148 Conn. App. 654
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Father (respondent) fled Connecticut with his young son in early January 2013 to avoid arrest on probation violations; child was found malnourished and placed in foster care on January 9, 2013.
- Father has a history of mental illness, sex‑offender probation with strict conditions (no contact with minors except his son, no alcohol, restricted computer use), and had allegedly violated probation before fleeing.
- Between January 9 and May 29, 2013 (about 142 days), father was out of state; he did not surrender when requested and had minimal contact with the Department of Children and Families (DCF) or the child.
- DCF moved to cease reunification efforts under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a‑111b(b) alleging abandonment under § 17a‑112(j).
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that father had abandoned the child and granted the motion to cease reunification; father appealed only the abandonment finding.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s finding of parental abandonment was clearly erroneous | DCF: Father’s prolonged absence, failure to provide contact information, minimal communications, and failure to inquire about or support the child show failure to maintain a reasonable degree of responsibility | Father: 142‑day absence is insufficient as a matter of law to establish abandonment; he had some communications and relied on others to care for the child | Court: Affirmed. No statutory minimum time required; facts support abandonment finding under § 17a‑112(j) (finding was not clearly erroneous) |
| Whether the order to cease reunification is an appealable final judgment | DCF: Ceasing reunification terminates a statutory right to reunification services and affects parent‑child rights, fitting Curcio’s second prong | Respondent: (implicit) order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable | Court: Order is appealable final judgment under Curcio prong two because it irretrievably affects statutory/parental rights |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (two‑prong test for when interlocutory orders are treated as final for appeal)
- Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (2009) (application of Curcio; second prong requires colorable claim that a statutory or constitutional right is at risk)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (2009) (discussing DCF’s presumptive duty to make reasonable reunification efforts and when that duty may be excused)
- In re Ilyssa G., 105 Conn. App. 41 (2007) (defines abandonment as failure to maintain a continuing, reasonable degree of concern for a child’s welfare)
- In re Drew R., 47 Conn. App. 124 (1997) (lists parental obligations and indicia of interest; attempts to contact, cards, gifts, and support are evidentiary factors)
- Madigan v. Madigan, 224 Conn. 749 (1993) (family‑law context for allowing immediate appeals where parental rights are at stake)