In re Brian T.
134 Conn. App. 1
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Child Brian T., Jr. was born July 11, 2002 to Brian T., Sr. and Nicole G.; guardians (maternal grandmother and step-grandfather) obtained custody in 2004/2005.
- Respondent was incarcerated for significant periods during the child’s life and had limited contact with the child.
- Guardians sought termination of parental rights; mother also eventually sought termination of respondent’s rights, with consent by the mother in the amended petition.
- Trial court found four statutory grounds: abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, denial of care, guidance and control, and no ongoing parent-child relationship; and held termination was in the child’s best interests.
- Appellate Court sua sponte required articulation of factual findings; trial court provided additional findings after an articulation.
- On appeal, the court affirmed termination based on failure to rehabilitate and denial of care; it reversed the abandonment finding for being clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was abandonment proven by clear and convincing evidence? | Guardians argued abandonment due to denial of paternity and long incarceration; lack of contact sufficed. | Respondent contends abandonment was not proven; denial of paternity for five years and incarceration were not accurate facts. | Abandonment not proven; errors in predicate findings require reversal of that ground. |
| Did the respondent fail to rehabilitate as required by §45a-717(g)(2)(D)? | Respondent failed to rehabilitate since neglect finding; failed to become a responsible parent figure over years. | Respondent argues rehabilitation shown by employment, program participation, and release; guardians prevented involvement. | Failure to rehabilitate established by clear and convincing evidence; lack of progress since neglect finding supports termination. |
| Did the respondent denial of care, guidance or control warrant termination? | Respondent’s criminal history, incarceration, and minimal contact deprived child of necessary care and guidance. | Respondent asserts adequate efforts and occasional contact; guardianship dynamics limited interaction. | Yes; evidence supports denial of care, guidance or control necessary for well-being. |
| Was there no ongoing parent-child relationship justifying termination? | Limited bonding due to guardians’ control and conflict, yet some contact existed; termination appropriate. | Respondent argues that some relationship existed and continued attempts could foster bonding. | Court need not rely on this ground given other proven grounds; termination upheld on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D., 115 Conn. App. 111 (Conn. App. 2009) (standard of review for factual findings in termination cases)
- In re Kamora W., 132 Conn. App. 179 (Conn. App. 2011) (rehabilitation framework for termination under similar statutes)
- In re Lukas K., 120 Conn. App. 465 (Conn. App. 2010) (analytical framework for abandonment and rehabilitation (aff'd 300 Conn. 463, 14 A.3d 990 (2011)))
- In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (Conn. 2009) (two-phase termination procedure; adjudicatory and dispositional phases)
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2008) (best interests and grounds interplay in dispositional phase)
- In re Jaime S., 120 Conn. App. 712 (Conn. App. 2010) (seven-factor best interests framework (45a-717(h)))
- In re Bruce R., 234 Conn. 194 (Conn. 1995) (parental rights deference; state’s interest)
- In re Justice V., 111 Conn. App. 500 (Conn. App. 2008) (need for specific steps under neglect findings and rehabilitation)
- In re Victoria B., 79 Conn. App. 245 (Conn. App. 2003) (rehabilitation standards tied to needs of the child)
- In re Jason R., 129 Conn. App. 746 (Conn. App. 2011) (dissent on rehabilitation and neglect considerations (Robinson, J.))
- In re Allison G., 276 Conn. 146 (Conn. 2005) (specific steps as benchmark for rehabilitation)