201 Conn.App. 81
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Xavier (born 2016) was removed in Jan. 2017 and adjudicated neglected (Apr. 18, 2017); DCF created specific steps and pursued reunification but later filed to terminate parental rights (petition June 8, 2018).
- Both parents have long histories of domestic violence, substance/medication issues, unstable housing and criminal involvement; the mother had a prior termination of parental rights in 2008.
- The trial court found DCF made reasonable efforts but concluded both parents failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation required by § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
- Key factual findings: father repeatedly lied to the department, therapists and the court about ongoing contact with the mother, resisted DCF providers, and made no progress on domestic-violence issues; mother resisted domestic-violence counseling, abused medications, undermined the foster relationship, and maintained/lied about contact with the father.
- The court analyzed the § 17a-112(k) best-interest factors, found Xavier bonded to his foster family, and terminated both parents’ rights; both parents appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: it held the trial court’s factual findings and ultimate adjudicatory and dispositional conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence and legally sound.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court’s subordinate factual findings about the father were clearly erroneous | Findings supported by testimony, therapist reports, DCF observations—father rejected offered providers, lied, remained in relationship with mother | Father: he complied with court-ordered specific steps and services; some trial findings (timing of video) were factually wrong | Court: most subordinate findings supported; minor error about video timing was harmless because core finding (father lied about contact) was intact |
| 2) Whether the court applied the correct legal standard under §17a-112(j)(3) for failure to rehabilitate (both parents) | Petitioner: court correctly framed the statutory question, explained standard, and its factual findings show failure to rehabilitate to a degree that would encourage belief reunification would be appropriate within a reasonable time | Respondents: court used imprecise/constricting language and failed to make the statutory legal finding exactly as phrased | Court: although concluding language was imprecise, reading the decision as a whole shows the court applied the proper statutory standard and had sufficient findings to meet §17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) |
| 3) Whether the court properly applied §17a-112(k) best-interest factors (father) | Petitioner: court listed and made written findings on each §17a-112(k) factor and considered emotional ties to foster family and parent | Father: court failed to articulate findings on emotional ties and on specific-steps compliance | Court: trial court considered each factor; any lack of explicit reference to the child’s emotional tie to the father was harmless because the decision, read as a whole, addressed the parent–child relationship and foster attachment |
| 4) Whether the trial court erred in finding mother failed to rehabilitate or in its §17a-112(k) findings | Petitioner: mother refused to address core domestic-violence issue, misled providers, self-discharged from substance program, and undermined foster placement—supports adjudication and best-interest findings | Mother: she participated in programs, made progress, and the court overstated her resistance to services and minimized positive change | Court: factual findings (resistance to domestic-violence treatment, continued relationship with father, medication misuse, undermining foster bond) were supported; §17a-112(k) findings were sufficient and any ambiguity was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tresin J., 222 A.3d 83 (Conn. 2019) (describes statutory framework for termination proceedings under §17a-112)
- In re Jayce O., 150 A.3d 640 (Conn. 2016) (clarifies burden to prove prior neglect and failure to rehabilitate under §17a-112(j)(3))
- In re James O., 142 A.3d 1147 (Conn. 2016) (directs that a trial court’s memorandum must be read as a whole to discern whether statutory findings were made)
- In re Shane M., 122 A.3d 1247 (Conn. 2015) (explains rehabilitation inquiry must relate to child’s needs and foreseeability)
- In re Nevaeh W., 120 A.3d 1177 (Conn. 2015) (clarifies required consideration of §17a-112(k) factors and that findings may be satisfied by the decision read as a whole)
- In re Jacob W., 200 A.3d 1091 (Conn. 2019) (addresses review standard for claims that a court applied incorrect legal test)
- In re Davonta V., 940 A.2d 733 (Conn. 2008) (discusses deference to trial court on best-interest determinations)
- In re Eden F., 741 A.2d 873 (Conn. 1999) (explains §17a-112(k) factors are guides, not strict weighted prerequisites)