147 Conn. App. 829
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- DCF (the commissioner) filed petitions (July 25, 2012) seeking termination of Andrea K.’s parental rights to four children (two born 2004, one 2009, one 2011) based on prior neglect findings and failure of parental rehabilitation under § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
- Extensive history of substance abuse, domestic violence, multiple removals, and repeated treatment attempts by the mother; children were placed in foster care and generally showed improvement there.
- The trial court found the statutory ground for termination established by clear and convincing evidence and, after considering § 17a-112(k) factors, concluded termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Mother did not request court-ordered psychological evaluations of the children at trial but later argued on appeal that due process required the court to order such evaluations sua sponte because the children had obvious/complex psychological issues.
- Appellate court reviewed whether (1) the record established the factual predicate for that claim and (2) Mathews v. Eldridge due-process balancing required a court-ordered psychological evaluation sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had a due process duty to order psychological evaluations of the children sua sponte before dispositional best-interest determinations | Andrea K. argued children displayed obvious, complex psychological issues (e.g., sexualized behavior, ADHD, medical complexity) making an expert evaluation necessary to avoid erroneous deprivation of parental rights | Commissioner argued mother failed to preserve claim at trial, record did not show the asserted psychological problems, and courts may exercise discretion under §45a-717; existing procedures and ability to request evaluations suffice | Affirmed: no sua sponte duty. Record lacked sufficient factual predicate for Golding review; Mathews balancing rejected requirement—mother could have requested evaluations, existing safeguards adequate, and costs/delay weighed against mandatory evaluations |
| Whether the record afforded adequate factual basis to invoke Golding review of an unpreserved constitutional claim | Mother claimed record showed obvious psychological issues warranting Golding review | Commissioner and court pointed out lack of corroborating evidence, foster reports showing children improved, and absence of diagnoses for claimed issues | Held: record did not support the factual predicate; Golding review unavailable |
| Whether expert psychological evidence is a required precondition for a court to make a best-interests determination | Mother contended trial courts lack competence to apply attachment/bonding theories without expert input | Court cited precedent that expert testimony is not a prerequisite and judges may weigh evidence on best interests | Held: expert testimony is helpful but not required; trial court may make best-interest findings without such evaluations |
| Whether ordering evaluations sua sponte would be justified given state interests (cost/delay) | Mother argued evaluations are readily available and would prevent erroneous deprivation | Commissioner emphasized fiscal/administrative burdens and harm of delay to child permanency | Held: state interest in expeditious, less costly resolution outweighs speculative benefit of mandatory evaluations; Mathews third factor favors no sua sponte mandate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for procedural due process balancing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights as fundamental and standards for termination proceedings)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Barros v. Barros, 309 Conn. 499 (2013) (Mathews test applies in termination context)
- In re Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 382 (2004) (expert testimony not a precondition to best-interest findings)
- In re Alexander V., 223 Conn. 557 (1992) (state interest in speedy termination and fiscal concerns)
- In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626 (2013) (Golding review inappropriate when record lacks factual support)
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (2013) (statutory scheme and strict compliance required before termination)
- In re Tremaine C., 117 Conn. App. 521 (2009) (recognition of parental constitutional interest)
- In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197 (2011) (Mathews balancing applied in termination proceedings)