343 Conn. 642
Conn.2022Background:
- Child Annessa was removed after reports of sexual abuse by father and neglect by mother; DCF gained custody after adjudication and reunification efforts failed.
- DCF filed to terminate both parents’ rights in 2019; trial was delayed by COVID-19 and held virtually via Microsoft Teams in Sept–Oct 2020.
- During trial the parents moved for posttermination visitation in the event their rights were terminated; the trial court granted termination and denied the visitation motions as not "necessary or appropriate" under §46b-121(b)(1).
- Appellate Court affirmed termination but reversed the visitation denials, interpreting In re Ava W. to subsume a best-interest analysis into the statutory "necessary or appropriate" standard.
- Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification on the mother’s constitutional challenges to the virtual trial and on the Commissioner’s cross-appeal about the proper standard for posttermination visitation.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Connecticut Constitution (art. I §10, art. V §1) guarantees an in-person trial in a parental termination proceeding | Valerie: constitutional guarantee of a common-law in-person public civil trial; in-person appearance required | Commissioner: no fundamental right to in-person trial; constitutional text silent and precedent allows non‑physical participation | Court: Mother failed Golding prong showing a fundamental right; no established constitutional right to in-person trial; termination affirmed |
| 2) Whether virtual trial denied Fourteenth Amendment confrontation/due process rights | Valerie: virtual format deprived her of right to physically confront witnesses absent a compelling governmental interest | Commissioner: record lacks factual findings on the COVID threat to justify curtailing confrontation; claim unpreserved and record inadequate | Court: Record inadequate under Golding to resolve the federal confrontation claim; cannot reach merits |
| 3) Proper legal standard for posttermination visitation motions | Commissioner: Appellate Court wrongly expanded In re Ava W.; standard is statutory "necessary or appropriate" under §46b-121(b)(1), not broad best-interest | Respondents: best-interest is part of the analysis; Appellate Court’s broader framing is correct | Court: Adopted In re Ava W. reading — apply the statutory "necessary or appropriate" standard; rejected importation of a standalone best-interest test |
| 4) Whether trial court applied incorrect/overly strict standard when denying posttermination visitation | Respondents: trial court treated visitation as "not required" and rejected best-interest, so applied wrong/narrow test | Commissioner: trial court recited and applied the "necessary or appropriate" standard and considered relevant factors | Court: Trial court applied the correct statutory standard and considered In re Ava W. factors; Appellate Court’s reversal of visitation denial was erroneous; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ava W., 336 Conn. 545 (recognizing trial courts may rule on posttermination visitation and adopting the §46b-121(b)(1) "necessary or appropriate" standard)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (Docket No. 10155), 187 Conn. 431 (telephone participation in TPR trial did not violate due process in that case)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (framework for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process claims)
- In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626 (limits on remanding to supplement records for unpreserved constitutional claims)