140 Conn. App. 626
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Respondent mother’s parental rights of four children (I, A, K, T) were terminated under § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) for failure to achieve personal rehabilitation within a reasonable time.
- Neglect petitions were filed December 2008; children were initially in temporary custody with a maternal aunt, then placed together in a licensed foster home in March 2009.
- Department made efforts to reunify; mother failed to engage in court-ordered steps, including substance abuse treatment, random screens, parenting classes, and consistent contact.
- Mother gave birth to a fifth child S in 2010 with the same father; S was born in Georgia and later placed under Georgia’s custody, parental rights terminated there in December 2011.
- Children remained in foster care since 2009; by trial in early 2012, they were flourishing in foster care, while mother had limited contact and ongoing legal troubles.
- Court-appointed evaluator Ronald Anderson testified mother did not take appropriate rehabilitation steps and exhibited a pattern of consistent irresponsibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion denying new counsel | Ziolkowski/Park noted breakdown; appeal denied | Mother claimed breakdown required new counsel | No abuse of discretion; no substantial basis to appoint new counsel |
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance | Mother claims numerous omissions prejudiced outcome | No specific prejudice shown | No deficient performance shown to prejudice termination |
| Whether evidence supports failure to achieve rehabilitation | Clear and convincing evidence of failure to rehabilitate | Rehabilitation level not clearly insufficient | Evidence supports termination; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether mother denied right to court-appointed appellate counsel | Right to counsel on appeal; Anders framework cited | Statutory rights not constitutionally guaranteed in termination context | No constitutional requirement; right not violated; claim meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kaitlyn A., 118 Conn. App. 14 (2009) (appointment of new counsel requires substantial reason; delay not permitted)
- In re Dylan C., 126 Conn. App. 71 (2011) (ineffective assistance requires prejudice; record inadequate for habeas-like review)
- State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 155 (1979) (no procedural mechanism in TPR for appellate counsel effectiveness review)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (no-merit letter insufficient; constitutional protections differ in TPR context)
- Paulsen v. Manson, 193 Conn. 333 (1984) (Anders framework discussed; proper citation handling)