IN RE SYDNEI V.*
(AC 38627)
Lavine, Mullins and Harper, Js.
Argued April 5—officially released September 15, 2016**
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
David J. Reich, for the appellant (respondent).
Benjamin M. Wattenmaker, assigned counsel, for the appellee (petitioner).
George Jepsen, attorney general, Gregory T. D‘Auria, solicitor general, and Benjamin Zivyon and Carolyn Signoralli, assistant attorneys general, filed a brief for the Commissioner of Children and Families as amicus curiae.
LAVINE, J. The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights in her daughter (child) pursuant to
In its memorandum of decision, the court, Hon. Barbara M. Quinn, judge trial referee, made the following findings of fact. J.V. and his wife, K.V., are the child‘s legal guardians (guardians).3 In December, 2014, in the Court of Probate for the District of Danbury, the petitioner, J.V., filed an application to terminate the respondent‘s parental rights, pursuant to
The respondent and the child‘s father had dated one another while they were in high school. They later married and had one child who is the subject of the present termination proceeding. The child was born in 2005. The couple‘s relationship was marked by domestic violence and alcohol abuse. In 2006, they were living apart from one another. Despite their differences, the couple tried to “patch things up.” One evening they went out to dinner and were involved in a serious motor vehicle crash. The child‘s father was killed at the scene, and the respondent suffered serious injuries. The accident investigation concluded that the respondent and the child‘s father were intoxicated with blood alcohol levels in excess of the legal limit.
The respondent subsequently married G.U. with whom she has a son, Z. The respondent‘s relationship with G.U. also was characterized by domestic violence, and drug and alcohol abuse. The child and Z were
On January 17, 2010, the Department of Children and Families (department) obtained an order of temporary custody and removed both children from the care of respondent and G.U. and placed them with the guardians. The child was adjudicated neglected on November 22, 2010, and placed in the guardians’ care.5 When the child entered the guardians’ home, she was terrified of knives, including the mere mention of them. She was shy, withdrawn, anxious, and suffered night terrors. When she was traveling in a motor vehicle, the child became nervous and fearful that the respondent was following and would take her away. The guardians placed her in therapy, which was of some benefit to her.
At the time of the neglect proceedings, the court, Sommer, J., ordered once-a-week visitation between the respondent and the child and joint counseling for them. The therapist was to work with the respondent and the child to improve their relationship and expand visitation and was authorized to make recommendations regarding the progress, duration, and frequency, as well as the supervision, of the visits between the respondent and the child. The hoped-for normalization of the parent-child relationship between the respondent and the child did not take place due to the trauma the child had suffered as a result of the constant violence in her parental home. The child did not want to talk about her life with the respondent, even five years later at the time of the termination of parental rights trial.
The respondent and the child had scheduled visitation during the first year and one-half following the transfer of guardianship. The child was anxious, however, and her symptoms increased prior to each visit. It was difficult to schedule the time and location of the visits. The guardians asked the respondent to provide adequate notice so that they could prepare the child emotionally to be ready for the visit. The respondent often gave notice at the last minute, after the child had gone to bed for the night, which made it difficult for the guardians to prepare her for the visit, which took place at restaurants, in the community, and in parks. Sometimes Z or the court appointed guardian ad litem attended the visits. On the way to the visits, the child complained of having a stomach ache and that she needed to throw up. The visits lasted for approximately one hour, sometimes longer. Often the child wished the
In March, 2012, the respondent filed a motion for increased visitation. The parties reached an agreement that, after three individual therapy sessions, the respondent could have therapeutic visits with the child. The respondent, however, failed to attend the three required therapy sessions, and all visits ceased. The respondent last visited the child on April 9, 2012. The respondent and child have had no contact since then.
The respondent claimed that she failed to continue therapy and engage in therapeutic visits with the child for financial reasons. She had no insurance and inadequate income from her employment. The court found no evidence that the respondent made any attempt to seek therapy on a sliding pay scale or to ask for help from others, such as the guardian ad litem, to find affordable therapy. She made only a minimal effort to comply with the court-ordered conditions for increased access to the child.
