188 Conn.App. 259
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Bianca (removed at age ~4½) was in nonrelative foster care since March 2016 after prior removals for parental substance abuse, neglect, and incidents involving respondent’s partner James P., who has a documented history of domestic violence and substance abuse.
- DCF previously returned Bianca to respondent in 2015 but removed her again in 2016 when drug use and noncompliance continued; the commissioner then petitioned to terminate parental rights (filed Aug 27, 2017).
- The court found respondent completed many court-ordered services (drug treatment, parenting classes) but repeatedly maintained contact with James and concealed that contact from DCF.
- Evidence included video of respondent and James together, photographs of a truck registered to respondent, a neighbor’s report, and an expert social/psychological assessment questioning respondent’s insight and credibility.
- Trial court concluded respondent had not internalized the impact of domestic violence on herself and Bianca, and that continued contact with James posed a safety risk; it terminated respondent’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent failed to achieve statutory personal rehabilitation under § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) | DCF: respondent’s continued relationship with James and lack of insight into domestic violence show failure to rehabilitate | Respondent: completed sobriety, housing, income, parenting classes, and therapy — substantial progress on specific steps | Held: Court reasonably found respondent failed to rehabilitate; cumulative evidence (contact with James, concealment, lack of insight) supported termination |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest under § 17a-112(k) | DCF: termination would provide Bianca a stable, safe, and consistent home, outweighing bond with mother | Respondent: close mother–child bond makes termination not in Bianca’s best interest | Held: Court’s findings on the seven statutory factors supported best-interest determination; bond alone did not preclude termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mariana A., 181 Conn. App. 415 (Conn. App. 2018) (describes burden and structure of termination proceedings)
- In re Lilyana P., 169 Conn. App. 708 (Conn. App. 2016) (rehabilitation must be assessed relative to child’s needs and foreseeability)
- In re Natalie S., 325 Conn. 833 (Conn. 2017) (specific steps are benchmarks but courts are not strictly bound by them in rehabilitation analysis)
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (Conn. 2013) (completion of specific steps does not guarantee avoidance of termination; courts may consider broader factors)
- In re Jazmine B., 121 Conn. App. 376 (Conn. App. 2010) (courts may consider correction of original commitment factors even if not in specific steps)
- State v. DeMarco, 311 Conn. 510 (Conn. 2014) (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact and not second-guessed on appeal)