129 Conn. App. 227
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- DCF became involved after Carmen C. was arrested for armed CVS robbery in 2006; children Gianni (born 2001) and Jada (born 2004) placed in DCF custody with multiple placements through 2010.
- Respondent imprisoned from 2006 to 2010; convicted of first-degree robbery with nine-year sentence; maximum release date 2011.
- Petition to terminate parental rights filed February 11, 2008: mother for failure to rehabilitate; fathers for abandonment/no ongoing parent-child relationship; petitions proceeded to trial in 2010.
- Psychological evaluations in 2008–2010 noted concerns about rehabilitation, self-care, and maintaining life in the community post-incarceration.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence of failure to achieve sufficient rehabilitation and that termination served the children’s best interests; appeals followed.
- Children had endured multiple placements and required permanence and stability; Janet Q. had been providing ongoing care and contact with the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly applied the rehabilitation standard under § 17a-112 (j)(3)(B)(i). | Department | Carmen C. contends record supports rehabilitation. | Yes; termination upheld as sufficient rehabilitation not shown. |
| Whether the termination was in the children's best interests given their need for permanence. | Department | Carmen C. argues more time could aid reunification. | Yes; best interests supported by need for permanence and stability. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sole S., 119 Conn.App. 187, 986 A.2d 351 (2010) (standard for reviewing termination findings; two-phase process; clear and convincing evidence required)
- In re Ellis V., 120 Conn.App. 523, 992 A.2d 362 (2010) (rehabilitation analysis tied to needs of the child; reasonable time frame)
- In re Keyashia C., 120 Conn.App. 452, 991 A.2d 1113 (2010) (use of post-petition events to assess rehabilitation viability)
- In re Mia M., 127 Conn.App. 363, 14 A.3d 1024 (2011) (best interests standard requires clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Melillo, 17 Conn.App. 114, 550 A.2d 319 (1988) (credibility and findings deferential to trial court)