Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 45a — PROBATE COURTS AND PROCEDURE · Chapter 802h — Protected Persons and Their Property
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-647 (2025)

(Formerly Sec. 45-70f). Release from voluntary representation

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who is under voluntary representation as provided by section 45a-646 shall be released from voluntary representation upon giving thirty days' written notice to the Court of Probate.

(P.A. 77-446, S. 10; P.A. 80-476, S. 126.)

History: P.A. 80-476 made minor change in wording; Sec. 45-70f transferred to Sec. 45a-647 in 1991.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2018–2022 · leading case: Day v. Seblatnigg, 199 A.3d 1103 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Day v. Seblatnigg, 199 A.3d 1103 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 9× “5 The court *1110 ruled that "[u]ntil such time [as Elia sought and obtained release from the conservatorship pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-647 ] ... the conservator, as the agent of the Probate Court [had] the exclusive authority to manage the affairs of the conserved…”
Rider v. Rider, 239 A.3d 357 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 5× “11 On August 31, 2017, the Probate Court sent notice of Leigh Rider’s request to be released from the voluntary conservatorship and that pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-647,12 such release would occur on September 28, 2017. On September 11, 2017, Houlihan, as attorney for…”
Day v. Seblatnigg, 268 A.3d 595 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “For involuntary conservatorship proceedings, the trial court could assign to the conservator only those duties and authorities that are the ‘‘least restrictive means of intervention’’11 necessary to meet the needs of the conserved person; General Statutes (Rev.”
Day v. Seblatnigg, 268 A.3d 595 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “But the present case illustrates the pitfalls of the lack of any explicit procedural requirements. The Probate Court made no effort to ascertain what authority, if any, Elia wanted to retain or what limits, if any, she wanted to place on her conservatorship.”
Day v. Seblatnigg, 268 A.3d 595 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “For involuntary conservatorship proceedings, the trial court could assign to the conservator only those duties and authorities that are the ‘‘least restrictive means of intervention’’11 necessary to meet the needs of the conserved person; General Statutes (Rev.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.