|
Respondent
mother appealed termination of parental rights decision contending
that the trial court’s finding that she failed to rehabilitate and
that termination was in the best interests of her child was clearly
erroneous. The mother argued that she had fully complied with the
majority of court ordered specific steps and that she had “substantially
complied” with the remainder. The appellate court however, mindful
of the standard of review, held that the evidence in the record
was sufficient to warrant the trial court’s finding and that the
trial court’s finding that the respondent “failed to fully comply”
with the specific steps is simply a negative statement that means
the same as the respondent’s contention that she “substantially
complied” with the specific steps. The appellate court noted that
“[a]lthough there is no clear directive as to what constitutes ‘‘compliance’’
with court-ordered steps, it is clear that the failure to comply
with specific steps typically weighs heavily in termination proceedings.”
In re Devon B., 264 Conn. 572, 584, 825 A.2d 127 (2003).
The respondent
also claimed that the court failed to make all requisite “best interests”
findings under CGS 17a-112(k). Specifically, the mother argued that
the court was required to Specifically, she claims that the court’s
memorandum of decision contains no express finding regarding the
child’s disruption from his pre-adoptive placement (as required
by CGS 17a-112(k)(4)). Accordingly, the mother claimed that the
trial court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interest
was clearly erroneous. The appellate court agreed with the respondent
the respondent “that a court may … be required to make written findings
concerning a child’s emotional ties to his pre-adoptive family.
In particular, such a finding is required when a child has developed
significant emotional ties to his pre-adoptive family and that family
has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for
at least one year. See General Statutes § 17a- 112 (k) (4).” However,
although the appellate court agreed that no such finding was made
in this particular case, the record was inadequate to determine
whether such a finding was required. The burden rested with the
respondent to move the trial court for an articulation regarding
its finding and request a reason for the omission. See Practice
Book § 66-5. Accordingly, the appellate court could not find that
the trial court’s failure to make a finding regarding the child’s
disruption from his pre-adoptive placement rendered the court’s
decision regarding the child’s best interests clearly erroneous.
.
|
