163 Conn.App. 322
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Daniel (born 2006) was committed to the Commissioner of Children and Families in 2013 after earlier neglect proceedings; he has remained in DCF custody and in a therapeutic foster home for an extended period.
- The petitioner sought termination of parental rights of Daniel’s mother and father (respondent Jose N.); trial occurred Feb.–June 2015 and was fully contested with counsel for the respondent and his testimony.
- Trial court found statutory grounds for termination and, after weighing § 17a-112(k) factors, concluded termination was in Daniel’s best interest (stability, attachment to foster parents, failed rehabilitation, history of substance abuse and incarceration, respondent not a resource).
- The respondent argued on appeal that (1) the court erred in its dispositional analysis under § 17a-112(k)(7) by not treating his cancer treatment as a hindrance to maintaining a relationship, and (2) the court failed to canvass him prior to trial as required by In re Yasiel R. (decided after this trial), which should be applied retroactively.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the best‑interest determination but reversed and remanded solely because the trial court did not conduct the pretrial canvass required by In re Yasiel R., holding that the Yasiel rule applies retroactively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in child's best interest under § 17a-112(k), specifically consideration of impediments to parent-child relationship under § 17a-112(k)(7) | Petitioner: court properly considered the statutory factors and found stability and continuity for child favored termination | Respondent: his cancer treatment materially impeded his ability to maintain a relationship and should fall within § 17a-112(k)(7) considerations | Court: affirmed best-interest finding; § 17a-112(k)(7) lists only other-parent/unreasonable acts or economic circumstances; illness/treatment is not required to be treated as a listed ground and court need not read that into statute |
| Whether failure to canvass parent before start of termination trial (per In re Yasiel R.) requires reversal and whether Yasiel applies retroactively | Petitioner: Yasiel adopted a new supervisory rule and should apply prospectively, not to trials concluded before Yasiel decision | Respondent: Yasiel canvass rule should apply retroactively and its absence here requires new trial | Court: applied Yasiel retroactively; failure to conduct the mandated canvass requires reversal and remand for a new trial despite other facts supporting termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (Supreme Court exercised supervisory authority to require a brief pretrial canvass of parents before termination trials to ensure fairness)
- In re Nevaeh W., 317 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2015) (dispositional stage emphasizes permanence, stability, and best interest factors)
- In re Joseph M., 158 Conn. App. 849 (Conn. App. 2015) (explaining adjudicatory vs dispositional phases and § 17a-112(k) factor analysis)
- Neyland v. Board of Education, 195 Conn. 174 (Conn. 1985) (articulating test for prospective-only application of new common-law rules)
- Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1971) (three-part test for prospectivity of judicial decisions)