201 Conn.App. 598
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Child born 2018; hospital referred case to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) because mother had a significant untreated mental‑health history and recent domestic violence incidents with the child’s father.
- DCF took temporary custody, child adjudicated neglected, and later committed to the commissioner; petitioner sought termination of parental rights in May 2019.
- DCF provided multiple services and referrals (trauma‑focused therapy, intensive outpatient programs, medication assessment/management, domestic‑violence services, parenting visits, substance‑abuse treatment, housing assistance, DBT referral); mother either refused or inconsistently engaged and showed little benefit.
- Specific incidents included a July 2018 roadside tantrum during a transport, inpatient psychiatric admission March 2019, failure to attend/refill medication, and continued domestic‑violence involvement; clinicians expressed concern about emotional volatility and safety.
- Trial court (Jan. 6, 2020) found both that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify under § 17a‑112(j)(1) and, alternatively, that the mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts; parental rights were terminated. Mother appealed only the reasonable‑efforts finding.
Issues
| Issue | Priscilla W.’s Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF made "reasonable efforts" to reunify under § 17a‑112(j)(1) | DCF’s plan included DBT but DCF failed to inform her she should engage in DBT, so efforts were not reasonable | DCF provided timely, appropriate referrals and services; mother failed to engage or benefit | Court found DCF made reasonable efforts, but appeal did not overturn outcome because of independent basis (see below) |
| Whether the appeal is justiciable/moot given the court’s alternative finding | Implicitly argues relief is available by overturning reasonable‑efforts finding | DCF: appeal is moot because mother did not challenge trial court’s independent finding that she was unable/unwilling to benefit, so no practical relief is possible | Appeal dismissed as moot — successful challenge to one of two independent grounds would not alter termination because the alternate ground remains intact |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (2009) (discusses justiciability/mootness and explains that either a finding of reasonable efforts or a finding that a parent is unable/unwilling to benefit independently satisfies § 17a‑112(j)(1))
- In re Natalia M., 190 Conn. App. 583 (2019) (apex appellate decision applying the rule that an appeal is moot where the trial court made both independent § 17a‑112(j)(1) findings and the appellant challenges only one)