Opinion ID: 2329146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: appointment of the guardian ad litem

Text: Finally, we address the defendant's claim pertaining to the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the victim. The defendant claims that the trial court violated his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut, by compelling the victim to testify, despite the expressed opposition of the victim's parents to having her testify, through the appointment of a guardian ad litem. [17] The state argues that the defendant lacks standing to raise a claim pertaining to the appointment of the guardian ad litem because the rights violated, if any, were those of the victim or her parents, not the defendant. We agree with the state, but we take this opportunity to comment on the process used by the trial court in appointing the guardian ad litem and the guardian ad litem's role in the proceedings, and to provide guidance concerning this issue if it arises again on remand. The following additional facts are necessary to the resolution of this claim. Just prior to the trial court calling the jury in for trial, the defendant informed the trial court that there was some question as to whether the victim was ... going to testify, and requested that the trial court interview or question the victim's parents, who are her legal guardians, to ensure that they are not being forced against their will to have this victim testify. When asked to produce authority to indicate that the trial court had to question the parents about whether the child was being forced to testify, counsel for the defendant claimed that the parents had contacted her twice, alleging that the victim's father had been threatened with arrest, by an individual whom they believed to be a policeman, if the victim failed to testify. Defense counsel then argued that such coercion violated the defendant's constitutional rights because, to avoid repercussions from the state, the testimony would be tailored to satisfy the state. When asked, once again, to produce authority indicating that the court had to question the parents, defense counsel responded, my authority is the constitution, to which the court replied, [w]e're going to proceed with this trial. You've always got the opportunity to cross-examine any witness who's called to the stand.... After the trial court had seated and instructed the jury, the state called the victim as its first witness and immediately requested a sidebar. Following the sidebar, the trial court excused the jury, and the state informed the court that the mother does not want her daughter to testify at this point in time. Therefore, the state requested the court to order the victim to testify. In reply, the trial court initially asked for some authority to show that it had the power to make such an order, but then sought further clarification of the situation. The state's attorney responded as follows: I believe the daughter's willing to testify. But the mother said she does not want her daughter to go through this and wants her daughter to put this all behind her. The trial court then took a recess to give this some thought. Following a meeting with counsel for the state and the defendant in chambers, the trial court had the victim's mother brought into the courtroom to determine if she would be willing to allow the victim to testify on videotape, outside the presence of the defendant. The victim's mother responded, I don't want my  No. I don't want my daughter to testify at all, you know, in a room or alone or here or anywhere. The trial court then reminded the victim's mother of the seriousness of the allegations in the case, to which she responded: Yeah, I understand that. Like I said, I'm trying to make her forget everything. And I, myself, am making her remember all of this, and I want her to forget all of this. The trial court then ordered a recess and offered the state's attorney an opportunity to speak with the victim's mother and the victim. The court overruled the defendant's objection to the state speaking to the mother. Following another meeting with counsel in chambers and an opportunity for the trial court to do some research on the feasibility of appointing a guardian in lieu of the mother  a guardian for the witness, the state moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem. The following colloquy then took place between counsel for the defendant and the trial court: [Defense Counsel]: ... I think that if the state is seeking to have a guardian ad litem appointed for a minor child, that the minor child's parents should both be in the courtroom, should be a party to the proceedings, and should have the benefit of the Spanish interpreter. And I also think that they should be advised of their right to counsel, the right  The Court: Well, why don't you let counsel make the motion.... I know you want to say all these things, but I want to hear the motion first. [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I think they have the right to be here when there's a motion being heard. The Court: Counsel, I said you're going to get an opportunity. You don't represent them, in any event, so. . . . Make your motion. The state then moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem pursuant to Practice Book § 44-20. [18] The state argued that the victim fell under the guardian ad litem provision, and that it had not been aware that the victim's parents would not allow the victim to testify. When offered the opportunity to respond to the motion, counsel for the defendant disputed the contention made by the state's attorney that she had not known that the parents would not allow the victim to testify and asserted that the child's parents should be here in this courtroom. . . . The state is seeking an order from the court that will interfere with the rights of the parents. The following colloquy then occurred between the trial court and counsel for the defendant: The Court: You don't represent [the parents], so make an argument on behalf of your client. [Defense Counsel]: I don't represent them, but they do have rights here in this courtroom. They have the right to appointment of counsel, they have the right to be heard. The Court: And I said you don't represent them, so make an