|
Appeal
after remand (see Haley B., 262 Conn. 406 (2003)) where maternal
grandmother of a child in Department of Children and Families ("Department")
seeks custody of her grandchild, Haley B.. The grandmother asserted
two claims in the appeal – both of which were rebuffed by the Appellate
Court.
First,
the grandmother claimed that the superior court decision had neither
an appropriate basis in fact nor was it based a reasonable interpretation
of the evidence presented to the trial court. The appellate court
echoed the findings of the trial court in concluding that the grandmother
had repeatedly failed to disclose or misrepresented facts to the
Department – including failing to seek prior approval of arranging
visits between Haley and her mother (despite court ordered limitations).
These findings were clearly supported by the record.
Second,
though the petitioner had framed, or entitled an erroneous legal
argument – the court considered the merits of her claim that the
trial court did not act in Haley’s best interests when denying her
custody. The court noted that the legal standard for an appellate
reversal of such an order mandated a finding that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion, and such a finding did not transpire
here. The court declined to address the grandmother's claim of introduction
of inadmissible hearsay evidence because issue was inadequately
briefed.
(JES)
|
