|
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.
On March
22, 2006, the department invoked a 96-hour hold on nine-month-old
Anthony A. following a domestic violence incident between his parents.
On March 24, the court issued an ex parte order of temporary custody
and on November 14 adjudicated the child neglected and committed
him to DCF custody. On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial
court's finding that the department had made reasonable efforts
toward reunification and that the respondent had failed to rehabilitate
by remaining involved in an abusive relationship, failing to complete
several treatment programs, lacking parenting skills, and failing
to secure and maintain adequate housing and employment. The court
further agreed that termination was in the best interests of the
child, noting that Anthony's foster parents, who expressed a willingness
to adopt him, were also his psychological parents.
Turning
to the intervenor's appeal, the court first considered whether the
intervenor had standing to appeal the denial of the motion for transfer
of guardianship. Noting that "every presumption favoring jurisdiction
should be indulged," the appellate court concluded that the intervenor
had standing to appeal, even though the intervenor never filed a
motion for transfer of guardianship and some ambiguity existed as
to whether she intervened in the neglect petition matter and formally
joined the respondent's motion for transfer of guardianship. The
court then concluded that based on the record below, which indicated
that Anthony was bonded to his foster parents, denying the motion
for transfer of guardianship was not an abuse of discretion.
The case
may be accessed by going to the Judicial Branch website at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP106/106AP165.pdf
Sarah
Healy Eagan, Esq.
Director, Child Abuse Project
Center for Children's Advocacy
University of Connecticut School of Law
|
