|
Christian
P tackles the issue of whether parental rights may be terminated
on a ground that is not pleaded in the petition for termination.
The answer, not surprisingly, is no - and the object lesson is that
the state child welfare agency must plead the specific grounds for
termination in order for a court to consider those grounds seeking
termination of parental rights.
The state
Department of Children and Families ("Department") removed the respondent
mother's three children pursuant to a ninety six hour hold in May
2001when mom was arrested for larceny and the children were left
unattended. The trial court adjudicated the children neglected and
uncared for in April 2002, and subsequently, the Department filed
for termination of parental rights of all three children. In all
three petitions, the Department alleged that the children had been
abandoned and that the respondent had failed to achieve a sufficient
degree of rehabilitation pursuant to 17a-112(j)(3)(E), and with
respect to children C & K, the Department alleged that there was
no ongoing parent-child relationship pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 17a-112(J)(3)(D). The petition concerning J did not allege
the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship as a ground for
termination. The trial court's November 2005 memorandum of decision
indicated that the mother's parental rights to all three children
were terminated on the grounds that she had no ongoing parental
relationship with her children, and that reunification would not
be in the children's best interests.
On appeal,
the court addressed two issues. First, the court tackled and agreed
with the respondent's assertion that J's rights had been improperly
terminated for lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship because
the termination petition failed to assert this ground. In a classic
due process analysis, the court found that lack of notice of this
claim in the petition precluded the court from terminating parental
rights based on the claim at trial. As a result, the court reversed
the termination and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Second,
the court disagreed with the respondent's contention that the finding
of no ongoing parent-child relationship regarding children C and
K was clearly erroneous and disagreed with the notion that allowing
the mom time to establish or reestablish the parent child relationship
would be in the children's best interest. Citing Jonathan G, 63
Conn. App. 516 (2001), the court undertook a two-pronged analysis
to determine, a) whether a relationship exists, and b) whether it
would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time
for such a relationship to develop. In this case, the children had
been separated from their mother for over four years. Her supervised
visitation consisted of no more than two hours per week, and the
children, all of whom have special needs, exhibited neither a reasonable
amount of affection for their mother nor a desire to see her. In
fact, by the time the trial court issued its decision, C and K had
not visited with her in almost three years due to their election
to terminate supervised visits. The children's therapist concluded
that it was unlikely that a healthy parent-child relationship could
be established within a reasonable time - and effectuating a reestablishment
of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the children.
This
case may be found by going to the Judicial Branch website at www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP98/98AP9.pdf
(JES
10/06)
|
