CT Gen Stat § 46b-135. (Formerly Sec. 51-316) (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 46b - Family Law|Chapter 815t - Juvenile Matters|Section 46b-135. (Formerly Sec. 51-316) - Right to counsel and cross-examination.

 (a) At the commencement of any proceeding concerning the alleged delinquency of a child, the child shall have the right to counsel and be so informed by the judge, and that if the child and the parent or parents or guardian of the child are unable to afford counsel, counsel will be provided for the child. Such counsel and the child shall have the rights of confrontation and cross-examination. If a parent fails to comply with a court order entered in the best interests of the alleged or adjudicated delinquent child and is facing potential imprisonment for contempt of court, such parent, if unable to afford counsel, shall be entitled to have counsel provided for such parent pursuant to this subsection.(b) At the commencement of any proceeding on behalf of a neglected, uncared-for or abused child or youth, the parent or parents or guardian of the child or youth shall have the right to counsel, and shall be so informed by the judge, and that if they are unable to afford counsel, counsel will be provided for them. Such parent or guardian of the child or youth shall have the rights of confrontation and cross-examination.(1967, P.A. 630, S. 8; 1969, P.A. 794, S. 11, 12; P.A. 75-602, S. 5, 13; P.A. 76-436, S. 23, 681; P.A. 95-225, S. 19; P.A. 07-159, S. 6; P.A. 11-240, S. 9.)History: 1969 act deleted references to persons, other than parent or guardian, “having control of the child” and required that judge inform parent, guardian and child of their right to counsel and their right to have counsel provided if they cannot afford counsel themselves, both in Subsec. (a) and in new Subsec. (b); P.A. 75-602 added references to youths in Subsec. (b); P.A. 76-436 deleted references to juvenile court, effective July 1, 1978; Sec. 17-66b temporarily renumbered as Sec. 51-316 and ultimately transferred to Sec. 46b-135 in 1979; P.A. 95-225 amended Subsec. (a) to replace “proceeding on behalf of a delinquent child” with “proceeding concerning the alleged delinquency of a child” and make technical changes; P.A. 07-159 amended Subsec. (a) to provide that parent who fails to comply with a court order and is facing imprisonment for contempt is entitled to counsel pursuant to subsection and to make conforming changes and amended Subsec. (b) to delete “and such counsel” re rights of confrontation and cross-examination and to make technical changes, effective July 1, 2007; P.A. 11-240 amended Subsec. (b) by replacing “dependent” with “abused”, effective July 1, 2011.Annotation to former section 17-66b:Cited. 158 C. 439.Annotations to present section:Subsec. (a):Cited. 195 C. 303; 207 C. 725; 211 C. 289.Juvenile is entitled to counsel at both adjudicatory and dispositive phases. 39 CS 400.Subsec. (b):Subsec. does not indicate an intent to disturb the rules of evidence governing admission of hearsay statements. 296 C. 524.Cited. 23 CA 207; Id., 410; 25 CA 536; 42 CA 664. In parental rights termination case, trial court did not violate respondent's right of confrontation under Subsec. by deciding not to question child in camera where trial court found that child's testimony was not necessary based on all the evidence in case and that requiring child to testify would victimize her. 49 CA 763. Parent's right to confrontation and cross-examination not violated by admission of the children's statements under the residual exception to the hearsay rule because, although available, the children would be harmed if called to testify. 111 CA 28; judgment affirmed, see 296 C. 524. In action for termination of parental rights, the court did not deny respondent her procedural due process rights when conducting a trial on the merits with only her counsel present as the court still required petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence not only the grounds for termination, but that it was in the child's best interest for respondent's parental rights to be terminated. Id., 210. Although provision supports father's argument that he was a legally necessary party with right of confrontation, it does not require that the court or petitioner repeatedly attempt to locate a properly served, nonappearing, defaulted respondent throughout a hearing nor require that a new trial be ordered when a nonappearing, defaulted respondent is incarcerated after the beginning of a hearing, makes no attempt to contact the court and is later located by the petitioner. 117 CA 521.Cited. 41 CS 145.