-
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 DC F'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/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.
-
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 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.
-
In
re Jordan T (March 9, 2010)
Connecticut Appellate Court
March 9, 2010
Termination
of Parental Rights: Incarceration, Best Interests, Post-Adoption
Contact:...
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 GS (October 27, 2009)
Connecticut Appellate Court
October 27, 2009
Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Specific
Steps/Motion for Articulation...
As the appellate court notes in its written decision, this termination
of parental rights case "underscores the sad distinction between
willingness and ability to parent a child." Baby GS, having
been exposed to multiple drugs while in-utero, was removed from
his mother when he was only days old. By all accounts, the respondent
mother cooperated with every service provided for her in an
effort to address substance abuse issues and parenting skill
deficiencies.
-
In
re Tremaine (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 C. (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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
Order
of Temporary Custody/Mootness: ...
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
Termination
of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Best Interests: ...
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
Termination
of Parental Rights/No Collateral Attack on Neglect Finding:
...
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
the underlying finding of neglect made in a previous proceeding.
-
In
re Emerald C. (July 1, 2008)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Split decision: ...
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.
-
In
re Coby C. (April 29, 2008)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate:
...
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.
-
In
re Jorden R. (April 15, 2008)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Reversal/Evidence: ...
Court reverses termination decision, holding that finding that
mother could not or would not benefit from reunification services
was clearly erroneous. Appellate Court holds that preclusion
of mother's independent evaluator's testimony was reversible
error.
-
In
re Anthony A. (March, 2008)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Neglect/Mental
health: ...
Court affirms neglect finding. Although at the time of child's
removal the respondent mother was psychiatrically committed
and baby was living with maternal grandparents, court found
that baby had no legal guardian and mother could be released
at any time to claim her child.
-
In
re Davonta V. (February 12, 2008)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/GAL/Best Interests: ...
Court affirms termination of parental rights on the grounds
that court did not erroneously find that termination was in
best interests of teenage boy who had strong ties with biological
siblings and who was not living in a pre-adoptive home.
-
In
re Shanaira C. (February 12, 2008)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Guardianship/Due
process: ...
Court rejects non-relative intervener's argument that she was
erroneously denied a full evidentiary hearing on a disputed
motion to revoke commitment and transfer guardianship to non-custodial
parent. Cert granted to Supreme Court.
-
In
re Joseph L. (January 28, 2008)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/GAL/Evidence: ...
Court affirms termination on failure to rehabilitate grounds
where evidence supported finding that ongoing domestic violence
issues persisted. Court rejected arguments that court erroneously
admitted 10 year old psychiatric evaluation; that TPR was not
warranted where children were bonded with parents; that court's
failure to appoint a separate guardian ad litem prejudiced father
and child's right to be reunified.
-
In
re T.K. (January 28, 2008)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Predictive
Neglect/Mental Health: ...
Appellate court affirmed trial court's finding that the theory
of "predictive neglect" warranted an adjudication of neglect.
Court rejected parents' contention 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 Court acknowledged
that the majority of the predictive neglect cases did in fact
concern families in which older children had been harmed or
permitted to be harmed by a parent. However, the Court held
that neither the legislature nor the case law express such a
requirement.
-
In
re Leah S (December 18, 2007)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Contempt:
...
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
Default
Judgment: ...
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
Termination
of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Reversal: ...
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
because the trial court relied on speculative conclusions and
incorrect facts. The appellate court remanded for further proceedings.
-
In
re Anna Lee M (October 2, 2007)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Evidence: ...
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
Termination
of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate: ...
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
Termination of Parental
Rights/Reversal/Due Process: ...
Petition for termination of father's parental rights denied
where father, who was deaf and of Native American heritage,
was never advised of his rights, and where there was no record
of Bureau of Indian Affairs notice, specific steps had not been
developed and implemented by DCF, and DCF failed to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best
interests of the child.
-
In
re Davonta V. (December 6, 2006)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/GAL/Best Interests: ...
The Supreme Court granted certification for appeal in this termination
of parental rights case, where the Appellate Court had affirmed
the trial court's decision to terminate the 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, holding that it was not error
for the trial court not to have weighed the child's ties to
his biological family more heavily than other factors relating
to the best interest analysis, nor for the trial court to reject
the opinion of the Guardian ad Litem in favor of the opinions
of other witnesses, nor for the trial court to determine that
termination was in the best interests of the child despite the
fact that the foster parents were not committed to adoption.
-
In
re Jeremy M. (April10, 2007)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Juvenile
Delinquency: ...
