In re Miracle C.
The respondent mother appealed from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor сhild. She claimed that the court erroneously concluded that the Department of Children and Families had made reasonable efforts at reunification pursuant to statute (
PER CURIAM. The respondent mother, Priscilla W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, M.1 On appeal, she claims that the court erroneously concluded that the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts at reunification, pursuant to
The following facts, which were found by the trial court, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The child was born at Yale New Haven Hospital (hospital) in 2018. Shortly after the child was born, the hospital made a referral to the department. The referral was made on the basis of, inter alia, the respondent’s significant mental health history, including past diagnoses of adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct, bipolar disorder, depression, oppositional defiance disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety. At the time of the child’s birth, the respondent had not been engaged in any mental health treatment since 2013.
The respondent also was involved in two domestic violence incidents with the child’s father. See footnote 1 of this opinion. The first occurred in April, 2017, and the second occurred on January 4, 2018, while the respondent was pregnant with the child. Despite protective orders protecting the respondent from the child’s father, the respondent planned, upon her discharge from the hosрital following the birth of the child, to resume living with the child’s father.
On February 5, 2018, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner), pursuant to
Beginning on October 28, 2019, the court, Marcus, J., held a trial on the petition for termination of parental rights. The court rendered judgment terminating the
The court set forth detailed findings regarding the services offered to the respondent and her level of engagement with and failure to benefit from such services. Specifically, the court found that despite attending weekly, trauma focused therapy through Integrated Wellness with Rachel Forbes, a therapist, from April, 2018 to March, 2019, the respondent made ‘‘little to no progress.’’ The respondent also refused to increase her therapy sessions to twice weekly, as recommended by a psychological evaluation in November, 2018.4
The court further found that the respondent exhibited ‘‘extremely dysregulated behavior,’’ including during one incident on July 2, 2018. That day, thе department’s social worker had transported the respondent and the child to a doctor’s appointment for the child. After the appointment, the respondent and the social worker disagreed about the order of drop-offs. The respondent wanted to be dropped off first, began screaming that she wanted to go hоme, removed the social worker’s keys from the car’s ignition, and exited the car with the child. The social worker called the police, while the respondent engaged in a tantrum on the side of the road before eventually handing the child to the social worker. In another incident in March, 2019, the respondent expressed threats during a therapy session with Forbes and was admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Middlesex Hospital. She was discharged with a recommendation for intensive outpatient treatment and prescribed Seroquel for her diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
From March through June, 2019, the court found that the respondent refused to attend either of two different trаuma based therapy programs, Yale Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (Yale program) and State Street Counseling, offered by the department. Although the respondent did complete the Yale program in July, 2019, employees of the Yale program reported to the department that the respondent had failed to aсcept responsibility for her actions and had no understanding why the child remained in the care of the department. Employees of the Yale program prescribed medication to the respondent, but she did not refill the prescription. The department also referred the respondent to a dialectical behavioral therapist recommended by the Yale program in September, 2019. Although the mother attended an intake session and her first appointment, she failed to attend her second appointment and told the department that she was not interested in dialectical behavioral therapy. The department also referred the
The court found that the respondent and the child’s father ‘‘had an extensive history of domestic violence leading to the issuance of multiple protective orders with the [respondent] listed as thе protected person.’’ In light of that history, the department referred the respondent to Family Centered Services for domestic violence services. The social worker from Family Centered Services reported that the respondent had participated in four sessions of a domestic violence program, but she was ‘‘nоt . . . able to report what was discussed or what she had learned’’ and was ‘‘inconsistent in her focus during sessions, as she was often on the telephone.’’ The court found that three additional domestic violence incidents with the child’s father occurred in February, 2019.
The department also referred the respondent for supervised visits and parenting classes. The respondent completed the Therapeutic Family Time program with R Kids in July or August, 2018. The clinician from R Kids noted that the respondent did well with the child in visits but that she needed further mental health treatment. The clinician reported that the respondent was unable to appreciate what she did wrong in the July, 2018 roadside tantrum incident with the depаrtment’s social worker. In October, 2018, Jewish Family Services performed a reunification assessment, which included supervised visits, conferences with the respondent’s other providers, and a recommendation regarding reunification. Although the supervised visits ordinarily would include parent coaching, the respondent refused to engage in parent coaching, stating that she did not need any parenting advice or support. The clinician did not recommend reunification. The clinician reported, inter alia, that the respondent ‘‘did not understand why domestic violence was an issue nor did she understand safety concerns for [the child] as a result of the significant continuing domestic violеnce . . . .’’ The respondent’s treatment and service providers, including Forbes and clinicians from Family Centered Services and R Kids, ‘‘expressed hesitation regarding reunification because of the [respondent’s] emotional volatility, which had not been addressed in therapy or by medication.’’5
The court concluded: ‘‘Based [on] the foregоing, this court finds that [the department] has made reasonable efforts to reunite the [respondent] with [the child]. In addition, the court finds that the [respondent] is unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts. . . . [The department] provided the [respondent] with timely, necessary, and appropriate referrals and services. The [respondent] either did not еngage in the services that
The respondent appeals from the judgment terminating her parental rights on the sole ground that the court erred in finding that the department had made reasonable efforts at reunification. Specifically, she argues that, although ‘‘[t]he department’s plan was to engage [her] in [dialectical behavioral] therapy in order for [her] to heal from the trauma she experienced as a child and the trauma of the domestic violence she endured from [the child’s] father,’’ the department ‘‘failed to inform her that she should hаve been engaged in [dialectical behavioral] therapy.’’ She maintains that ‘‘[i]t is an injustice for the department to fail to inform [her] that she should have engaged in [dialectical behavioral therapy] and then prevail on [its] termination of parental rights case.’’
The commissioner argues that the respondent’s appeal should be dismissed as moot because she failed to challenge the court’s finding that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from the department’s reunification efforts. Thus, the commissioner maintains that there is no relief this court can afford the respondent. We agree with the commissioner that the respondent’s appeal is moot because thеre is no practical relief this court can afford to her on appeal.
‘‘Mootness raises the issue of a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore appropriately considered even when not raised by one of the parties. . . . Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be determined as a threshold matter becаuse it implicates [a] court’s subject matter jurisdiction . . . . We begin with the four part test for justiciability . . . . Because courts are established to resolve actual controversies, before a claimed controversy is entitled to a resolution on the merits it must be justiciable. Justiciability requires (1) that there be an actual controversy between оr among the parties to the dispute . . . (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse . . . (3) that the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power . . . and (4) that the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant. . . . [I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow. . . . In determining mootness, the dispositive question is whether a successful appeal would benefit the plaintiff or defendant in any way.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks оmitted.) In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 555–56, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).
‘‘
In the present case, the court found that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with the child and that the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. In other words, it found that both alternatives set forth in
The appeal is dismissed.
Notes
The court also found that the department had provided financial assistance to the respondent to help pay her rent on two occasions. The respondent, however, owed $2100 in back rent and, following her noncompliance with a court-ordered repaymеnt plan, was evicted. In February, 2019, the department made a referral to supportive housing, but she was found ineligible on the basis of the pending eviction, noncompliance with mental health treatment, and continued incidences of domestic violence.