In Re Emerald C.

* RE EMERALD C. IN (AC 28573) Bishop, Gruendel, McLachlan and Js. * spirit In accordance with and intent of General Statutes 46b-142 § (b) 79-3, parties appeal Practice Book names of the involved in this papers open are not disclosed. The records of this case shall be only

inspection persons having proper upon interest therein order Appellate Court. officially released July 1,

Argued March 24 McCormack, appellant (respondent Marcia for father). whom,

Philip Miller, attorney general, assistant with Blumenthal, attorney gen- brief, were Richard Quinn Cobb, attorney eral, general, and Susan assistant appellee (petitioner). for the Condio, for minor child. Trudy

Opinion father from GRUENDEL, appeals J. The terminating parental his judgment of the trial He that respect E, with his minor child.1 claims rights mother, rights of E’s whom we The court also terminated the appealed, designation. she has not we refer this refer to Because respondent. opinion father as the 67-13, attorney pursuant § Practice also Book We note adopting petitioner in the brief of the minor filed a statement child appeal. this noncompliance improperly (1) the court considered of chil- department requirements mandated improperly families found (department), (2) dren and reunify that the made reasonable efforts him found failed (3) improperly with E that he had of personal to achieve sufficient rehabilitation degree pursuant to General 17a-112 We affirm (j) (3). Statutes of the trial judgment court.

E was bom on June 2003. mere three Weighing a spent month to life pounds, she her first at clinging Hospital Saint Medical Francis Center in Hartford due to mother’s E her admitted substance abuse while was in E’s a history útero. mother had of involvement department abuse, prosti- substance regarding tution, physical risk neglect, neglect medical and of injury concerning her four older children. She also had history depression a suicidal which and ideation for required hospitalization. she As a result, an order of temporary custody and a E petition that was alleging neglected uncared for was filed on her when behalf she was On 25, 2004, adjudicated bom. March E was neglected and was to custody committed the care and petitioner, the commissioner of and fam- children ilies. The order of temporary custody sustained shortly thereafter. identity

For the first ten of her life, months April E’s father was unknown. 29, 2004, paternity On test confirmed that the respondent was E’s father. respondent

The in was bom nation of African Ghana. In he relocated United States. At time, respondent two Ghana, had in daughters and four. aged found, two As the court he left “[wjhen Ghana, . . respondent] abandoned his daughters not seen has them since.” The met E’s mother of 2002. summer relationship serious, maintained their never was relationship more than a “nothing it as sexual describing conception led to the on few occasions that [E].” custody gain E, effort to an voluntarily comply to with agreed on August by That the court. specific steps thirteen issued appoint- all (1) keep order to required department cooperate and to set or with the ments visits, or announced unan- department home court-appointed attorney visits E’s nounced, and litem; keep ad to E’s whereabouts guardian (2) department, known to his his own whereabouts E; participate for attorney attorney and the to (3) progress and to make toward “identified counseling skills; parenting (4) goals” regarding treatment and to to substance abuse assessment follow submit treatment; (5) to submit to recommendations regarding method of which the time and drug testing, random department’s discretion; (6) engage shall at the be providers parenting, service individ- recommended family support in-home services or counseling, ual and treatment; releases author- (7) sign substance abuse pro- communicate with service izing the cooperation and attendance, monitor progress viders to proceed- for future and use in goals, toward identified adequate to secure or maintain ings court; (8) before to no income; (9) and have substance legal housing to have no involvement with criminal abuse; (10) immediately justice system; depart- to advise (11) composition of the any ment in the house- changes does not change hold as to so ensure safety to maintain compromise E; (12) the health and for the duration of E the state of Connecticut within except temporary travel out of state with this case in department or the court the authorization of the E as as the depart- to visit often advance; (13) ment permits. decision,

In its memorandum of the court chronicled reunify efforts to various made April 29, 2004, April with E: “From to 22,2005, providers service were contacted following Family [respondent’s] Development behalf: Cen- Community ter, Center, Hope Child Guidance New respondent] Planned Parenthood. was either [The adjust unable or his work to unwilling schedule any services; an intake for these accommodate there- fore, put place. these services could not be in [The respondent] began having supervised visits with at [E] department] July, July 2, 2004. From 2004, to [the April 8, 2005, these visits though they continued even were reported being as detrimental the well-being child. On December 8, was [the] [the mother] seen in respondent’s] apartment. On December 17, [the respondent] depart- instructed [the [the that he was have contact with ment] [the mother] if he were continue to contact, maintain [that] it jeopardize would reunification efforts with child. [the] On April 29, 2005, respondent] was asked if he [the any mother], had contact with but he denied such [the contact. He was aware that with contact [the would jeopardize reunification mother] [the] child. February

“From April 22,2005, to 8,2006, respon- [the dent and engaged pro- reunification and parenting E] grams with Abundant Families and Parent Infant Program]. Abundant Families characterized as being [E] ‘hysterical’ reported but appro- the interaction was priate. The Parent Infant reported visits Program between and the as respondent] appropriate. being [E reports appear These contradictory. February to be On 8, 2006, was reunified respondent]. with On [E] [the 14, 2006, March and the were [the mother] involved in violence, domestic and respondent] [the was disorderly arrested for conduct and unlawful 15, 2006, was removed from restraint.2 On March [E] April May 25, From to respondent]. care [the submitted to one urine screen 2006, respondent] [the eight. out of care respondent’s] was removed from

“After [the [E] 2006, respondent] engaged on March she and [the community. in Two supervised social in four visits attorney present were for three out workers and [E’s] as being were observed of the four visits. These visits extremely well-being child. detrimental [the] Court in Hartford ceased 8, 2006, On June Juvenile respondent] between child and visitation [the [the] reac- significant was adverse having because child reported to 9, 2006, tion the visits. On June it was older chil- by R, one of the mother’s [the living and the were dren], that mother] [the at the time and on married together planning getting reunification with respondent’s] of [the [E]. [The with respondent] fully was aware contact [the jeopardize reunification efforts with would [E] mother] yet he withhold this information from chose to department].” [the petitioner petition filed a

On June 23, 2006, rights as both the termination of petition for the was the ground and the mother. The pursuant to achieve sufficient rehabilitation failure on The court held a trial (j) (3) (ii).3 17a-112 (B) § from As the court recounted: March was removed [E] “[0]n respondent’s] to a traumatic domestic violence situation care due [the apartment respondent’s] at the and the mother between [the police department report, According March 2006. to the Manchester [E] beers, present respondent] pint gin and then as drank a several [the engaged physical in a This included altercation. altercation [the mother] pushing screaming respondent’s] punching, at mother and [the [the respondent], present.” stabbing all [E] mother’s] provides part: Superior (j) “The General Statutes 17a-112 relevant may petition parental rights] grant if it finds . . terminate Court . [to convincing . . . the . . has been found evidence that child clear and proceeding Superior neglected prior ... been ... Court have steps provided specific to take ... of such child has been 845 trial, petitioner 13 and 2006. the November At sub witnesses, mitted five exhibits and six and exhibits eight were on of submitted behalf E. The submit ted two exhibits and testified his own behalf. January

In its decision, 2007 memorandum of the had found the made reasonable reunify petitioner efforts to the and that E, the respondent had to failed achieve sufficient degree personal pursuant Q) rehabilitation to 17a-112 (3) (B). respondent’s It further found that termination was in the interest rights best of E.5 Accord- ingly, granted petition appeal the court and this followed.

