188 Conn. App. 426
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Child Malachi E., born Dec. 2015, lived with mother (respondent) and maternal grandmother in grandmother's two-family home; grandmother became primary caretaker after safety concerns.
- Reports in May–Sept 2016 raised concerns about the respondent’s alcohol use, bipolar disorder, blackouts, aggression, and instances of the child falling from a bed; respondent admitted long history of substance abuse and mental health problems and agreed to assessments.
- Department of Children and Families obtained temporary custody in Sept 2016; court ordered specific rehabilitation steps; child placed with grandmother and respondent had supervised visitation.
- Respondent completed some services but repeatedly minimized substance use, refused certain recommended treatments, was noncompliant with intake and testing, and failed to consistently benefit from counseling; petitioner filed for termination in Oct 2017.
- After a one-day trial (June 2018) the court found statutory ground (failure to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation) and, after considering §17a-112(k) factors, concluded termination was in the child’s best interest; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court improperly relied solely on adjudicatory finding of failure to rehabilitate when deciding best interest | Court may consider parent’s rehabilitation among §17a-112(k) factors; decision reflected consideration of all factors | Court conflated phases and substituted adjudicatory finding for independent best-interest analysis | Affirmed — court considered statutory factors and balanced child’s needs against parental connection |
| Whether evidence supported best-interest determination | Evidence showed mental health/substance abuse, parenting deficits, failure to benefit from services, and need for child’s stability and permanency | Respondent pointed to progress, supervised visits, and co-residence with grandmother as weighing against termination | Affirmed — abundant, unchallenged findings supported termination as not clearly erroneous |
| Proper standard of review for dispositional (best-interest) determination | Best-interest review historically for clear error; evidentiary sufficiency applies to adjudicatory findings but Supreme Court hasn’t adopted for dispositional phase | Respondent urged reversal on evidentiary grounds and emphasized favorable findings | Court applied clearly erroneous standard (parties agreed) and noted outcome would stand under either standard |
| Whether remaining time for rehabilitation justified continuation of parental rights | Child needs expedient permanency; respondent unlikely to rehabilitate within reasonable time given history and noncompliance | Respondent argued more time warranted due to some progress and household stability with grandmother | Held — too much time had elapsed; child cannot wait for uncertain rehabilitation; termination served best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Egypt E., 327 Conn. 506 (discusses two-phase termination framework and burdens)
- In re Elijah C., 326 Conn. 480 (reasonable efforts and adjudicatory/dispositional distinctions)
- In re Natalie S., 325 Conn. 833 (emphasizes best-interest focus in dispositional phase)
- In re Nevaeh W., 317 Conn. 723 (deference to trial court on best-interest determinations)
- In re James O., 322 Conn. 636 (judgment interpretation and intent of court review principles)
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (standard of review and deference to trial court on best-interest findings)
- In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569 (clarifies evidentiary sufficiency standard for adjudicatory conclusions)
- In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263 (statutory requirement that best-interest finding follows established grounds)
- In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459 (construing termination statute requiring best-interest finding)