322 Conn. 231
Conn.2016Background
- In Sept. 2013 seven-week-old Mariam presented with multiple unexplained injuries (including fractures); the Department of Children and Families (DCF) took Mariam and sibling Egypt into emergency custody and later filed neglect and termination petitions.
- DCF later filed termination petitions under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(C) and, six months before trial, moved under § 17a-111b(b) for a finding that reunification efforts were not required due to severe physical abuse.
- After a nine-day trial (June 1, 2015), the trial court: adjudicated Mariam abused and Egypt neglected (predictive neglect); found by clear and convincing evidence grounds for terminating parental rights; and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests.
- The trial court’s written decision both found that reasonable reunification efforts had been made and stated that further reunification efforts were not appropriate; however, the trial court’s separate order granting DCF’s motion that reunification efforts were not required was omitted or unentered from the certified trial court file and docket, creating ambiguity whether the parents had notice of that independent basis for termination.
- Because a judicial finding that reunification efforts were not required is an independent basis for termination, DCF argued the parents’ appeal of the reasonable-efforts findings was moot unless the parents timely appealed the no-efforts finding; the court found the record’s clerical omissions left unclear whether the parents had notice and thus whether their appellate rights were preserved.
- Holding that the clerical error implicated due process and the integrity of the record, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the termination judgments and remanded for a new trial (to begin no later than Sept. 15, 2016), declining to reach the other substantive claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner/DCF) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court lacks jurisdiction/mootness because trial court also found reunification efforts were not required under § 17a-111b/§ 17a-112(j) | The no-efforts finding is an independent basis for termination; because parents did not appeal that finding, their challenge to the reasonable-efforts finding is moot | Parents contested the reasonable-efforts finding and were not given clear notice or an appealable entry of the no-efforts finding | Although the no-efforts finding would render appeals moot, the court concluded the record’s clerical defects made it unclear whether parents had notice; therefore court did not treat the appeals as moot and remanded for new trial |
| Whether clerical omissions (missing/unentered order) denied parents due process/adequate notice to appeal | The trial court’s decision and orders (read together) effectively granted the no-efforts motion; record ambiguity does not defeat final judgment | Clerical omission of the signed order and lack of docket entry deprived parents of clear notice and opportunity to appeal the no-efforts finding | Court held clerical errors compromised the record and the parents’ due process/appellate rights; reversal and new trial required to protect those rights |
| Whether the trial court’s other rulings (reasonable efforts made; parents unable/unwilling to benefit; predictive neglect) should be reviewed on the merits | DCF maintained the termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence, including predictive neglect for Egypt | Parents raised procedural and substantive objections (including failure to canvass per In re Yasiel R.) | Court declined to reach substantive merits because of the record/notice defect; remanded for retrial so those claims can be litigated properly |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizing parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (due process standards in parental termination proceedings)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Connecticut rule on canvassing parents in termination proceedings)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Mendez, 320 Conn. 1 (mootness/justiciability principles)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (effect of an unchallenged reasonable-efforts finding on appellate review)