Oct. 19, 2010
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS/RESPONDENT FATHER
In this per curiam decision, the appellate court rejected the respondent father’s argument that the Department failed to meet its evidentiary burden of proof because it failed to adequately inform him that separation from the respondent mother would be necessary in order to reunify him with his child. The record indicated that while the mother presented with numerous disabilities and psychiatric impairments, the father’s psychological evaluation revealed only a difficulty with abstract thinking. Because of this reasoning impairment, the respondent contended that DCF was obligated to state in concrete terms the requirement that he separate from the child’s mother. However, the appellate court noted that the trial record contained evidence that the father was verbally informed by the social worker about the importance of separation, and that the father did not testify that he was unaware of this requirement. The appellate court also rejected father’s contention that the trial court did not adequately find that giving father additional time to rehabilitate would be harmful to his son. The court noted that the father did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support any of the court’s required best interests findings. Rat her, the father argued that the court erred when it did not consider that waiting longer to give father additional rehabilitation time would not have been harmful to Albert. The appellate court concluded that this finding was not required.
Filed in Tags: Abuse and Neglect
« Back to Case Library