Synopses of cases recently decided in Connecticut's state and federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Abuse and Neglect, Adoption, Civil Liberties, Discrimination, Education, Family Law, Guardianship, Juvenile Justice, Legal Representation, Medicaid, and Mental Health.

Keyword Search:

To search the case library, use the Search Site box to the left, and enter case as one of your keywords. So, for example, if you were looking for termination of parental rights cases involving alcohol, you would type case termination alcohol.

New and Updated Cases: (ordered by date case was added or updated to this site)

  • In re Kaleb H. (October, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 25, 2011

    Competency Examination
    The question in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the respondent mother's request for a competency examination at a motion to revoke the child's commitment to the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families ("Department"). The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the request primarily based on the conclusion that the respondent mother did not raise specific factual allegations sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to her competence - and that the court, though observation and assessment during the proceedings, was in the best position to assess whether she (respondent mother) behaved rationally at that time.

  • In re Emoni W. (June, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    June, 2011

    Application of Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children to Nonresident Parents
    On July 9, 2010, the children were removed from their mother’s home after she was arrested for various drug charges with intent to sell and for four counts of risk of injury to a child. On July 12, 2010, DCF sought an order of temporary custody. DCF then learned about the children’s father (respondent appellant), who was living in Pennsylvania and had been responsible for the children’s care for extended periods of time. Father now wanted the children to come live with him in Pennsylvania.

  • In re Jason R. (June, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    June, 2011

    Did the Court Shift the Burden of Proof to the Respondent? Split Decision
    In 2007, DCF sought, and was denied, temporary custody of Jason R. and Fernando R. In January, 2008, believing that the children were in imminent risk of physical harm, DCF removed the children from the home; they have been in DCF's custody ever since. In April of that year, the mother pled no contest and court adjudicated the children neglected and committed them to DCF. The children are currently in a pre-adoptive placement.

  • In re Joseph W. (June, 2011)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    June, 2011

    Right of Noncustodial Parent to Challenge Neglect Petition
    The Connecticut Supreme Court held that a noncustodial parent is entitled to enter a plea as to whether a child is neglected. In so holding, the Court affirmed, on different grounds, an appellate court decision reversing a trial court’s termination of parental rights.

  • In re Sarah O. (April 26, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 26, 2011

    Termination of Parental Rights/Post Trial Evidence/Golding/Reasonable Efforts/Failure to Rehabilitate
    In this termination appeal, the respondent mother challenged 1) the trial court’s finding that she failed to rehabilitate; 2) that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her daughter; 3) that TPR was in her daughter’s best interests. The respondent also challenged the court’s reliance on a post trial position statement from the child’s attorney which contained new information regarding the child’s post-trial situation. The last claim was submitted for Golding or “plain error” review as there was no objection to the statement during post trial proceedings.

  • In re Anvahnay S. (April 19, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 19, 2011

    Termination of Parental Rights/Incarcerated Parent
    The appellate court in this case rejected the respondent father’s contention that the trial court erroneously found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his daughter, despite the fact that for much of the duration of the child protection case, the Department had no contact with the father. Additionally, the court held that there was sufficient evidence that the father could not rehabilitate within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of his child.

  • In re Joshua S. (April 5, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 5, 2011

    Foster Care Parents/Motion to Intervene/Standing to Appeal
    In this appeal of trial court’s decision to transfer guardianship of baby to his great aunt in Florida, the Appellate Court held that foster parents did not have standing to appeal because their motion to intervene was denied by the trial court and they were not permitted intervention as a matter of right.

  • In re Johnson R. (April 5, 2011)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    April 5, 2011

    Due Process/Incompetent Father
    Respondent father had been found incompetent during the initial phases of the child protection case and a guardian ad litem had been appointed.

  • In re Lukas K. (April 5, 2011)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    April 5, 2011

    Due Process/Rights of Incarcerated parents
    In this recent termination of parental rights appeal, the respondent father, incarcerated out of state, claimed that the trial court violated his due process rights by denying his request for a continuance and release of trial transcripts.

  • In re Mia M. (March 15, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    March 15, 2011

    Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate
    The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother.

  • In re Alison M. (March 8, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    March 8, 2011

    Termination of Parental Rights/Golding Review/Adequacy of record/procedural due process/scope of intervenor's role
    In this termination appeal, the appellate upheld the trial court's decision to terminate the respondent's parental rights.

  • In re Chronesca D. (February 8, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    February 8, 2011

    Temporary Custody/Standard
    The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment vesting temporary custody of the child with a third party where the court explicitly found that the child was not in immediate danger from her surroundings.

  • In re Dylan C. January 11, 2011)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    January 11, 2011

    TPR/Failure to Rehabilitate/Effective Assistance of Counsel
    This termination of parental rights appeal underscores the court’s emphasis on parental as opposed to personal rehabilitation under CGS 17a-112(j), as well as the distinction that the court makes between compliance with specific steps and progress derived from that compliance.