In addition to failing to find means by which she could increase her access to the child, the respondent did not take advantage of other avenues open to her that would demonstrate her commitment to the child. The respondent provided no financial support for the child nor did she send the child letters or gifts. She failed to inquire about the child‘s school progress, medical appointments, or her life in general. The court found that whatever her level of concern may have been, the respondent failed to manifest it in a concrete manner to inform herself about the child‘s daily life and progress.
The respondent filed another motion for visitation in December, 2013. The department investigated and filed a visitation report dated July 7, 2014. After reviewing the history and the child‘s relationship with the respondent, the department did not recommend visitation.
Court-ordered psychological evaluations of both the respondent and the child were performed in October, 2014, by Deborah Gruen, a clinical and forensic psychologist. The guardians also were interviewed. On the basis of Gruen‘s testimony at trial, the court found that the respondent was an emotionally sensitive person who has a propensity for unstable relationships. She can be irritable, demanding, and charming at the same time, is manipulative in her relationships, and exercises poor judgment. Although Gruen did not provide a diagnosis,
The court asked Gruen to answer additional questions, which she did in August, 2015. Gruen summarized the treatment the respondent had received and results of the conversation she had with the respondent‘s clinician. By the end of July, 2015, the respondent had had twenty-two sessions of therapy and had made substantial strides to address her long-standing trauma-related issues. The respondent has stable employment with considerable management responsibilities and has custody of her youngest child. Z is in her care several times a week, but his father is his primary caretaker. The respondent is beginning the difficult introspection and emotional work that she needs to improve herself for the sake of her children as well as herself. The court found that the respondent‘s changes came about after the child had been out of the respondent‘s primary care for five years.
According to Gruen, the child has only bad memories of life with the respondent, and she does not wish to see or interact with her. The child suffers underlying anxiety and needs to strengthen her ability to acknowledge her anxieties and address her fears on a more realistic basis. The therapist did not recommend that the child visit with the respondent until the respondent had undertaken intensive therapy. In the spring of 2015, the child was in therapy, having been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress, as a result of the trauma she has witnessed. The child‘s therapist echoed Gruen‘s concern about the child‘s building a relationship with the respondent. Children in her situation are very cautious, hostile, and estranged. The therapist could not predict what would happen if the child and respondent met, as there could be widely different outcomes. As the child grows, however, the therapist opined that she will need some access to the respondent; children who are in the child‘s situation grow up “missing a part of themselves,” which is necessary for their stable, balanced, and mature adult development.7
The court found, according to the guardian ad litem, that in 2011, the child was very anxious and uncomfortable whenever the respondent was mentioned. The child wanted to remain with the guardians, and her
The court analyzed the facts and the grounds alleged for termination of the respondent‘s parental rights in the child in the adjudicatory phase of the proceedings. As to the ground of abandonment alleged pursuant to
Abandonment has been defined as a parent‘s failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child, and maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility and not merely a sporadic showing thereof. See In re Paul M., 148 Conn. App. 654, 664, 85 A.3d 1263, cert. denied, 311 Conn. 938, 88 A.3d 550 (2014).
On the basis of the clear and convincing evidence before the court, it found that the respondent had not demonstrated the minimum attributes of parenthood as they are understood in the law. She has not expressed love and affection toward the child in any meaningful way and has failed to inquire about the child‘s health, education, and general well-being, and has not made any effort to provide financial support for the child. Although the court did not doubt that in her heart, the respondent loves the child and wishes that she could visit with her, the respondent is aware that the child does not wish to have contact with her. The court found that the respondent is wise enough not to force contact with the child.
The court credited the respondent with good intentions, but noted that thoughts and wishes are insufficient to sustain a child. The court found that the respondent had choices to make in the five years since the child left her care. On three separate occasions, in 2010, 2012, and 2014, the respondent was offered visits with the child if she entered therapy. It was not until 2014 that the respondent began the arduous process of making positive changes in her life. Although the respondent has made sufficient progress to enable her
The respondent failed to write to the child or to send her gifts. She failed to communicate with the guardians as to the child‘s well-being. Although the respondent believes that the guardians prevented her from doing so, she failed to reach out to take advantage of the resources available to her, such as the child‘s guardian ad litem and attorney. The court concluded that the clear and convincing evidence of respondent‘s failures constitutes legal abandonment.
