146 Conn. App. 751
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Mother and father had a history of domestic violence; department intervened after incidents in 2010–2011 involving daughter Etta and while mother was pregnant with Queensara.
- Etta (b. Dec 2009) was placed in the commissioner’s custody in Aug 2010 and remained in foster care; commissioner sought termination of mother’s parental rights under §17a-112 in July 2011.
- Queensara (b. Sept 2011) was the subject of a neglect petition and temporary custody order in Oct 2011; both girls were placed in the same foster home.
- Court consolidated the termination and neglect petitions; after six days of testimony over eight months, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights to Etta, adjudicated Queensara neglected, and committed Queensara to the commissioner.
- Trial court findings: department made reasonable reunification efforts; mother was unable/unwilling to benefit from reunification; mother failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation; termination and custodial commitment were in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether department made reasonable reunification efforts / whether mother was unable/unwilling to benefit | Department failed to provide adequate "at-home" and overnight visits; mother engaged with services and sought treatment | Department provided multiple services, supervised visitation, and safety planning; mother continued domestic violence involvement | Court: not clearly erroneous — department made reasonable efforts and mother was unable/unwilling to benefit |
| Whether mother achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation under §17a-112(j)(3)(B) | Mother obtained employment, housing, and improved stability; argued she was penalized for father’s failures | Psychological evidence showed mother lacked minimal parenting skills and domestic violence issues persisted; rehabilitation unlikely within child’s timeframe | Court: not clearly erroneous — mother failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation |
| Whether termination of mother’s rights as to Etta was in child’s best interests (§17a-112(k)) | Mother emphasized emotional bond with Etta and urged preservation of relationship | Expert testimony warned high risk to Etta if returned; stability and permanency with foster parents favored | Court: not clearly erroneous — termination was in Etta’s best interests |
| Whether Queensara was neglected and whether commitment to commissioner was in her best interests | Mother argued insufficient predictive evidence and no showing she would not care for child independently | Department relied on history of domestic violence, safety-plan noncompliance, and failed reunification services | Court: not clearly erroneous — Queensara adjudicated neglected and committed to commissioner |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jah’za G., 141 Conn. App. 15 (appellate standard for termination proceedings and best-interests analysis)
- In re Dominico M., 141 Conn. App. 576 (either reasonable efforts or parental inability/unwillingness suffices under §17a-112)
- In re Joseph W., 305 Conn. 633 (doctrine of predictive neglect; treatment of parents as unit when appropriate)
- In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn. App. 248 (rehabilitation standard—not full rehabilitation but sufficient for parental role within reasonable time)
- In re Ja-lyn R., 132 Conn. App. 314 (predictive neglect and statute allowing intervention before actual harm)