|
The
fundamental question raised in this interesting appeal of a termination
of parental rights is whether it is ever in the child's best interest
to terminate his parental rights when an adoptive family has not
been secured and the child maintains a good relationship with his
extended biological family. The answer, according to the Supreme
Court - is that termination was in the child's best interest (in
this case), despite the factors noted above.
Davonta's
case first reached the Superior Court in 1999, when the Department
of Children and Families (Department) commenced a neglect petition
alleging educational, medical and physical neglect against Davonta,
then a six year old child. After a flurry of activity, the Department
sought and received an order of temporary custody in May 2000, and
the court adjudicated her neglected in October 2000, whereupon she
was committed to the care of the Department and placed in foster
care. A petition for termination of parental rights (TPR) followed
in December 2002, alleging that Davonta had been denied proper care
and attention and that his mother had not achieved personal rehabilitation.
After a trial that spanned several months in 2004 and 2005, the
court terminated the parents' parental rights on the aforementioned
grounds, and determined that the Department had made reasonable
efforts to reunify Davonta with her mom pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 17a-112(j). The appellate court (with a dissenting Judge Schaller)
affirmed the termination, and the Supreme Court granted review solely
on the issue of whether the trial court correctly applied the appropriate
standard of review in the TPR proceeding.
The court
based its affirmation on what it considered the overwhelming evidence
produced at the trial, including … mom's repeated absences from
Davonta's life for long periods of time, her multiple placements
in foster care, Davonta's struggle with issues of abandonment and
feelings of rejection who remains a "very adoptive child" who "wants
to be part of a family." The court seemed to give great credence
and afforded significant weight to the evidence demonstrating that
his current (as of the trial) foster placement was stable, loving,
long-term permanent and supportive, and that he had expressed wishes
to remain with them "forever." In addition, Davonta expressed no
willingness to either meet with or live with his mother.
The crux
of the legal analysis fell on the issue of whether the evidence
upon which the trial court relied amounted to a clear an convincing
showing by the Department that termination of parental rights was
in her best interests given the positive relationship he maintained
with his biological family - and that adoption by his loving foster
family was not guaranteed. As to the first issue - the court upheld
the Appellate Court's holding that the law does not preclude termination
of parental rights simply because the adoption of the child is not
imminent. Citing a slew of cases affirming the principals that adoption
is indeed the preferred outcome, but not a necessary prerequisite
for termination, the court would not disturb the trial court's decision
based on the foster parent's reluctance to proceed ahead with adoption.
See e.g. In Re Romance M., 229 Conn. 356 (1993) (long-term stability
critical to a child's future health and development; In re Eden
F., 250 Conn. 674 (1999) (adoption provides only one option for
obtaining such stability); In re Theresa S., 196 Conn. 18 (1985)
(parents' rights can be terminated without an ensuing adoption).
The
court addressed the potential impairment of Davonta's relationship
with other members of his extended family due to the termination
by noting that Davonta's foster parents did not oppose, and in fact,
encouraged that he maintain his relationships with his biological
family.
Finally,
the overriding need for Davonta's permanency, as confirmed by all
testimony at the trial, carried the day in terms of what constituted
his best interests in terms of permanence and stability. His experiences
with disruption and trauma let the court to conclude that permanence
and stability were best ensured through termination of parental
rights.
This
case may be accessed at www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR285/285CR35.pdf
(JES 3/08)
|