Although a court need find only one statutory ground to terminate parental rights in a child; see In re Alexander C., 67 Conn. App. 417, 427, 787 A.2d 608 (2001), aff‘d, 262 Conn. 308, 813 A.2d 87 (2003); the court adjudicated the second reason alleged by the petitioner. To grant a termination of parental rights petition on the ground that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship pursuant to
The court found that the child is happy and secure in the guardians’ home and her school. The mere mention of the respondent upsets the child. The child has no positive memories of the respondent. Permitting more time in the child‘s young life for such a relationship to develop is detrimental to the child‘s best interest when the child has been out of the respondent‘s care for more than one half of her life. The court concluded from the clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner had proven that there was no ongoing parent child relationship and that it was not in the child‘s best interest to permit more time for such a relationship to develop.
The court then made the statutory findings required in the dispositional phase of the proceedings. See
Before addressing the respondent‘s claims on appeal, we set forth “the well established legal framework for deciding termination of parental rights petitions. [A] hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases: the adjudicatory phase and the dispositional phase. During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must determine whether one or more of the grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in [
I
The respondent‘s first claim is that “procedural due process requires the court to determine in the dispositional phase that there are adverse effects on the child that outweigh the mother‘s constitutionally protected parental rights before those rights can be terminated.”11 This claim, which is in derogation of
Our legislature has created a constitutionally viable statutory scheme to be followed by our courts when adjudicating petitions to terminate the parental rights of parents in their children.
Section
The respondent relies on Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 754, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982). Santosky does not support her position. “After the State has established parental unfitness at the initial proceeding, the court may assume at the dispositional stage that the interests of the child and the natural parents do diverge.” (Emphasis omitted.) Id., 760. In the dispositional phase of a termination proceeding, the emphasis shifts “from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child.” In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 356-57, 641 A.2d 378 (1994). As the commissioner has pointed out in her brief, the respondent‘s claim, in actuality, is not related to procedural due process. Rather, the respondent seeks to add a substantive requirement to the statutory scheme enacted by our legislature. In other words, the respondent‘s claim is related to substantive, not procedural, due process. See In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626, 640, 72 A.3d 1074 (2013) (our Supreme Court observed that similar claim was one of substantive, not procedural, due process). For the foregoing reasons, the respondent‘s claim fails.
II
The respondent‘s second claim is that the trial court erred by finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that it was in the child‘s best interest to terminate the respondent‘s parental rights in her.13 We do not agree.
The substance of the respondent‘s claim is that the evidence presented as to the dispositional phase of the termination proceeding was marginal. She correctly notes that the child has been in a safe and stable home since 2010, and that the respondent has done nothing to jeopardize the placement and is not seeking reunification. She argues, therefore, that because the child is in a stable, permanent placement and the respondent is
“The best interests of the child include the child‘s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of its environment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Shyina B., 58 Conn. App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000). “In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent‘s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn. App. 819, 835, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005). In making that determination, the court must consider the factors delineated in
The court made the following findings of fact with respect to the dispositional phase of the proceedings. The department was involved with the respondent, the child, and Z at the time the children were removed from her care. The department‘s involvement terminated when the child‘s guardianship was transferred to the guardians. The department saw no child protection issues following the transfer of guardianship. Thereafter, the department had no obligation to offer the respondent services.
At the time the child‘s guardianship was transferred, the court ordered visits between the respondent and the child, but the respondent did not comply with the order. The guardians did comply by offering the respondent visits with the child.
At the time of the termination hearing, the child was ten years old and had no relationship with the respondent. She is an anxious child and becomes concerned whenever the respondent is mentioned. The child has no fond memories of the respondent and wishes to remain permanently in the guardians’ home and to be adopted by them.
