In Re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197

Background

Appellant mother Katherine M. appeals termination of parental rights as to twins Alison M. and Andrew M.; father’s rights were terminated and not appealed.
Children were placed with the respondent’s mother (grandmother) and grandfather in August 2006 and have remained there.
The Department of Children and Families (department) found reasonable reunification efforts and that the mother was unable to benefit from those efforts to permit reunification.
The trial court held two phases: adjudicatory (grounds for termination) and dispositional (best interests under §17a-112(k)); the court found substantial treatment compliance but insufficient personal rehabilitation and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
On appeal, the mother argues multiple flaws including lack of benefit from reunification, insufficient rehabilitation, incorrect best-interest finding, denial of continuance, evidentiary rulings about expert testimony, and grandmother’s trial participation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reunification finding mootness and sufficiency	Katherine argues the court erred about benefit from reunification.	Department argues the mootness due to independent finding of reasonable efforts under §17a-112(j)(1).	Moot; independent finding of reasonable efforts supports §17a-112(j)(1).
Sufficiency of personal rehabilitation finding	Katherine contends she rehabilitated sufficiently to parent.	Court correctly weighed evidence showing insufficient progress to be able to safely care for the children.	Not clearly erroneous; evidence supports lack of sufficient personal rehabilitation.
Best interests determination under §17a-112(k)	Katherine contends the court failed to consider mother–child bond and other factors.	Court properly balanced statutory factors and the children’s permanency needs, despite bond with mother.	Termination in the children’s best interests affirmed.
Denial of continuance	Due process requires a continuance to review discovery materials.	Court acted within its discretion; discovery delay was mitigated and movant could recall witnesses but chose not to.	No due process violation or abuse of discretion; continuance denial affirmed.
Grandmother’s participation beyond dispositional phase	Grandmother’s involvement in adjudicatory issues violated scope and affected fairness.	Record shows permissible involvement and the trial allowed unified proceedings; no reversible error shown.	No abuse of discretion; grandmother’s participation within permissible scope.

Key Cases Cited

In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (2009) (interprets conjunctive §17a-112(j)(1) requiring only one prong to prove reasonable efforts or inability to benefit)
In re Halle T., 96 Conn. App. 815 (2006) (rehabilitation standard and requirement to relate to child’s needs)
In re Emerald C., 108 Conn. App. 839 (2008) (weight given to expert evidence in termination proceedings)
In re Rafael S., 125 Conn. App. 605 (2010) (consideration of bond and permanency in best interests analysis)
In re Tremaine C., 117 Conn. App. 521 (2009) (Mathews balancing framework for continuances in termination cases)
In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (2008) (emphasizes permanency and child welfare considerations in best interests)
In re Janazia S., 112 Conn. App. 69 (2009) (dispositional factors and focus on child’s best interests)