## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


Fasulo v. Arafeh, 173 Conn. 473, 378 A.2d 553 (Conn. 1977)