151 Conn.App. 724
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- DCF (petitioner) obtained a judgment terminating Heather S.’s parental rights to her son, Zen T., based on serious nonaccidental injuries (fractures, classic metaphyseal lesions, bilateral subdural hematomas) under § 17a-112(j)(3)(C). The trial court found reasonable reunification efforts and termination in the child’s best interest.
- Heather S. appealed the termination judgment raising ineffective assistance of counsel; this court affirmed that judgment in In re Zen T., 149 Conn. App. 376 (cert. denied).
- Approximately four months after the termination judgment, Heather S. (self-represented) filed a motion to open/set aside the judgment alleging ineffective assistance, unethical DCF practices, insufficient evidence, constitutional challenges to § 17a-112, denial of hearing and counsel, and judicial bias.
- The trial court denied the motion to open because Heather S. failed to allege or prove that opening the judgment would be in Zen T.’s best interest, as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-719; it also noted many claims improperly attacked the underlying judgment and were time-barred or barred by res judicata.
- On appeal from the denial of the motion to open, the Appellate Court reviewed only for abuse of discretion and affirmed, rejecting claims for evidentiary hearing, appointed counsel, recusal, continuance, and re-litigation of ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by denying motion to open for best interest reasons | Opening is in Zen T.’s best interest; Heather is innocent and a fit mother | Motion failed to allege or prove best interest as required by § 45a-719; would require re-litigation of terminated merits | Denied — court reasonably found Heather did not show opening served child’s best interest |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | Trial counsel was ineffective at the termination trial, warranting reopening | Claim already litigated on direct appeal; res judicata/collateral estoppel bars relitigation | Denied — claim barred by res judicata; previously rejected on appeal |
| Right to evidentiary hearing on motion to open | She was not allowed to present evidence to support reopening | She did not request an evidentiary hearing; no statutory requirement to hold one | Denied — no abuse in not holding hearing absent request or authority |
| Due process: right to appointed counsel and judge recusal | Denial of counsel for the motion to open and alleged judge bias violated due process | No constitutional right to appointed counsel for post-termination motion; recusal claim speculative and not raised below | Denied — no constitutional right to counsel for motion; recusal not supported by facts |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ilyssa G., 105 Conn. App. 41 (Conn. App. 2007) (standard of review and best-interest requirement for motions to open termination judgments)
- In re Travis R., 80 Conn. App. 777 (Conn. App. 2003) (clearly erroneous review for best-interest findings)
- State v. Jones, 98 Conn. App. 695 (Conn. App. 2006) (res judicata bars relitigation of previously decided claims)
- American Honda Finance Corp. v. Johnson, 80 Conn. App. 164 (Conn. App. 2003) (no general right to evidentiary hearing on motion to open absent request or authority)
- In re Samantha S., 300 Conn. 586 (Conn. 2011) (procedural rules governing post-termination relief and appellate review)
- Morneau v. State, 150 Conn. App. 237 (Conn. App. 2014) (courts give some latitude to self-represented litigants but procedural rules still apply)