In Re Rafael S.
125 Conn. App. 605
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Petitioner (DFC) filed neglect petitions for Jacqueline and Rafael in 2004; respondent mother and biological father pled nolo contendere to neglect.
- Children were placed in protective supervision, then temporarily committed to the petitioner; custody reverted to respondent in 2005 with more supervision.
- In 2006, renewed petitions for temporary custody led to commitment of each child to the petitioner and later separate foster placements.
- In 2007–2008 the petitioner pursued permanency plans; in 2008 a plan to terminate parental rights was filed; trial began October 8, 2009.
- Adjudicatory phase found clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to rehabilitate and could not assume a responsible position in the children’s lives.
- Dispositional phase considered seven factors under § 17a-112 (k); court found services offered but respondent failed to address major issues and termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was termination in the children’s best interests despite bonding? | Petitioner argues best interests favored termination due to instability and risk. | Respondent contends bond means termination would harm children. | Yes; termination affirmed as in best interests. |
| Impact of expert witness' hypothetical on best interests for Jacqueline | Petitioner relies on record evidence, despite equivocal hypothetical. | Respondent argues equivocal hypothetical undermines clear and convincing evidence. | Equivocal hypothetical did not defeat clear and convincing evidence. |
| Effect of Jacqueline lacking a identified preadoptive family at trial | Termination can promote stability and mobility toward permanence even without an imminent adoption. | Response argues absence of preadoptive plan weighs against termination. | Termination supported; lack of immediate adoptive plan does not preclude termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466 (2003) (adopts framework for best-interests and § 17a-112 (k) factors)
- In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608 (2007) (seven factors guide best interests; not prerequisites)
- In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245 (2003) (seven-factor framework; no need for each factor to be proven)
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (2008) (termination can promote stability even without immediate adoption)
- In re Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 382 (2004) (trial court credibility weighed; expert testimony not indispensable)
- In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31 (1990) (termination severs legal parent-child relationship but may preserve nonlegal bonds)
- In re Rachel J., 97 Conn.App. 748 (2006) (bond does not preclude finding that termination is in best interests)