I not a Although precision, model of first appears claim be “completed that because he steps all of the required,” improperly the court consid- noncompliance requirements ered his with additional mandated the department. For two reasons, claim is flawed.

First, the court never found that the respondent fully complied with specific the court-ordered steps. Rather, multiple it made findings contrary.6 For example, the court found that he was although required to submit to random drug at testing conducted the discretion of parent to facilitate return of the child to the . . . and has failed to degree personal encourage achieve such rehabilitation as would the belief time, considering age child, that within a reasonable needs responsible position such could assume a in the life of the child present mother at trial default entered for failure appear. 5Only adjudicative phase proceeding appeal. is at in this issue evaluating department, the reunification efforts made the court respondent’s “proven inability fully comply noted the with court-ordered specific steps . . .” sev- department, failed submit to found that although eral urine tests.7 The court participate in and petitioner required counseling was to goal toward the identified treatment progress to make skills, “he was either unable improving parenting his adjust his to accommo- unwilling to work schedule multiple by services initiated date an intake” Family department, those offered including Community Cen- Development Center, Child Guidance Planned The court ter, Hope and New Parenthood.8 required was to visit E “as often although found that he respondent department permits,” the did not as the visits were increased from comply. Instead, “[w]hen 2004, 21, hours on December one hour two [he] and, thereafter, did not visits, cancelled the first two he the increased hours. He either arrived one adhere to early.” respondent one The also hour late or left hour E 11May visits with on and June cancelled scheduled required was and to 1, Although 2006. he secure housing, refused to adequate maintain copy apartment a of his provide with verify occupancy provide and refused to lease verify rent information. telephone landlord’s number required was to have additionally The no system. justice Neverthe- involvement with criminal was less, 14, 2006, charges on March he arrested disorderly and unlawful restraint stemming conduct dispute with domestic violence the mother from the “ violence, and domestic night drinking which [a]fter by the mother in the respondent] was stabbed 7 study rights department’s social for termination of was to submit at trial indicated that the failed offered into evidence 2006, April 24, May 15 and all of which to urine tests on dispute. after the March 2006 domestic violence were scheduled initially parenting participated Although certain ser compliant” keep vices, E, “he and failed to he reunified with once appointments Fami with the reunification worker at Abundant his scheduled respondent’s result, file. As a Abundant Families closed the lies. presence light forego- See footnote 2. In [E].” fully complied claim that he ing, required steps all of the is untenable.

Furthermore, petitioner extent con- properly tends that the court could not consider his noncompliance requirements with additional mandated department, contrary his argument is to Connect- D., icut law. As this In re court observed in Vincent App. A.2d 658, 783 534 (2001), determining “[i]n parent personal whether has achieved sufficient reha- bilitation, may a court whether consider has commitment, corrected factors that led to the initial regardless those whether were included in factors expectations specific imposed ordered the court or department.” by the (Emphasis added.) Id., 670. case, respondent the explicit mother “had received from department, advice understood, which she custody that regaining depended of her on child her apart from living father until he was drug [the child’s] free.” Id. On appeal, this court held that the trial court properly the respondent considered mother’s noncom- pliance requirement with that in finding that she had not personal achieved a sufficient degree of rehabilita- tion. Id.

It undisputed is department repeatedly instructed the any that he was not to have contact with the mother. department The further instructed the not to allow E to have contact the mother. At trial, testi- fied he that was aware of those restrictions fact comply that his failure to therewith could jeopardize his reunification with E. The court was free to consider the evidence of his noncompliance require- with those ments in evaluating claim, rehabilitation. His there- fore, is without merit.

II improperly next claims that The to department made efforts that the reasonable found ade- reunify with E. We conclude that there was him to the court’s support the record quate evidence determination. under 17a-

“In order to terminate rights required prove, by clear department (j), evidence, that it has made reasonable convincing reunify parent, the child with the unless efforts ... . . is unable or unwill- court finds . that . . . 17a- to benefit from reunification. ing [Section alia, to imposes duty, on inter 112] or make efforts reunite the child children reasonable linchpin word is the parents. reasonable department’s particular set of which the efforts are be the clear adjudged, using circumstances proof. Neither the word reason- convincing standard by our is, however, nor word efforts defined able require- from which the the federal act legislature . . efforts means ment was drawn. [Reasonable everything possible. everything reasonable, doing will determination of this issue . . . The trial court’s of appeal unless, light in of all not be overturned on clearly record, in it is erroneous.” the evidence the marks omitted; quotation omitted.) internal (Citation C., re Samantha In clearly erroneous when either there “A is the support it, record to

is no evidence the firm is left with the definite and convic- reviewing . appeal, made. . . On that a mistake has been tion whether the trial court’s function is determine our factually supported legally and correct. conclusion . is [g]reat weight given In so . . doing ... of the trial court because judgment of court’s] parties the and the evidence. opportunity to observe . the record determine . . We do examine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclu- . . every sion other than the one reached. [Rather] presumption reasonable made in favor the trial is internal ruling.” (Citations omitted; quotation court’s Id., marks 627-28. of decision, its memorandum the court found that made efforts to department reunify reasonable E.

respondent with The court detailed efforts, various including procuring provid- services from the following “Family ers: Development Center, Community Child Guidance New Center, Hope Parenthood, and Planned Family Center, Families, Vernon Abundant Pre- school Intervention Program, psychological and inter- evaluations, actional ADRC Genesis.” That finding supported by department’s study social termi- for nation of rights that was offered into evidence at trial.

