In re Jason R.
129 Conn. App. 746
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Respondent mother, born 1989, had prior substance abuse and mental health issues, with department involvement beginning in adolescence.
- Children Fernando and Jason were born in 2006 and 2007; they were found neglected and removed from respondent and placed in petitioner’s custody in January 2008.
- The department provided services (mental health, substance abuse, parenting, housing) and supervised visitation to attempt reunification; two were placed in a preadoptive foster home with a foster mother willing to permit visitation.
- Expert Green evaluated respondent in October 2008; he diagnosed anxiety, dysthymic and obsessive-compulsive disorders and recommended extensive treatment, ADHD evaluation, and a structured parenting program; cautioned about bonding reliability.
- Rushford Center and Family Matters provided ongoing treatment and supervised visitation; respondent struggled with attendance, marijuana use persisted, and housing stability fluctuated.
- Petitioner filed petitions to terminate parental rights in June 2009; trial occurred March 8 and 10, 2010; the court found reasonable reunification efforts but concluded lack of sufficient personal rehabilitation, and terminated rights on July 8, 2010. Respondent sought articulations, which the court provided in later orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court improperly shifted the burden of proof on rehabilitation | Petitioner claims burden was properly on clear and convincing proof; phrasing did not shift burden. | Respondent contends language evidenced shifting burden to prove rehabilitation. | No reversible shift; burden remained on petitioner; decisions read as whole show proper standard. |
| Whether the department made reasonable efforts to reunify | Department provided substantial services addressing mental health, substance abuse, housing, and parenting. | Respondent argues missing specific Green-recommended parenting program and ADHD evaluation undermines reasonableness. | Department’s efforts were reasonable; delays and missing ADHD evaluation did not render efforts clearly erroneous. |
| Whether respondent failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation | Green’s objectives, coupled with persistent issues (mental health, substance use, housing), show failure to rehabilitate. | Respondent made some progress and cooperated with many services; not all objectives met, but rehabilitation not proven sufficient. | Record supports trial court: respondent failed to achieve rehabilitation sufficient to permit reunification; termination in best interests warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (2004) (reasonableness standard for reunification and burden of proof in termination cases; open adoption context)
- State v. Sherbacow, 21 Conn. App. 474 (1990) (burden-shifting analysis in criminal decision contexts informing burden on appeal)
- In re Zamora S., 123 Conn. App. 103 (2010) (subordinate-fact proof standards; distinguishable from improper burden shift in this case)
- In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (2009) (failure to provide beneficial referral evidence does not render department efforts clearly erroneous)
- In re Sarah O., 128 Conn. App. 323 (2011) (dispositional best interests standard; continued contact considerations)
- In re Jordan T., 119 Conn. App. 748 (2010) (weight afforded to trial court credibility in rehabilitation findings)