Appellate Court rejected the 13-year-old petitioner's argument
that the appointment of a guardian ad litem against the express
wishes of himself and his father violated his constitutional
rights because petitioner failed to cite any case law holding
that a child has a constitutional right to have his parent act
as his guardian in delinquency proceedings and did not have
standing to raise the constitutional rights of his father on
appeal. The court also rejected the argument that the guardian
ad litem was not properly instructed as to her role because
the appointment form sufficiently spells out the duties and
obligations of the guardian ad litem.
-
In
re Brittany J. (April 2007)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate: ...
Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's findings that the
mother had failed to rehabilitate and that termination of parental
rights was in the children's best interests, underscoring the
need for parents to demonstrate progress with their court-identified
parenting issues before too much time passes.
-
In
re Brianna C.
(December 26, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Neglect/Mental health/Reasonable
efforts: ...
Appellate Court affirmed adjudication of neglect where trial
court had found that although the child was not in immediate
physical danger, the father's failure to adequately treat his
psychiatric condition, coupled with the mother's failure to
recognize that the father's behavior could be hazardous to the
child and her inability to protect the child adequately from
the father's actions, were sufficient grounds for commitment.
The Appellate Court also agreed that DCF had made "reasonable
efforts" to keep the child with the respondent mother before
seeking custody, despite the fact that more could have been
done.
-
In
re Christina M. (November 7, 2006)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Child's right to counsel:
...
Connecticut Supreme Court held that parents in a termination
of parental rights proceeding 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
Termination of Parental
Rights/Due Process: ...
Appellate Court held that parental rights may not be terminated
on a ground that is not pleaded in the petition for termination.
The Court also disagreed with respondent mother's contentions
that the trial court's finding of no ongoing parent-child relationship
was clearly erroneous and that allowing the mother time to establish
or reestablish the parent-child relationship would be in the
children's best interest.
-
In
re Nasia B. (October 10, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental
Rights/Due Process/Reversal: ...
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, holding that dismissal was
inappropriate because the trial court had not applied the correct
standard in reviewing parents' oral motion to dismiss. 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 because commitment may only be
revoked after written motions are filed.
-
In
re Rachel J. (October 3, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Statutory construction/ Omission-Commission:
...
Appellate Court upheld termination of
a mother's parental rights, holding that the statutory phrase
"serious bodily injury" was to be interpreted according to the
dictionary definition of serious ("such as to cause considerable
distress, anxiety or inconvenience") rather than the definition
of "serious bodily injury" found in the criminal code.
-
In
re Nelmarie O. (September 19, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Omission-commission: ...
Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate
a mother's parental rights, rejecting the mother's argument
that the trial court wrongfully relied on evidence gathered
after the filing of the petition for its adjudication and holding
that the trial court could reasonably have found that termination
was warranted given the atmosphere of violence in the home and
the mother's complicity in violence perpetrated against another
child in the home by the father.
-
In
re Reginald H. (August 25, 2006)
Superior Court of Connecticut
Termination of Parental
Rights/Disclosure of Records: ...
Trial court denied the State's request that a mother's confidential
mental health and substance abuse treatment records be disclosed
for purposes of a termination of parental rights trial, holding
that the "best interest of the child" rationale for compelling
disclosure of otherwise privileged documents was not valid;
that a parent does not raise her mental health as an issue simply
by defending herself against the State's TPR petition; and that
the State did not make a sufficient showing of good cause to
compel disclosure of the mother's substance abuse treatment
records.
-
In
re Shaun B. (August 22, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental
Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate: ...
Appellate court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental
rights, finding that the overwhelming evidence supported the
claim that the mother had failed to rehabilitate herself and
that DCF had proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination
of mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest.
-
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.
-
In
re Stacey G. (March 21, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Transfer
of Guardianship/Evidence/Due Process: ...
Appellate Court reversed trial court's denial of a father's
motion to transfer guardianship on evidentiary grounds (admission
of psychological reports containing allegations by persons other
than the author constituting inadmissible hearsay) and because
trial court would not grant a continuance to hear evidence from
a forensic psychologist.
-
In
re Ashley. (February 1, 2006)
Connecticut Superior Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Disclosure of confidential records: ...
Trial court denied the State's motion to compel a battered women's
shelter to disclose the mother's health records in a termination
of parental rights case, holding that the "best interests of
the child" justification for overriding privilege was not valid;
that there was applicable statutory exception to privilege;
and that once the State filed a TPR petition the "specific steps"
could not longer operate to compel disclosure of otherwise confidential
records.
-
In
re Claudia F. (January 24, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/mootness: ...
Appellate Court held that that a respondent mother's voluntary
termination of her parental rights rendered an appeal of neglect
adjudication moot.
-
In
re Patricia C. (January 3, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Guardianship/revocation
of commitment: ...
