|
Termination
of Parental Rights/Failure to Rehabilitate/Guardianship/Due Process:
In this
termination of parental rights appeal, the appellate court affirmed
the trial court’s termination decision, holding that (1) the court
properly denied the parent’s motion to transfer guardianship to
the paternal aunt; (2) there was ample evidence to support a finding
that the parents failed to rehabilitate; and (3) the parents had
not adequately briefed their claim that the denial of a jury trial
on the termination petition deprived them of due process of law.
The
mother and father, who struggled with homelessness, substance abuse,
and mental health problems, claimed that the court erroneously denied
their motion to revoke commitment and transfer guardianship to the
paternal aunt, since she was a suitable and appropriate placement
alternative. The appellate court rejected this argument, noting
that under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-129(m) a motion to revoke commitment
may only be granted if the cause for commitment no longer exists
and such revocation is in the best interests of the child. The court
held that the original cause for commitment still existed, since
the parents continued to struggle with substance abuse and mental
health problems, and that a transfer of guardianship was not in
the child’s best interests, given her age and need for permanency.
The appellate
court also denied the respondents’ claim that DCF failed to demonstrate
a sufficient need or compelling reason for termination. The court
noted ample evidence in the record to support the trial court’s
finding of termination, including the respondents’ unwillingness
to benefit from reunification efforts as demonstrated by their failure
to regularly attend substance abuse and mental health treatment,
their continued drug use, the respondent father’s involvement with
criminal activity, and their failure to obtain adequate housing
and stable employment. The appellate court rejected the mother’s
claim that DCF failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification,
noting that while the department did choose not to refer her to
individual counseling for sexual assault victims, the mother missed
numerous appointments with service providers and failed to fully
engage in treatment services that were provided by the Department.
The court
summarily dismissed the parents’ final two arguments, that the court
(1) improperly terminated their parental rights without findings
made by a jury and (2) improperly placed the burden of proof on
the respondents in the motion to revoke commitment/transfer guardianship
and in the dispositional phase of the TPR. As to the first argument,
the court declined to review the respondents’ claim because the
issue had not been adequately briefed. As to the second argument,
the court denied father’s request for plain error review and concluded
that his claim was without any merit.
-Justin
Taylor, law student intern
The case
may be accessed by going to the Judicial Branch website at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP494.pdf
|
