147 Conn. App. 435
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Child Sena born Feb. 3, 2011 testing positive for cocaine; DCF (commissioner) obtained temporary custody Feb. 7, 2011 and she remained in DCF care.
- Respondent father had history of substance abuse, criminal activity, domestic violence, and limited parenting skills; was sentenced to four years in jail in June 2011.
- Parents adjudicated neglected (nolo contendere pleas) Sept. 20, 2011; reunification steps ordered for respondent.
- Respondent missed substance evaluations, failed court-ordered testing, was argumentative and absent for many supervised visits; attempts to introduce solid food to infant documented.
- Commissioner filed termination petition Oct. 27, 2011 alleging failure to achieve personal rehabilitation under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112; six-day hearing produced testimony and documentary exhibits.
- Trial court denied transfer of guardianship to paternal grandmother and terminated respondent’s parental rights May 3, 2013; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Factual findings (visit behavior, feeding egg) | Court’s findings supported by termination social study, Nutmeg visitation records, and witness testimony | Court erred; some details misstated and respondent learned from mistakes | Findings supported by record; not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
| 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel was reasonably competent; respondent failed to create adequate record of prejudice | Counsel received exhibits late, failed to prepare witnesses, and impeded defense | Claim inadequately raised and unsupported by record; no ineffective assistance shown |
| 3. Motion to transfer guardianship to paternal grandmother | Grandmother unsuitable due to age, declining health, limited ability to set boundaries, and insufficient support network; transfer not in child’s best interest | Grandmother willing and family would assist; age improperly weighed | Trial court credited evidence of unsuitability; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| 4. Reasonable efforts to reunify under §17a-112(j)(1) | DCF made reasonable efforts and, alternatively, court found respondent unable/unwilling to benefit | DCF failed to accommodate visitation and incarceration; did not respect father’s rights | Moot as respondent did not challenge finding he was unable/unwilling to benefit; termination stands |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Valerie G., 132 Conn. App. 652 (appellate deference to trial court factfinding in TPR cases)
- In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197 (appellate review standards for termination appeals)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (statutory interpretation that either reasonable efforts or parent’s inability/unwillingness suffices under §17a-112(j)(1))
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (trial judge as sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- In re Dylan C., 126 Conn. App. 71 (procedural default and inadequate record for ineffective-assistance claims)
- In re Amanda A., 58 Conn. App. 451 (standard for ineffective assistance in TPR proceedings)