  • In re Jose B. / In re Jessica M. (December 21, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    December 21, 2010

    Jurisdiction of Court to Adjudicate Youth Neglected Post 18
    In these related (but unconsolidated) cases, the Appellate court upheld the juvenile court’s decision to dismiss the youths’ neglect petitions on the ground that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitions once the youths turned age 18.

  • In re Chevol G. (December 21, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    December 21, 2010

    Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate
    In this per curiam opinion, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s termination of parental rights decision, holding that there was ample evidence in the record to support the findings that the respondent mother had failed to rehabilitate and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

  • In re Paul O. (December 21, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    December 21, 2010

    Order of Temporary Custody/Adequacy of Evidence
    In this appeal of a trial court’s order sustaining an ex-parte grant of temporary custody to DCF, the respondent mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the trial court’s finding.

  • In re Brian W. (November 2, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    November 2, 2010

    Per Curium/Guardianship Reinstatement
    Pro se father and grandparents appealed trial court’s decision to reinstate guardianship rights of mother.

  • In re Katia M. (October 26, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 26, 2010

    Termination of Parental Rights/Incarcerated Parent
    The respondent father claimed that the trial court erreoneously found that he was “unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services” due solely to the father’s status as an incarcerated individual. The appellate court agreed that while incarceration alone could not result in a decision to terminate parental rights, “incarceration nonetheless may prove an obstacle to reunification due to the parent’s unavailability.”

  • In re Devon W. (October 26, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 26, 2010

    Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate
    In this termination of parental rights appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the mother failed to rehabilitate, despite the mother’s demonstration of continued progress with mental health treatment.

  • In re Jocquyce. (October 26, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 26, 2010

    Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate
    This appeal highlights the distinction trial courts make between personal and “parental” rehabilitation.

  • In re Albert M. (October 19, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 19, 2010

    Termination of Parental Rights/Respondent Father
    In this per curiam decision, the appellate court rejected the respondent father’s argument that the Department failed to meet its evidentiary burden of proof because it failed to adequately inform him that separation from the respondent mother would be necessary in order to reunify him with his child.

  • In re Summer S. (October 19, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 19, 2010

    Termination of Parental Rights/Respondent Father
    In this per curiam decision, the appellate court, in affirming the trial court’s termination order, reiterates its observation regarding the “sad distinction between willingness and ability parent a child.”

  • Juan F. (September 22, 2010)
    Federal Court

    September 22, 2010

    Court Denies DCF Motion to Vacate Consent Decree
    A federal court ruled that DCF may not be excused from the obligations of the Juan F. consent decree, a two decade old settlement that compels DCF to comply with a number of child welfare expectations on behalf of abused and neglected children.

  • In re A.R. (August 17, 2010)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    August 17, 2010

    Transfer of Guardianship/Termination of Parental Rights
    In this case involving a pending termination of parental rights petition and a subsequent intervening grandmother's motion to transfer guardianship, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing, sua sponte, the intervenor's motion to transfer guardianship.

  • In re Shanaira C. (August 10, 2010)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    August 10, 2010

    Standing Right to Evidentiary Hearing
    The Supreme Court determined in this case that the intervener-appellant, the biological father’s girlfriend, had standing to participate in a contested motion to revoke commitment/transfer of guardianship hearing, notwithstanding the trial court’s previous denial of the intervener’s motions for visitation and custody. The Court also held that parties have a statutory right to an evidentiary hearing on any contested motion to revoke commitment.

  • In re Zamora S. (August 3, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    August 3, 2010

    Neglect/Termination of Parental Rights
    In this appeal of a consolidated neglect and termination of parental rights trial, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erroneously found that the father neglected a particular child but that the respondent mother did not.

  • In re Matthew F. (August 3, 2010)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    August 3, 2010

    Jurisdiction of Juvenile Court/Authority to Issue Post-Majority Orders
    The Supreme Court of Connecticut addressed two discrete topics in this case: (1) whether the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over youths who have turned eighteen, and (2) whether § 17a-11 or § 46b-129 provide statutory jurisdiction for youths eighteen and older to bring cases in front of the Juvenile Court.

  • In re Kamari C. (July 27, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    July 27, 2010

    Neglect/Insufficient Evidence/OTC
    Respondent mother appealed trial court’s determination that her children were neglected and should be committed to the Department. The mother contended that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect and that the trial court improperly applied the doctrine of predictive neglect in adjudicating her children.

  • In re Jan Carlos D (June 15, 2010)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    June 15, 2010

    Juvenile Justice
    The Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the issue as to whether General Statutes § 54-1f (a) applies to juveniles who are served with a summons that alleges the commission of criminal offenses.

  • In re Taylor F. (June 8, 2010)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    June 8, 2010
    Admission of Children's Statement
    The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that children’s out-of-court statements were admissible under the residual exception to hearsay rule because the information contained therein was “reasonably necessary.”

  • In re Joseph W. (June 8, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    June 8, 2010
    Determining Custodial Status of Biological Parent
    The Appellate Court of Connecticut reversed a termination of parental rights decision on the ground that the trial court erroneously found that the respondent father was the non-custodial parent of his newborn son.

