In re Daniel A., 150 Conn.App. 78

Child (born 2010) left with paternal grandparents in Jan 2011; parents’ whereabouts unknown; DCF obtained temporary custody and in March 2011 child was adjudicated neglected and committed to the commissioner.
Court ordered specific steps for reunification and licensed the grandparents as relative foster parents; parents later arrested (father incarcerated, mother arrested June 2011).
Commissioner filed a petition to terminate parental rights Jan 5, 2012, alleging the father failed to achieve personal rehabilitation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).
Eleven-day trial over eight months (Sept 2012–May 2013); father was incarcerated much of the time and, except for the first trial day, proceeded pro se after his appointed counsel withdrew on day two; standby counsel remained available.
Trial court found DCF made reasonable reunification efforts, the parents were unable/unwilling to benefit, the father failed to rehabilitate, and termination was in the child’s best interests; parental rights were terminated.

Issue	Petitioner (Commissioner) Argument	Respondent (Father) Argument	Held
Whether the court failed to adequately canvass the father before allowing self-representation and waiver of counsel	Court’s colloquy and record show the father knowingly and voluntarily chose self-representation after being warned substitute counsel would not be appointed; court followed discretionary inquiry standards	Father argued the court did not sufficiently advise him of right to counsel, consequences, or dangers of self-representation and thus waiver was not intelligent or voluntary	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; record supported an intelligent, voluntary waiver and permissible limited canvass given the civil statutory context
Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence under §17a-112(j) (failure to rehabilitate and best interests)	Evidence (psychologist’s report/testimony, father’s long criminal history, uncertain sobriety/stability, parole/probation status) supported failure to rehabilitate and that termination served child’s best interests	Father argued rehabilitative progress (employment, housing efforts, visitation, parole in March 2013) and that termination was premature	Affirmed: trial court’s findings re: failure to rehabilitate and best interests were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous

State v. Flanagan, 293 Conn. 406 (2009) (standards for knowing, intelligent waiver of right to counsel and self-representation)
In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (2004) (statutory right to counsel in termination proceedings)
In re Zowie N., 135 Conn. App. 470 (2012) (parental waiver of counsel and analogy to criminal waiver principles)
State v. T.R.D., 286 Conn. 191 (2008) (record may suffice to show waiver without full factor-by-factor canvass)
State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389 (1996) (no constitutional right to a specifically formulated canvass)
In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (2009) (§17a-112(j)(1): DCF must prove either reasonable efforts or that parent cannot/will not benefit)
In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197 (2011) (definition and assessment of personal rehabilitation and best-interests framework)
In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (2013) (application of §17a-112(j)(3)(B) personal rehabilitation standard)
State v. Gethers, 197 Conn. 369 (1985) (court may require defendant to choose between existing counsel and self-representation to preserve orderly procedure)
In re Joseph L., 105 Conn. App. 515 (2008) (a bond between parent and child does not preclude termination if best interests favor termination)