| CONN. GEN. STAT. §17a-7 of the Connecticut General
Statues-Parole of persons in commissioner's custody states:
". . . the commissioner of children and youth services or his designee may when
deemed in the best interest of a child committed to the custody of the commissioner by the
juvenile court, place such child on parole under such terms or conditions as the
commissioner or his designee deem to be in the best interests of such child. When in the
opinion of the commissioner or his designee it is no longer in the best interest of such
child to remain on parole such child may be returned to any institution, resource or
facility administered by or available to the Department of Children and Youth
Services."
The central purpose of due process in the Parole Revocation Hearing is to extend the
protection of fundamental fairness in any proceeding which places a child in a more secure
or restricted setting. Fundamental fairness results in accurate and substantial findings
of fact and a fair disposition, pending court disposition of formal charges.
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S 471
(1972), that adult parole is a liberty interest requiring due process protection. At a
minimum this includes written notice, a preliminary probable cause hearing, disclosure of
evidence, opportunity to be heard, to present witnesses and documentary evidence, and to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, an impartial hearing body, a written
statement of evidence relied upon and reasons for parole revocation. In Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S 778 (1973), the Court included the right to court-appointed counsel
under specified conditions indicating that without counsel the parolee might be unable to
give a full and accurate presentation of the facts.
In both cases the court emphasized that these safeguards need not interfere with the
traditional flexibility of parole procedures and that they could serve an essential
rehabilitative function by ensuring fairness.
Parole status is essentially the juvenile equivalent of adult parole. The Supreme Court
has held in several cases that due process similar to that afforded adults is required to
avoid arbitrary and fundamentally unfair decisions in juvenile proceedings. Kent v.
U.S., 383 U.S 541 (1986) in re Gault, 387 U.S. 1.
The hearing procedures outlined, therefore, incorporate the procedural safeguards of Morrissey
and Gagnon. The interests of the child dictate scheduling the hearing as soon as
possible to settle the issue of his/her return to Long Lane School. Consequently, the
Parole Revocation Hearing which is scheduled within fourteen (14) days of placement at
Long Lane School will also fulfill the function of a preliminary probable cause hearing. |
