| |
In a
thoughtful decision that evokes significant emotional hand ringing,
the appellate court affirmed the termination of parental rights
of a mother's two sons. The court wrestled with the emotional nature
of whether the termination was in the best interest of the children
while also tackling the interesting question of whether the present
appellate standard of review in TPR cases, that of "clearly erroneous,"
violates a respondent parent’s due process rights.
The
respondent mother's two children were born in 1993 and 1998. The
Department of Children and Families ("Department") originally intervened
in 1997, filing a neglect petition and subsequently taking custody
of both children in 1999. The record is replete with numerous commitments,
orders of temporary custody, modifications of dispositions to reflect
the mother's progress in meeting the Department's goals, and Department
re-involvement with commitment and extensions of commitment. The
Department eventually filed termination of parental rights petitions
in May 2002, alleging abandonment, neglect and failure to achieve
personal rehabilitation, and that there was no ongoing parent-child
relationship between the mother and her boys. In November 2002,
the court terminated the respondent mother's parental rights, finding
by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent exercised poor
judgment in regard to her children, and that she took "no responsibility
for anything" that transpired.
In reviewing
the trial court's decision, the court admitted that a "loving relationship"
still existed between the children and their mother, despite all
of the instability that resulted from the numerous removals and
commitments. The court appeared to rely heavily on the expert testimony
of the children's psychologist, who opined that permanency and stability
were paramount and outweighed the existing bond between the boys
and their mother. Despite the "heartbreaking situation" that existed
because of the existing relationships, the trial court’s "thorough
and thoughtful" findings regarding the best interest of the children
carried the day, meeting the clear and convincing standard of proof,
and therefore not subject to modification or reversal as clearly
erroneous.
The court
then tackled the respondent mother's contention that the "clearly
erroneous" standard of appellate review should be discarded in favor
of a de novo review. This prompted a thorough review of
the tenets of procedural due process, complete with a primer of
the three-part Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976),
test. As to part one of the test (the private interest affected
by official action), the gravity, severity and permanency of
termination weighed in favor of the respondent mother. In reviewing
part two of the test (the risk of erroneous deprivation through
procedures used), the court rebuffed the respondent's claim
that determination of TPR cases by a judge (without a jury), at
a standard less than "beyond a reasonable doubt," and pursuant to
a statutory scheme that doesn't require the trial court to make
a finding that a less restrictive means to protect the child is
available before termination, all require a de novo appellate
review for TPR cases. Here, the court found that the "clearly erroneous"
standard of review comports with due process, and indicated that
the respondent did not present any explanation or authority as to
how the additional formalities would result in superior safeguards
for parents involved in TPR proceedings. Thus, the second prong
of the test tilts toward the state.
As to
the third Mathews factor (the Government's interest,
including fiscal and administrative burdens), the court found
that the respondent's contention that a de novo review system would
result in a "duplication of efforts and therefore would burden our
judicial resources." The costs involved swayed the court to find
that the third part of the test favored the state as well. Adding
up the tally, the court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate
a violation of her procedural due process rights, and therefore
affirmed the trial court's decision.
The case
may be accessed by going to the Judicial Branch website at www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP85/85ap511.pdf
(JES)
|
