-
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/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:
JUDICIAL 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/RES
JUDICATA:...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.