Appellate Court affirmed trial court's denial of a motion to
revoke commitment because denial was in the best interest of
the child, even though trial court had failed to explain whether
a cause for commitment continued to exist, a finding the Appellate
Court indicated was normally required to revoke commitment.
The lack of appropriate housing conditions, coupled with an
indication of a mother's inadequate attempt to seek reunification
with her children, were deemed sufficient grounds to maintain
commitment and affirm a permanency plan that recommended long-term
foster care.
-
In
re Shaiesha O. (January 3, 2006)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination
of Parental Rights/Reversal/Reasonable efforts: ...
Appellate Court overturned a trial court's termination of parental
rights because the DCF had "failed completely," in its responsibility
to make reasonable efforts to reunify the defendant father with
his daughter. The Court indicated that the trial court is required,
in the adjudicatory phase of the TPR proceeding, to make its
assessment regarding reunification on the basis of events "preceding
the date on which the termination petition was filed."
-
In
re Nicholas R. (November 15, 2005)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Order
of Temporary Custody: ...
Appellate Court affirmed an order of temporary custody. Nicholas'
mother did not adequately demonstrate that she felt coerced
or forced into bringing Nicholas to the hospital for the examination,
the results of which served as a basis for the Order of Temporary
Custody.
-
In
re Allison G. (November 5, 2005) Word Document Download
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Neglect/reversal/mootness: ...
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that DCF did have standing
to appeal the trial court's decision to dismiss DCF's neglect
allegation and adjudicate a child as "uncared for" even when
DCF was awarded the "relief" it sought: namely, commitment to
the Department's custody. The Court held that DCF was aggrieved
because a significant period of time could lapse between the
time the original neglect petition was filed and a subsequent
proceeding regarding termination of parental rights, so the
petitioner's ability to present evidence pertaining to the neglect
could be substantially impaired.
-
In
re Alejandro L. (September 6, 2005)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/failure to rehabilitate: ...
Appellate Court affirmed the termination of appellant mother's
parental rights where substance abuse appeared to be the single
most devastating factor contributing to the Court's conclusion
that it was in the best interests of the mother's children to
affirm the termination.
-
In
re Christina M. (August 2, 2005)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Abuse and Neglect: Termination of Parental Rights
...
-
In
re Heather L. (June 21, 2005)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/judicial bias: ...
Appellate Court upheld trial court's termination of father's
parental rights and denied father's motion for a mistrial where
father, who was contending that trial judge was biased since
the trial judge had presided over previous proceedings regarding
the child's sibling, did not present adequate evidence to demonstrate
actual bias on the part of the judge.
-
In
re Brendan C. (June 14, 2005)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Mental Health/GAL: ...
Appellate Court upheld termination of parental rights where
father contended that his parental rights had been improperly
terminated solely because of his mental deficiencies, rather
than his inability to parent; the father's claims ultimately
failed because he was not able to demonstrate sufficient evidence
of mental incapacity. The Appellate Court also disagreed with
the father's contention that guardian ad litems should have
been appointed for himself and the child and that DCF failed
to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
-
In
re Krystal J. (April 05, 2005)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Neglect/Mental Health: ...
Appellate Court upheld the denial of a respondent mother's motion
for revocation of commitment of her three children on the grounds
that the mother refused therapy and treatment, as well as failed
to take responsibility for the children's removal from her custody.
-
In
re Jermaine S. (January 11, 2005)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Mental Health/Disabilities:
...
The Appellate Court upheld a termination of parental rights
decision while the parents challenged the termination based
on the father's claim that his parental rights had been improperly
terminated solely because of his mental deficiencies, rather
than his inability to parent.
-
Manifold
v. Ragaglia, et al (December 28, 2004)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Abuse and Neglect/Civil Liberties and Civil Rights: ...
The Supreme Court interpreted the breadth of a physician's immunity
when examining a child in the abuse and neglect determination
process determining immunity extends to "any" good faith reporter
and concluded that physicians who perform evaluations at the
Department's behest are entitled to immunity.
-
Lovan
C. v. Dept. of Children and Families (December 7, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Neglect/Corporal Punishment: ...
In this case the Appellate Court analyzed the question, When
does corporal punishment constitute child abuse for purposes
of placement on the child abuse and neglect registry? The Appellate
Court examined the reasonableness of the conduct in this case,
and finding no malice or ill motive, concluded that the substantiation
must be reversed for lack of substantial evidence that the discipline
was unreasonable. The Appellate Court also ordered that the
parent's name be removed from the registry.
-
In
re Jonathan C. (November 23, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Reasonable Efforts: ...