  • In re Jazmyn B. (May 25, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    May 25, 2010
    Appeal: Termination of Parental Rights
    In this novel appeal of a termination of parental rights decision, the appellate court rejected the respondent father’s claim that the trial court erroneously found that he had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and that C.G.S. § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) was unconstitutionally vague.

  • In re Jorden R. (May 23, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    May 23, 2010
    Remand: Termination of Parental Rights, Best Interests
    On remand from the Supreme Court, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that it was in the best interest of the child for the mother’s parental rights to be terminated.

  • In re Jaiden S. (May 4, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    May 4, 2010
    Termination of Parental Rights, Failure to Rehabililitate
    In this termination of parental rights case, the appellate court rejected the respondent father’s claim that DCF failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with his child and that there was insufficient evidence to find that he failed to rehabilitate as a parent.

  • In re Yarisha F (May 11, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    May 11, 2010
    Transfer of Guardianship/Interstate Compact
    Interpretation of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children is the central issue in this transfer of guardianship appeal.

  • In re Marcus S. (April 27, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 27, 2010
    TRANSFER OF GUARDIANSHIP. MOTION FOR CONTEMPT. In this transfer of guardianship case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the father’s motion to hold the Department in contempt for failing to make service referrals and for failing to develop a permanency plan that supported reunification.

  • In re Jaime S. (April 27, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 27, 2010
    Termination of Parental Rights/Abandonment/Incarcerated Father
    In this appeal, the respondent father challenged the trial court’s decision to terminate his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment.

  • In re Lukas K. (April 20, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 20, 2010
    Termination of Parental Rights: Due Process, Rights of Incarcerated Father
    The appellate court denied the incarcerated father’s claim that his due process rights were violated when the court failed to grant his motion for transcripts and a continuance of the termination of parental rights trial.

  • In re Ellis V. (April 20, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 20, 2010
    Termination of Parental Rights: Failure to Rehabilitate. Evidence
    In this termination of parental rights case, the appellate court denied the respondent parents’ claim that the trial court erroneously terminated their parental rights on “failure to rehabilitate” grounds, and that the trial court improperly admitted the DCF social study as a “business record.”

  • In re Kelsey M. (April 20, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    April 20, 2010
    Order of Temporary Custody
    In this appeal of an Order of Temporary Custody decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the children were in imminent risk of harm as a result of their mother’s history of untreated mental health problems, her recent threats to hurt herself and others while in the presence of her children, and her and her spouse’s denial of the gravity of these developments.

  • CCJEF v. Rell (March 10, 2010)
    295 Conn. 240 (2010)
    Education
    This case was brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs' children who attend public schools in Bridgeport, Danbury, Windham, Hartford, New Haven, East Hartford, New London, Plainfield, and New Britain.

  • In re Jordan T (March 9, 2010)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    March 9, 2010
    Termination of Parental Rights: Incarceration, Best Interests, Post-Adoption Contact
    T
    his termination of parental rights appeal raises important questions regarding the impact of parental incarceration on a court's finding that a parent has not or cannot rehabilitate, and the legal significance that post-adoption contact with a child's biological family should have on the court's "best interests" finding.

  • In re Christopher G (December 22, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    December 22, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights/Consent/Open Adoption
    The main issue in this appeal was the trial court's denial of the mother's motion to open a judgment of voluntary termination of her parental rights. The mother contended that judgment should have been vacated because the mother's consent was contingent on the child being adopted by relative foster parents and the open adoption agreement between the relatives and the mother, and the child was ultimately adopted by another couple after the termination proceeding concluded.

  • In re Kaitlyn A (November 3, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    November 10, 2009
    Unsuccessful Appeal of a Termination of Parental Rights:...
    In this unsuccessful appeal of a termination of parental rights, the respondent mother raised two issues. First - she claimed that the trial court erred by not allowing her a continuance for the appointment of new counsel despite her inability to communicate with her existing counsel. Second - she claimed that the court improperly found that she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii).

  • In re Christopher B (November 3, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    November 3, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Reasonable Efforts:...
    In this termination of parental rights appeal, the appellate court reiterated prior holdings that the trial court may consider evidence pre-dating the filing of a neglect petition if that evidence is relevant to an understand of the family dynamics and the respondent's ability to safely parent a child. Here, the appellate court rejected the respondent mother's claims that the trial court gave undue weight to information regarding DCF's prior involvement with her other children in considering the adequacy of DCF's efforts to reunify her with Christopher as well as whether the respondent had failed to rehabilitate as a parent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her son and that she had failed to rehabilitate within the meaning of the statute.

  • In re Tremaine C. (October 13, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 13, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Failure to Rehabilitate/Split Decision:...
    In a markedly split decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate the respondent mother's parental rights on failure to rehabilitate grounds. A primary issue at trial was whether the mother's apparent progress with substance abuse treatment and her current parenting of a newborn child were sufficient to demonstrate that she could resume a responsible parental role in young Tremaine's life. The trial court held that the mother's ongoing struggles with dysfunctional behavior, lack of employment, and transient living, combined with her uneven visitation record, warranted a finding that she had not constructively rehabilitated.

