In re Janazia S.
Appellate Court
Released January 13, 2009 TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS/ STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:
FAILURE TO REHABILITATE:
This case involves an appeal
from the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of
the respondent mother and father with respect to their daughter,
Janazia. On appeal, the respondent father alleged that the trial
court improperly denied his motion to revoke commitment and transfer
guardianship to the respondent mother. The mother made several claims
on appeal, including that she was deprived of her constitutional
rights when the trial court (1) refused to let her submit to a drug
test and reopen the trial record in the future when her results
became available; (2) improperly concluded that she had failed to
rehabilitate; and (3) impermissibly considered the best interests
of the child as part of its failure to rehabilitate analysis. Both
parents alleged that the trial court's finding that termination
was in the best interests of their daughter was clearly erroneous.
In affirming the judgment
of the trial court, the appellate court quickly dismissed the father's
claim that the lower court had improperly denied his motion to revoke
commitment and transfer guardianship, noting that the respondent
mother was not a viable placement option and that commitment was
in the best interests of Janazia. Specifically, the court pointed
out the mother's history of unaddressed substance abuse, unstable
housing, lack of viable employment prospects, inconsistent compliance
with court-ordered specific steps, and lack of appropriate parenting
skills as evidence of the child's need for commitment.
The appellate court also
denied the mother's claim that her constitutional rights had been
violated when the court refused to reopen the trial record in order
to permit her to submit to a drug test at some distant and unknown
date in the future. The appellate court found no constitutional
violation, noting that the mother had ample opportunity to submit
to a drug test before trial, and that the outcome of the drug test
would be damaging either way: if positive, it proved she was still
using; if negative, it proved she failed to "comprehend the positive
import of a negative hair test." Moreover, the inevitable delay
in scheduling and submitting the results of a drug test would likely
deny the child the permanency she desperately needed.
The appellate court then
rejected the mother's factual and legal challenges to the trial
court's finding that she had failed to rehabilitate. The respondent
contended that the trial court (1) misconstrued the statutory definition
of personal rehabilitation because it viewed the mother's reliance
on outside support systems as evidence of her lack of rehabilitation;
and (2) improperly considered the child's best interests when finding
the respondent had failed to rehabilitate. Though the appellate
court agreed that the definition of personal rehabilitation "allows
a parent to include the use of support systems," it noted that the
trial court's decision was sensitive to these supports, and had
nonetheless found that despite outside assistance the respondent
could not rehabilitate within a reasonable period of time. Citing
the language of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), the court then noted
that whether a parent has achieved a sufficient degree of personal
rehabilitation must be considered in light of "the age and needs
of the child." Thus, the trial court's consideration of the emotional
and psychological needs of the child was appropriate in its decision
on whether the respondent had rehabilitated herself.
Finally, the appellate court
rejected the respondents' claim that termination was not in the
best interests of Janazia, noting that the court's conclusions were
supported by the trial record and reiterating that appellate review
was limited to reviewing, and not retrying, the proceedings of a
trial court.
