Case In Re James L
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Case In Re James L as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 639
- Pages: 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 · Abuse and Neglect · Adoption · All Cases · Civil Liberties & Civil Rights · Discrimination · Education · Family Law · Guardianship · Juvenile Justice · Legal Representation · Medicaid · Mental Health · Search/View Case(s) · Conferences and Training · Legal Resources · Legislative News · Placement Resources · Pleadings Bank · Professional Resources · Useful Web Links · About Us Search KidsCounsel: OK
Case: In re James L. 52 Conn. App. 336, 738 A.2d 749 Abuse and Neglect : CT Appellate Division 1999 Declining to reach several issues raised for the first time on appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a termination of parental rights despite the mother's contentions, which included her claim that the trial court erred in refusing to remove from the petition documents, including several police records. The appellate court found that the documents were exhibits, not 'supporting evidence and pleadings,' and thus their attachment to the petition was permitted by the Connecticut Practice Book. The appellate court did not accept the mother's argument that the police statements were inadmissible because they contained hearsay; the appellate court reasoned that many of the challenged documents were admitted at trial and all the information contained in the documents was contained in the DCF social study and addendum to the social study, both of which were admitted at trial. The appellate court also disagreed with the mother's claim that the trial court improperly denied her a new trial after the witness with whom the baby had allegedly been abandoned admitted in a criminal trial that she had lied in the child protection proceeding. The appellate court noted that the admission at criminal trial 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 Advocacy
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Top of Page | Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site Map
Case: In re James L. 52 Conn. App. 336, 738 A.2d 749 Abuse and Neglect : CT Appellate Division 1999 Declining to reach several issues raised for the first time on appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a termination of parental rights despite the mother's contentions, which included her claim that the trial court erred in refusing to remove from the petition documents, including several police records. The appellate court found that the documents were exhibits, not 'supporting evidence and pleadings,' and thus their attachment to the petition was permitted by the Connecticut Practice Book. The appellate court did not accept the mother's argument that the police statements were inadmissible because they contained hearsay; the appellate court reasoned that many of the challenged documents were admitted at trial and all the information contained in the documents was contained in the DCF social study and addendum to the social study, both of which were admitted at trial. The appellate court also disagreed with the mother's claim that the trial court improperly denied her a new trial after the witness with whom the baby had allegedly been abandoned admitted in a criminal trial that she had lied in the child protection proceeding. The appellate court noted that the admission at criminal trial 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 Advocacy
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Top of Page | Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site Map
Related Documents
Case In Re James L
August 2019 34
Case In Re James L Files
August 2019 18
Case In Re Latifa K
August 2019 20
First Batch Case No. 10 In Re James Hamm.docx
June 2020 20
James L Wyne
December 2019 8