|
The Connecticut
Appellate Court affirmed a trial court's judgment terminating a
mother's parental rights with respect to her two sons, Alexander
T. and Elijah T. Although affirming the lower decision, the appellate
court addressed each of the three arguments put forth by the respondent.
The
court first addressed the mother's argument that the lower court
incorrectly ruled that the Department of Children and Families ("DCF")
made reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with her two sons
under Conn. Gen. Stat § 17a-112. The appellate court admitted that
its standard of review was limited to reviewing whether the trial
court’s decision was "clearly erroneous." The court then explained
that DCF's actions (including attempts to refer the mother to drug
rehabilitation programs and counseling) satisfied the requirement
to make reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with her children.
The
court then addressed the argument that the lower court incorrectly
decided that the mother was unable/unwilling to benefit from DCF's
efforts at reunification. The court responded that the trial court's
reference to 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.
Finally,
the court addressed the argument that the evidence was insufficient
to show that the mother failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation.
The court explained that lower court had sufficient evidence of
the mother's history (including expert and lay witnesses) before
deciding that the respondent had failed to achieve personal rehabilitation
so that termination of her parental rights was necessary under §
17a-112 (j)(3)(B)(ii).
In an
interesting side note, Judge Dupont commended "Counsel for the .
. . respondent . . . for their excellent briefs and oral arguments."
She further noted that: "Counsel for the respondent were certified
legal interns from University of Connecticut School of Law legal
clinic." See footnote 2 at 669.
The decision
may be accessed by going to the state Judicial Branch website at
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP81/81ap180.pdf
By Elizabeth
Cryan, Legal Intern (3/04)
|
