|
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).
The respondent mother had a long history of substance
abuse and involvement with the Department of Children and Families
("Department"), culminating in a March 2006 filing of a neglect
petition in the Superior Court. On May 11, 2006, the Department
invoked a 96 hour hold on behalf of Kaitlyn and removed her from
the respondent mother's home that day. The Court adjudicated Kaitlyn
neglected and committed her to the care and custody of the Department
on November 29, 2006. The Department subsequently filed the petition
to terminate the mother's parental rights on April 30, 2007. During
the pendancy of the termination trial that began in May 2008, the
respondent mother was incarcerated as a result of her conviction
for a violation of probation. The court terminated her parental
rights in August 2008.
On appeal, the respondent's first claim was that the
court abused its discretion when it denied her request for appointment
of new counsel at the commencement of the TPR trial in light of
her advising the court that she could no longer communicate with
her court appointment legal counsel. Upon review of the trial court's
actions regarding this claim, the appellate court addressed the
following concerns. First, the court addressed the respondent mother's
claim that her attorney at the trial failed to subpoena certain
witnesses for the TPR trial - and as a result the trial court's
failure to allow her new counsel at trial constituted abuse of discretion.
Citing the fact that a letter to the trial court on the eve of the
TPR trial constituted the "first instance in the nineteen months
that [respondent's counsel] represented the respondent that she
made any indication to the court that she had problems with him,
his strategy or the sufficiency of his representation of her in
the matter," the Appellate Court found that the record supported
supported the conclusion that the disagreements were strategy related
and that the disagreement did not rise to the level of a conflict
between counsel and client as to cause an irretrievable breakdown
in communication. In addition - the court dismissed the respondent's
contention that her lack of opportunity to read the court-ordered
assessment contributed to the lack of communication and accord on
strategy.
The second claim on appeal - namely that the termination
order was not factually and legally supported by the record was
rejected as well. Specifically, the respondent mother argued that
she had achieved a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation
pursuant to the TPR statute - and that there was no evidence to
support a finding that she was incapable of caring for her child's
needs. The court cited the respondent's failure to comply with the
specific steps to take toward reunification with her child from
the date the child was adjudicated neglected. Her repeated failure
to participate in and comply with drug treatment and counseling,
as well as her continued involvement with the criminal justice system
(e.g. failing to report to probation officer sixteen times, two
positive tests for cocaine, leaving the state without her probation
officer's permission) constituted overwhelming evidence of failure
to rehabilitate. That, combined with her incarceration during the
TPR trial and her homelessness prior to the incarceration, provided
ample support for failure to rehabilitate.
The case may be found on the state Judicial Branch
website by going to www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP118/118AP31.pdf
(JES 11/09)
|
