|
Termination
of Parental Rights/Reversal.
In this
termination of parental rights appeal, the appellate court reversed
the trial court's dismissal of the state's termination petition,
holding that the trial court improperly re-considered and rejected
the underlying finding of neglect made in a previous proceeding.
The children had been removed from the home and adjudicated neglected
as a result of the father's alleged sexual abuse. The parents did
not appeal the neglect adjudication. The state eventually moved
to terminate the parents' rights, alleging they failed to rehabilitate,
there was no ongoing parent-child relationship, and through acts
of omission and commission the parents denied their children necessary
guidance and care.
During
the termination trial, the trial court questioned the basis for
the removal of the children and held that the alleged sexual abuse
by the father appeared to have been "pre-textual." The court dismissed
the termination petition, rejected the state's permanency plan of
adoption, and ordered the state to file a new permanency plan with
a goal of reunification.
The appellate
court held that the trial court's reconsideration of the neglect
findings was improper. First, the court noted that Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 17a-112, which sets forth the parameters regarding termination
of parental rights, provides that a termination petition may be
granted where a child has been "found by the Superior Court … to
have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding … and the
parent of such child has held that a trial court may not reconsider
the underlying neglect adjudication." Accordingly, the appellate
court held that the state did not have to prove at the termination
hearing that the children were neglected, only that they had been
found to be neglected in a prior proceeding. The appellate court
disagreed with the parents' argument that the trial court was permitted
to reconsider the issue under the clear and convincing standard
of proof. The court concluded that principles of finality, efficiency
as well as the best interests of children support the conclusion
that findings in earlier child welfare proceedings cannot be attached
collaterally in later proceedings. The only way to challenge the
neglect finding is to appeal in a timely manner from the original
adjudication.
The appellate
court also agreed with the state's argument that the trial court
failed to give preclusive effect to the earlier finding, attendant
to the neglect adjudication, that further efforts to reunify the
father with his son were inappropriate. The father did not appeal
the court's earlier finding. The appellate court pointed to Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 17a-111(b) which provides that the trial court may
grant a termination petition if it finds by clear and convincing
evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child
and parent, "except that such finding is not required if the court
has determined [previously] that such efforts are not required."
Finally,
the appellate court found that the lower court's finding as to the
parent-child relationship between the son and the respondents was
clearly erroneous. The court noted the testimony of a clinical social
worker that the son did not have a recollection of his life prior
to foster care and that he did not mention the parents during therapy
sessions. The appellate court acknowledged that there can be no
finding of a "lack of ongoing parent child relationship" if the
lack of relationship is a direct result of the fact that the child
was in foster care. However, the court held that based on its own
review of the record, it could not discern that the lack of ongoing
parent-child relationship was the fault of the department. The court
concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support the
court's conclusion that the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship
was a direct result of the son's being in foster care. (citing In
re Alexander C., 67 Conn. App. 417, 424, aff'd, 262 Conn. 308 (2003.)
Sarah
Healy Eagan, Esq.
Director, Child Abuse Project
Center for Children's Advocacy
University of Connecticut School of Law
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Tel. 860.570.5327
Fax. 860.570.5256
|
