211 Conn.App. 793
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Ryder removed at ~5 weeks old (March 2018) and adjudicated neglected May 23, 2018; placed in a nonrelative foster home and remained there through trial.
- Phillip M. (respondent father) has history of trauma, prior DCF involvement as a youth, mental health diagnoses, and past heroin use; instability in housing and employment during the proceedings.
- DCF referred Phillip to multiple substance‑abuse and mental‑health providers; he was discharged or noncompliant with several programs, tested positive for marijuana multiple times, and was observed under the influence during two visits with Ryder.
- Phillip completed some programs (fatherhood, some domestic‑violence/parenting sessions), obtained an apartment six weeks before trial, and had some regular visits, but missed visits and struggled to engage Ryder.
- Trial court found DCF made reasonable reunification efforts, Phillip failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation under § 17a‑112(j)(3)(B)(i), and termination of parental rights was in Ryder’s best interest; judgment terminating Phillip’s parental rights was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify | DCF made reasonable, tailored referrals, provided visitation and services before the termination petition | Phillip: DCF failed to do everything reasonable (e.g., follow up with his therapist, pay for more/random testing, seek court‑ordered evaluations) | Court: DCF made reasonable efforts; additional measures Phillip suggested were not required to satisfy the statutory standard |
| Whether Phillip achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation | Phillip remained noncompliant, continued substance use, behavioral problems, unstable housing; thus did not rehabilitate within a reasonable time for Ryder’s needs | Phillip pointed to completed programs, new housing, employment, and engagement with services | Court: Clear and convincing evidence Phillip’s progress was "too little, too late"; failed to correct factors leading to removal and not likely to assume a responsible role within a reasonable time |
| Whether termination was in Ryder’s best interest | Permanency/stability with foster family, Ryder’s emotional ties to caregivers, unresolved parental deficits support termination | Phillip emphasized bond with Ryder and ongoing progress toward rehabilitation | Court: After weighing § 17a‑112(k) factors, court found termination in Ryder’s best interest given need for stability and father’s insufficient rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tresin J., 222 A.3d 83 (Conn. 2019) (statutory criteria for termination must be strictly applied when parental rights are at stake)
- In re Corey C., 232 A.3d 1237 (Conn. App. 2020) (standards for assessing reasonable efforts and review standards)
- In re Melody L., 962 A.2d 81 (Conn. 2009) (additional services that might benefit a parent do not necessarily undermine a reasonable‑efforts finding)
- In re Omar I., 231 A.3d 1196 (Conn. App. 2020) (rehabilitation analysis focuses on parent’s ability to meet the child’s particular needs within a reasonable time)
- In re Phoenix A., 246 A.3d 1096 (Conn. App. 2021) (existence of a parent–child bond is relevant but not dispositive in best‑interest analysis)
- In re Sheila J., 771 A.2d 244 (Conn. App. 2001) (efforts and progress can nonetheless be "too little and too late" to forestall termination)
- In re Davonta V., 940 A.2d 733 (Conn. 2008) (importance of permanency in children’s lives when evaluating requests for more time)