In addition, the court had it before evidence that department supervised arranged visits between the E that began July, 2004, and contin- ued for more year. than one When proved those visits unproductive, department implemented additional provided services that even more time for respon- department dent to interact with E. The also scheduled unsupervised overnight visits at the home. Furthermore, February 8, 2006, while maintaining custody E, department reunited her respondent. department The arranged day care on behalf pay half agreed that expense. also contacted Abundant Families, provided which with furniture apartment. for his petitioner

When the E removed from the respondent’s care one and one-half months later in the wake the domestic violence the dispute, department continued by multiple super- attempt arranging its at reunification department despite E. The did so con- vised visits with to E’s reports that visits were detrimental sistent the E and that no bond between well-being meaningful and attorney As for minor existed. the respondent filed emphasized pursuant in her statement child department with 67-13, Book worked § Practice “[t]he beyond months, for nineteen well respondent] [the Adoption out in the spelled time frame suggested seq. . . .” Act, Safe Families 42 U.S.C. et department respondent failing faults the as the “any position services his regarding offer him a situation.” The record victim in domestic violence indicates, however, perpetra- was a that specifically found tor of domestic violence. The court pint “drank that on March beers, gin engaged and several then [the mother] altercation included physical altercation. This [the at respondent’s] pushing screaming punching, [the stabbing respondent], all mother and the mother’s] supported present.” That [E] police department fol- filed the Manchester report By his introduced into evidence. arrest and lowing actions, department’s violated the he was to have contact with instructions that not prohibit any he was to contact the mother E that con- Notwithstanding between and the mother. thereafter continued its efforts department duct, the and E. reunify noted, As we earlier efforts means “[reasonable reasonable, possible.” everything everything doing re Samantha quotation marks (Internal C., supra, department’s Examining 268 Conn. 632. of the light particular circumstances efforts adequate evi- present case, we conclude that there from which the court could have concluded dence reunify reasonable efforts made clearly E. is not respondent with That determination erroneous.

Ill contends that the court improperly found that he failed to achieve a sufficient of degree personal pursuant rehabilitation 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) We (ii). disagree.

“On appeal, we review a trial court’s that a finding parent has failed to rehabilitate herself in accordance apply with the rules that generally to a trier’s finding will fact. We overturn such a only of fact if finding clearly it is erroneous light the evidence in the whole . . . record. We do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached. . . [0]n by review this every court presumption reasonable made in favor of the trial court’s ruling.”9 (Citation omit- ted; internal quotation marks In re Vincent omitted.) D., supra, App. 65 Conn. 669.

9It is well established that review of a trial court’s determination that a parent governed clearly has failed to achieve rehabilitation is errone See, e.g., M., 382, 397, ous standard. In re Jeisean 270 Conn. 852 A.2d 643 (2004); C., supra, 627; F., In re Samantha 268 Conn. In re Eden 250 Conn. 674, 705, 873, reargument denied, 924, 741 A.2d 251 Conn. 742 A.2d 364 (1999). “Appellate review of a factual ... is limited both as a practical matter and as a matter of the fundamental difference between the appellate quotation (Internal role the trial court and an court.” marks omitted.) Gorton, App. 52, 55, Gorton v. (2003). 80 Conn. 832 A.2d 675 “The findings trial great court’s of fact are entitled to deference and will be only showing they clearly overturned on a were erroneous.” State v. Moreno-Cuevas, App. 288, 291, (2007), denied, 104 Conn. 934 A.2d 260 (2008). standard, 287 Conn. 947 A.2d 344 “Under this deferential [w]e do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have (Internal quotation reached a conclusion other than the one reached.” marks omitted.) Properties Venture, Ashford, Cadlerock Joint L.P. v. App. 556, 560-61, (2006). Rather, making 909 A.2d 964 this determina “[i]n tion, every presumption given reasonable must be in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation Konetchy, marks Blow v. App. 777, 788, Although clearly the dissent concedes in a footnote that the erroneous applicable appellate standard of review is the standard which an reviews a trial court’s determination that a has failed to achieve rehabilitation, analysis apply grant- its does not that deferential standard. In ing respondent’s unpreserved process challenge review to the due personal court’s degree determination that he failed to achieve a sufficient analysis rehabilitation, frames its in terms of the dissent “liberty and, opinion relying concurring Thomas’ interest” Justice Granville, (2000), 147 L. Troxel v. 530 U.S. 120 S. Ct. Ed. 2d 49 strictly light respondent. in a favorable to scrutinizes the record most Appellate respondent’s process challenge the due is unwarranted review of distinctly improper. allege process did the a due and At no time (court § 60-5 to claim before trial court. See Practice Book not bound the Rather, distinctly trial”). during it was raised at the consider claim “unless respondent generally closing argument, alleged for the that “his counsel by rights, guaranteed to the States as the fourteenth amendment United process” constitution, Indeed, “due never been violated.” the words have they trial, in motion or were uttered at nor were discussed memorandum practice, party “[a]ny rules of of law submitted to the court. Under our may subject intending any question appeal law of which be the of an raise judicial question distinctly authority must either to the in a written state the distinctly question judicial trial brief 5-1 or state the to the under Section authority closing argument party’s on before such and the record within opposing opportunity give an the sufficient time to the counsel to discuss this, authority question. party judicial If fails to do will be under no 5-2; obligation question.” § Practice Book see also Weinstein decide Weinstein, 671, 743, (2005). v. 882 A.2d The failed 275 Conn. 53 practice. comply with that rule of importantly, respondent’s alleged Most the trial court address the did not process due claim in its memorandum of decision. thereafter §§ did not seek an articulation of that See Practice Book 66-5 and decision. repeatedly 61-10. “We held that this court will not consider claimed have part appears errors on the of the trial court it on the record that the unless upon question distinctly by raised at trial was ruled and decided adversely appellant’s (Emphasis added; internal the court claim.” quotation McGuire, 79, 87, App. McGuire v. 102 Conn. 924 marks Cadillac, Hadley, (2007); Inc. v. A.2d 886 see also Crest Pontiac 239 Conn. (claims 437, n.10, (1996) 444 neither decided 685 A.2d 670 addressed nor by properly appellate tribunal); Keating v. trial court are not before Glass 428, Corp., 431, (1985) (same); v. Container 197 Conn. State Simms, 206, 208, denied, (same), 170 365 A.2d 425 U.S. Conn. 821 Kelly, 727, 729, (1976); v. 100 96 S. Ct 48 L. Ed. 2d 199 State Conn. shows, (1924) (“so 125A. 95 far as the record us trial court never before motion, although among passed assigned it is not on the errors 532, 533, properly us”); Jarrett, (1909) v. before Atwood 71 A. 569 (“[t]he . . . that the claim embodied record nowhere discloses by passed upon remaining assignment error was . . below the court properly consideration”). us for Our therefore before [and] [it is] Supreme “applies Court has held that this rule to constitutional issues.” 829, 846, Whitney, v. 633 A.2d Statewide Committee Grievance Loiseau, (1993); Berry 614 414 v. A.2d process Accordingly, challenge due court’s determi degree personal that he achieve a rehabilitation nation failed to sufficient properly is not before this court. personal a sufficient degree Failure to achieve statutory grounds rehabilitation is one of the seven parental may which be terminated under 17a- rights § permits Section 17a-112 a court to (j) (3). (j) grant petition to terminate “if it finds rights . . . . . . convincing clear and evidence that the child Superior has been found Court ... to have been ... . . neglected prior . and proceeding parent provided specific of such child has been steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent . . . and has failed to achieve such degree personal rehabilitation as would the belief encourage that within a reasonable time, considering the age needs of child, responsi- such could assume a position ble in the life of the child . . . .” In making that determination, proper parent’s the focus is on the development demonstrable in relation to the needs of the child. As we have observed: rehabili- assessing “[I]n tation, the critical parent issue is not whether the has improved ability to manage life, own but [her] [her] rather ability whether has to gained care for [she] particular needs of the child at issue.” (Internal reaching unpreserved claim, ignores In this constitutional the dissent (1) respondent distinctly fact that did not raise the claim at trial as required by 5-2, (2) claim, § Practice Book the trial court did not rule on that (3) the did not file either a motion for articulation with the trial court, (4) court or a motion for review with this has not requested pursuant Golding, 233, review of the claim to State v. 213 Conn. 239-40, 567 (1989), (5) requested A.2d 823 has not review plain under the error doctrine. § See Practice Book 60-5. “Connecticut law party seeking unpreserved is clear that a review of claims under either the plain doctrine; 60-5; Golding, [supra, error § Practice Book v. or State 239- 40], affirmatively request Wheatland, must such review.” State v. 93 Conn. App. 232, 243-44, 1098, denied, 919, 888 A.2d cert. 277 Conn. 895 A.2d 793 (2006); Ramos, 156, 171, (2002) (“[a] see v. also State 261 Conn. 801 A.2d 788 party obligated affirmatively request Golding . . . review under or plain doctrines”). result, engage review, As a “we do not in a level of error] Golding plain error, requested by party.” such as or when it has not been a Longo, App. 701, 709, (2008). State v. 943 A.2d 488 The dissent explanation departure prerequi offers no for its from those well established appellate sites to review. 854 Alejandro L., In re Conn. 91

