148 Conn. App. 666
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Mother of two children (K, born 2007; Z, born 2009) exhibited repeated psychotic episodes beginning in 2011; children were removed and placed in foster care and later adjudicated neglected.
- Mother underwent multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and received outpatient treatment and twice-daily visiting nurse medication administration; she remained transient, unemployed, and on SSI.
- Commissioner filed petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights in June 2012; mother’s counsel moved for a competency evaluation, which psychiatrist Edward Rabe performed.
- Rabe concluded mother was incompetent to assist counsel and not restorable to competency due to persistent thought disorder; court appointed a guardian ad litem and proceeded to trial.
- Trial court found (1) DCF made reasonable reunification efforts, (2) mother failed to achieve personal rehabilitation under Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), and (3) termination was in the children’s best interests; judgments terminating parental rights were entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required the court to sua sponte continue the trial to permit restoration of competency | Mother: she showed progress and a continuance was needed so she could become competent and assist in her defense | State: court properly found her not restorable, appointed a guardian ad litem, and reasonably balanced children’s needs against delay | Court: no abuse of discretion; competency finding stood and appointment of guardian ad litem satisfied due process; no sua sponte continuance required |
| Whether use of the competency evaluation at trial violated practice‑book limits or mother’s right to remain silent | Mother: evaluation was ordered solely to determine trial competency and she lacked notice it could be used to assess rehabilitation; invocation of silence protections | State: counsel expressly admitted the evaluation into evidence without restriction at trial | Court: claim unpreserved—defense counsel admitted evaluation without objection, so evaluation could be used; plain error not shown |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to find failure of personal rehabilitation under § 17a‑112(j)(3)(B)(i) | Mother: court impermissibly relied on the competency report and absent it there was insufficient proof of failure to rehabilitate | State: multiple independent facts (transience, housing instability, inconsistent visitation, hospitalizations, dependence on nurse for meds) supported finding | Court: finding not clearly erroneous; competency report was admissible and served as background but court relied on multiple record facts to conclude failure to rehabilitate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for balancing due process interests)
- In re Alexander V., 223 Conn. 557 (1992) (guardian ad litem appointment and competency procedure in TPR cases)
- In re Kaleb H., 306 Conn. 22 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard in competency‑related decisions)
- In re Zowie N., 135 Conn. App. 470 (2012) (review of denial of second competency evaluation)
- In re Brianna L., 139 Conn. App. 239 (2012) (admitted reports without objection may be credited by the court)
- In re Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 382 (2004) (expert testimony not required in TPR cases)
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (2004) (limitations on drawing adverse inferences from a parent’s silence when warned about rights)