  • In re Tremaine (October 13, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    October 13, 2009

    Termination of Parental Rights/Incarcerated Father/Due Process:...
    Respondent father appealed judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights, on the ground that because he was incarcerated for a portion of the trial and was not brought to the court he was denied his constitutional right to be present at trial and confront the witnesses against him. The appellate court held that the although DCF belatedly discovered that the father was incarcerated for a portion of the termination trial, the steps taken to inform the court and permit the respondent's subsequent participation in the trial were sufficient to address any risk of erroneous deprivation of the father's rights.

  • T.Y., K.Y. v. New York City Dept. of Educ. (October 9, 2009)
    584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009)
    Education: The crux of this Second Circuit special education decision revolved around whether the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act ("IDEA") requires Individualized Education Plans ("IEP") to identify a specific school location for an individual student, or whether the IEP must merely describe the general environment of an overall program for a student.

  • In re Jorden R. (October 6, 2009)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    October 6, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights:...
    In this significant termination of parental rights appeal, not only did the Supreme Court re-instate the trial court's decision to terminate the respondent mother's parental rights, the Court took the unusual step of vacating the opinion of the appellate court, which held 1) that the state failed to demonstrate that the mother could not benefit from reunification services, and 2) that the state could not show that the mother was unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services unless it had already provided her reasonable assistive efforts. The Supreme Court concluded that the first issue was moot on appeal and therefore the appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim, and that the court's analysis of the reasonable efforts requirement was contrary to the express language of Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-112(j).

  • In re Zion R. (September 1, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    September 1, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights/Rehabilitation/Best Interests:...
    This termination of parental rights appeal underscores the sometimes heartbreaking proposition that an even commendable personal progress will not defeat a claim that a parent has failed to achieve adequate "parental" rehabilitation. The case also highlights the influence that court-appointed evaluators can have on the findings of the trial court. In re Zion R involves a mother with a long history of problems with substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness and incarceration who was in the midst of a successful stay in a rigorous, long-term substance program when her parental rights were terminated on "failure to rehabilitate" grounds.

  • In re Nathan B. (August 18, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    August 18, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights: Judical Bias/Appearance of Impropriety:...In this unusual and striking appeal of a termination of parental rights decision, the sole issue was whether the trial judge's continuing to preside at trial created an appearance of impropriety, thereby requiring his recusal. The appellate court concluded that it did, and reversed the judgment of the trial court.

  • In re S.D. (June 16, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    May 26, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights:...In this appeal of a termination of parental rights case, the appellate court found that pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112(j), the trial court was not required to make a "reasonable efforts" finding that attempts were made to locate the father and reunite the father with his child.

  • In re Justin F.
    Conn. App. (2009)
    Released June, 2009
    Custody/Contempt/Visitation:...
    Parents, proceeding pro se, filed numerous appeals arising out of the trial court's denial of their motion to revoke commitment, the denial of their right to be heard on certain motions, and the denial of their motion for contempt. The parents also claimed on appeal that the "specific steps" orders violated their constitutional rights and that the court improperly allowed the Department to determine the nature and extent of family visitation. The appellate court dealt quickly with the majority of the parents' claims, determining that their arguments were either not preserved or were inadequately briefed. Of note, however, is the appellate court's treatment of the parents' claims regarding visitation.

  • In re Lyric H. (May 26, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    May 26, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights:...In this termination of parental rights appeal, the respondent mother alleged that her daughter, Lyric, had a constitutional right to conflict free legal representation and was deprived of that right by her attorney. Finding the record inadequate to make a finding on the conflict of interest claim, the appellate court declined to decide whether the child had a constitutional right to effective, conflict free representation.
  • E.K. v. Stamford Bd. of Educ., F. Supp. 3d (March 31, 2009)
    United States District Court, D. Conn.
    Education: This case involved the defendant's, Stamford Board of Education, renewed motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in its defense against the plaintiffs, a seventeen year old senior enrolled at Stamford High School and his parents, "Mr. and Mrs. K."

  • State v. Juan L. (May 19, 2009)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Juvenile Justice: ...The sole issue decided by the Connecticut Supreme court in Juan L. was the interpretation of whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56d, which governs the commitment or release of criminal defendants who are not competent to stand trial, applies in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters (juvenile court). The court answered that question with a resounding yes - and agreed with the state's argument on appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court for a disposition hearing pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56d(m).

  • Hogan v. Department of Children and Families (March 10, 2009)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    March 10, 2009
    Constitutionality of DCF's Abuse and Neglect Central Registry:...A former staff member at a state-licensed juvenile detention facility challenged the validity of his placement on the child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the Department of Children and Families pursuant to C.G.S. §17a-101k on the grounds that the factual record did not support the hearing officer's conclusions; and that the registry statute itself was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, violated the separation of powers doctrine and constituted a bill of attainder. The Supreme Court rejected all of plaintiff's claims.

  • In re Xavier D. (March 31, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    March 31, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights/Resjudicata:...The appellate court rejected the mother's argument that the doctrine of res judicata precluded further proceedings on a termination petition by any trial court after another trial court had granted the mother's motion for dismissal of the petition.