quotation marks 248, Furthermore, A.2d 450 our App. 260, (2005). liberally are required provisions courts to construe whom 17a-112 in the best interest of the child for of § filed, parent than the thereof. petition a has been rather 17a-112 (q). See General Statutes “ handicapped means ‘to restore ‘Rehabilitate’ [a place delinquent person] to useful and constructive society Webster, Third social rehabilitation.’ through Appeal In re Juvenile Dictionary.” New International denied, (84-3), Conn. App. 463, 477, 473 A.2d 802, 474 Likewise, A.2d 1259 (1984). “[failure failure of a to rehabilitate is defined as the adjudication expectations following achieve re Jessica disposition prior neglect petition.” M., appeal 714 A.2d 64 App. (1998), Conn. Our dismissed, reveals that the evidence credited review the record supports its conclusion that failed to attain a of rehabilitation sufficient degree in the warrant that at some time foreseeable the belief future, capable assuming responsible he would be care of E. position respect paternity was discovered months her as a E, adjudication neglected after the birth custody peti the child her commitment petitioner acknowl respondent tioner. Both the “reunification” is of a edge something the term department been in the care of the misnomer, as E has Upon she month confirmation of his since was one old. respondent department told the paternity E,of his work “he could not care for her due to schedule her.”10 speak family caring but would to his about decision, respondent found that the In its memorandum of the court may department separate have had on two occasions that he “informed the adopt respondent] willing who Each time [the relatives would be [E]. information, he he would was asked names and contact stated that for their respondent] get together. Each time need a few weeks to the information time, daugh At that had abandoned two relationship and had with E. He there ters Ghana no voluntarily after entered into an with the agreement ability steps improve to take certain his every presumption to care for E. in favor of Indulging must, reasonably the court’s as we the court ruling, comply could determine that in agreeing specific steps light of the aforementioned parenting history, sought to restore himself to position capable parent. of a Pursuant to General provided respon Statutes 46b-129 the court (j), § specific steps dent with that included measures tar the “identified treatment geting goals” regarding his parenting abilities.

The record indicates that the respondent’s efforts largely previously were unsuccessful. As noted, failed to comply fully with several of the specific steps by ordered part court. See I. That support study determination finds in the social for ter- parental mination of rights that was offered into evi- testimony dence and the addition, adduced at trial. In needed, said through.” he would obtain the information he did not follow supported by study That is the social for termination of rights. appellate brief, respondent questions precisely In his from what was rehabilitated, repeated he to be a refrain in the dissent. Under our rules of practice, responsibility appellant provide it is the sole this court adequate with an record for review. Practice Book 61-10.Practice Book permits appellant § 66-5 an to seek an articulation the trial court of the legal factual and basis on which it rendered its decision. articulation “[A]n appropriate ambiguity where the trial court’s decision contains some deficiency reasonably susceptible may of clarification. ... An articulation necessary completely be where the trial court fails to state basis for basis, although stated, its decision ... or where the is unclear. . . . The purpose dispel any ambiguity clarifying of an articulation is to . . . legal upon decision, factual basis which the trial court rendered its thereby sharpening appeal.” omitted; (Citations quota the issues on internal Fastening Systems, App. tion marks Fantasia v. Milford (2004), denied, 860 A.2d 779 (2005). Nevertheless, despite puzzlement, failed to seek present an articulation of the trial court’s decision in the case. comply department’s with the failed to respondent any not to have contact that he was instructions to allow E to have that he was not the mother and testified that respondent The with the mother. contact history addiction drug was aware of the mother’s he comply failure to the fact that department and with the jeopardize his could department’s instructions those ignored with E. He nevertheless reunification had before it the statement The court also instructions. respon- children, that the mother’s older R,of one of the and planning living together the mother “were dent and reunifica- respondent’s of the married at the time get introduced police report in the Similarly, E.” tion with respondent to the mother referred evidence, the into key that she had her own and stated boyfriend” as “her respondent’s apartment. exposed E to domestic respondent addition, on the eve- report indicated that police The violence.12 apartment from the E was removed dispute, ning of and the between the altercation after days that in the mother testified Also, E’s foster mother. E recounted dispute, violence the domestic following “he was bleed- “daddy because screaming” was how her statement testimony respondent’s That belies ing.” Further, during stabbing.13 present that E was not respon finding attributing to the disagree factual with the dissent’s We foremost, find facts.” “this court does not First and dent a “clean record.” (2004), Eck, App. 441, A.2d 560 v. Van Branford Second, found denied, the trial court E, two minor children prior abandoned the birth of appeal. Ghana, not contest on does filed, petition was the termination that months before further found disorderly charges and unlawful conduct arrested on dispute engaged stemming and that he the domestic violence restraint from footnote 2. at that time. See in substance abuse decision, find indicated that it did not the court In its memorandum questioned testimony It stated: “The court [the credible. extensively respondent] during and is mindful of the examination the trial viewing throughout prevailing the court’s time and also others. At that respondent] evidence, observed a reluctance the court has Rather, responded positive in most respond forthright, he manner. in a respondent it the court’s that the supports poor upbringing “exhibited the judgment [E].” presented ample The court was evidence docu- E. respondent’s inability the to interact with menting testified, As social worker Lourdes Gerena the during dispute, violence supervised prior visits to the domestic any E emotion; “would shut down. She didn’t show she respondent. wouldn’t interact with the She wouldn’t really him look at him or even let touch her hand or Multiple present social workers at those anything.” supervised E throughout visits confirmed that cried the unresponsive respondent.14 visits and was reluctantly hesitation, pausing instances with an inordinate amount of seemingly prepare response curry particular that he felt would favor in the necessarily truly impression situation but not factual. This was the distinct court, respondent] fabricate, of the and this character of to somewhat explains impression given [department] man the this had workers and supervisors, department counsel for the and others to lead them down a path proposing period. put long good for reunification for a He on a facade all, beyond lacking accomplish but the front there was a firm resolve to satisfactory completion the services order to be able to serve as safe, responsible nurturing parent within a reasonable time.” police report evening Wenote that the indicates that on the of the domestic dispute, respondent dispute violence averred was with “his girlfriend,” apartment. respondent who he claimed attacked him in his argument further stated that the mother was “not at his home when this happened.” trial, respondent acknowledged At that his statements were not truthful. agreeWe with the dissent’s observation that the evidence in the record suggests ongoing parent-child relationship. Although agree the lack of an we “punctilious procedural guidelines” required adherence to is in termina D., proceedings; supra, App. 668; tion In re Vincent we are also parental rights highly fact-specific mindful that “whether to terminate is a process.” P., App. 244, 254, In re Shane present case, analysis predicated factors, our on a multitude of includ ing (1) respondent’s Ghana; abandonment of his two minor children in (2) upon paternity E, the fact that confirmation of his schedule”; told the that “he could not care for her due to his work (3) respondent’s comply fully specific failure to with several of the steps court; (4) comply ordered failure to department’s any instructions that he was not to have contact with the mother; mother and that he was not to allow E to have contact with the (5) planning get the fact that the and the mother were to married depart- dispute, violence

