Facts
- Ann Fasulo and Marie Barbieri were involuntarily civilly committed to a state mental hospital under a statutory scheme permitting confinement of indefinite duration.
- Both plaintiffs had been confined for many years (Fasulo since 1951; Barbieri since 1964).
- The plaintiffs did not contest the legality of their initial commitment proceedings, which provided a judicial hearing initiated by the state, state’s burden of proof, independent physician testimony, and rights to counsel and cross-examination.
- After commitment, continued confinement depended on discharge decisions by hospital authorities; the statute did not require automatic, periodic court review (or equivalent neutral review) of whether confinement remained necessary.
- Each plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging unlawful confinement on constitutional grounds; the trial court denied relief, and the cases were consolidated on appeal.
Issues
- Whether state constitutional due process requires periodic, meaningful review of the necessity for continued involuntary civil confinement when commitment may continue indefinitely without automatic judicial (or equivalent neutral) reassessment.
- Whether the statutory difference between periodic review for insanity acquittees and the lack of comparable review for civilly committed persons violates state constitutional equal protection.
Decision
- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the denials of habeas relief and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that state constitutional due process requires some mechanism for periodic, meaningful review of continued involuntary civil confinement.
- The court treated the due process defect—indefinite confinement without adequate periodic review—as dispositive, and did not rest its ruling primarily on equal protection.
Legal Principles
- Involuntary civil commitment is a serious deprivation of liberty that triggers continuing due process protections, not merely procedural safeguards at the initial commitment hearing.
- Even where initial commitment procedures are constitutionally adequate, due process is violated if the state provides no regularized, meaningful process to reassess whether the legal grounds for confinement still exist.
- Periodic review must be conducted by a court or a comparably neutral decision-maker and must address current necessity for confinement under applicable legal standards; a purely discretionary discharge regime is insufficient.
- State constitutional due process may provide protections beyond the federal minimum; state courts may require added procedures to prevent unjustified, open-ended confinement.
Conclusion
The court ruled that indefinite civil commitment without a constitutionally sufficient mechanism for periodic, meaningful reassessment of continued necessity violates Connecticut due process, requiring reversal and remand to ensure lawful procedures for ongoing confinement.