The Appellate Court affirmed the termination of parental rights
in a case that addressed whether the mother demonstrated the
willingness or ability to benefit from reunification efforts.
The Appellate Court also opined that pursuant to Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 17a-112(j), a showing of unwillingness or inability
to pursue reunification meets the state's burden regarding the
issue of whether the Department made reasonable efforts to reunify
her with her children.
-
In
re Destiny D. (November 16, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate:
...
The Appellate Court affirmed the termination of parental rights
due to substance abuse problems.
-
In
re Tyqwane V. (October 12, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Due Process: ...
In this case the Appellate Court affirmed a termination of parental
rights order and also considered the respondent mother's contention
that the "clearly erroneous" standard of appellate review should
be discarded in favor of a de novo review.
-
In
re Allison G. (August 31, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Abuse and Neglect : ...
Does the type of adjudication entered by a juvenile court affect
the resulting commitment of a child to the Department of Children
and Families ("Department") and provide the Department with
grounds to appeal the "basis" for the commitment? No says the
C
-
In
re Jeisean M. (July 27, 2004)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate: ...
The Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights
of a mother who was involved with illegal substance abuse and
failed to adequately rehabilitate herself.
-
In
re Jeisean M. (July 24, 2004)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Termination: ...
In a companion case to the significant Supreme Court case of
Jeisean M. (see Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 406), the Supreme Court
affirmed the termination of parental rights of a mother who
indulged in illegal substance abuse and failed to adequately
rehabilitat
-
In
re Kaurice B. (June 29, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Order of Temporary Custody/Standing: ...
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's order
of temporary custody ("OTC"). The Appellate Court also found
that the stepmother had standing to appeal, based on the facts
of this particular case, and the supplemental briefs filed with
the court. Second, the Appellate Court reiterated the legal
standard present in OTC challenges raised on appeal.
-
In
re Kristy A. (June 8, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Due Process/Failure to Rehabilitate/Specific
Steps: ...
The Appellate Court affirmed a termination of parental rights
where issues of personal rehabilitation and vagueness in statutory
application were reviewed. The court also emphasized that §17a-112(j)
specifically states that court ordered steps for rehabilitation
are only to "facilitate" reunion of parent and child, not to
guarantee it.
-
In
re Vanna A. (May 18, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate: ...
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's termination
of rights on the strong facts indicating failure to rehabilitate
and a mother's failure to admit that abuse and maltreatment
was part of her history with her child.
-
In
re Ashley M. (March 16, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate: ...
The Appellate court affirmed the termination of a four year
old girl, Ashley, finding that the trial court had appropriately
found by clear and convincing evidence that Ashley's mother
had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation
that would have enabled her to assume a responsible parental
role.
-
In
re Alexander T. (February 24, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Reasonable
Efforts: ...
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's judgment
terminating a mother's parental rights with respect to her two
sons. The court explained that DCF's actions satisfied the requirement
to make reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with her children;
the mother's "track record" of failing to take advantage of
DCF's attempts at reunification was sufficient evidence to show
her unwillingness to benefit from DCF's reasonable efforts at
reunification; and that lower court had sufficient evidence
of the mother's history before deciding that the respondent
had failed to achieve personal rehabilitation so that termination
of her parental rights was warranted.
-
Ward
v. Greene (February 3, 2004)
Connecticut Supreme Court
Abuse and Neglect: The Court dismissed plaintiff's claim
that Conn. Gen. Stat. §17a-101 et. seq. creates a duty of care
to every child who has been in the care of a given foster parent.
The Supreme Court concluded that the statutory language was
directed at a child or children placed at risk in a singular
incident. The Court held that the statutory language suggested
that the legislature intended to focus only on those children
who had already been exposed to conduct that amounted to a reportable
event.
-
In
re Haley B. (January 13, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Transfer of Guardianship: ...
The Appellate Court affirmed superior court's decision denying
grandmother custody of her grandchild. Grandmother had repeatedly
failed to abide by DCF's rules and the Appelate Court also agreed
that it was in the child's best interest to remain in custody.
-
In
re Travis R. (January 6, 2004)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Termination of Parental Rights/Due Process: ...
The Appellate Court affirmed trial court's denial of a motion
to open on the grounds that the respondent failed to demonstrate
duress, and that opening the judgments would not be in the best
interest of the children. The Appellate Court tackled the issue
of whether a respondent mother's claim that she was coerced
into consenting to the termination of her parental rights in
respect to her two minor children constituted grounds for opening
the termination judgments. The court concluded that based on
the overwhelming factual evidence presented in Travis R., the
respondent could not meet the legally sufficient burden of demonstrating
"duress" for purposes of negating the termination consent.
