168 Conn. App. 538
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Child born 2005; removed from respondent mother’s care in 2010 after domestic violence and parental substance abuse; guardians (uncle and wife) have cared for child since then.
- Court-ordered weekly visitation and joint therapy early on; visits became sporadic and ceased after the respondent failed to complete required therapy; last contact April 9, 2012.
- Psychological evaluations found the child with PTSD, anxiety, and strong negative memories of mother; evaluator recommended intensive maternal therapy before reunification; child did not want contact and wanted to be adopted by guardians.
- Probate petition to terminate parental rights filed by guardian (transfer to Superior Court); trial Oct. 5–8, 2015. Trial court found statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence: abandonment (§ 45a-717(g)(2)(A)) and no ongoing parent-child relationship (§ 45a-717(g)(2)(C)), and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Mother appealed claiming (1) due process violation (failure to perform Mathews balancing in dispositional phase), (2) insufficient evidence that termination was in child’s best interest, and (3) plain error for failure to perform the pretrial Yasiel canvass; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Respondent) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioner/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required a Mathews v. Eldridge balancing in dispositional phase before terminating parental rights | Court had to weigh adverse effects on child from not terminating against mother’s constitutional rights (Mathews balancing) | Connecticut statutory two‑phase scheme (adjudicatory/dispositional per §45a‑717 and §17a‑212) already constitutionally sufficient; Santosky and Connecticut precedent govern shift to child’s best interest at disposition | Rejected. No Mathews balancing required; statutory dispositional factors in §45a‑717(h) govern best‑interest analysis and satisfy due process. |
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence of child’s best interest | Mother argued evidence was marginal: child in stable placement, mother not undermining placement, possible future benefit from contact per evaluator | Child’s prolonged separation, trauma, lack of meaningful contact/support from mother, child’s anxiety and desire for adoption, and statutory dispositional findings support termination | Affirmed. Court’s finding termination was in child’s best interest was not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether trial court’s failure to conduct a pretrial Yasiel R. canvass requires reversal (plain error) | Failure to canvass before trial undermined fairness; In re Daniel N. supports reversal | Error acknowledged but harmless: mother was represented, testified, cross‑examined witnesses, presented evidence; no showing of prejudice or what different actions would have followed a canvass | Affirmed. Failure to canvass was error but not plain error; no manifest injustice shown. |
| Whether statutory grounds (abandonment / no ongoing relationship) were proven | Mother did not contest adjudicatory findings on appeal | Petitioner showed lack of meaningful contact, failure to pursue therapy/visitation, no financial support, and child’s estrangement | Adjudicatory findings stand; abandonment and no ongoing parent–child relationship proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (court discussed canvass protocol for termination trials and held due process does not always require personal canvass of represented parents)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (establishes due process principles in parental‑termination proceedings)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for balancing procedural due process interests)
- In re Nevaeh W., 317 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2015) (upholding statutory termination scheme’s constitutionality)
- In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674 (Conn. 1999) (discusses legislative scheme and best‑interest focus at dispositional phase)
- In re Daniel N., 163 Conn. App. 322 (Conn. App. 2016) (addressed application/retroactivity of Yasiel canvass rule in a separate factual posture)