|
In a
relatively straight forward termination of parental rights case,
the appellate court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental
rights where the trial court found the failure to rehabilitate constituted
the most significant barrier to reunification. The Department of
Children and Families ("Department") initially became involved in
July 2002 when Shaun (then one year old) and his mother resided
in a homeless shelter. The Department invoked a 96 hour hold and
sought temporary custody due to the mother's inability to care for
the child, and her repeated eviction from homeless shelters due
to "confrontational behavior." The Department found that mom had
left the child unattended, failed to fill prescriptions for the
boy, and engaged in inappropriate discipline.
Things
proceeded along without reunification - though mom visited the child
on a regular basis. The key incident that inevitably resulted in
termination, however, occurred in April 2003, when mom forcibly
removed the child and threatened a social worker during one of her
visits to the foster home. Mom then took the child to New York City
for a period of two weeks, whereupon she finally turned herself
in to the police. Not surprisingly, the Department filed its termination
petition shortly thereafter.
The
Appellate Court upheld the trial court's findings on two issues.
First, the overwhelming evidence supported the claim that the respondent
(mom) had failed to rehabilitate herself pursuant to Conn. Gen.
Stat. §17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii). The litany of failures included the
inability to provide stable and adequate housing; failure to address
mental health and anger management issues; non-cooperation with
court-ordered evaluations; the unauthorized escape to New York City
and the resulting felony charges that sprung from that episode;
and her diagnosis of major depression and moderate and borderline
personality disorder.
Second,
the court found that the Department had proved by clear and convincing
evidence that termination of mom's parental rights was in the child's
best interest. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(k). Once again - the
court revisited the abduction incident, concluding that the resulting
incarceration prevented "the respondent and child from visiting
and preventing the respondent from making any meaningful efforts
to make it in the best interest of the child to reunite with him."
This separation, combined with the warmth and stability achieved
with the foster family, carried the day for the court.
This
case is available on the Judicial Branch website by going to www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/ap97/97AP425.pdf
(JES
9/06).
|
