In re Phoenix A., 202 Conn.App. 827

Phoenix was removed from parents after domestic violence, protective-order violations, transiency, and unaddressed mental-health/substance issues; DCF placed him in foster care where he became bonded to foster parents.
The respondent father (Ryan A.) received numerous court-ordered referrals: parenting classes, supervised visitation, individual therapy, psychological evaluations, substance-abuse treatment (including drug testing), and domestic-violence programs.
Despite participation, Ryan showed recurring substance use (positive marijuana test in Aug. 2019; diluted urine specimens), ceased prescribed medication in 2018, had continued criminal arrests and protective-order violations, and exhibited impulsive/violent and emotionally dysregulated behavior during visits (including leaving Phoenix briefly alone in a car and forcibly restraining him during an August 2019 visit).
Multiple providers expressed concerns about his inability to implement parenting techniques, emotional regulation, and stability; one psychologist recommended reunification only if he remained medicated and abstinent.
DCF filed to terminate parental rights under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) for failure to rehabilitate; the trial court found (1) reasonable efforts were made (or alternatively parent unable/unwilling to benefit), (2) father failed to rehabilitate, and (3) termination served Phoenix’s best interests. Father appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (father)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner/DCF)	Held
Whether court erred in finding father "unable or unwilling to benefit" from reunification services	Father: He cooperated and engaged in services, so court’s finding was incorrect	DCF: That claim is moot because the court separately found DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify (an independent basis under §17a-112(j)(1))	Dismissed as moot — court’s reasonable-efforts finding stands, so no practical relief
Whether father failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation under §17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i)	Father: He engaged in services and the department failed to ensure therapy/medication management and follow-up	DCF: Evidence showed ongoing substance use, stopped medication, criminality, poor implementation of parenting skills, and safety risks to Phoenix	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports failure-to-rehabilitate finding
Whether termination was in Phoenix’s best interest under §17a-112(k)	Father: He has a clear bond with Phoenix; termination would sever that bond	DCF: Phoenix needs stability/permanency; foster parents are bonded and able to provide consistent care; father remains unstable	Affirmed — trial court’s best-interest findings not clearly erroneous; termination warranted

In re Malachi E., 188 Conn. App. 426 (Conn. App. 2019) (describes bifurcated adjudicatory/dispositional structure and reasonable-efforts requirement under §17a-112)
In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (Conn. 2009) (either reasonable efforts or a finding that parent cannot benefit suffices under §17a-112(j)(1))
In re Brian P., 195 Conn. App. 558 (Conn. App. 2020) (standard for reviewing failure-to-rehabilitate and focus on child-specific needs)
In re Paul M., 154 Conn. App. 488 (Conn. App. 2014) (dispositional-phase best-interest considerations and §17a-112(k) factors)
In re Natalia M., 190 Conn. App. 583 (Conn. App. 2019) (mootness and justiciability principles in termination appeals)
In re Daniel A., 150 Conn. App. 78 (Conn. App. 2014) (declining review when challenge targets only one of two independent statutory bases)
In re Jah'za G., 141 Conn. App. 15 (Conn. App. 2013) (DCF required to do what is reasonable, not everything possible, to facilitate reunification)
In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2008) (importance of permanency in children’s lives when considering continuance of reunification efforts)
In re Yolanda V., 195 Conn. App. 334 (Conn. App. 2020) (bond with parent does not preclude termination if other best-interest factors favor termination)