195 Conn.App. 334
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Respondent mother had longstanding DCF involvement since 2002 for substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, parenting and neglect; two older children were removed in 2002.
- Three minor daughters (ages 10–12 at trial) have significant special needs (autism, ADHD, PTSD, learning disorders, pica) and suffered trauma while in mother’s care.
- Children were removed and adjudicated neglected in 2011 and again after a 2017 incident (mother’s suicide attempt); specific steps were issued in January 2018 (random drug testing, no criminal involvement, legal income, keep appointments, parenting/medical follow‑through).
- Mother tested positive for PCP and marijuana (Oct 2017, Feb 2018), refused multiple unscheduled drug screens, missed appointments and supervised visits, and was arrested Aug 9, 2018 for selling fentanyl‑laced heroin (convicted Nov 28, 2018).
- Trial on termination petitions was held Jan 2019; the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that mother failed to rehabilitate and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation under §17a‑112 | Petitioner: record shows continued substance abuse, criminal activity, missed visits, inconsistent MH treatment; mother did not correct factors causing commitment. | Respondent: was substantially compliant in the 8½ months before trial and had completed services. | Court: Affirmed failure to rehabilitate—evidence (positive tests, missed random screens, criminal conviction, missed visits, unresolved MH/parenting deficits) supports conclusion. |
| Whether termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests | Petitioner: children need permanence, stability; mother’s ongoing criminal conduct and inability to meet children’s special needs endangers them. | Respondent: children bond with mother; services provided and some progress weigh against termination. | Court: Affirmed termination—despite bond, safety, stability, and specialized needs support termination as best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569, 122 A.3d 1247 (Conn. 2015) (standard of review and evidentiary sufficiency for failure‑to‑rehabilitate findings)
- In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485, 78 A.3d 797 (Conn. 2013) (specific steps provide guidance but completion does not guarantee outcome)
- In re Luciano B., 129 Conn. App. 449, 21 A.3d 858 (Conn. App. 2011) (rehabilitation must be assessed as to child’s particular needs)
- In re Jayce O., 323 Conn. 690, 150 A.3d 640 (Conn. 2016) (appellate standard regarding conflicting evidence and trial court conclusions)
- In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 741 A.2d 873 (Conn. 1999) (rehabilitation measured by insight and ability to care for child within reasonable time)
- In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (Conn. 2008) (appellate review of best‑interests findings; great weight to trial court)