321 Conn. 523
Conn.2016Background
- Child Oreoluwa O. born in U.S. with complex congenital heart defects; parents (respondent Olusegun O. and mother) lived in Nigeria; mother traveled to U.S. to give birth and later returned to Nigeria.
- Child was removed and adjudicated neglected in 2013 after concerns about mother’s capacity to care for him; child remained in Connecticut foster care and required ongoing cardiac care.
- The Department of Children and Families (DCF) communicated with respondent by phone and e-mail, referred him to the Nigerian consulate, investigated U.S.-based placement suggestions, and attempted (unsuccessfully) to enable Skype contact; respondent’s visa applications to come to U.S. were denied.
- Commissioner filed petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights on December 23, 2013 (child ~11 months); trial court (March 2014) terminated respondent’s rights, finding DCF had made reasonable reunification efforts and that termination was in child’s best interests.
- Appellate Court affirmed. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and reversed as to the reasonable-efforts finding, holding the commissioner failed to prove DCF did “everything reasonable” to reunify given lack of updated medical evidence about when the child could safely travel and DCF’s failure to investigate medical care availability in Nigeria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Olusegun) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify before filing termination petition | DCF maintained communication, explored placement resources named by respondent, tried to enable Skype visits, and referred respondent to consulate — efforts reasonable given respondent lived abroad and child was medically fragile | DCF failed to obtain updated medical info or meaningfully investigate feasibility of reunification in Nigeria (including medical care there or conducting a foreign home study); Skype and cursory contacts were insufficient | Reversed — commissioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made "reasonable efforts"; remanded for further proceedings regarding termination only |
| Whether respondent abandoned child | DCF: respondent failed to maintain sufficient degree of interest/responsibility given separation, limited contact, and failure to complete specific steps (travel to U.S.) | Respondent argued absence of fault and visa denials prevented compliance | Majority did not reach after resolving reasonable-efforts issue; Appellate Court/trial court had found abandonment but Supreme Court noted concerns but disposed on reasonable-efforts ground |
| Whether respondent had standing to assert due process claim on child’s behalf (notice/alternative participation) | DCF: respondent lacked standing to raise a constitutional claim on child’s behalf; procedural protections were satisfied | Respondent argued he had a due process right to notice of alternative means of participation and assistance (e.g., immigration help) | Not reached by majority (unnecessary); Appellate Court held respondent lacked standing; dissent addressed and would have rejected standing as well |
| Whether trial court properly considered post‑petition events when assessing reasonable efforts | DCF: trial court may consider events up to trial because child’s medical status and DCF’s available efforts evolved | Respondent: post‑petition medical updates were necessary and DCF still failed to investigate travel feasibility and Nigeria’s medical capacity | Court held it was permissible to consider post‑petition events but DCF still failed to meet its burden because it did not present adequate updated medical evidence or investigate medical care in Nigeria |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (2004) ("reasonable efforts" means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible)
- In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674 (1999) (statutory prerequisites and burden on DCF in termination proceedings)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (2009) (department must prove reasonable efforts or that parent cannot benefit from services)
- In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42 (2006) (reversal where DCF made no efforts to foster relationship before filing termination)
- In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 568 (2015) (review standard: subordinate findings for clear error; ultimate determinations for evidentiary sufficiency)
- In re Gabriella A., 319 Conn. 775 (2015) (same standards clarified for §17a-112 review)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (2015) (appellate courts may not find facts in the first instance)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (foreign-home-study issues where DCF had not considered placement abroad)
- In re Doe, 281 P.3d 95 (Idaho 2012) (reunification reversed where no domestic agency assessed foreign placement and foreign home study supported father)