| |
NEGLECT/TPR
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. The Court, citing to In re David L.,
54 Conn. App. 185 (1999), reasoned that it is not possible, within
the framework of child protection law, to find that only one custodial
parent neglected a child. The concept of "neglect" deals with the
status of the child at the time the petition is filed. Moreover,
''[t]he statutes and rules of practice . . . do not afford a parent
in a neglect proceeding the right to require the trial court to
adjudge each parent's blameworthiness for a child's neglect."
Secondly,
the Court held that the trial court improperly applied an elevated
standard of proof for a subordinate fact underlying a required element
in the termination petition. Specifically, the trial court appeared
to require that DCF prove the mother and abusive father remaining
living together in order to support DCF's claim that the mother
failed to rehabilitate. The Court referenced criminal cases for
the proposition that while each element of the crime (or in this
case, the TPR petition) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
that not every evidentiary finding must be held to this standard.
Sarah Eagan, JD Director, Child Abuse Project
Center for Children's Advocacy
|
