In re Jason B.
137 Conn. App. 408
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Respondent mother’s parental rights to her child Jason B. were terminated in favor of the Commissioner of Children and Families.
- Jason was removed from respondent’s custody after a pattern of substance abuse, mental health issues, and noncompliance with services dating back to 2007.
- Respondent underwent various treatments (hospitalization, Day Treatment programs, outpatient therapy) but repeatedly declined some recommendations and failed to attend scheduled screenings and visits.
- The court adjudicated Jason neglected in April 2010; he was briefly returned to respondent during treatment, then removed again after breach of conditions.
- By 2011–2012, respondent’s visits declined, she relapsed with cocaine use, and she did not cooperate with reunification efforts.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable reunification efforts were made, respondent failed to achieve personal rehabilitation, and termination was in Jason’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adverse inferences were impermissibly drawn from respondent’s silence | Commissioner: no adverse inference was drawn; trial relied on uncontested, credible evidence. | Respondent: court effectively inferred misconduct from failure to testify without proper notice. | No adverse inference hinged on failure to testify; decision upheld |
| Whether the court’s finding of reasonable efforts to reunify was clearly erroneous | Commissioner: extensive treatment and services were provided; respondent refused further inpatient care and visits. | Respondent: additional services were warranted and should have been provided. | Not clearly erroneous; court reasonably found efforts adequate |
| Whether respondent failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation | Commissioner: ongoing relapse and failure to participate show lack of rehabilitation. | Respondent: evidence of improvement and participation in programs; rehabilitation underway | Not clearly erroneous; court could conclude rehabilitation was not sufficient |
| Whether termination was in Jason’s best interests | Commissioner: continued bond with respondent existed but was outweighed by foster care integration and need for permanency. | Respondent: bond remained strong and termination would disrupt the relationship. | Not clearly erroneous; best interests favored termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (Conn. 2009) (reasonableness standard for reunification efforts; 'reasonable efforts' not 'everything possible')
- In re Zowie N., 135 Conn. App. 470 (Conn. App. 2012) (clear and convincing standard; deference to trial court’s factual findings)
- In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197 (Conn. App. 2011) (seven factor framework guiding best interests, not strict prerequisites)
- In re Christopher L., 135 Conn. App. 232 (Conn. App. 2012) (rehabilitation assessment tied to child’s needs; historical perspective required)
- Lehan v. Lehan, 118 Conn. App. 685 (Conn. App. 2010) (judgment interpretation; consider intention from whole decision)