146 Conn. App. 664
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Child H removed shortly after birth (2009) after hospital reported safety concerns; DCF obtained temporary custody and H was later adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF.
- Respondent father (Joseph P.) had history of substance use, mental-health issues, unstable employment, and transitory housing; court-ordered reunification steps included counseling, stable housing, and legal income.
- Over ~4 years DCF offered multiple services (substance-abuse treatment, mental-health services, parenting supports, supervised visitation, housing referrals, transportation assistance), but father’s housing remained unstable and treatment compliance was inconsistent.
- Trial court found DCF made reasonable reunification efforts, father failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation, and termination of parental rights was in H’s best interest; social study was admitted; court rejected father’s claim that termination was based on indigence.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) insufficient/reasonable reunification efforts or inability/unwillingness to benefit from them, (2) inadequate personal rehabilitation finding, (3) best-interest error, (4) erroneous admission of social study, and (5) constitutional violation by terminating parental rights on basis of indigence. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCF / Child) | Defendant's Argument (Joseph P.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable efforts to reunify / alternatively parent unable/unwilling to benefit | DCF showed it offered a "plethora" of services and thus satisfied §17a-112(j) | Father argued DCF failed to provide key services (Birth-to-Three involvement, psychologist, couples therapy, fuller visitation per experts) | Court: DCF made reasonable efforts; finding not clearly erroneous; did not need to reach inability/unwillingness alternative (affirmed) |
| Personal rehabilitation (§17a-112(j)(3)(B)) | DCF: father had not achieved rehabilitation given unstable housing, inconsistent treatment engagement, uncertain income | Father: had long sobriety, consistent visitation, adequate housing and employment at trial | Court: Father had not attained sufficient rehabilitation within a reasonable time (housing instability, treatment noncompliance, uncertain income) — affirmed |
| Best interests of child (dispositional factors §17a-112(k)) | DCF/child counsel: considered statutory factors (services, ties, age, adjustment, prevention of meaningful relationship) and concluded termination best served H | Father: court improperly compared foster parents’ resources to parents; undervalued emotional bond and parental efforts | Court: properly considered §17a-112(k) factors, acknowledged bond, did not impermissibly weight foster resources; termination in H’s best interest — affirmed |
| Admissibility of social study | DCF: social study prepared/signed by department worker (Dixon) and admissible; any contested portions go to weight | Father: pages reproduced allegations drafted by child’s counsel (Harris); author of those allegations not available for cross-examination so study inadmissible | Court: Dixon authored and signed study and was cross-examined; section labeled as allegations by child’s counsel; any inaccuracies affect weight, not admissibility — affirmed |
| Constitutional claim: termination based on indigence (equal protection/due process) | DCF/child: claim unpreserved; court’s decision focused on stability and ability to meet child’s needs, not indigence alone | Father: termination effectively punished poverty; claim arose after trial decision | Court: claim unpreserved and not entitled to review; decision did not terminate solely due to indigence but on inability to provide stable housing/income and rehabilitation concerns — declined review / affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.S., 117 Conn. App. 710 (discussing reasonable efforts standard and review for clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (statutory interpretation that either reasonable efforts or parental inability/unwillingness suffices under §17a-112(j))
- In re Tremaine C., 117 Conn. App. 590 (scope of personal rehabilitation inquiry)
- In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn. App. 441 (rehabilitation focuses on ability to meet particular child’s needs)
- In re Albert M., 124 Conn. App. 561 (best-interest standard and §17a-112(k) factors)
- Quaranta v. King, 133 Conn. App. 565 (trial court’s discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1 (presumption that courts know and apply the law correctly)
- State v. White, 64 Conn. App. 126 (inaccuracies in exhibits affect weight, not admissibility)
- In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn. App. 194 (rehabilitation can include use of support systems)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)