204 Conn.App. 763
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Two termination petitions: mother’s parental rights to Natasha (7) and Jacob (4); father’s parental rights to Jacob. Children removed after parents’ opioid overdoses and neglect in 2016; petitions filed and children placed in foster care.
- Parents received various services over years (substance-abuse treatment, mental-health referrals, parenting programs); both had periods of incarceration; therapy for the children showed visits with parents caused anxiety and dysfunction.
- Trial on termination took place Sept–Oct 2019; memorandum of decision terminating parental rights filed July 21, 2020 — more than 120 days after trial completion.
- Governor’s COVID-19 emergency declaration (Mar 10, 2020) and Executive Order No. 7G (Mar 19, 2020) suspended the 120‑day civil judgment deadline in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51‑183b under authority of § 28‑9.
- Parents appealed, arguing (inter alia) that (1) the post‑trial delay required a mistrial because § 51‑183b is jurisdictional and could not be suspended by executive order, (2) DCF failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, and (3) termination was not in the child’s best interest; mother separately challenged denial of a post‑judgment motion to intervene seeking posttermination visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Parent's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Executive Order No. 7G lawfully suspended § 51‑183b and whether denial of mistrial was improper | Parents: § 51‑183b is jurisdictional and the governor cannot suspend a court’s jurisdiction; executive suspension is unconstitutional delegation | State: § 28‑9 authorizes the governor to suspend statutes that conflict with civil‑preparedness/public‑health functions; § 51‑183b is non‑jurisdictional and was properly suspended | Court: Executive suspension valid under § 28‑9; § 51‑183b is not jurisdictional; denial of mistrial affirmed |
| Whether DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify (mother) | Mother: DCF failed to pursue family/therapeutic steps after visitation suspension; services were inadequate post‑suspension | State: DCF provided extensive services over years and maintained contact with therapists and mother; suspension of visits was therapist‑driven and DCF monitored children’s readiness | Court: DCF made reasonable efforts overall; mother’s claim fails |
| Whether DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify (father) and visitation handling | Father: DCF offered minimal services and did not refer him for mental‑health or targeted parent‑skill services; visitation support was insufficient | State: DCF referred father for substance‑abuse and parenting programs, maintained monthly contact, and suspended visitation only for child welfare reasons; father declined/failed to complete services and denied MH needs | Court: DCF’s efforts were reasonable under the circumstances; visitation suspension appropriate; father's claim fails |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest and whether court could order posttermination contact / mother’s late intervention motion | Father/mother: Termination harms child’s ability to form positive memories; posttermination contact/intervention should be available | State: Child needs permanency; experts did not recommend reunification and supported open adoption; no authority or requests preserved below for posttermination contact; mother’s post‑judgment motion record inadequate | Court: Termination was in child’s best interest based on § 17a‑112(k) factors; claim about posttermination contact unpreserved; denial of mother’s postjudgment intervention unreviewable due to inadequate record |
Key Cases Cited
- Persels & Associates, LLC v. Banking Comm’r, 318 Conn. 652 (plenary review applies to constitutional questions)
- Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (upholding executive action under delegated emergency authority)
- Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 234 Conn. 539 (separation‑of‑powers doctrine overview)
- State v. Stoddard, 126 Conn. 623 (delegation doctrine: statute must declare policy and standards)
- Bottone v. Westport, 209 Conn. 652 (applying Stoddard delegation principles)
- Waterman v. United Caribbean, Inc., 215 Conn. 688 (discussion of jurisdictional limits)
- Wolfork v. Yale Med. Group, 335 Conn. 448 (distinguishing subject‑matter jurisdiction from a court’s authority under statute)
- In re Oreoluwa O., 321 Conn. 523 (reasonable‑efforts analysis where DCF failed to investigate reunification options)
- In re Ava W., 336 Conn. 545 (posttermination visitation: trial court authority discussion)