In re Jacob W.
172 A.3d 1274
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Father and mother arrested (2014) for sexual assaults on minors; father convicted and incarcerated (sentenced 2016), mother later consented to termination. Grandparents obtained custody of the three children after the arrests.
- Protective order barred the father from contacting the grandparents’ home; father had no direct contact with the children during incarceration but sought contact via DCF, Probate Court, and a holiday gift program.
- Maternal grandmother (petitioner) filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights in Probate Court; matter transferred to Superior Court; after trial the court denied termination as to the father.
- Trial court found the father had prior involvement and had attempted to maintain contact, but also found grandparents interfered; in disposition it later found no evidence that the father was prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship.
- Appellate court held the trial court applied the wrong legal test for the “no ongoing parent-child relationship” ground and made irreconcilable factual findings; reversed and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal test for “no ongoing parent-child relationship” under § 45a-717(g)(2)(C) | Petitioner: court should focus first on whether the children presently have positive feelings for the parent; only if they do not may the court examine interference. | Father: court may consider parent’s efforts and custodial interference when assessing relationship, especially where visitation was limited. | Court: Reversed. The correct two-step analysis requires first assessing the child’s present positive feelings; interference is relevant only if the child lacks present positive feelings (or is an infant). The trial court applied the test wrong. |
| Applicability and use of custodial-interference exception (In re Carla C.) | Petitioner: interference by custodians can preclude a petitioner from proving lack of relationship, but only after child’s lack of positive feelings is established. | Father: interference exception can justify considering the parent’s efforts and custodians’ conduct when evaluating the relationship. | Court: Interference exception is narrow and may be considered only after a court determines the child has no present positive feelings; the trial court conflated these steps. |
| Consistency of factual findings re: interference | Petitioner: trial court’s findings show grandparents unreasonably interfered (failed to facilitate contact; misled children), so petitioner’s termination claim should stand. | Father: trial court also found no evidence that father was prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship in dispositional findings. | Court: Reversed. Findings were fundamentally inconsistent—court both found interference and later found no evidence of prevention—requiring a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carla C., 167 Conn. App. 248 (Conn. App.) (establishes narrow custodial-interference exception to termination for no ongoing parent-child relationship)
- In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459 (Conn.) (focus on child’s present memories or feelings as determinative of ongoing relationship)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648 (Conn.) (origin of no-fault "no ongoing parent-child relationship" ground)
- In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492 (Conn.) (infancy exception and emphasis on parent’s positive feelings when child’s feelings are inscrutable)
- In re Alexander C., 67 Conn. App. 417 (Conn. App.) (parent must use available resources to maintain contact; failure may show lack of relationship)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S.) (constitutional protections and high standard for involuntary termination)
- In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569 (Conn.) (standard of review discussion for termination decisions)