In re Baciany R.
150 A.3d 744
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner (the child’s mother) sought termination of respondent father Baciany R.’s parental rights in probate court, transferred to Superior Court for Juvenile Matters; trial March 2016, decision issued March 17, 2016.
- Child was ~4½ at trial; respondent last saw child at six months and has had no relationship or meaningful contact since 2012. Child does not know or ask about respondent.
- Respondent has a significant violent criminal history and is incarcerated (expected release 2018); limited financial support history and no contributions since 2012.
- Psychological evaluation found respondent emotionally immature, with poor impulse control, limited parenting insight, and unlikely to engage in counseling; expert testified respondent’s motives may be self‑focused.
- Child lives with petitioner and maternal relatives, who provide stable, consistent care; child is developmentally healthy, bonded to petitioner and family, and thriving in preschool.
- Trial court found statutory grounds (abandonment; no ongoing parent‑child relationship) proven by clear and convincing evidence and ruled termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest; respondent appealed challenging the dispositional finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest under § 45a‑717(h) | Termination is necessary for permanency and to preserve child’s healthy development; petitioner and family meet child’s needs now | Respondent argued court relied on speculation (employment prospects, future contribution) and that termination was premature | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports that continuation of respondent’s rights is not in child’s best interest |
| Relevance/weight of DCF recommendation against termination | Petitioner: DCF’s recommendation was financially motivated and did not outweigh child welfare evidence | Respondent: pointed to DCF’s view that no urgency existed to terminate now | Court found DCF recommendation was based on future support concerns and did not override findings re: emotional, social, developmental best interests |
| Credibility and weight of psychological evaluation (Edgar) | Petitioner relied on Edgar’s testimony that respondent would likely harm rather than help child’s development if introduced prematurely | Respondent emphasized Edgar did not insist on immediate termination and suggested timing could be deferred | Court read Edgar as supporting termination if a stable adoptive male figure were available; court relied on Edgar’s concerns about respondent’s emotional deficits |
| Whether factual findings (e.g., employability, need for counseling) were speculative | Petitioner argued findings were supported by record and inferences from respondent’s testimony and evaluation | Respondent claimed lack of evidence for employment prognosis and other predictive statements | Court held any speculative aspects were either supported by evidence or harmless; overall factual findings not clearly erroneous and court may draw reasonable inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brian T., 134 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2012) (framework: adjudicatory and dispositional phases; best‑interest standard)
- In re S.D., 115 Conn. App. 111 (Conn. App. 2009) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Kamora W., 132 Conn. App. 179 (Conn. App. 2011) (weight given to trial court’s firsthand observations)
- In re Jaime S., 120 Conn. App. 712 (Conn. App. 2010) (statutory factors under § 45a‑717(h) govern dispositional analysis)
- In re Anthony H., 104 Conn. App. 744 (Conn. App. 2007) (best‑interest considerations: continuity, stability, development)
- In re Christine F., 6 Conn. App. 360 (Conn. App. 1986) (trial court may draw reasonable, logical inferences from evidence)