141 Conn. App. 15
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Mother’s child J was subject to a 96-hour hold and neglect petition after sibling R suffered nonaccidental injuries; mother pleaded nolo contendere under Alford to assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child and was sentenced to probation; R was adjudicated neglected and committed to the commissioner in 2009; J was born in March 2010 and similarly placed under the commissioner’s care with reunification goals; the court terminated mother’s parental rights to J in June 2012 after determining failure to rehabilitate; the court judicially noticed the sibling decision and applied collateral estoppel to preclude relitigation of R’s injuries against mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly granted judicial notice and collateral estoppel. | Mother argues misapplication of collateral estoppel. | Commissioner contends the sibling decision unambiguously decided causation. | Proper; collateral estoppel applied. |
| Whether the court correctly found reasonable reunification efforts. | Mother asserts insufficient efforts by the department. | Court found counseling, supervision, and case management offered. | No error; reasonable efforts proven. |
| Whether the court correctly found lack of personal rehabilitation. | Mother contends rehabilitation adequate except for denial of responsibility. | Rehabilitation failed due to refusal to acknowledge responsibility for R’s injuries. | Findings not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether termination was in J’s best interests. | Mother argues bond with J and service adequacy favor termination review. | Best interests supported by risk of recurrence absent rehabilitation. | Termination in J’s best interests. |
| Whether mother received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and denial of motion to open. | Mother claims counsel was ineffective and errors in handling motions. | Counsel’s strategy reasonable; no prejudice shown; court did not abuse discretion opening judgment. | No reversible error; no ineffective assistance established. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mark C., 28 Conn. App. 247 (Conn. App. 1992) (court may take judicial notice of court files between parties)
- Spears v. Elder, 5 A.3d 500 (Conn. 2010) (claims raised on appeal must align with trial grounds)
- State v. Wilson, 180 Conn. 481 (1980) (collateral estoppel applies to civil and criminal contexts)
- In re Stephen M., 109 Conn. App. 644 (Conn. App. 2008) (collateral estoppel in child protection matters; rights at stake)
- In re Sole S., 119 Conn. App. 187 (Conn. App. 2010) (clear standards for review of termination findings)
- In re Enrico S., 136 Conn. App. 754 (Conn. App. 2012) (right to counsel and adequacy of representation in termination)