In re Sequoia G., 205 Conn.App. 222

Background

The Commissioner of Children and Families filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of Michelle L. (respondent mother) to her children Sequoia, Benjamin, and Anice; a permanency transfer of guardianship was granted for Tevvon to his foster father, Gary R.
The children had a long history with the department, multiple neglect adjudications, and placements; by decision time Sequoia, Benjamin, and Anice were 15, 12, and 9.
The trial court found the department made reasonable reunification efforts and that the respondent failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation.
The respondent moved to Indiana in June 2018, attended very few in-person visits thereafter, refused home visits since Nov. 2017, and had inconsistent phone contact with the children. She did not appear at trial.
The court terminated the respondent’s parental rights as to Sequoia, Benjamin, and Anice; respondent appealed only the dispositional (best-interests) findings.
On appeal the respondent challenged (1) the court’s treatment of the children’s emotional ties under § 17a-112(k)(4), (2) the court’s finding she failed to comply with court-ordered steps under § 17a-112(k)(3), and (3) the court’s failure to consider transfer-of-guardianship for Anice in lieu of termination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly evaluated emotional ties (§ 17a-112(k)(4))	Petitioner: It was proper to consider children’s bonds with foster parents and their need for permanency.	Respondent: Court focused only on foster bonds and ignored evidence of the children’s ties and phone contact with mother.	Held: Court properly considered foster bonds; reading decision as a whole showed children lacked a strong bond with mother, so factor supports termination.
Whether respondent fulfilled court-ordered obligations (§ 17a-112(k)(3))	Petitioner: Respondent refused home visits, had few in-person visits after moving, and was inconsistent in keeping appointments.	Respondent: Out-of-state residence limited ability to host home visits; she arranged visits and weekly phone contact when possible.	Held: Court’s factual findings (refusal of home visits, only two in-person visits after moving) were supported; noncompliance finding not clearly erroneous.
Whether court should have considered transfer of guardianship for Anice sua sponte	Petitioner: No duty to consider alternative permanency absent a motion; procedure requires motion to trigger hearing and findings.	Respondent: Gary R. willing to be permanent resource; removing parental rights will disrupt existing household with Tevvon.	Held: Issue was not raised below; court had no obligation to consider transfer sua sponte; appellate review barred for unpreserved claim.
Whether overall termination was in children’s best interests	Petitioner: Balancing statutory factors supports termination to secure continuity, stability, and permanency.	Respondent: Challenges to emotional-ties and compliance findings undermine best-interests conclusion.	Held: Court’s dispositional findings under § 17a-112 were factually supported and legally sound; termination affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

In re Nevaeh W., 317 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2015) (trial court’s opinion must be read as a whole; foster bonds and permanency are properly considered under § 17a-112(k)(4))
In re Kiara Liz V., 203 Conn. App. 613 (Conn. App. 2021) (standard of review: dispositional best-interest findings overturned only if clearly erroneous)
In re Joseph M., 158 Conn. App. 849 (Conn. App. 2015) (§ 17a-112(k) factors are guidelines, not prerequisites; no single factor must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569 (Conn. 2015) (specific steps ordered by the court constitute court orders for § 17a-112(k)(3) analysis)
In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626 (Conn. 2013) (issues not raised below generally cannot be reviewed on appeal)
In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2008) (appellate courts give trial court’s best-interest determinations substantial deference)