argument on behalf of your client. [Defense Counsel]: And if I could just be clear if the court is denying my motion to have. . . . The Court: I haven't said anything. I said, `Argue on behalf of your client.' You want to tell me about the rights of the alleged victim's parents and you don't represent them. So I will hear you in regard to your client. [Defense Counsel]: And I just want to make sure that the record is clear that the court is either refusing to act on my request or is denying the request. The Court: I don't know what your request is.... You want to tell me about the rights of the parents, and I want to hear your argument about your client. [Defense Counsel]: My request is that the parents be present in the courtroom during this hearing. The Court: Finish your argument. [Defense Counsel]: That they be advised of their right to counsel; that the right to make decisions for children is a basic right, and the court cannot deprive any parents of that right without procedural safeguards, including the right to counsel before any hearing. I would also indicate to the court that I oppose an appointment of guardian ad litem. I think the case law shows that the common-law presumption is that the parents are acting in the best interest of their children. There has been no evidence presented that these parents are not acting in the best interest of their children. There's nothing to indicate that the child would be adversely affected by the parents' decision, just the state's assertion this morning that the state's case would be affected. . . . I would submit to the court that here there has been no evidence admitted, just the state's attorney's argument on behalf of the state that the child's interest would be adversely affected. The Court: All right, counsel  [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I haven't finished. I haven't finished. The Court: Yes. Yes, you have. Because we're going to move on. We have a jury here. I'm going to bring the mother in.... [Defense Counsel]: I have further. . . . The Court: I don't ... want to hear any further argument. [Defense Counsel]: Well, I will just put for the record that if the court is going to grant the motion, I have additional requests. The parents were brought into the courtroom and identified themselves to the court. [19] The trial court then confirmed that the parents understood that their daughter was a witness in a sexual assault case and had been subpoenaed to the court to testify. After confirming that the parents did not want their daughter to testify, the trial court directed the parents to [e]xplain why not. The victim's mother responded: Because, in the first place, she doesn't want to speak because she hasn't heard what she and I have  and so she  She hasn't heard us speaking about it, but she thinks this whole problem is because of her. So, I don't want to put her through any more. The victim's father expressed his agreement with this explanation. The trial court then explained to the parents that, pursuant to the rules of practice, it had discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem, that is someone to look out for the best interest of your child while here in court testifying, for the victim. When asked by the victim's mother whether it could do so without her authorization allowing the child to testify, the court replied that it had that authority. When asked if she understood that the court had such authority, the mother replied, Well, if you say that you have the authority to do that, what else could I say? When asked again if she understood, the mother replied, Yes. The trial court then asked the parents to explain why it should not appoint a guardian ad litem and stated, unless you tell me a reason why [the victim] shouldn't [testify], I'm going to appoint a guardian and have her testify. The victim's mother responded, Well, I don't want her to talk because I'm trying to have her forget all of this, and so being here in front of all these people and have [to] testify  and all these people  she's a five year old, and I'm just creating more problems for her. The victim's father chose not to respond. The trial court then excused the parents and asked for comments from counsel, at which point the counsel for the defendant reiterated that [t]here's still been no evidence presented that it would  that the parents are not acting in the best interest of the child.... The court has to make that finding first. There has been no evidence presented. The trial court subsequently granted the state's motion and stated: I'm going to appoint the family relations office as guardian ad litem for the minor child, and the guardian is to look out for the best interest of the child; not to tell the child what to say or how to testify, simply to look out for her best interest. We're going to proceed. This action prompted a discussion concerning the role of the guardian ad litem. [20] Following this discussion, the trial court appointed the guardian ad litem during the following exchange with defense counsel: [Defense Counsel]: If I could just inquire as to whether the guardian  who the guardian is that's going to be appointed, and whether, in fact, she has met  The Court: Is someone here from family relations? Hold up for a minute. Ms. [Lisa] Leogrande: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: Identify yourself, please. Ms. Leogrande: Lisa Leogrande, family relations counselor. The Court: All right. Fine. [Defense Counsel]: And has [Leogrande] met the person that she's guardian for? The Court: Stop. I don't want to  I'm not going to  I don't want to hear anything else. Bring the jury out. [Defense Counsel]: Is the court suggesting that it's not necessary  The Court: Bring the jury out  [Defense Counsel]:  that [Leogrande] not meet the person she's guardianing. The Court: Bring the jury out. . . . After the jury was seated, the state called the victim as its first witness. Before the victim took the stand, the trial court informed the jury that the witness had an interpreter standing next to her and a family relations officer sitting nearby who would act as her guardian. The court also instructed the jury that the presence of the interpreter and the guardian should have no affect on its determination of the facts of the case. A