148 Conn. App. 308
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Father (respondent) is biological parent of Shane M.; child was adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF after parents pleaded nolo contendere. Court issued final specific steps on March 15, 2011.
- Specific steps required mental health and domestic violence counseling, substance‑abuse evaluation/treatment, random drug testing, refraining from drug/alcohol use, and cooperation with DCF recommendations.
- Father attended some services but missed appointments, refused medication evaluations and a parenting mentor, repeatedly denied substance use, and had multiple positive marijuana tests (urine and a hair test); he later refused further hair follicle testing.
- Experts and program providers recommended continued treatment and medication evaluation; father resisted, asserting he only participated to appease DCF and that services were unnecessary.
- DCF petitioned to terminate father's parental rights under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a‑112(j)(3)(B). Trial court found DCF made reasonable reunification efforts, father failed to achieve rehabilitation, and termination was in the child’s best interests. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proper interpretation of “rehabilitation” under § 17a‑112(j)(3)(B) | Rehabilitation includes correction of factors that led to neglect; court may consider conduct beyond specific steps. | Court misread “rehabilitation”; it must be limited to matters directly tied to the specific steps. Relied on evidence not in the steps. | Court: rehabilitation is not confined to the literal specific steps; prior case law permits considering conduct that corrected initial commitment factors. No error. |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence that father failed to rehabilitate | Father failed to comply with steps, continued substance use, refused evaluations/treatment, and denied problems — supporting clear and convincing finding. | Father lacked prior opportunity to parent; evidence unrelated to specific steps so insufficient to show failure to rehabilitate. | Court: evidence supported finding by clear and convincing evidence; failure to acknowledge problems and noncompliance warranted termination; not clearly erroneous. |
| 3. Adverse inference from refusal to submit to hair drug test without prior notice | Refusal supported inference of continued drug use; DCF offered alternative test methods; inference permitted. | Drawing adverse inference without prior Practice Book/statutory notice violated rights; no prior objection at trial so claims unpreserved. | Court: claim not preserved as constitutional error under Golding; father failed to show constitutional magnitude; no reviewable relief. |
| 4. Vagueness challenge to § 17a‑112(j)(3)(B) as applied | Statute plus specific steps provided fair notice of conduct required to avoid termination; father had notice and opportunity to comply. | Statute vague as applied because rehabilitation standard is indeterminate. | Court: statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; specific steps and case law supplied reasonable certainty. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (2013) (specific steps are required before termination under § 17a‑112(j)(3)(B); but failure to rehabilitate need not be limited to conduct listed in the steps)
- In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (2009) (rehabilitation can be measured by whether parent corrected factors leading to commitment, even if not in specific steps)
- In re Emerald C., 108 Conn. App. 839 (2008) (court may consider conduct beyond specific steps in assessing rehabilitation)
- In re Destiny R., 134 Conn. App. 625 (2012) (specific steps facilitate reunification but do not guarantee return; rehabilitation inquiry is not a mechanical checklist)
- In re Janazia S., 112 Conn. App. 69 (2009) (two‑phase termination procedure: adjudication on statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence, then dispositional best‑interests analysis)