53 Conn. Supp. 329
Conn. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Petition to terminate Matthew J.’s parental rights to Caleb P. and Aria P. filed by Melissa P. in 2012 in Northeast Regional C.P.C.
- Petition sought termination on grounds of abandonment under § 45a-717(g)(2)(A) and no ongoing relationship under § 45a-717(g)(2)(C), with detriment to children if delays continued.
- Probate Court issued interim orders (Sept. 4, 2013) requiring Matthew to complete parenting class, obtain employment, housing, parole compliance, and hair testing; termination decree followed November 20, 2013 for lack of compliance.
- Matthew appealed; after counsel and testimony, trial occurred on April 16, 2014, in Windham judicial district.
- Court made clear it would evaluate grounds first (adjudication) and then best interests (disposition) per Practice Book §§ 35a-7, 35a-7(b), 35a-9; grounds must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- Court found for neither abandonment nor lack of ongoing relationship; denied petition and entered judgment that termination was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matthew abandoned the children | Melissa argues Matthew failed to maintain interest or contact. | Matthew contends his visitation attempts and concern show ongoing interest. | Abandonment not proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether there is an ongoing parent-child relationship | Melissa asserts no ongoing relationship due to incorrigible conduct and lack of contact. | Matthew maintained visitation efforts and memories exist with Caleb. | Ongoing relationship exists for at least one child; not proven that none exists. |
| Whether grounds for termination exist given the evidence and guardian responsibilities | Grounds exist due to abandonment or lack of ongoing relationship. | Evidence insufficient to meet statutory grounds; procedural safeguards apply; best interests of children require more time. | No statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the petition should be denied or adjudicated dispositively contrary to best interests | Petition seeks termination in best interests of children. | Best interests favor preserving parent-child relationship and visitation. | Proceeding denied; termination not warranted; best interests preserved by maintaining connection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923) (parential right to conceive and raise children protected as liberty interest)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1925) (private realm of family life shielded from state intrusion)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1944) (custody and nurture reside first in parents)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (essential civil rights to raise one's children; noncustodial rights recognized)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing standard required in termination cases)
- In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459 (Conn. 1991) (parental rights and best interests require careful statutory compliance)
- In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492 (Conn. 1992) (state cannot obtain custody to create lack of ongoing parent-child relationship)
- In re Shane P., 58 Conn. App. 244 (Conn. App. 2000) (fact-specific termination analysis; precision not always possible)
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2008) (credibility and weight of witnesses; role of trial judge in evaluating testimony)
- In re Katia M., 124 Conn. App. 650 (Conn. App. 2010) (considerations of stability and permanence in termination proceedings)