170 Conn. App. 833
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Unique R., born 2011, was removed from mother’s home in Jan. 2014 after DCF found unsafe conditions; she and half-brother were committed to DCF custody following neglect adjudication (May 2014).
- Court issued ex parte temporary custody and ordered specific steps to both respondent father (Samuel M.) and DCF, including that respondent provide names of relatives for DCF to investigate as placement resources and that DCF investigate any such relatives within 30 days.
- Respondent had longstanding substance abuse and severe mental health diagnoses; limited contact with Unique and poor compliance with visits and treatment; substantial incarceration history.
- DCF provided numerous reunification services and attempted relative placements (including paternal aunt in Alabama); DCF called numbers for respondent’s mother and sister but received no return calls and did not further locate them before filing termination petition in Feb. 2015.
- Trial court found two statutory grounds for termination proven (failure to rehabilitate and no ongoing parent-child relationship), found DCF had made reasonable reunification efforts, and terminated respondent’s parental rights; respondent appealed arguing DCF failed to reasonably investigate relatives as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner/State) | Defendant's Argument (Samuel M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 17a-112(j)(1)’s requirement that DCF make "reasonable efforts to reunify" implicitly requires DCF to use due diligence to identify/investigate relatives proposed by a parent before filing termination petition | DCF (petitioner) argued statute focuses on efforts to address the specific statutory grounds for termination and assist parent to rehabilitate; it does not impose an implicit requirement to prove exhaustive relative investigations at termination | Samuel argued DCF failed to adequately investigate his mother and sister (whose contacts he provided), so DCF did not make reasonable reunification efforts and termination must be reversed | Court held the statute does not implicitly require proof that DCF adequately investigated every proposed relative; investigation of relatives is not necessarily part of reunification efforts unless logically tied to overcoming the specific grounds for termination |
| Whether any shortcoming in investigating relatives is fatal to a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify | Petitioner: even if relative investigation is relevant, reasonableness is judged under the totality of circumstances; a single deficiency does not automatically render overall efforts unreasonable | Samuel: DCF’s failure to contact or investigate his proposed relatives before filing undermines the reasonableness finding and requires reversal | Court held that even assuming relevance, failure to investigate relatives would be one factor among many; here the record supported that DCF made reasonable efforts overall and the failure to reach relatives did not preclude the court’s conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 (Conn. 2013) (plenary review of statutory interpretation governing termination proceedings)
- In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614 (Conn. 2004) (elements required to terminate parental rights, including reasonable efforts and statutory grounds)
- In re Devon B., 264 Conn. 572 (Conn. 2003) (court must issue specific steps after order of temporary custody; DCF obligated to help parent regain custody)
- In re Daniel C., 63 Conn. App. 339 (Conn. App. 2001) (explaining "reasonable efforts" is context-dependent and means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible)
- In re Ebony H., 68 Conn. App. 342 (Conn. App. 2002) (reasonableness assessed by totality; isolated failures by DCF do not necessarily defeat overall reasonableness)
- In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569 (Conn. 2015) (completion of specific steps does not guarantee avoidance of termination; specific steps provide notice and guidance)