Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site

Map
University of Connecticut School of Law,
65 Elizabeth St, Hartford, CT 06105
You are here > KidsCounsel Home > Case Library > Case: In re James L.

KidsCounsel Home
· Case Library Case: In re James L.
· Abuse and Neglect 52 Conn. App. 336, 738 A.2d 749
· Adoption Abuse and Neglect :
· All Cases CT Appellate Division
· Civil Liberties & Civil 1999
Rights
· Discrimination Declining to reach several issues raised for the first
· Education time on appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court
affirmed a termination of parental rights despite the
· Family Law mother's contentions, which included her claim that the
· Guardianship trial court erred in refusing to remove from the petition
· Juvenile Justice documents, including several police records. The
· Legal Representation appellate court found that the documents were exhibits,
· Medicaid not 'supporting evidence and pleadings,' and thus their
attachment to the petition was permitted by the
· Mental Health Connecticut Practice Book. The appellate court did not
· Search/View Case(s) accept the mother's argument that the police
· Conferences and statements were inadmissible because they contained
Training hearsay; the appellate court reasoned that many of the
· Legal Resources challenged documents were admitted at trial and all the
· Legislative News information contained in the documents was contained
in the DCF social study and addendum to the social
· Placement Resources study, both of which were admitted at trial.
· Pleadings Bank
· Professional Resources The appellate court also disagreed with the mother's
· Useful Web Links claim that the trial court improperly denied her a new
trial after the witness with whom the baby had allegedly
· About Us been abandoned admitted in a criminal trial that she
had lied in the child protection proceeding. The
Search KidsCounsel: appellate court noted that the admission at criminal trial
OK was elicited on cross examination by the questions of
the mother's defense lawyer. Because the mother's
lawyer in the termination case could have asked the
witness the same questions, the appellate court
concluded that the failure to discover the witness's
recantation prior to the close of the termination trial
constituted a lack of due diligence.

DocID: 59 ExtDocID: 0000000000059

Printer-friendly version

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2002 Center for Children's Top of Page | Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site
Advocacy Map