The respondent failed to make adequate efforts to have the child returned to her home. She abandoned the child and failed to communicate with the guardians in any meaningful way. At the time of the termination of parental rights proceeding, the respondent was engaged in therapy and had made significant strides, but those strides were too late for the child, who had grown deeply attached to others. A child‘s sense of time is not the same as an adult‘s. Most of the child‘s conscious life has been spent with her guardians, not the respondent.
“It is axiomatic that a trial court‘s factual findings are accorded great deference. Accordingly, an appellate tribunal will not disturb a trial court‘s finding that termination of parental rights is in a child‘s best interest unless that finding is clearly erroneous. . . . A finding is clearly erroneous when either there is no evidence in the record to support it, or the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. . . . [E]very reasonable presumption is made in favor of the trial court‘s ruling. . . . Additionally, in reviewing the court‘s findings under the dispositional phase of the proceedings, it is appropriate to read the trial court‘s opinion as a whole, including its findings in the adjudicatory phase.” (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Elijah G.-R., supra, 167 Conn. App. 29-30.
We carefully have reviewed the court‘s memorandum of decision, including its factual findings in the adjudicatory phase of the proceedings, and reviewed the record. We conclude that the court‘s finding that termination of the respondent‘s parental rights is in the best interest of the child is not clearly erroneous. At the time of trial, the child had resided with her guardians for approximately five years, she is anxious and fearful of the respondent, and she does not want to visit with her. In fact, there have been no visits between the respondent and the child for an extended period of time. The underlying facts support the court‘s conclusion that the anxious child who is the subject of the termination petition is in need of stability and permanency and that termination of the respondent‘s parental rights is in her best interest. The respondent‘s claim therefore fails.
III
The respondent‘s third claim, which she raised for the first time during oral argument in this court, is that the court committed plain error by failing to canvass her prior to trial as required by In re Yasiel R., supra, 317 Conn. 773. She argues that we should reverse the judgment of the trial court pursuant to In re Daniel N., supra, 163 Conn. App. 322.15 We decline to grant the relief requested because this case is procedurally distinguishable from In re Daniel N.,16 and on appeal, the respondent has not demonstrated that failure to reverse the court‘s judgment terminating her parental rights in
We briefly review the history of the pretrial canvass of respondent parents in termination of parental rights cases as established in In re Yasiel R., supra, 317 Conn. 773. In that case, the respondent mother waived her right to a trial and did not contest the allegations of the petition to terminate her parental rights in her children, challenge the evidence presented against her, or present evidence of her own.17 Id., 775–76. After the trial court terminated the mother‘s parental rights in her children, she appealed to this court, which affirmed the judgments of the trial court. In re Yasiel R., 151 Conn. App. 710, 721, 94 A.3d 1278 (2014), rev‘d, 317 Conn. 773, 120 A.3d 1168 (2015). Our Supreme Court granted her petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of this court. In re Yasiel R., 314 Conn. 907, 99 A.3d 1169 (2014).18 In resolving the appeal, our Supreme Court concluded pursuant to its analysis under Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, 424 U.S. 335, that due process “does not require that a trial court canvass a respondent who is represented by counsel when the respondent does not testify or present witnesses and the respondent‘s attorney does not object to exhibits or cross-examine witnesses.” In re Yasiel R., supra, 317 Conn. 787–88.
The court, however, considered whether it should exercise its supervisory authority to require a canvass prior to a termination of parental rights trial. Id., 788. The court concluded that “the lack of a canvass of all parents in a parental rights termination trial may give the appearance of unfairness insofar as it may indicate a lack of concern over a parent‘s rights and understanding of the consequences of the proceeding. Therefore, [it] conclude[d] that public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system would be enhanced by a rule requiring a brief canvass of all parents immediately before a parental rights termination trial so as to ensure that the parents understand the trial process, their rights during the trial and the potential consequences.” Id., 793-94. The court, therefore, invoked its “supervisory powers to enunciate a rule that is not constitutionally required but that [it thought] is preferable as a matter of policy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 793.