  • In re Anthony A. (February 17, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    February 17, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights/Grandparent's Motion to Transfer of Guardianship/Standing:...In this consolidated appeal, the respondent mother appealed from the trial court's judgment terminating her parental rights, and the intervening maternal great-grandmother appealed from the court's denial of the motion to revoke commitment and transfer guardianship. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding that the decision to terminate parental rights was not clearly erroneous and that the court's denial of the motion for transfer of guardianship was not an abuse of discretion.

  • In re Cheila R. (February 10, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    February 10, 2009
    Termination of Parental Rights. Teenage Mother. Failure to Rehabilitate:...This case involves an appeal from the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of the respondent mother for failing to rehabilitate. On appeal, the respondent mother alleged that the court-ordered specific steps placed unreasonable demands on her, causing her to feel overwhelmed, make poor decisions, and appear as though she was abdicating her parental responsibility. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

  • In re Deleon J. (February 10, 2009)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    February 10, 2009
    Reinstatement of Guardianship/Jurisdiction/Due Process:...
    The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s failure to provide the petitioning parent with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the merits of her request for guardianship denied her due process of law. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.

  • In re Melody L. (January 20, 2009)
    Supreme Court
    Termination of Parental Rights, Failure to Rehabilitate, Reasonable Efforts, Children's Right of Appeal, Heightened Scrutiny :... In this complex termination of parental rights appeal, the respondent mother appealed the trial court's judgment of termination as to her five children, alleging that the trial court (1) improperly found that DCF had made reasonable efforts toward reunification; (2) erroneously determined that she had failed to rehabilitate; and (3) violated her rights under the state and federal constitution by terminating her parental rights.

  • In re Janazia S. (January 13, 2009)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Termination of Parental Rights, Statutory Construction: Failure to Rehabilitate :... This case involves an appeal from the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of the respondent mother and father with respect to their daughter, Janazia. On appeal, the respondent father alleged that the trial court improperly denied his motion to revoke commitment and transfer guardianship to the respondent mother.

  • In re Francisco R. (December 9, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Neglect//Predictive Neglect :... This case is an appeal from the trial court's adjudication of neglect as to Francisco R., an adjudication based on the doctrine of predictive neglect. Respondent father claimed that the trial court's adjudication of neglect was clearly erroneous because there was no evidence that the child had been harmed, abused, neglected, or uncared for prior to or on the date of the neglect petition.

  • In re Justice V. (December 8, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Neglect//Evidence: Terminating parental rights on the ground of abandonment:... The crux of the appeal was whether the trial court's failure to issue specific following the neglect adjudication precluded the trial court from granting termination of parental rights on the ground of abandonment. Respondent mother also claimed that the trial court's factual findings that TPR was warranted were clearly erroneous.

  • In re Tayler F. (October 28, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Neglect//Evidence: Admissibility of children’s statements, preservation, testimony regarding credibility:..In this split decision, the respondent mother appealed the trial court’s adjudication of neglect alleging the court improperly admitted (1) testimony regarding whether the children should testify in court; (2) hearsay evidence of statements by the children, their father, and others; and (3) evidence of the children’s credibility. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, agreeing that some evidence produced at trial was inadmissible hearsay, but finding the admission of such evidence harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of child neglect.

  • P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 2008)
    Second Circuit Court of Appeals
    Education: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the long standing issue and adopted a standard for determining what constitutes the least restrictive environment (LRE) under the statutory obligations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the defendants Newington Board of Education holding that the school complied with providing Plaintiff P. educational services as mandated by the IDEA.

  • In re Sarah S. (September 30, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Guardianship/Due Process: In this termination of parental rights appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s termination decision, holding that (1) the court properly denied the parent’s motion to transfer guardianship to the paternal aunt; (2) there was ample evidence to support a finding that the parents failed to rehabilitate; and (3) the parents had not adequately briefed their claim that the denial of a jury trial on the termination petition deprived them of due process of law.

  • In re Karl J. (September 2, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect/Guardianship/Motion to revoke: ...
    This case is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding custody and guardianship of Karl J. to the child's paternal aunt and uncle. At issue was whether the court abused its discretion in determining that it was in the best interests of the child to remain in the care and custody of his paternal aunt and uncle. Finding no abuse of discretion, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

  • In re Earl B (September 2008)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Juvenile Justice: ...In this juvenile justice case, the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a juvenile adjudicated as delinquent and committed to the custody of the Department of Children and Families pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-140(j) is entitled to a hearing pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-15 to challenge his continued placement at Connecticut Juvenile Training School ("CJTS"). The Supreme Court, in reversing the judgment of the trial court, held that the department's decision to continue placement at CJTS was reviewable in a treatment plan hearing under § 17a-15.

