|
In this
termination of parental rights case, the appellate court denied
the mother's claim that the trial court improperly: (1) failed to
consider her statutory choice of a voluntary termination of her
parental rights and an open adoption; (2) concluded that she failed
to rehabilitate and that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship;
and (3) considered certain witnesses as expert witnesses. The court
also rejected the mother's claim that the judgment of termination
should be reversed because the postjudgment report required by Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(o) was filed late.
After
the trial court filed its memorandum of decision terminating the
mother's parental rights, the mother filed a Revised Motion to Open
the Judgment, claiming the court improperly failed to consider her
statutory choice pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(b) to voluntarily
terminate her parental rights and agree to an open adoption. Specifically,
the mother argued that "once the court heard evidence that the foster
mother was willing to adopt for the first time at trial, the trial
court had a duty to suspend the involuntary termination hearing
to allow [her] an opportunity to discuss with the foster mother
the possibility of working out an open adoption agreement and also
to consider voluntarily terminating her rights with an agreement
in place."
The appellate
court rejected the mother's factual position that she had no opportunity
to approach the foster mother about an open adoption agreement,
noting that she had almost an entire month before the court rendered
its decision to explore that possibility with the foster mother.
Additionally, the court cited a court-ordered psychological report
drafted two years before trial in which the respondent reported
that the foster mother had expressed a desire to adopt the child.
Moreover, the mother testified at trial about an open adoption agreement,
indicating that she was not willing to consider such an option and
further noting that termination with an open adoption agreement
had already been explored with the foster mother.
The appellate
court also rejected the mother's legal position that the court had
an independent obligation to suspend a contested termination proceeding
and explore the possibility of an open adoption agreement simply
because the foster mother had indicated a willingness to adopt at
trial. According to the court, nothing in the language or the purpose
of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(b) imposes such an obligation on the
trial court.
Additionally,
the appellate court dismissed the mother's argument that the trial
court improperly concluded that she failed to rehabilitate and that
there was no ongoing parent-child relationship. The court noted
that while the child was committed to DCF, the mother maintained
an unimpressive and irregular visitation record, was unreliable,
continued to deny the allegations of neglect, failed to recognize
her son's extensive psychological needs, and suffered from significant
emotional problems that interfered with her parenting. After spending
fours years with his foster mother, the child had developed a loving
and dependent relationship with her, had worked to repress memories
of his early childhood, and did not remember his mother's name.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that whatever relationship
the child had with his mother no longer existed and would never
be reestablished.
Finally,
the appellate court summarily dismissed the mother's final two arguments-that
the trial court improperly considered certain witnesses as experts,
and that the judgment of termination should be reversed because
the postjudgment report was filed sixty days late. On the expert
witness issue, the appellate court noted that because the respondent
failed to object at trial to the testimony or reports of the witnesses,
the trial court was fully justified in considering this evidence
when rendering its decision. On the postjudgment report issue, the
court concluded that the delay in filing had no effect on the validity
of the court's judgment of termination.
The case
may be accessed by going to the Judicial Branch website at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP109/109AP454.pdf
|