Following the domestic supervised visits between ment five arranged cancelled the visits and E. The 1, 2006. May 11, 2006, During and June scheduled E a fear of the attended, he exhibited the visits that those present A worker at one of respondent. social “totally and cried in that E shut down visits stated appeared frightened, She respondent’s presence. not interact with respond would not and would uneasy, the visit. E shook her head throughout if wanted to have more visits ‘no’ when asked she worker described respondent.” Another social as “the saddest visits I’ve ever the visits to the court seen.” with evidence concern- presented

The court also was Ghana, in whom it found respondent’s children ing in and “has not seen them he had abandoned 2000 ”15 required court is rehabilitation, In assessing since. E; (6) respondent’s with the fact that at the time of the reunification inability violence; respondent’s exposed (7) E to domestic testimony Kelly psychologist Rogers, E; (8) F. to interact with and respondent’s parent. opined questioned fitness as a Consider- that he who review, requires applicable ing standard or which those factors under the presumption every in favor of the trial court’s make reasonable this court to say clearly supra, 669; D., ruling; we cannot that it was In re Vincent had failed to attain for the court to conclude that erroneous degree at time to warrant the belief that some of rehabilitation sufficient assuming responsible future, capable of in he would be the foreseeable position respect care of E. with disputed finding appeal that factual has not appellate in either his brief or of his Ghanaian children made no mention questioning, sponte, argument sua at oral before this court. appropriate opinion, deference the dissent fails to accord in footnote 6 of its appropriate factual forum for the resolution of to the trial court as “the Miller, 294, 302, disputes”; v. 285 Conn. First National Bank of Litchfield [principle] derogation (2008); in of the “well established 939 A.2d 572 parties [appellate] briefs.” claims raised their review is limited to J., (Schaller, Payton, App. Payton 930 A.2d 802 v. 103 Conn. doing, denied, (2007). concurring), In so respondent despite testimony the fact that the of the the dissent credits credibility, court, him not credible. See the sole arbiter of found trial as 483, 488-89, V., opinion; In re Davonta footnote 13 of this see also perspective to obtain a historical C., abilities. In re Daniel caring parenting child A.2d 487 The court App. 339, 354, testimony respondent regarding heard detailed from the relationship with his As it stated its daughters. questioned memorandum decision: “[T]he respondent] regard relationship at to his length in Ghana with living with his two who are daughters respondent] their maternal left grandmother. [The [J], years Ghana in 2000 when his was two daughter, years [P], old and now old and his eight daughter, years now old. years was four old and is ten He has years, not seen these children in six talks to them occa- from time sionally telephone on the to time sends money small sums of to them. While he has had an had seemingly obligation income since 2000 and has no anyone 18,2004, other than himself until when August paternity determined, his of he has offered [E] little, any, support if to those two children. He never attempted country bring daughters his to this even for a visit nor saw fit to visit with them in Ghana.” In of that light perspective, historical the court concluded retry (2008) (appellate pass A.2d 733 tribunal does not facts or credibility Gallo, 36, 38, 440 witnesses); (1981) Gallov. 184Conn. A.2d 782 credibility (“[w]eighing judging the evidence and of the witnesses is the usurp Highstead role”); function of the trier of fact and this court will not that Foundation, Fahan, App. (2008) Inc. v. 105 Conn. 941 A.2d 341 (“ credibility weigh is the function of the trial court to the evidence and the [i]t parties facts; retry appeal” and to find the we cannot the case on quotation England omitted]); Cos., marks v. Feen New [internal Benefit App. 772, 780, (“[i]n recognition superior position Conn. 841 A.2d 1193 of its they disparate ability to evaluate those factors as at coalesce trial and the reviewing glean things record, of a court to such from the written we have credibility held that the trial court is vested with the sole discretion to make assign weight given testimony”), denied, assessments and to to be 910, Although 852 A.2d 739 the dissent states that the provide enough record does not information about the circumstances of family and his in Ghana to determine whether his abandon ability E,” ment of the minor children “is relevant to his to raise the trial expressly court concluded otherwise. respon- to the court is remarkable “[i]t in Ghana can daughters to his two inattention dent’s] to father with a serious intention be reconciled [E].” testimony psychologist also heard the give great weight are entitled to Kelly F. “Courts Rogers. cases.” In re termination professionals 221, 660 A.2d 863 V., App. 214, Christina H., App. 167, Shyliesh also In re see (1995); testimony 176, (1999) (“[psychological accorded appropriately great professionals from evaluated proceedings”). Rogers weight termination which he July, during and E in of the child with the interactional studies conducted parents. Rogers with her foster respondent, as well as he recommended although originally testified that August, with E in reunification of the based his Rogers it at the time of trial. opposed he variety factors that included opinion (1) on a relationship E, (2) respondent’s lack of relationship mother, (3) respondent’s ongoing respondent’s sub- dispute, (4) violence the domestic report, police in the stance abuse that was documented family and the “risk with her foster strong E’s bond (5) his concerns about removal,” (6) of another of trauma development, and social E’s emotional long-term credibility his concerns about the (7) correctly to authorities on the status “ability report he result, testified that Rogers As a daughter.” parent. fitness as a questioned respondent’s summary adjudicatory findings, In its “inability parent E even to stressed the in the services made avail- participation after extensive upbringing” in the “poor judgment and his able” evidence convincing clear and E. It found that “[t]he improve failed to respondent indicates that has] [the . . ability acceptable standards. to parenting [his] behalf and department’s] efforts on espite [his] [D] [the incapable efforts, own remains] [his] [the a safe and environment for providing nurturing [his] care, patience the level of child. When one considers discipline require that children from their caregiv- ers, patently it is clear that is] than at position parent a better now [E] [he was] and that during proceedings, other time these [he qualities necessary successfully without remains] parent It therefore found that E’s considering [E].”16 special needs, needs and could not age, responsible position within a reasonable time assume a in the child’s life.

