194 Conn.App. 111
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Three of respondent mother's four children were removed (Nov. 1, 2016) due to ongoing domestic violence between the parents, transience, substance abuse, and mental health concerns.
- The children were placed with their maternal grandmother and had lived with her for about two years during the proceedings.
- The Commissioner of Children and Families (petitioner) approved permanency plans for each child calling for termination of parental rights followed by adoption; reunification was not the approved plan.
- Petitions to terminate both parents’ rights were filed (Mar. 26, 2018); after a trial the court found, under Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), the mother had not achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation and terminated her parental rights (Nov. 13, 2018).
- On appeal the mother raised for the first time a substantive due process claim: the trial court erred in its best-interest analysis by failing to factually assess whether the petitioner’s permanency plans would in fact provide a more permanent/stable home than continued reunification efforts.
- The Appellate Court held the claim unreviewable under State v. Golding because the record was inadequate to decide the unpreserved constitutional claim and affirmed the termination judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s failure to analyze petitioner’s permanency plans in the best-interest inquiry violated substantive due process | Trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests was supported by evidence (stability with grandmother) and there was no requirement to separately fact-find on the details of the permanency plan beyond the best-interest factors | Trial court violated substantive due process by not determining whether petitioner’s permanency plans would actually provide a more permanent/stable home than continued reunification efforts | Claim unreviewable: mother failed Golding first prong (inadequate record); court declined to reach merits and affirmed termination |
| Whether the record was adequate under Golding to review an unpreserved constitutional claim | Record contains best-interest findings (stability with grandmother) and no factual predicate to evaluate alleged future permanency risks; petitioner is statutory parent responsible for ongoing permanency reviews | Record lacks evidence about timing or likelihood that grandmother could no longer care for children and lacks factual basis to compare alternatives; thus due process challenge required more factual development | Court focused on Golding first prong and found record inadequate; therefore did not review the constitutional claim |
| Whether mother had standing to assert substantive due process on behalf of children | Not argued in detail because court did not reach merits | Mother claimed standing for herself and her children | Court declined to address standing because it did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (modification of Golding application to termination appeals)
- In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626 (Conn. 2013) (refusal to impose a judicial gloss requiring petitioner to disprove less-restrictive permanency options absent a developed record)
- In re Julianna B., 141 Conn. App. 163 (Conn. App. 2013) (respondent’s duty to provide an adequate record for appellate review)