169 Conn. App. 708
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Mother (Laura F.) has longstanding mental-health and substance-abuse history dating to childhood; significant medical problems after a 2009 car accident (including MRSA) and a 2015 leg amputation; limited employment and relies on disability benefits.
- Daughter Lilyana born August 2013 with benzodiazepines and opiates in her system; DCF involvement began due to parental substance use, refusal to permit provider access, and failure to follow court-ordered services.
- April 30, 2014: Lilyana adjudicated neglected; supervised contact and specific services ordered; parents failed to comply (unsupervised contact, failure to enroll child in childcare, spotty engagement with providers).
- Mother underwent court-ordered psychiatric evaluation (Dr. Rabe, 2014) recommending integrated pain management and monitoring due to substance-abuse relapse risk; mother did not meaningfully engage with pain clinics.
- February 2015: Lilyana removed and placed in foster care; DCF filed to terminate parental rights May 29, 2015; trial took place April 2016 and court terminated mother’s parental rights May 16, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation under § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) | Petitioner: mother’s substance abuse, limited insight, failure to engage in recommended pain management and other services, and recent conduct (drug paraphernalia at courthouse) show failure to rehabilitate. | Mother: amputation in 2015 greatly reduced her pain so prior recommendation to attend a pain clinic is obsolete; she is improving and cooperating with services. | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence mother failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation; additional time would not result in acceptable parental performance. |
| Whether termination violated mother’s substantive due process rights | Petitioner: termination based on statutory ground and best-interest analysis; no conscience-shocking conduct by court. | Mother: medical disability prevented rehabilitation and court should have allowed more time; decision shocks the conscience. | Court: Rejected — claim duplicative of rehabilitation claim; no supporting authority and court’s findings do not shock the conscience. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Leilah W., 166 Conn. App. 48 (Conn. App. 2016) (standard of review and statutory framework for "failure to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation" under § 17a-112)
- In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569 (Conn. 2015) (failure to acknowledge underlying issues supports finding of insufficient rehabilitation)
- In re Antony B., 54 Conn. App. 463 (Conn. App. 1999) (ADA does not create a defense or special obligations in termination proceedings)
- In re Sena W., 147 Conn. App. 435 (Conn. App. 2013) (procedural point on appellate review when appellant fails to cite transcript portions)