214 Conn.App. 468
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Katia was removed from respondent mother Karen V. at birth and placed in nonrelative foster care; Karen’s three older children had earlier been removed for neglect.
- Department investigations (beginning 2015) revealed unaddressed mental‑health issues (major depression, trauma, avoidant personality) and chronic parenting deficits; multiple psychological evaluations were ordered over several years.
- The department provided extensive services over four-plus years: parenting programs, multiple therapists, medication management, supervised and unsupervised visitation, attachment work (TheraPlay), case management, and referrals for family therapy.
- The mother participated intermittently, rejected some recommended services, discontinued several therapists, and repeatedly failed to demonstrate an attachment with Katia or to remediate underlying issues identified by evaluators.
- The trial court found both that the department had made reasonable reunification efforts and that the mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from them; it terminated parental rights. The mother’s motions to bifurcate and to sequester the foster parents were denied. She appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Karen) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA / reasonable‑efforts finding | ADA rights violated: court devalued her service animal, required disclosure of trauma, relied on social study, failed to accommodate visitation, denied fair consideration | Finding moot because mother did not challenge alternative dispositive finding that she was unable/unwilling to benefit from services | Moot: appeal fails because mother did not challenge the independent alternative ground for termination (inability/unwillingness to benefit) |
| Motion to bifurcate adjudicatory and dispositional phases | Unified trial risked prejudice by conflating statutory grounds and dispositional matters | Unified trial permissible; bifurcation discretionary; judicial economy and efficient resolution supported single hearing | No abuse of discretion: unified trial appropriate; record shows no improper use of dispositional evidence in adjudication |
| Motion to sequester foster parents | Foster parents should be excluded because presence would prejudice Karen and risk false corroboration or improper exposure to her private health information | Motion lacked specificity or evidentiary support; sequestration rests in court’s discretion and requires showing of likely false corroboration | No abuse of discretion: motion was speculative and unsupported, so denial proper |
| Sequestration of foster parents’ counsel | (Argued below) counsel should be sequestered | Claim not adequately briefed on appeal | Abandoned on appeal; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Elijah C., 326 Conn. 480 (Conn. 2017) (if trial court finds both reasonable efforts and parental inability to benefit, failure to challenge both findings renders appeal moot)
- In re Deana E., 61 Conn. App. 197 (Conn. App. 2000) (bifurcation of termination proceedings is discretionary; unified trial permissible)
- In re Christopher A., 22 Conn. App. 656 (Conn. App. 1990) (standards for sequestration in juvenile/civil proceedings)
- State v. Pikul, 150 Conn. 195 (Conn. 1962) (trial court discretion to sequester witnesses)
- Cirinna v. Kosciuszkiewicz, 139 Conn. App. 813 (Conn. App. 2012) (review of sequestration rulings and deference to trial court)
- Wozniak v. Colchester, 193 Conn. App. 842 (Conn. App. 2019) (mootness and justiciability principles)
- C. B. v. S. B., 211 Conn. App. 628 (Conn. App. 2022) (issues inadequately briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned)