| |
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 this case, although the respondent mother
had complied with a number of court ordered expectations, the court
found that she struggled to maintain adequate housing and had not
made sufficient progress in understanding how domestic violence
affected her family. The court concluded, in no small part based
on the opinions of the court ordered evaluation, that the mother
still could not parent safely and effectively and may not be able
to in a reasonably foreseeable period of time. The court acknowledged
some additional progress the mother had made after the termination
of parental rights petition had been filed, but noted that too many
parents wait until this juncture to address outstanding needs and
often there is not enough time to address these needs fully.
Finally, in rejecting the respondent’s claim that
she received ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellate court
articulated the following standard: ‘‘In determining whether counsel
has been ineffective in a termination proceeding, we have enunciated
the following standard: The range of competence . . . requires not
errorless counsel, and not counsel judged ineffective by hindsight,
but counsel whose performance is reasonably competent, or within
the range of competence displayed by lawyers with ordinary training
and skill in [that particular area of the] law. . . . The respondent
must prove that [counsel’s performance] fell below this standard
of competency and also that the lack of competency contributed to
the termination of parental rights. . . . A showing of incompetency
without a showing of resulting prejudice . . . does not amount to
ineffective assistance of counsel.’’ (Citations omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.)
In this case, the appellate court found that it need
look no further than the fact that respondent could not demonstrate
any prejudice from the allegedly ineffective representation, in
large part due to the ample evidence in the record to support the
trial court’s findings.
|
