158 Conn.App. 849
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Child born September 2011; removed from parents’ custody after serious injuries (torn frenulum, rib fractures, skull fracture, clavicle fracture) with conflicting parental explanations.
- Neglect petition filed; adjudicated neglected and committed to petitioner in December 2011; department tasked with reunification efforts.
- Psychological evaluation (Haymes) released October 2013 recommending reunification after treatment; evaluator later advised against reunification after respondent’s nonparticipation.
- Respondent’s communication with department diminished; irregular visitation, failure to attend medical appointments, and failure to engage in recommended therapies.
- Termination petition filed June 12, 2013; three-day trial in Oct–Nov 2014; trial court found reasonable efforts, lack of personal rehabilitation, and that termination was in child’s best interests.
- Judgment terminated parental rights of both parents as to the child; the mother’s rights were also terminated; respondent appeals challenging reasonable efforts, rehabilitation, and best-interest determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the department made reasonable efforts to reunify | State contends department acted reasonably; pre-petition efforts adequate | Respondent contends department failed to follow evaluation recommendations | Department’s reasonable efforts upheld; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether respondent achieved personal rehabilitation sufficient for reunification | State argues respondent failed to rehabilitate to enable reunification | Respondent claims some rehabilitation occurred and should permit reunification | Court properly found lack of sufficient personal rehabilitation under § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) for reunification |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | State asserts best interests supported by bond with foster family and lack of rehabilitation | Respondent asserts bond with parents should be weighed against foster bond | Termination in child’s best interests affirmed; stability and permanency favored foster placement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (2004) (clear and convincing evidence required for grounds and best interests)
- In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197 (2011) (seven-factor framework for best interests; factors not strictly prerequisites)
- In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn. App. 186 (2011) (reasonable efforts must be assessed using pre-petition events)
- In re Kyara H., 147 Conn. App. 855 (2014) (recognizes consideration of events up to filing date for reasonable efforts; later events for rehabilitation analysis)
- In re Paul M., 154 Conn. App. 488 (2014) (bond considerations; stability and permanency in best interests)
- In re Victoria B., 79 Conn. App. 245 (2003) (stability and permanency as factors in best interests)