Maureen Khan v. Jonathan Hillyer (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REGARDING MOTION FOR ADVICE (# 235 )

The attorney for the minor child (hereinafter AMC) filed a motion for advice dated December 20, 2011 requesting “that the court determine the scope of the representation of the minor child contemplated by the original appointment and further requests that this court determine whether it would be in the best interest of the child to participate in the argument relative to the question certified by the Supreme Court or, in the alternative, to participate in further appellate proceedings, if any.”

The AMC and the defendant appeared before the undersigned on January 3, 2012.   The plaintiff had notice of this hearing but elected to not appear.

A review of the record reveals that a lengthy hearing was held regarding the defendant's motion for contempt and motion to open and modify dated August 11, 2008.   The court, Boland, J., issued a thorough memorandum of decision dated January 9, 2009.   Said decision was primarily, if not completely, devoted to issues of custody, access and psychological evaluations of all concerned.   The plaintiff appealed said decision to the Appellate Court which dismissed said appeal.   The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following question:  “Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the appeal from the trial court's order of contempt?”   On or about October 6, 2010, Attorney Susan Asselin–Connolly was appointed as the child's AMC.

Practice Book § 67–13 addresses the role of the AMC in cases on appeal:

“In family and juvenile matters and other matters involving minor children, counsel for the minor child and/or counsel for the Guardian ad litem shall, within 10 days of the filing of the appellee's brief, file either:  (1) a brief, (2) a statement adopting the brief of either the appellant or an appellee, or (3) a detailed statement that the factual or legal issues on appeal do not implicate the child's interests.”

Rather than direct the AMC as to what role it should take in the pending appellate process, this court simply will reiterate that Practice Book § 67–13 appears to control and places a rather modest burden on the AMC.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.