  • In re Devaun J. (August 26, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Termination of Parental Rights/ Failure to Rehabilitate/ Open Adoption: ... In this termination of parental rights case, the appellate court denied the mother's claim that the trial court improperly: (1) failed to consider her statutory choice of a voluntary termination of her parental rights and an open adoption; (2) concluded that she failed to rehabilitate and that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship; and (3) considered certain witnesses as expert witnesses. The court also rejected the mother's claim that the judgment of termination should be reversed because the postjudgment report required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(o) was filed late.

  • In re Forrest B. (August 19, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..
    In this case, the mother's appeal from a trial court's order of temporary custody was dismissed on mootness grounds.

  • In re Trevon G. (August 19, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..
    In this termination of parental rights case, the appellate court denied the mother's claim that the trial court improperly concluded that she failed to rehabilitate, that the department has failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children and that termination served the best interests of her children.

  • In re Stephen M. (August 12, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..
    In this termination of parental rights appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the state's termination petition, holding that the trial court improperly re-considered and rejected the underlying finding of neglect made in a previous proceeding.

  • In re Emerald C. (July 1, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..
    In this split decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the father’s inconsistent compliance with court-ordered and DCF mandated expectations supported a finding that he had failed to rehabilitate.

  • M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi. (May 12, 2008)
    United States District Court, D. Conn.
    Education: In a case raising important disability discrimination issues, the United States District Court in Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the State Department of Education, the Department of Children and Families, the town of Putnam Board of Education, and other individuals sued in their official capacity.

  • In re Coby C. (April 29, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..
    Respondent mother appealed termination of parental rights decision contending that the trial court’s finding that she failed to rehabilitate and that termination was in the best interests of her child was clearly erroneous."

  • Connecticut v. Spellings. (April 28, 2008)
    United States District Court, D. Conn.
    Education: In a significant decision, the United States District Court dismissed the last remaining challenge brought by the state of Connecticut to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

  • In re Jorden R. (April 15, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..
    In this unusual case, the Appellate Court reversed a termination of parental rights decision on the grounds that the trial court's determination that the mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services was clearly erroneous."

  • In re Anthony A. (March, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..
    In this interesting neglect appeal, the respondent mother argued that despite her significant psychiatric problems, her newborn son should not have been adjudicated neglected because at the time the neglect petition was filed the baby was living with the maternal grandparents."

  • In re Davonta V. (February 12, 2008)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..The fundamental question raised in this interesting appeal of a termination of parental rights is whether it is ever in the child's best interest to terminate his parental rights when an adoptive family has not been secured and the child maintains a good relationship with his extended biological family."

  • In re Shanaira C. (February 12, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..How much intervention should be allowed by an intervenor at a revocation hearing? The answer, according to the Appellate Court in Shanaira C., is not as much as the intervenor would have liked. The court upheld the trials court's revocation of commitment, despite a thoughtful and well-reasoned dissenting argument."

  • In re Joseph L. (January 28, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..The parents in this termination of parental rights appeal had a long and significant history with DCF due to ongoing substance abuse, domestic violence and ongoing child abuse and neglect issues. The two children involved in this case were the mother's ninth and ten children and the father's fourth and fifth. None of the respondents' other children lived in the parents' care."

  • In re T.K. (January 28, 2008)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..In this controversial case, the parents appealed the trial court's decision that their child was neglected pursuant to a theory of "predictive neglect." The parents' contended that absent a history of problematic parenting or a demonstrated unwillingness on the part of the parents to accept necessary services, the doctrine of predictive neglect is inapplicable. The Appellate court rejected the parents' argument and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

  • In re Leah S (December 18, 2007)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...The Supreme Court, reversing the judgment of the Appellate Court, held that the Department of Children and Families could not be held in contempt for violating the court-ordered Specific Steps which mandated that the Department "ensure the [child's] wellbeing" and "provide appropriate services." The Court determined, ironically, that the Specific Steps were too vague to support a finding of contempt.

  • In re llyssa G. (December 18, 2007)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ..The threshold for opening a default judgment in a termination of parental rights case is a steep one which requires the satisfaction of a two part test. Not only does the movant need to show that (1) a good defense existed at the time the judgment was rendered, but also (2) that the movant was prevented from making that defense because of "mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause." Unfortunately for the petitioning father in Ilyssa G., he was unable meet either prong of the two-part test, and the appellate court thus affirmed the termination of his parental rights in this short case."

  • In re Selena O (December 4, 2007)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...In this unusual case, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the state's TPR petition. The appellate court held that the trial court's decision that the state failed to make its "failure to rehabilitate" case was clearly erroneous. The appellate court remanded for further proceedings."

  • In re William D (November 13, 2007)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Juvenile Justice: ...In this juvenile justice case, the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a trial court may extend a delinquency commitment when the "child" at issue has reached the age of 16, given that the definition of "child" in Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-120 is defined as a 'person under sixteen' or a person over 16 who has a violated a court order issued subsequent to a delinquency finding. In this case neither definition applied to William D. The Supreme Court held that for purposes of extending a person's commitment pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-141, it only matters what age the person was at the time of the original commitment.

  • Bd. of Educ. v. Tom F. (October 10, 2007)
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Education: the Supreme Court affirmed, without opinion, a Second Circuit court of appeals decision upholding the proposition that parents need not "try out" a school district's placement for an identified child if the placement is not appropriate for the child.

