318 Conn. 568
Conn.2015Background
- Shane M. was removed from his parents shortly after birth; the Commissioner of Children and Families (the department) filed to terminate parental rights after repeated concerns about the respondent father’s substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, criminality, and lack of compliance with services.
- The trial court ordered specific steps (parenting counseling, individual therapy, substance‑abuse evaluation and testing, cooperation with providers, no criminal involvement, etc.). The respondent completed some services sporadically, missed or refused others, and tested positive for marijuana multiple times.
- Psychological evaluations diagnosed ADHD, generalized anxiety, cannabis abuse and antisocial traits; an expert recommended psychiatric evaluation/medication, further substance‑abuse treatment, and additional domestic violence work, and opined that termination was appropriate given relapse risk.
- The department approved a permanency plan of termination after roughly 9–13 months in foster care; the commissioner petitioned to terminate parental rights and the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent failed to rehabilitate and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- The Appellate Court affirmed; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether the trial court correctly found failure to rehabilitate and affirmed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Commissioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could rely on respondent conduct not expressly enumerated in the court‑ordered specific steps when finding failure to rehabilitate | Court may consider whether parent corrected the factors that led to commitment; specific steps inform but do not limit inquiry | Trial court relied on conduct outside the specific steps (e.g., refusing parenting aide, saying he only ‘‘appeased’’ providers, refusing psychiatric consult) | Held: trial court properly considered that conduct because it fell within or was closely related to the specific steps and the broader rehabilitative inquiry |
| Sufficiency of evidence that respondent failed to rehabilitate under §17a‑112(j)(3)(B) | The cumulative, recent evidence (positive drug tests, arrests, refusal/partial compliance with services, expert opinion) supported a reasonable conclusion of failure to rehabilitate within a reasonable time | Respondent alleged insufficient evidence and urged focus on positive compliance episodes | Held: evidentiary‑sufficiency standard satisfied; clear and convincing evidence supported the failure‑to‑rehabilitate finding |
| Whether adverse inference from refusal to submit to hair drug test was unfair without separate prior warning | Refusal to comply with court‑ordered drug testing (a specific step) reasonably permits drawing an adverse inference given respondent’s history of positive tests and expert testimony about urine test manipulation | Respondent argued he was ambushed by the inference and analogized it to invoking the right against self‑incrimination, requiring prior notice under Practice Book provisions | Held: adverse inference was reasonable and not barred; refusal to provide physical evidence (drug test) is not the same as testimonial silence and did not require the quoted procedural warnings |
| Standard of review for ultimate failure‑to‑rehabilitate conclusion | Court may review whether the trial court’s ultimate conclusion is supported by the facts and reasonable inferences (evidentiary sufficiency) | — | Held: ultimate conclusion reviewed for evidentiary sufficiency; deference given to trial court’s weighing of facts and inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674 (trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that parent’s rehabilitation is insufficient to permit future responsible parenting)
- In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131 (court may consider whether parent corrected factors that led to commitment even if not expressly in specific steps)
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (requirements for specific steps and permanency planning in termination proceedings)
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (trial court may draw reasonable inferences from facts in termination cases)
- Curran v. Kroll, 303 Conn. 845 (standards for drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Campfield, 44 Conn. App. 6 (refusal to submit to non‑testimonial physical testing does not implicate right to remain silent)