The court outlined the following canvass of a respondent in a termination of parental rights proceeding to be undertaken prior to a termination of parental rights trial. “In the canvass, the respondent should be advised of: (1) the nature of the termination of parental rights proceeding and the legal effect thereof if a judgment is entered terminating parental rights; (2) the respondent‘s right to defend against the accusations; (3) the
Our Supreme Court issued its decision in In re Yasiel R. on August 18, 2015. Trial in the present termination of parental rights case was held on October 5, 6, and 8, 2015, a bit more than a month after In re Yasiel R. was decided. The court in the present case, therefore, should have canvassed the respondent before the commencement of trial, but did not. Neither of the parties brought the omission to the attention of the court,19 and the respondent did not file a motion for nonsuit or a motion to open the judgment. The respondent also did not raise a claim concerning a Yasiel canvass in her appeal or initial brief in this court. Rather she waited until the time of oral argument before this court to request supplemental briefing on the issue. See footnote 2 of this opinion.
In her supplemental brief, the respondent tacitly acknowledged that her claim regarding the lack of a Yasiel canvass was unpreserved by requesting that the termination judgment be reversed pursuant to the plain error doctrine and In re Daniel N., supra, 163 Conn. App. 322. In re Daniel N., however, is distinguishable in that the trial court in that case terminated the respondent‘s parental rights prior to our Supreme Court‘s decision in In re Yasiel R.20 This court decided the In re Daniel N. appeal on which the respondent relies after our Supreme Court issued its decision In re Yasiel R. The question in the In re Daniel N. appeal in this court was whether In re Yasiel R. should be applied retroactively to reverse the termination of parental rights of the respondent in that case.21 That is not the situation in the present case in which trial took place after In re Yasiel R. was decided. The question before us is not whether In re Yasiel R. should be applied retroactively, but whether the judgment terminating the respondent‘s parental rights should be reversed on the basis of plain error. This court did no harmful error analysis in In re Daniel N. See footnote 20 of this opinion. We conclude that the judgment terminating the respondent‘s parental
We begin with the well established legal framework for claims of plain error. “[The plain error] doctrine, codified at
“[Our Supreme Court has] clarified the two step framework under which we review claims of plain error. First, we must determine whether the trial court in fact committed an error and, if it did, whether that error was indeed plain in the sense that it is patent [or] readily discernible on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable. . . . [T]his inquiry entails a relatively high standard, under which it is not enough for the [respondent] simply to demonstrate that his position is correct. Rather, [to prevail] the party [claiming] plain error [reversal] must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.
“In addition, although a clear and obvious mistake on the part of the trial court is a prerequisite for reversal under the plain error doctrine, such a finding is not, without more, sufficient to warrant the application of the doctrine. Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice . . . under the second prong of the analysis we must determine whether the consequences of the error are so grievous as to be fundamentally unfair or manifestly
The substance of the respondent‘s claim on appeal is that because the court failed to canvass her prior to the termination of parental rights trial, a manifest injustice occurred; but she has failed to demonstrate that such an injustice occurred. Although it was error for the court to fail to conduct a Yasiel canvass of the respondent prior to trial, the respondent has provided no analysis as to how that failure deprived her of the trial rights to which she was entitled. “[M]erely demonstrating that a trial court has violated a supervisory mandate is not alone enough to warrant a reversal.” In re Leilah W., 166 Conn. App. 48, 63, A.3d (2016); see State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64, 77–78, 60 A.3d 271 (2013); see also State v. Smith, 275 Conn. 205, 237, 881 A.2d 160 (2005) (whether trial court‘s failure to obey supervisory authority of Supreme Court results in manifest injustice must be considered on case specific, fact-based inquiry).
State v. Smith, supra, 275 Conn. 205, is instructive “because it demonstrates that a trial court‘s failure to comply with a supervisory rule does not automatically require reversal and a new trial in all cases. In Smith, the defendant raised an unpreserved claim that he was entitled to a new criminal trial because the trial court utilized language in its instructions to the jury that our Supreme Court, pursuant to its supervisory powers, previously had instructed courts to refrain from using. . . . The Supreme Court determined, consistent with its decision in [State v. Aponte, 259 Conn. 512, 522, 790 A.2d 457 (2002)], that the trial court‘s use of the prohibited language did not implicate the defendant‘s constitutional rights, and, thus, he was not entitled to [review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)]. . . . Further, despite the trial court having clearly violated a supervisory rule, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a reversal either under the plain error doctrine . . . or pursuant to the court‘s supervisory authority. . . .
