(a) Any admission, confession or statement, written or oral, made by a child under the age of sixteen to a police officer or Juvenile Court official shall be inadmissible in any proceeding concerning the alleged delinquency of the child making such admission, confession or statement unless made by such child in the presence of the child's parent or parents or guardian and after the parent or parents or guardian and child have been advised (1) of the child's right to retain counsel, or if unable to afford counsel, to have counsel appointed on the child's behalf, (2) of the child's right to refuse to make any statements, and (3) that any statements the child makes may be introduced into evidence against the child.

(b) Any admission, confession or statement, written or oral, made by a child sixteen or seventeen years of age to a police officer or Juvenile Court official, except an admission, confession or statement, written or oral, made by a child sixteen or seventeen years of age to a police officer in connection with a case transferred to the Juvenile Court from the youthful offender docket, regular criminal docket of the Superior Court or any docket for the presentment of defendants in motor vehicle matters, shall be inadmissible in any proceeding concerning the alleged delinquency of the child making such admission, confession or statement, unless (1) the police or Juvenile Court official has made reasonable efforts to contact a parent or guardian of the child, and (2) such child has been advised that (A) the child has the right to contact a parent or guardian and to have a parent or guardian present during any interview, (B) the child has the right to retain counsel or, if unable to afford counsel, to have counsel appointed on behalf of the child, (C) the child has the right to refuse to make any statement, and (D) any statement the child makes may be introduced into evidence against the child.

(c) The admissibility of any admission, confession or statement, written or oral, made by a child sixteen or seventeen years of age to a police officer or Juvenile Court official, except an admission, confession or statement, written or oral, made by a child sixteen or seventeen years of age to a police officer in connection with a case transferred to the Juvenile Court from the youthful offender docket, regular criminal docket of the Superior Court or any docket for the presentment of defendants in motor vehicle matters, shall be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of the making of such admission, confession or statement. When determining the admissibility of such admission, confession or statement, the court shall consider (1) the age, experience, education, background and intelligence of the child, (2) the capacity of the child to understand the advice concerning rights and warnings required under subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of this section, the nature of the privilege against self-incrimination under the United States and Connecticut Constitutions, and the consequences of waiving such rights and privilege, (3) the opportunity the child had to speak with a parent, guardian or some other suitable individual prior to or while making such admission, confession or statement, and (4) the circumstances surrounding the making of the admission, confession or statement, including, but not limited to, (A) when and where the admission, confession or statement was made, (B) the reasonableness of proceeding, or the need to proceed, without a parent or guardian present, and (C) the reasonableness of efforts by the police or Juvenile Court official to attempt to contact a parent or guardian.

(d) Any confession, admission or statement, written or oral, made by the parent or parents or guardian of the child or youth after the filing of a petition alleging such child or youth to be neglected, uncared for or abused shall be inadmissible in any proceeding held upon such petition against the person making such admission or statement unless such person shall have been advised of the person's right to retain counsel, and that if the person is unable to afford counsel, counsel will be appointed to represent the person, that the person has a right to refuse to make any statement and that any statements the person makes may be introduced in evidence against the person, except that any statement made by the mother of any child or youth, upon inquiry by the court and under oath if necessary, as to the identity of any person who might be the father of the child or youth shall not be inadmissible if the mother was not so advised.

(1967, P.A. 630, S. 10; 1969, P.A. 794, S. 13, 14; P.A. 75-183; 75-602, S. 7, 13; P.A. 76-436, S. 591, 681; P.A. 95-225, S. 20; P.A. 98-256, S. 11; Sept. Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-7, S. 75, 87; P.A. 10-43, S. 39, 40; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 10-1, S. 31; P.A. 11-157, S. 19; 11-240, S. 10, 11.)

History: 1969 act removed persons having control of child (other than parents or guardians) from purview of section and specifically enumerated rights of parents or guardians where previously “rights as provided by section 17-66a” occurred and added Subsec. (b) re admissibility of confessions, admissions, etc. in court proceeding; P.A. 75-183 applied Subsec. (a) to admissions, confessions, etc. made by child, replacing provisions applicable to children, their parents or guardians; P.A. 75-602 added references to youths in Subsec. (b); P.A. 76-436 deleted references to juvenile court, reflecting transfer of that court's powers to superior court and made technical changes to correct grammar in Subsec. (b); Sec. 17-66d temporarily renumbered as Sec. 51-318 and ultimately transferred to Sec. 46b-137 in 1979; P.A. 95-225 amended Subsec. (a) to limit applicability of provisions to any admission, confession or statement made “to a police officer or juvenile court official” and replace “inadmissible in any proceeding for delinquency against the child” with “inadmissible in any proceeding concerning the alleged delinquency of the child”; P.A. 98-256 made a technical change in Subsec. (a); Sept. Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-7 made provisions of Subsec. (a) applicable to child under the age of 16, inserted new Subsecs. (b) and (c) re admission, confession or statement of child 16 years of age, redesignated existing Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (d), and made technical changes, effective January 1, 2010, and further amended Subsecs. (b) and (c) to make provisions applicable to a child 17 years of age, effective July 1, 2012; P.A. 10-43 amended Subsec. (d) to add exception that statement of mother re identity of person who might be father of child or youth is not inadmissible if mother was not advised of her rights; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 10-1 amended Subsecs. (b) and (c) to exempt written or oral admission, confession or statement made by child age 16 to a police officer re case transferred from youthful offender docket, regular criminal docket or docket for motor vehicle matters, effective July 1, 2010; P.A. 11-157 amended Subsecs. (b) and (c) to exempt written or oral admission, confession or statement made by child age 16 or 17 to a police officer re case transferred from youthful offender docket, regular criminal docket or docket for motor vehicle matters, effective July 1, 2012; P.A. 11-240 amended Subsec. (d) by replacing “dependent” with “abused”, effective July 1, 2011.

Annotation to former section 17-66d:

Cited. 158 C. 439.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 211 C. 289. Legislature sought to extend constitutional safeguards to children in delinquency proceedings, but not to parents in neglect and uncared-for proceedings. 268 C. 614.

Cited. 46 CA 545. Section has no bearing on admissibility of statements offered in adult proceedings. 165 CA 703; judgment affirmed, see 329 C. 311.

Subsec. (a):

Cited. 215 C. 739. Does not apply in a case in which state seeks to use confession in proceeding in criminal, rather than juvenile, court. 263 C. 1; 297 C. 322. Under 2005 revision, police officer not required under the circumstances to readvise child before questioning him a second time. 299 C. 107.

“Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine as applied to statements obtained in violation of statute discussed. 22 CA 53. Where accused and parent or guardian are informed through a single reading, separate Miranda readings would be unnecessary and redundant. 32 CA 431. In determining when an advisement of rights must be repeated, the court should consider not whether previous advisement of rights had expired, but whether purpose of statute, to help child and parent or guardian decide whether to make voluntary admission or to remain silent, was achieved. 109 CA 206; judgment reversed, see 299 C. 107.

Subsec. (b):

Applies to termination of parental rights proceedings when petition alleges that child has been neglected or uncared-for; it is appropriate to read statute broadly, given that termination proceedings are at least as deserving to receive additional evidentiary safeguards as are neglect, uncared-for or dependency proceedings. 268 C. 614.

Cited. 10 CA 428.