|
In a
sad case that involved significant physical trauma and sexual exploitation,
the Appellate Court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental
rights in In re Rachel J. As is often the case in scenarios of abuse
and neglect, the respondent mother in Rachel J was herself involved
with the Department of Children and Families ("Department") dating
back to her childhood, when at the age of nine, she was placed in
the Department's care due to substance abuse and mental health problems
of her mother. The respondent's two children, R, born in 1993, and
N, a special needs child born in 2002, resided with the respondent
until January 2004, when the Department removed the children due
to several incidents, events, and reports of abuse and neglect.
Interestingly,
the Department had taken several steps prior to January 2004 in
order to ensure the children's safety after several reports of domestic
violence perpetrated by mom's boyfriend, who allegedly made sexually
explicit advances at R when she was eight, and who then physically
assaulted the respondent in the presence of her two children. Despite
these occurrences, the Department did not remove the children until
January 2004, when the respondent pulled R out of bed by her hair,
essentially throwing her into the middle of the room and dropped
her to the floor, causing a severe fracture of her elbow. Though
the respondent attempted to hide R's injuries by keeping her out
of school after the incident, the Department pursued the case and
eventually removed the children via a ninety-six hour hold on January
8, 2004. On January 12, 2004, the Department filed co-terminous
petitions to terminate mom's parental rights. The trial court terminated
those rights after a contested trial in June 2005 - upholding the
sole ground stated in the petition - that the respondent, as a result
of sexual molestation and severe physical abuse, denied R the care,
guidance or control necessary for her well being under Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(C). The court also terminated the mother's
rights as to N on the sole ground that she "committed an assault
through [a] deliberate non-accidental act that resulted in serious
bodily injury of another child … of the parent," pursuant to Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(F).
On appeal,
the Respondent unsuccessfully argued that the physical abuse (fractured
elbow and hair pulling) did not rise to the level of serious bodily
injury. The court dismissed this point rather summarily by noting
that the testimony of several witnesses, as well as the statements'
given by R indicated that the event actually occurred. In addition,
the court refused to import the definition of "serious bodily injury"
from the criminal code merely because the legislature did not define
the term in 17a-112(j)(3). As with other statutory scenarios, the
court choose to adopt the "commonly approved usage" doctrine - and
proceeded to define the word through a quick peek into Webster's
Dictionary. With that as background, R's injuries met the definition
of "serious," which the dictionary indicated as "such as to cause
considerable distress, anxiety or inconvenience."
Finally,
the final claim that it was not in R's best interests to terminate
parental rights fell short of the mark as well. Invoking the standard
whereby it would only overturn a trial court decision which was
"clearly erroneous," the court indicated that merely professing
that a bond existed between the respondent and R was not enough
to demonstrate that the "best interests" standard had not been achieved.
The trial court record was "replete with evidence" that the respondent
exposed R to repeated physical and sexual abuse, and that R herself
expressed significant negative feelings about her mother. In that
light, the court had little difficulty affirming the termination.
This
case may be accessed by going to the Judicial Branch website at
www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/ap97/97AP474.pdf
(JES
10/06)
|
