(a) When, with respect to any petition for termination of parental rights filed under section
17a-112, section
45a-715 or section
45a-716, it appears that either parent of the child is a minor or incompetent, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for such parent. The guardian ad litem shall be an attorney-at-law authorized to practice law in Connecticut or any duly authorized officer of a child-placing agency if the child-placing agency is not the petitioner.
(b) The guardian ad litem may be allowed reasonable compensation by the court appointing him which shall be assessed against the petitioner.
(c) If the court finds the petitioner is unable to pay the compensation, the reasonable compensation shall be established by, and paid from funds appropriated to, the Judicial Department, however, in the case of a Probate Court matter, if funds have not been included in the budget of the Judicial Department for such compensation, such compensation shall be established by the Probate Court Administrator and paid from the Probate Court Administration Fund.
(P.A. 73-156, S. 6; P.A. 74-164, S. 5, 20; P.A. 76-436, S. 643, 681; P.A. 80-476, S. 142; P.A. 83-295, S. 24; P.A. 90-31, S. 4, 9; P.A. 96-130, S. 4; 96-170, S. 21, 23; P.A. 97-90, S. 5, 6.)
History: P.A. 74-164 specified that attorney appointed as guardian ad litem must be “authorized to practice law in Connecticut” or “duly authorized” officer of child-placing agency rather than “chief” officer and required that both probate and juvenile court shall order payment of compensation from funds appropriated to judicial department where previously paid from fund established under Sec. 45-4n or from appropriation for juvenile court in cases where petitioner cannot pay the compensation; P.A. 76-436 substituted superior court for juvenile court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 80-476 divided section into Subsecs. and rephrased provisions; P.A. 83-295 amended Subsec. (c) to provide that the “reasonable compensation” of the guardian ad litem shall be “established by” the judicial department; P.A. 90-31 amended Subsec. (c) by adding provision that in the case of a court of probate, compensation established by the probate court administrator shall be paid from the probate administration fund; Sec. 45-61e transferred to Sec. 45a-708 in 1991; P.A. 96-130 amended Subsec. (a) by adding “for termination of parental rights” after “petition”; P.A. 96-170 amended Subsec. (c) by changing funding of compensation of guardian ad litem from Probate Court Administration Fund to funds appropriated to Judicial Department, unless funds not included in budget of Judicial Department for such purpose, effective July 1, 1998; P.A. 97-90 revised effective date of P.A. 96-170 but without affecting this section.
Annotations to former section 45-61e:
Cited. 182 C. 545.
Cited. 21 CA 226.
Annotations to present section:
Cited. 223 C. 557.
Cited. 25 CA 741.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1991–2014 · leading case:
In re Alexander V., 596 A.2d 934 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
In re Alexander V., 596 A.2d 934 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 13× “The respondent claims, in effect, that the procedural protection set forth in General Statutes § 45a-708 (a) 3 is insufficient to protect her rights and seeks a procedure similar to that accorded to defendants in criminal cases.”
In re Alexander V., 613 A.2d 780 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 9× “5 In the termination setting, only General Statutes § 45a-708 (a) 6 addresses the competency issue.”
In Re Brendan C., 874 A.2d 826 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 9× “In AC 25326, the respondent father claims that (1) the child was not afforded adequate legal representation, (2) the court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem for the father as mandated by General Statutes § 45a-708 (a) and the procedural due process clauses of the fourteenth…”
Weidenbacher v. Duclos, 661 A.2d 988 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Said child shall be represented by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in accordance with section 45a-708. Payment shall be made in accordance with such section from the Probate Court Administration Fund.”
In Re Zowie N., 41 A.3d 1056 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 4× “The plain language of § 45a-708 (a) does not provide for an evidentiary hearing, nor does it require any particular measures beyond the appointment of a guardian to protect the rights of an incompetent person facing the termination of parental rights.”
In re Michaela Lee R., 756 A.2d 214 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Said child shall be represented by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in accordance with section 45a-708. Payment shall be made in accordance with such section from the Probate Court Administration Fund.”
In Re Kashmaesha C., 148 Conn. App. 666 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 6× “Specifically, she argues that she exhibited progress in the maintenance of her life and her mental health, such that due process required the court sua sponte to order a continuance so that she could continue to improve to a point where she could assist in her defense.”
In Re Johnson R., 994 A.2d 739 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “2 We note that “[i]n the termination setting, only General Statutes § 45a-708 (a) addresses the competency issue.”
In re Azareon Y., 60 A.3d 742 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 3× “In the termination setting, only General Statutes § 45a-708 (a) addresses the competency issue.”
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.