In re Devon W.
124 Conn. App. 631
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Respondent mother with four children: Devon W., Alexander S., Xavier L., and Aziah, involved with the department beginning in 2005 due to concerns about housing, stability, and mental health.
- Early assessments showed cognitive impairment (IQ 59) and history of depression/psychosis; she had periods of treatment and nonparticipation.
- Devon and Alexander were adjudicated neglected and committed to the department in 2006, followed by Xavier in 2007; Aziah was later placed in care after birth in 2007/2008.
- The department offered services (mental health, parenting, domestic violence support); respondent had a period of engagement in 2007 but later limited participation, and lapses in treatment occurred after Aziah’s birth.
- In August 2008, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate parental rights as to all four children; trial court granted those petitions as to Devon, Alexander, and Xavier, but not Aziah.
- Respondent and children appealed the trial court’s decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied the motion to dismiss for lack of prima facie case | Petitioner proved mental health history and rehabilitation doubts. | Respondent argues insufficient evidence to establish prima facie case. | Yes, court properly denied dismissal; evidence supported a prima facie case. |
| Whether the department made reasonable efforts to reunify | Department engaged respondent with extensive services and supervisory support. | Respondent contends efforts were not reasonable or sufficient. | Yes, department made reasonable efforts; lapse in one service not fatal. |
| Whether respondent failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation | History of mental illness with noncompliance showed insufficient rehabilitation. | Respondent improved with treatment and stability; rehabilitation sufficient. | No; substantial evidence showed lack of rehabilitation to support eventual reunification. |
| Whether terminating parental rights solely on mental health violated liberty interests | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation failure. | Constitutional rights and Golding/plain error claims raised but unpersuasive. | Not reviewable as constitutional magnitude; no reversible plain error; rights not violated. |
| Whether termination was in the best interests of the minor children | Promotion of stability and permanency for Devon, Alexander, and Xavier. | Strong parent-child bonds and potential reunification argued against termination. | Yes, termination was in the best interests of Devon, Alexander, and Xavier; Aziah’s status reserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nasia B., 98 Conn. App. 319 (Conn. App. 2006) (prima facie standard for § 15-8 dismissal claims)
- In re G.S., 117 Conn. App. 710 (Conn. App. 2009) (reasonableness of reunification efforts; clearly erroneous standard)
- In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (Conn. 2009) (preserving review; standard for rehabilitation determinations)
- In re Kaitlyn A., 118 Conn. App. 14 (Conn. App. 2009) (definition of personal rehabilitation and reasonable future prospects)
- In re Joseph L., 105 Conn. App. 515 (Conn. App. 2008) (best interests and consideration of § 17a-112(k) factors)
- In re Janazia S., 112 Conn. App. 69 (Conn. App. 2009) (dispositional best interests framework and permanency analysis)