165 Conn. App. 604
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Child Natalie (born 2013) was the subject of a DCF neglect petition after reports of parental substance abuse, a DUI with the child in the car, prior overdoses, unstable housing, and related safety concerns.
- DCF removed Natalie and placed her in a nonrelative foster home; DCF provided services and issued specific steps to the mother to pursue reunification.
- The mother admitted substance abuse and that Natalie had been subjected to injurious conditions; she completed inpatient treatment but relapsed and failed to engage consistently in recommended outpatient services and lacked stable housing.
- The father (Matthew B.) was initially concealed by the mother, later identified, proved paternity, cooperated with DCF, had a clean background check, and proposed a suitable North Carolina placement with parental support.
- After a multi-day neglect trial, the court adjudicated Natalie neglected, vacated the temporary custody order, and awarded custody and guardianship to the father (permitting removal to North Carolina).
- The mother appealed, arguing (1) DCF had a continuing statutory duty to provide reunification services and specific steps post-adjudication, and (2) the court/DCF should have investigated the father further before awarding custody and allowing out-of-state removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (mother) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner/DCF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF must continue reunification services after neglect adjudication when custody is awarded to a parent | DCF has a continuing statutory duty (citing §17a-111b and §46b-129(j)(3)) to make reasonable reunification efforts and to set specific steps even after adjudication | When custody/guardianship is awarded to a parent, the court does not commit the child to DCF and DCF’s statutory duty to continue reunification services does not apply | Court affirmed: no continuing statutory duty for DCF to provide reunification services once custody/guardianship is vested in a parent rather than the commissioner |
| Whether the court/DCF had to conduct further investigation into the father’s fitness before awarding custody and permitting out-of-state removal | Mother asserted facts raising concerns about the father that required DCF to investigate further and for the court to impose conditions or order an investigation | DCF and the court relied on findings that the father was cooperative, had no disqualifying history, and that DCF inspected the out-of-state home; no evidence supported unfitness | Court affirmed: no clear error in findings; no statutory duty required further investigation here; court could properly award custody to father and permit removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Fish v. Fish, 285 Conn. 24 (discussion of constitutional parental rights and state limits on intervention)
- In re Pedro J. C., 154 Conn. App. 517 (holding that when custody is transferred to a third party or parent, DCF’s continuing reunification duty ceases)
- In re Emoni W., 305 Conn. 723 (court authority to place conditions on parental custody and the need for investigation when fitness is questioned)
- In re Jason M., 140 Conn. App. 708 (termination-of-parental-rights context addressing reasonable efforts requirements)
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (standard for reviewing whether DCF made reasonable reunification efforts)