It is well in assessing settled the critical issue parent rehabilitation is whether the has the abil gained ity to particular care for the needs of the child at issue. T., App. 815, 836, In re Halle 96 Conn. 902 A.2d 670 (2006); Alejandro L., supra, App. 260; In re 91 Conn. Kristy A., App. 298, In re 83 Conn. 317, 1276, 848 A.2d cert. denied, 271 Conn. 859 A.2d 579 (2004); In re Ashley M., App. 66, 72, 82 Conn. 842 A.2d 624 (2004); In re B., App. 245, 255, Victoria 79 Conn. In re

(2003); P., App. 377, Amneris 66 Conn. A.2d 457 (2001); Gary B., App. In re 66 Conn. 784 A.2d 412 (2001); C., In re Daniel 63 Conn. supra, App. 354; J., App. In re Sheila 62 Conn. 470, 480, 771 A.2d 244 (2001); K., In re Sarah Ann App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000); Shyliesh H., In re supra, App. 180; In re Danuael D., App. 829, 840, 724 A.2d 546 amply supports record conclusion that the has not gained that acknowledging parenting respondent, After the “limited skills” of the opines the dissent that “this is not a condition from which he had to be authority support inquiry rehabilitated.” It cites no that assertion. If the (j) (3) (B) (ii) “considering age under 17a-112 centers on whether child, parent responsible position needs of the such could assume a in the child,” perceive why inability life of the we no reason a child cannot, circumstances, in certain constitute such a condition. 862 every presump- ability. reasonable Indulging

essential of as our standard ruling, in favor of the court’s tion that the evidence credited requires, we conclude review that the supports its conclusion by the court sufficient to attain a of rehabilitation degree failed in the foreseeable that at some time warrant the belief responsible capable assuming he would be of future, required by E, to the care of as position respect Q) (B) (Ü). 17a-112 (3) is affirmed. judgment The BISHOP, J., concurred. opinion In this Termination of McLACHLAN,J., dissenting. equivalent of the death has been called the civil rights Rights to A.J.G., as 122 See Matter Parental penalty. P.3d 759 “The termination 1418, 1423, (2006). Nev. complete as the severance parental rights defined relationship, with all its rights legal court order of the child and his responsibilities, between judicial action. and sensitive .... It is a most serious Norton, 430, 362 A.2d Anonymous 421, v. 294, Ct. 46 L. Ed. denied, 935, 423 U.S. 96 S. 532, interference that ultimate Although 2d 268 (1975). relationship may be parent-child the state circumstances, rights natural required under certain undeniably warrants defer children parents their interest, powerful countervailing and, ence absent marks omitted; quotation internal protection.” (Citation Appeal (Anonymous), In re Juvenile 436 A.2d long United States has Court of the Supreme parents. Writing right this fundamental recognized Granville, majority in Troxel v. 530 U.S. for the Justice O’Connor (2000), 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 S. Ct. no provides that “The Fourteenth Amendment stated: deprive any person life, liberty, prop- State shall or erty, process without due of law. We have long recog- Clause, nized that the Amendment’s Due Process like counterpart, its Fifth Amendment more than guarantees fair . process. . The Clause also includes a substan- component provides protection tive heightened against government interference with certain funda- liberty mental interests.” rights (Citation omitted; quotation internal omitted.) Id., liberty marks 65. “The parents interest at issue in this case—the interest of care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps liberty the oldest of the fundamental interests by recognized Thus, any this Court.” Id. statute which parent’s interferes with the right to raise a child free from any procedure interference of the state as well as subject it will implementing scrutiny.1 be to strict Id., 80 (Thomas, J., concurring).

I agree majority with the trial court and the that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable reunify efforts to child, E, the minor 1Generally, statutory liberty when a classification affects a fundamental interest, subject scrutiny. Keogh Bridgeport, that statute is to strict v. See present case, parties In the do assert, I, not nor do that the statute in this case should be examined or challenged. simply emphasize importance I the fundamental nature and parent’s right children, which, statutory to raise his or her because of the scheme, properly applied. agree majority must be I that in the present case, governed clearly the court’s decision is erroneous opinion, however, standard of I review. am of the that a mistake was commit Shapero Mercede, App. 343, 346-47, ted. See v. (2001) 784A.2d 435 (“A finding clearly of fact is erroneous when there no is evidence in the support although support it, record to it ... or when there is evidence to reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm finding conviction that a mistake has been committed. ... A of fact will clearly not be disturbed unless it is erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole .... record The conclusions drawn the trial upheld they legally logically court will be unless are inconsistent with omitted; quotation omitted.]), the evidence.” internal marks [Citation rev’d grounds, (2002). Here, on other 262 Conn. 808A.2d 666 the evidence does support of failure to rehabilitate. unwilling and that he was father I that a efforts, agree from such unable to benefit is in the rights termination of the how- agree, I cannot regrettably best interest. child’s respondent’s parental that the ever, with the conclusion the stated stat- were terminated on appropriately rights personal rehabilita- failure to achieve utory ground and terminate to intervene going tion.2 If the state that the paramount it is parental rights, individual’s an statutory appropriate ground. prove allege state statutory criteria for termina- “Compliance best by all-encompassing an tion cannot be dismissed Appeal (Anony- In re Juvenile interests standard. A.2d 875 Insis- (1979). 177 Conn. mous), statutory criteria compliance with upon tence strict subsequent parental rights of before termination is not inconsistent can occur adoption proceedings it Rather, of the child. best interests concern for the by auton- promoting best interests the child’s enhances arbitrary by of reducing dangers families and omous dis- to state intrusion amounting and biased decisions Id. best interests. the rubric of the child’s under guised tempted, be or social workers will judges risk that [T]he compare unfavorably unconsciously, or consciously parents the child’s natural advantages the material of adoptive parents and there- prospective with those of rather comparisons such a result based on to reach fore court, in requires statutory criteria than on the parental rights, petition to terminate considering a termination the issue whether completely sever adop- proposed whether a warranted and statutorily emphasis omitted; . . .” (Citation tion is desirable automatically reunify judgment E with would not A here reversal custody rather, respondent; she would remain committed petitioned petitioner petitioner for termination of the the court until the statutory proper ground rights made an respondent’s parental on the plan. appropriate permanency added; quotation internal marks re Juve Appeal, App. 463, 467, nile 473 A.2d denied, While it may E have been in the best interest of that the court respondent’s parental terminated the it is rights, best public petitioner, interest of the that the the com select families, appro missioner children and priate statutory Here, applied the court an ground. improper statutoiy which was ground, alleged petitioner, order to do what was in the best interest of E.