“With respect to whether the trial court‘s action amounted to plain error, the Supreme Court explained that although it had directed trial courts to discontinue use of the challenged jury instruction language because it was concerned about the danger of misleading the jury, it was unconvinced in the case before it that any such danger actually existed or that the trial court‘s error in using the language was so significant as to affect the fairness and integrity of or the public confidence in the proceeding. . . . Similarly, the Supreme Court declined to reverse the judgment on the basis of its
The undisputed fact is that the respondent was represented by counsel at the termination of parental rights trial. Our Supreme Court recognized that, prior to In re Yasiel R., “[w]hen the respondent is represented by counsel, the current procedures in place adequately protect the respondent from any claimed constitutional deficiencies.” In re Yasiel R., supra, 317 Conn. 785. “It has frequently been recognized, albeit in other contexts, that we strongly presume that counsel‘s professional assistance was reasonable, and the [respondent] has the burden to overcome the presumption that [her] attorney was employing sound trial strategy. . . . We evaluate the conduct from trial counsel‘s perspective at the time. . . . [C]ounsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. In the present appeal, the respondent does not claim error on the part of her counsel.
Quite recently, this court has had occasion to address claims that the judgments terminating the appellants’ parental rights should be reversed because the trial courts canvassed them after, rather than prior to, the presentation of evidence but prior to the courts issuing their decisions. See In re Elijah G.-R., supra, 167 Conn. App. 1; In re Leilah W., supra, 166 Conn. App. 48. In both In re Elijah G.-R. and In re Leilah the respondents were represented by counsel. Although there were some differences in the way in which the canvasses were conducted in those cases, this court concluded that the stated purpose underlying the Yasiel canvass was met even though the respondents were not canvassed prior to the termination trial. In coming to that conclusion in each case, this court considered the factors the Yasiel canvass was intended to address and the actual trials of the subject cases.22 This court found in both of those cases that on appeal, the respondents failed to explain how they were harmed by the timing of the Yasiel canvass, whether they would have moved
Moreover, the respondent has failed to meet her burden as to the second prong of the plain error doctrine: that a failure to reverse the trial court‘s judgment will result in manifest injustice. The record discloses that the respondent was represented by counsel, who cross-examined the petitioner‘s witnesses, and objected to evidence. She presented her own witnesses and evidence and argued in opposition to the termination of her parental rights. The respondent testified on her own behalf. It appears, as our Supreme Court has said, that the “[w]hen the respondent is represented by counsel, the current procedures in place adequately protect the respondent from any claimed constitutional deficiencies.” In re Yasiel R., supra, 317 Conn. 785. The question we must therefore address is whether the absence of a canvass in the present case is likely to cause the public to lose faith in the integrity of our judicial system. On the basis of our review of the proceedings in the trial court, we conclude that such an outcome would surely not occur. Although the court‘s failure to give a Yasiel canvass is clear, obvious and indisputable, the respondent has failed to demonstrate that the failure has resulted in a fundamentally unfair termination proceeding that would cause the public to lose faith in the judicial system.23 She therefore cannot prevail on her plain error claim that the judgment terminating her parental rights in the child should be reversed.
In concluding that the judgment terminating the respondent‘s parental rights in the child should not be reversed, we are mindful that our Supreme Court repeatedly has addressed the need for permanency in the life of a child. See, e.g., In re Nevaeh W., supra, 317 Conn. 732 (“[v]irtually all experts, from many different professional disciplines, agree that children need and benefit from continuous, stable home environments” [internal quotation marks omitted]). The child at issue here has been living with her guardians since 2010; she is eleven years old, has no relationship with the respondent, and wishes to be adopted by her guardians. It is now 2016. To reverse the judgment at this point
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
* In accordance with the spirit and intent of
** September 15, 2016, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.