In re Savannah Y.
158 A.3d 864
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child Savannah born July 2013; department (DCF) opened case April 2014 after reports of domestic violence, alcoholism, poor hygiene and unsafe home conditions. Father allegedly strangled mother; protective order and violations occurred.
- DCF removed Savannah (order of temporary custody Sep 24, 2014); child adjudicated neglected Mar 9, 2015 and committed to commissioner; permanency plan adopted Aug 5, 2015; termination petition filed Jan 15, 2016.
- Respondent mother has long history of trauma (death of older child), mental health and substance abuse problems, unstable housing and criminal history, including incarceration Jun–Sep 2015.
- DCF provided referrals and specific steps (substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, parenting, housing); mother intermittently engaged, was discharged from services for noncompliance, and only began sustained treatment after release from custody and after the termination petition was filed.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts (and alternatively that mother was unable/unwilling to benefit), that mother failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation, and that termination was in the child’s best interest; judgment terminating parental rights affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF made reasonable reunification efforts (or parent was unable/unwilling to benefit) | DCF offered specific steps and services over time; mother repeatedly failed to comply and was absent/incommunicado and incarcerated, so efforts were reasonable and mother unable/unwilling to benefit | Mother contends she engaged in treatment and DCF’s efforts were insufficient | Held: Court’s finding DCF made reasonable efforts and alternatively that mother could not/ would not benefit was supported by record and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether mother failed to achieve personal rehabilitation under § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) | Mother’s rehabilitation was incomplete: long history of substance abuse, trauma, gaps in treatment, recent progress only in controlled settings and too slow given child’s needs | Mother argues she’s actively engaged in treatment and has made significant progress | Held: Court reasonably concluded mother had not achieved sufficient rehabilitation within a reasonable time given Savannah’s age and need for permanency |
| Whether an ongoing parent–child relationship existed under § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) | DCF argued bond was with foster family; limited/irregular contact and child did not view mother as primary attachment | Mother argued there remained an ongoing relationship that weighed against termination | Held: Court found no ongoing relationship, but appellate court declined to reach this claim because other statutory ground (failure to rehabilitate) was upheld |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest (dispositional phase) | Termination promotes permanency and stability—child is attached to foster family; mother not ready to parent given chronic issues | Mother argued her progress and bond justified continuation of parental rights | Held: Court’s dispositional findings supported termination; termination was in child’s best interest and not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn. App. 186 (Conn. App. 2011) (standards on reasonable efforts and statutory elements for termination)
- In re Jason R., 129 Conn. App. 746 (Conn. App. 2011) (definition of reasonable efforts review and clear-and-convincing standard)
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (Conn. 2004) (elements required to terminate parental rights under § 17a-112)
- In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197 (Conn. App. 2011) (adjudication vs. dispositional phases in termination hearings)
- In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (Conn. 2009) (presumption in favor of trial court findings; appellate review standard)
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (Conn. 2013) (text of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) and framework for failure-to-rehabilitate analysis)
- In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569 (Conn. 2015) (standard of review—evidentiary sufficiency—for failure to rehabilitate conclusions)
- In re Christopher L., 135 Conn. App. 232 (Conn. App. 2012) (scope of personal rehabilitation inquiry and child-specific needs)