188 Conn. App. 736
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Child (Avia), born March 31, 2016, was removed from parents after positive maternal drug tests at birth and a subsequent episode where mother drove intoxicated with the child; child remained in same foster home for >14 months at trial.
- Mother (Agnieszka G.) has long history of severe substance abuse, mental-health issues, repeated relapses despite multiple inpatient and outpatient programs, several treatment discharges for noncompliance, refusal to submit to court-ordered hair tests, and exposure of children to domestic violence.
- Father (Antonio M.) has extensive criminal and protective-order history, a prior TPR termination to another child, intermittent contact with Avia, domestic-violence episodes (including convictions), incarceration, limited engagement with referred services, and a default was entered when he failed to appear at trial.
- DCF provided repeated referrals and services (inpatient mother-child programs, IOPs, domestic-violence programs, housing assistance, visitation) and the court found DCF made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify the parents as of the adjudicatory date.
- Statutory grounds alleged: failure to rehabilitate under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) (both parents) and neglect of a child under seven plus prior TPR for another child under § 17a-112(j)(3)(E) (father). Trial court found both statutory grounds satisfied by clear and convincing evidence.
- Disposition: termination of parental rights for both parents; DCF appointed statutory parent for adoption; court found termination is in Avia’s best interest due to need for safety, stability, and permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify | DCF identified barriers, repeatedly referred parents to suitable services, offered visitation, and pursued outreach—efforts were reasonable | Parents argued DCF failed to offer adequate mother-daughter inpatient placement at the necessary times | Court: DCF made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify both parents as of the adjudicatory date; additional referrals would not have been reasonable given mother’s refusals and relapses |
| Whether prior adjudication + specific steps were provided (§ 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i)) | Avia had prior neglect adjudication and parents were given and signed specific steps; they failed to rehabilitate | Parents contest sufficiency of services or argue changed circumstances post-petition | Court: requirement satisfied—prior neglect and provision of specific steps proved; parents failed to achieve required rehabilitation |
| Whether predictive neglect and prior TPR support termination of father (§ 17a-112(j)(3)(E)) | Father had prior TPR to another child, and predictive neglect showed he would expose Avia to injurious conditions (violence, instability) | Father argued improved conduct or insufficient proof of predictive neglect | Court: father’s prior TPR proved; predictive neglect established by clear and convincing evidence due to ongoing violence, instability, and lack of rehabilitation |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Termination advances Avia’s need for safety, stability, permanency given parents’ substance abuse, domestic violence, inconsistent engagement | Parents argued ongoing bond and some parental visits/support services show potential for reunification | Court: termination is in Avia’s best interest given young age, need for vigilant caregiver, parents’ inability to provide safe, stable, permanent home in foreseeable time |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (procedural advisals and parental rights standards cited for In re notices)
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (Conn. 2013) (requirement that specific steps be provided for § 17a-112(B)(i) analyses)
- In re Oreoluwa O., 321 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2016) (circumstances when courts may consider events after petition filing for reasonable-efforts analysis)
- In re Joseph W., 305 Conn. 633 (Conn. 2012) (doctrine of predictive neglect explained)
- In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674 (Conn. 1999) (definition and purpose of personal rehabilitation under § 17a-112)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing proof requirement in TPR cases)
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2008) (importance of permanency and stable caregivers in best-interest analysis)