  • In re Anna Lee M (October 2, 2007)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...In this termination of parental rights appeal, the mother claimed that the trial court erroneously relied on several pieces of inadmissible evidence to support its finding that she "failed to rehabilitate."

  • In re Ryan R. (July 24, 2007)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...In this “failure to rehabilitate” TPR appeal, the court affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights and concluded that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her child.

  • In re Francisco R. (May 8, 2007)
    Connecticut Superior Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...Termination of parental rights. Francisco was born February 3, 1995. He may had been born with positive drug toxicology as his mother abused drugs during pregnancy.

  • Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist. (May 21, 2007)
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Education: In a surprising reversal of a 6th Circuit decision, the United States' Supreme Court held that parents may bring a pro se court action regarding any procedural or substantive claim arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA.) The Court rejected the view of some circuit courts that, under the statute, parents are merely "guardians" of their children's right to an appropriate education, rather than "real parties in interest".

  • M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K v. Sergi. (Mar. 30, 2007)
    United States District Court, D. Conn.
    Education: In a procedurally complicated case the parents of a psychiatrically disabled teenager, and the prevailing party in a due process hearing, sued, among other defendants, the former Commissioner of the State Department of Education (SDOE) for violations of IDEA.

  • Mr. M. ex rel K.M. v. Ridgefield Bd. Of Educ. (Mar. 30, 2007)
    United States District Court, D. Conn.
    Education: This special education decision serves as a warning to school districts regarding the consequences of failing to include parents in the IEP process. In this case, the parents sought reimbursement for private school placement on the ground that the school district denied their daughter an appropriate education and denied the parents the right to participate meaningfully in the IEP process.

  • E.K. v. Stamford Bd. Of Educ. (June 15, 2006)
    United States District Court, D. Conn.
    Education: In March 2005, a secondary school Planning and Placement Team ("PPT") exited the plaintiff (E.K.), a student in Stamford, Connecticut, from special education upon agreeing he met the goals of his Individualized Education Plan ("IEP"). The plaintiff remained in regular education and neither his parents nor he ever raised concerns regarding his need for special education.

  • In re Brianna C. (December 26, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...The Appellate Court affirmed an adjudication of neglect in the interesting case of Brianna C., where the main reason for removal and foster care placement was the father's paranoid schizophrenia resulting in psychotic episodes.

  • In re Christina M. (November 7, 2006)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...In this highly anticipated opinion, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that parents have standing to assert claims that their child was denied the right to effective counsel, but stopped short of addressing the key issues raised in the appeal - namely whether the conflict between a child's express wishes and her attorney's position at trial merits constitutional review.

  • In re Christian P. (October 24, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...tackles the issue of whether parental rights may be terminated on a ground that is not pleaded in the petition for termination. The answer, not surprisingly, is no - and the object lesson is that the state child welfare agency must plead the specific grounds for termination in order for a court to consider those grounds seeking termination of parental rights.

  • In re Nasia B. (October 10, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision dismissing the state's termination of parental rights petition for failure to establish a prima facie case. The Court also reversed the trial court's sua sponte decision to revoke DCF's custody of the minor child and place the child at home under protective supervision.

  • In re Davonta V. (October 10, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate a mother's parental rights on the grounds that the mother failed to achieve a reasonable degree of rehabilitation and termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest.

  • In re Rachel J. (October 3, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...In a sad case that involved significant physical trauma and sexual exploitation, the Appellate Court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights in In re Rachel J.

  • In re Nelmarie O. (September 19, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: ...the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate a mother's parental rights on the grounds that the mother failed to provide her children with a safe home environment free of violence and therefore she denied them the "care, guidance or control necessary for [the children's] well-being."

  • CC v. Granby Bd. Of Educ. (September 30, 2006)
    U.S. District Court
    Civil Rights, Education: In an interesting federal special education decision, the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, awarded plaintiff over $93,000 in attorney's fees for a successful administrative hearing decision garnered through a Due Process procedure.

  • Conn. Office of Prot. and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Hartford Bd. Of Educ.
    (September 15, 2006)

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
    Education: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment which entered a permanent injunction against the Hartford Board of Education in the case of Protection & Advocacy v. Hartford Bd. of Educ. This is the case where the state office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (P&A) brought suit against the Hartford Board of Educ. ("HBOE") requesting access to the HBOE's controversial Hartford Transitional Learning Academy ("HTLA") to (1) observe programs and speak with students and (2) give P&A a directory of HTLA students and contact information for their parents/guardians to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect at the school.

  • In re Reginald H. (August 25, 2006)
    Superior Court of Connecticut
    Abuse and Neglect: This is a decision on two so-called "Romance motions" filed in a termination of parental rights case by petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), seeking disclosure of certain of the mother's confidential medical and substance abuse treatment information.

  • In re Shaun B. (August 22, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: In a relatively straight forward termination of parental rights case, the appellate court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights where the trial court found the failure to rehabilitate constituted the most significant barrier to reunification.

