134 Conn. App. 625
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Destiny R. was adjudicated neglected and placed in DCF custody; petitioners sought termination of parental rights under § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) against the respondent father.
- The mother had a history of substance abuse during pregnancy; child initially placed with a foster family and later reunified with parents in November 2009.
- The trial court imposed multiple, escalating specific steps for reunification addressing parenting, counseling, substance abuse, housing, and no further criminal justice involvement.
- The respondent was arrested in 2008, again in 2010, and remained on probation for a drug-conviction; he had limited stable housing and no sustained employment.
- In 2011 the court found the respondent had not achieved rehabilitation and that termination was in the child’s best interests; the foster parents sought legal permanence for Destiny.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the court’s clear-and-convincing finding of failure to rehabilitate and termination of parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the father rehabilitated within a reasonable time | Destiny's father failed to complete steps and remain rehabilitated | Record shows some program participation and attempts at stabilization | No; court’s finding of failed rehabilitation affirmed |
| Whether the father remained involved with the criminal justice system | Probation and arrests reflect ongoing system involvement | Not all post-reunification conduct negates rehabilitation | Yes; ongoing probation/arrests support termination |
| Whether the father was reluctant to engage in programs and lacked insight | Record shows lack of insight into issues affecting child | Programs attended; insight disputed | Yes; court properly found lack of rehabilitation and insight |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658 (2001) (rehabilitation focused on child's needs; not mere compliance with steps)
- In re Coby C., 107 Conn.App. 395 (2008) (substantial compliance with steps does not defeat termination)
- In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674 (1999) (ultimate issue is ability to provide for child within reasonable time)
- In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466 (2003) (two-phase termination standard; best interests in dispositional phase)
- In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353 (1995) (rehabilitation requires more than mere attendance; needs insight and changes)
- In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658 (2001) (reiterated standard for rehabilitation and needs of child)