149 Conn. App. 376
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Infant Zen T. (under 3 months) presented with multiple injuries: at least eight fractures, two long-bone irregularities, and bilateral chronic subdural hematomas—eleven injuries total—consistent with nonaccidental trauma over several weeks.
- The Commissioner of Children and Families filed a petition to terminate respondent mother Heather S.’s parental rights under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(C) (nonaccidental or inadequately explained serious physical injury).
- The matter was tried to the court; petitioner presented nine witnesses and 20 exhibits; respondent presented nine witnesses, testified, and introduced 21 exhibits.
- The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts, termination was in the child’s best interest, and the child’s injuries were serious and nonaccidental or inadequately explained; it also made findings under § 17a-112(k).
- The court terminated Heather S.’s parental rights; Cory T. (father) voluntarily consented and is not part of this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent received ineffective assistance of counsel | Petitioner: counsel was adequate and any deficiencies did not affect outcome | Heather S.: counsel was unprepared, missed disclosures, pressured her to self-draft questions, failed to challenge psychologist, and thus was ineffective and prejudicial | Court: Even if some performance shortfalls existed, respondent failed to prove prejudice; overwhelming evidence supported termination; claim fails |
| Whether counsel’s failure to challenge expert psychologist prejudiced respondent | Petitioner: psychologist’s opinions were supported and nonaccidental injuries constituted prima facie evidence for termination | Heather S.: psychologist’s conclusions were unchallenged and would have supported reunification if attacked | Court: Respondent did not show that challenging the psychologist would have changed result; injuries established prima facie case under §17a-112(j)(3)(C) |
| Whether trial court should have granted continuance for preparation | Petitioner: no showing that lack of continuance altered outcome | Heather S.: counsel should have requested continuance to prepare meaningful defense | Court: No prejudice shown and judge has duty to address counsel inadequacy; record shows no court intervention needed here |
| Whether missed disclosure and other procedural lapses warrant new trial | Petitioner: any discovery lapses did not change outcome given strength of evidence | Heather S.: missed evidence (e.g., calendar) would have altered court’s perception and outcome | Court: Speculative assertions of prejudice insufficient; respondent failed to create record demonstrating outcome would differ |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dylan C., 126 Conn. App. 71 (2011) (standards for ineffective assistance in termination proceedings)
- In re Alexander V., 223 Conn. 557 (1992) (right to counsel and effective assistance in parental-rights terminations)
- In re Mariah S., 61 Conn. App. 248 (2000) (burden to prove counsel inadequacy affected outcome)
- In re Jonathan M., 255 Conn. 208 (2001) (trial judge’s duty to address counsel misconduct or inadequacy)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (2009) (mootness doctrine and appellate relief limits)
- In re Christopher C., 129 Conn. App. 55 (2011) (responsibility to create an adequate record for ineffective-assistance claims)
- In re Jah’za G., 141 Conn. App. 15 (2013) (direct review of trial record when court made no findings on counsel effectiveness)