although this court has in the past unquestioningly applied the Mathews test in the criminal context; see, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 572-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test to conclude that there is no federal due process right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 493-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews factors in concluding no per se right to evidentiary hearing on state’s motion to rectify transcript); State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 471 , 625 A.2d 791 (1993) (Mathews test applicable to due process issues under state constitut

2009See, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 569-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test and concluding that criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process at sentencing does not include right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 492-93, 496-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews test and concluding that trial court’s order rectifying transcript without evidentiary hearing did not violate criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process); State v. Washburn, 34 Conn. App. 557, 564-66 , 642 A.2d

2009See, e.g., State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 569-76 , 674 A.2d 416 (1996) (applying Mathews test and concluding that criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process at sentencing does not include right to presentence investigation report); State v. Lopez, 235 Conn. 487, 492-93, 496-97 , 668 A.2d 360 (1995) (applying Mathews test and concluding that trial court’s order rectifying transcript without evidentiary hearing did not violate criminal defendant’s federal constitutional right to procedural due process); State v. Washburn, 34 Conn. App. 557, 564-66 , 642 A.2d

2009The final case is McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1179 , 128 S. Ct. 1218 , 170 L.

2009The final case is McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1179 , 128 S. Ct. 1218 , 170 L.

2009The final case is McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1179 , 128 S. Ct. 1218 , 170 L.

2009The final case is McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1179 , 128 S. Ct. 1218 , 170 L.

2001See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, supra, 452 U.S. 27 (evaluating, under Mathews analysis, “the private interests at stake, the government’s interest, and the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions”); Scinto v. Stamm, 224 Conn. 524, 535 , 620 A.2d 99 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 861 , 114 S. Ct. 176 , 126 L.

2001See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, supra, 452 U.S. 27 (evaluating, under Mathews analysis, “the private interests at stake, the government’s interest, and the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions”); Scinto v. Stamm, 224 Conn. 524, 535 , 620 A.2d 99 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 861 , 114 S. Ct. 176 , 126 L.