|
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." Additionally, the mother asserted that
the court's findings that she failed to rehabilitate and that termination
was in the best interests of her children were clearly erroneous.
The mother made several evidentiary claims on appeal.
First, she claimed that the court's reliance on the DCF social study
was improper after it sustained the mother's objections to a social
worker's testimony regarding the social study. The appellate court
noted that, despite the mother's objections to the social worker's
testimony, the social study itself was admitted into evidence as
a full exhibit, without objection, and therefore could be relied
on by the trial court in toto. Second, the mother challenged the
court's reliance on evidence of two prior arrests, claiming that
such reliance was inappropriate in that neither arrest resulted
in conviction. The appellate court, citing In re Helen B., 50 Conn.
App. 818, 827-31 (1998), held that the arrests were admissible and
relevant to the mother's ability to provide a safe and secure home
for her children. The court did not rely on the evidence to determine
whether the respondent had committed a crime. Third, the mother
agued that the trial court impermissibly allowed the state to cross-examine
her on issues that were not raised during direct examination. The
appellate court concluded that the state's questions regarding the
mother's violent relationship with her former husband were permissible
because the mother testified on direct examination that she attended
a domestic violence counseling session. The appellate court also
held that the state's questions regarding the mother's fundraising
efforts and false claims of cancer were appropriate because such
questions were relevant to the mother's credibility.
The mother also challenged the merits of the court's
adjudication. She claimed that DCF failed to make reasonable efforts
to reunify her family when it allowed visitation to be aborted after
a visitation center concluded that visits were inappropriate and
should be stopped. The appellate court concluded that DCF did not
have a "duty" to seek alternate supervisory assistance for the mother.
Finally, the appellate court upheld the trial court's
finding that the mother failed to rehabilitate. The record contained
evidence that the mother failed to comply fully with the court ordered
specific steps. She did not fully complete her parenting education;
she was arrested for social security fraud; she did not advise the
department of changes in the composition of her household; she did
not visit as often as the department permitted; and she refused
to cooperate with the visitation center's rules and expectations.
|