The that the termination of his argues on the sole basis that he failed to achieve rights personal sufficient rehabilitation as would degree a belief that within a reasonable consid- encourage time, ering age child, and needs of the he could assume responsible position child, in the life of the denied him process.3 due That claim is supported the follow- appeal first issue on was that trial court erred “[t]he respondent that the father had failed to rehabilitate. . . . The respondent process provided by rights father was not accorded his due as process the due clause of the fourteenth amendment the to United States respondent process argument Constitution.” The further enunciated his due in his brief before this court. majority Although process the has determined that the due preserved, preserved claim is not I believe that the claim is and should be right present addressed due to the fundamental involved in the case. provides: “Anyparty any question intending § Practice Book 5-2 to raise may subject appeal question of law which be the of an must either state the distinctly judicial authority to the in a written trial brief under Section 5-1 question distinctly judicial authority or state the on the record before party’s closing argument give opposing such and within sufficient time to opportunity question. party this, counsel an to discuss the If the fails to do judicial authority obligation question.” will be under no to decide the The § satisfied Practice Book 5-2. closing argument trial, position In his at asserted “his that rights, guaranteed by as the fourteenth amendment to United States constitution, by argument stating have been violated.” He made this that department background check, conducted a in which it found that he did history history department. not have a criminal and did not have a following language excerpted respondent’s closing argument The from the expands process police report single on his due claim: of a incident of “[A] At the time the was ing facts in the record. he had father, identified E’s had a clean record. He as history no abuse, history, no of substance no criminal history history violence, depart- of domestic no and had ment, gainfully employed housing he was fact, time in In E’s social during question. most of the had worker that a “clean testified did make referrals a sub- record” and that she not for That is not a failure to rehabilitate. Rehabilitate means domestic violence. any history prior respondent] have to restore to a level. doesn’t [The said . . . social there was no domestic violence. [The worker] for abuse. She never made a referral an evaluation concern about substance years they sending working two were home. No evidence in the [E] any event, ... of alcohol abuse at all. he submitted the substance negative. [testing], abuse and it was Both urine screens the hair test So, negative. rehabilitating not from substance . . . This were abuse. he’s termination, ground There’s and that’s is a violation our laws. one respondent] failure to rehabilitate. When asked from what was rehabili- tating, department] identifying from had social worker trouble [another maybe said, well, guess I ah—I severe domestic it. believe she violence (Emphasis added.) be of those.” substance abuse. But it can’t either one part: Furthermore, provides § 60-5 in relevant Practice Book “The court distinctly be a claim unless it was raised at the shall not bound to consider may justice subsequent the trial. in the trial or arose The court interests of plain brought to the trial . .” notice error not the attention of court. predecessor 60-5, was to Practice Book before it amended in provided: supreme court shall be bound to consider errors on “The they specifically appeal assigned or claimed it an unless are and unless question distinctly appears on that the raised at the trial the record adversely appellant’s upon and was ruled and decided the court subsequent Therefore, claim, (Emphasis added.) or that it arose the trial.” though majority distinctly even claims unless the issue raised court, preserved precluded it is not and review is absent and decided 233, 239-40, Golding, (1989), 213 567 review under v. Conn. A.2d 823 State sufficiently plain review, Furthermore, error I believe it was raised. Prac- or imperfectly preclude § that was raised from tice Book 60-5does not claim merely being reviewed; bound to it review. it states the court is not afford respondent’s Moreover, petitioner object process did not due rather, preserved; petitioner argument claiming that it was only respondent’s inadequately. The due asserted that the claim was briefed analyzed process however, pages claim, long, is ten and the has support generally provided law in of such claim. See his claim and case App. 93, (2008). Linarte, 118, A.2d 369 State v. 107 Conn. 944

867 him previous abuse evaluation E to returning stance abuse.4 because she was not concerned about substance petitioner to terminate the sought on the basis of a failure to achieve rights pursuant sufficient of rehabilitation to General degree Statutes 17a-112 “Rehabilitate” means (j) (3) (B) (ii). person to a handicapped delinquent to restore a place society useful and constructive in social through L., Sup. 287, 308, rehabilitation. In re Heather 49 Conn. 'd, 877 A.2d 27 aff 274 Conn. 874 A.2d 796 (2004), Webster’s defines “rehabilitate” as “to restore capacity to a former ... good repute to restore to Dictionary . . . .” Collegiate (10th Merriam-Webster’s Ed. Numerous Connecticut decisions have used 1993). language “[p]ersonal rehabilitation as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a to his or her former constructive and useful a parent.” role as quotation marks In re (Internal Alejandro L., App. 248, 91 Conn. Moreover, A.2d 450 (2005).5 4During process, however, respondent, the reunification when he had custody E, of was involved a domestic violence altercation with E’s reportedly point mother in which he consumed alcohol to the of inebriation behavior, and was stabbed. IWhile make no excuses for such reckless it pattern nevertheless does not indicate a of substance abuse or domestic violence from which the needed to be rehabilitated. B., App. 319, (2006) (court See In re Nasia 908 A.2d 1090 parental rights grounds, affirmed termination of mother’s on several includ ing history failure to rehabilitate because mother had of substance abuse issues, sporadically programs and mental health and chose to attend various advantage opportunities and take to address both of those issues as well parenting skills); B., App. 203, as her see also In re Shaun (2006) (court parental rights A.2d 246 affirmed termination of mother’s on anger management basis of failure to rehabilitate when mother had issues, specific advantage steps mental health and did not take programs issues); A., offered that would have addressed In re Vanna App. 17, (2004) (court affirmed termination of mother’s parental rights ground of failure to rehabilitate because mother had been times, incarcerated, allegations, arrested several there were abuse and court justice system found mother’s continued involvement in criminal and lack progress therapy inability reunify child). demonstrated 868 that rehabilita have determined in other states

courts conditions, or circumstances, “remov[ing] tion is inability parent’s unwilling caused the conduct that Shelby the child.” M.E. v. care for properly ness to Resources, Dept. Human 89, 972 So. 2d County App. 2007). Civ. (Ala. all have in common used,