  • Arlington Central School Dist. v. Murphy (June 26, 2006)
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Education: The omnipresent and always controversial issue of attorneys' fees in special education found a path all the way to the Supreme Court this past term. In Arlington Central School Dist. v. Murphy, the plaintiffs sought fees for services rendered by an educational consultant used during legal proceedings held pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Despite their status as the "prevailing party" in the lengthy litigation, the Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by holding that 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) does not authorizing prevailing parents to recover expert fees.

  • In re Anthony E. (July 11, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Family Law/Guardianship: This case was an appeal from the judgment of the trial court modifying a prior custody order and granting shared physical custody of two minor children to the respondent mother. The issues on appeal here were (1) did the trial court improperly find a material change in the mother's circumstances and (2) did the trial court abuse its discretion when it modified the original order of custody without making a finding that doing so was in the children's best interests.

  • In re Leah S. (June 13, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: In an important decision that reverberates as an ongoing warning to the state's child welfare agency, the Appellate Court upheld a motion for contempt against the state Department of Children and Families ("Department") for noncompliance the court orders regarding the care of a child in the Department's care. The essential element in the case was whether the Department's noncompliance of court orders was willful, or merely negligent.

  • Mr. L v. Sloan (May 18, 2006)
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Education, Legal Representation: The issue presented on this appeal is whether the United States Supreme Court's controversial holding regarding attorney's fees in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Serv.,1 applies to a "prevailing defendant"? If so, was the Appellant here a "prevailing defendant"? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a "prevailing party" under the federal fee-shifting statute is one who has achieved a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship among the parties, such as a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, applies to "prevailing defendant" cases and further held that plaintiff here was not a prevailing defendant under this standard.

  • Christopher R. v. Comm'r. of Mental Retardation (April 4, 2006)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Mental Health :
    The Connecticut Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of what criteria are necessary for determining eligibility for services with the state Department of Mental Retardation ("DMR").

  • In re Stacey G. (March 21, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: In a short and straightforward case, the Appellate Court reversed a trial court's denial of a father's motion to transfer guardianship on evidentiary grounds, and because the trial court would not grant a continuance to hear evidence from a forensic psychologist.

  • In re Ashley. (February 1, 2006)
    Connecticut Superior Court
    Abuse and Neglect: trial court denied the State's motion to compel a battered women's shelter to disclose the mother's health records.

  • In re Claudia F. (January 24, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: The question of mootness once again confronted the Appellate Court in Claudia F. and the court answered in a resounding fashion by determining that a respondent mother's voluntary termination of her parental rights rendered an appeal of a neglect adjudication moot.

  • Bruno v. Greenwich Bd. Of Educ. (January 6, 2006)
    United States District Court, D. Conn.
    Education: Does the failure to provide a copy of the notice of procedural safeguards to an "adult" special education student constitute a per se violation of the special education act, requiring an award of compensatory educational services?

  • In re Patricia C. (January 3, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: Maintain Commitment and Affirm a Permanency Plan

  • In re Shaiesha O. (January 3, 2006)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: Overturned Termination of Parental Rights

  • In re Nicholas R. (November 15, 2005)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: In a short but interesting case, the appellate court affirmed an order of temporary custody ("OTC") obtained by the Department of Children and Families ("Department") in September 2004. The facts of the case are relatively straight forward - but the language used by the appellate court regarding the nature of consent, and the evidentiary consequences that result from forced or coerced circumstances in child protection matters may resonate in future cases.

  • Schaffer V. Weast (November 14, 2005)
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Special Education: In a decision that may have far reaching implications for disabled students eligible for special education services, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof in an administrative "due process" hearing challenging the student's education plan is placed on the party seeking relief, whether that party is the disabled child or the local school district.

  • Scewczyk v. Department of Social Services (September 20, 2005)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Medicaid: In an extremely important decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court tackled the difficult issue of what exactly constitutes an "emergency medical condition" under federal Medicaid law and state social services policy.

  • In re Christina M. (August 2, 2005)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: Termination of Parental Rights
    : This case involves the termination of parental rights where neither the children nor the parents want a separation, and where no guardian ad litem was appointed despite the children's wishes conflicting with their attorney's representation of their best interest.

  • Carrubba v. Moskowitz (July 26, 2005)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Family Law, Legal Representation: In a very important decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court extended absolute, quasi-judicial immunity from subsequent law suits against attorneys appointed by the courts to represent children.

  • In re Heather L. (June 21, 2005)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: Termination of Parental Rights

  • In re Brendan C. (June 14, 2005)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: In this case, the parents of Brendan C., an eight year old...

  • Szemerakis v. Comm, Social Services (June 7, 2005)
    Connecticut Supreme Court
    Medicaid: In a narrow but disappointing decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court...

  • A.R. v. New York City Dept. of Educ. (May 10, 2005)
    Federal District Court
    Education: Do "winners" in administrative hearings governing ...

  • In re Krystal J. (April 05, 2005)
    Connecticut Appellate Court
    Abuse and Neglect: In a short yet convincing decision, the appellate court upheld the denial of...