171 Conn. App. 568
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Father (Carlos Q.) is parent of Harmony (born Aug 29, 2013); Harmony was removed after mother’s arrests for drug offenses and committed to DCF custody.
- Father had multiple prior arrests (including firearm possession) and was incarcerated for illegal possession of a firearm beginning Sept 23, 2014; he was released Jan 4, 2016.
- While out on bond before incarceration, father failed to complete DCF referrals and court-ordered services, missed parenting and counseling, and limited visits with Harmony; he endorsed not wanting reunification during one parenting program.
- Incarceration interrupted father’s contact with Harmony; post-release he obtained housing and employment but refused or failed to complete court-ordered mental health/substance evaluations and other services and missed scheduled supervised visits.
- DCF placement: Harmony lived primarily with maternal relatives (Juan and Nilda N.), who had established a parental bond and intended to seek adoption; DCF filed for termination of parental rights on May 12, 2015.
- Trial court found father failed to rehabilitate under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) and that termination was in Harmony’s best interests; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father failed to rehabilitate under § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) | Commissioner: cumulative evidence showed failure to complete required services and lack of ability to assume parental role | Father: completed correctional programs while incarcerated; therefore rehabilitated | Held: Court reasonably concluded father failed to rehabilitate; evidence sufficient to support finding |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest under § 17a-112(k) | Commissioner: no reasonable probability father could serve meaningful role; child bonded to stable foster family | Father: if rehabilitated, termination would not be in child’s best interest | Held: Court’s best-interest determination was not clearly erroneous; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Michael R., 49 Conn. App. 510 (discusses burden to prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Leilah W., 166 Conn. App. 48 (sets standard of review for failure to rehabilitate — evidentiary sufficiency and construing evidence favorably to sustain trial court)
- In re Sydnei V., 168 Conn. App. 538 (describes separate phases: proving ground and dispositional best-interest inquiry)
- In re Paul M., 154 Conn. App. 488 (review standard for best-interest determination and requirement to address statutory factors)