Whatever definition Here, something. from concept of restoration he to from what was poses question: sup does not The record in this case rehabilitated? be suffered from some that the port the fact be which he needed to disability from condition or Admittedly, he had limited restored or rehabilitated. which not a condition from skills, but this is parenting a failure prove In order to to be rehabilitated. he had for termination of as a ground achieve rehabilitation rehabilitation test for two-pronged a rights, by clear and prove The state must be satisfied: must failed to parent has evidence that convincing no reason to and that there is rehabilitation achieve responsible posi could assume that a believe time, within a reasonable of a child tion in the life needs. See General Stat child’s considering age D., Danuael In re (j) (3) (B); utes 17a-112 In re see 843, (1999); generally App. 829, A.2d M., App. 194, 203, 504 Migdalia In re A.2d 770 (1986); denied, 199 L., supra, 49 Conn. Sup. 308.6 Heather majority for should have filed motion that the states grounds his failure to rehabilitate. if he was unclear as articulation respon majority appears however, opinion, to conclude that the In its supported by he the court’s dent’s failure to rehabilitate daughters he first came to the United in Ghana when had abandoned his two in which he had in a domestic violence incident and his involvement States trying he was to work testified that stabbed. The been bring daughters He also immigration his to the United States. authorities to regular spoke daughters on a basis. he with his informed the court that respondent had been so that the court found it “remarkable” While the Ghana, daughters and circumstances sur the facts inattentive to his behind, Ghana, leaving daughters departure are rounding his from petitioner Moreover, court claimed that the nor the neither unclear. particu L. and majority Alejandro relies on In re larly assessing in which the court stated: language “[I]n par issue is not whether the rehabilitation, the critical ability life, own improved manage ent has [her] [her] ability to care gained but rather whether has [she] .”7 particular for the needs of the child at issue (Internal quotation Alejandro L., supra, marks In re omitted.) respondent, reunify E, bring in order to with should have taken measures to daughters attacking his other to the United States. I am not daughters the court that the abandoned his in Ghana. I raise provide enough this issue because the record does not us with information family about the and his in Ghana us circumstances for country, leaving to determine whether his children in another more than years earlier, ability six raise E. relevant to his Alejandro example litany In re L. is but one of a of cases in which the clearly facts demonstrate the conditions from which the failed to There, repeatedly discharged rehabilitate. was from sub abuse, counseling. Alejan stance mental health and domestic violence In re L., supra, App. example, dro 250-53. For was Hospital attempted admitted to Manchester Memorial for suicide was East, outpatient program admitted to River the intensive treatment at Nat chaug Hospital, discharged attending therapy but was for not her sessions. Id., outpatient program 252. She was then referred to an with Hockanum Community Valley outpatient counseling mental health and substance abuse (Hockanum Valley), again discharged treatment center but was once because programs. of her failure to attend Id. adjudicated neglected, began After the court all her four children she receiving counseling Valley again discharged from Hockanum but once was programs. Additionally, report drug for failure to attend Id. she failed to testing and, tested, recently when she was the test indicated that she had drugs. Id., burglary used 252-53. She was arrested for and was admitted to again subsequently discharged comply River East but was for failure to Id., recommended treatment for cocaine addiction. 253. She also refused partial hospital- attend recommended intensive treatment at the Teamworks program, saying ization instead that she intended to enroll a New Direction program but failed to enroll. Id. She was then referred for the third time to appointment Valley and, time, another intake at Hockanum for the third discharged comply program. department, for failure to Id. The Family provided counseling referred her to Stafford Services for trans- portation, Id., but she failed to attend. 254. There was a domestic violence protective L, against father, order entered in her favor the children’s but Last, burglary charge she chose to live with him. Id. her resulted in a probation requiring criminal conviction with her to attend substance abuse counseling comply. with which she failed to Id. The facts of all of the precedent support position cases used as of this dissent that “failure appropriate to rehabilitate” is not in this case. use of this majority’s language 260. The App. from ground of the termination changes meaning ability care “[gaining] rehabilitate” to “failure to at issue.” (Internal of the child particular for the needs Id. quotation marks parental rights for termination petition The actual jurisdictional facts form on which preprinted is a of boxes to forth with a number are set grounds space In the reserved for applicable. when be checked has the seven termination, grounds the form of grounds seven subcate- in 17a-112 For each of the (j). set forth § only checked in this case The box there is box. gories for the so- language ground (B), to the was that next was No other box ground. to rehabilitate called failure may supported have Evidence in the record checked. which is as ground (D), other such grounds, several relationship. The parent-child ongoing there is no parental rights a termination of prepare procedure relationship is parent-child but the petition simple, be care and attention should important that great so if termination, that viable grounds taken to ensure was Unfortunately, the effort they are exist, alleged. of this case facts and evidence made to match the made nor was motion ever statutory grounds, viable petition allege grounds. to amend the to be to limit the issues are intended “Pleadings a case and calculated at the trial of decided [are] is to purpose pleadings . . surprise. . prevent [The] the issues and to define, and narrow frame, present, to be limit, proof of, foundation form the internal omitted; . . .” (Citations at trial submitted Britain, Birchard New v. marks quotation denied, 927 A.2d App. 79, 83, Conn. Practice Book 33a-l A.2d 721 judicial proceedings the initiation concerning (a), in relevant provides parental rights, the termination reasonable set forth with petitioner “The shall part: particularity, including statutory references, spe- cific conditions which have resulted in the situation ” subject which is the petition. (Emphasis added.) The facts adduced at support, my this trial do not opinion, clear evidence that convincing has failed A to rehabilitate. reasonable person in respondent’s position presented when petition this would not have the belief that he would have his relationship with his child completely severed. In case, this it is not the finding of facts that is clearly erroneous application but the of the law. The improper statutory ground alleged. checked the wrong box.

I respectfully dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Emerald C.

Court Name: Connecticut Appellate Court

Date Published: Jul 1, 2008

Citation: 108 Conn. App. 839

Docket Number: AC 28573

Court Abbreviation: Conn. App. Ct.