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.
The record indicated that while the mother presented with numerous
disabilities and psychiatric impairments, the father’s psychological
evaluation revealed only a difficulty with abstract thinking. Because
of this reasoning impairment, the respondent contended that DCF
was obligated to state in concrete terms the requirement that he
separate from the child’s mother. However, the appellate court noted
that the trial record contained evidence that the father was verbally
informed by the social worker about the importance of separation,
and that the father did not testify that he was unaware of this
requirement. The appellate court also rejected father’s contention
that the trial court did not adequately find that giving father
additional time to rehabilitate would be harmful to his son. The
court noted that the father did not challenge the sufficiency of
the evidence to support any of the court’s required best interests
findings. Rat her, the father argued that the court erred when it
did not consider that waiting longer to give father additional rehabilitation
time would not have been harmful to Albert. The appellate court
concluded that this finding was not required.
