In re S. G. et al.

0 Conn. App. 1 (2024) (slip opinion citation) · Connecticut Appellate Court · December 24, 2024 · No. AC 47745

Summary

This Connecticut Appellate Court opinion affirms the trial court’s judgment terminating a mother’s parental rights to her two minor children. The court found that the Commissioner of Children and Families met its burden by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrating that the mother failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation regarding severe substance abuse issues and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The appellate court rejected the mother’s claims that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support these findings.

Court
Connecticut Appellate Court
Writing for the Court
Seeley, J.; Westbrook, J.; Palmer, J.
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Decision date
December 24, 2024
Docket number
AC 47745
Procedural posture
The respondent mother appealed from judgments of the Superior Court terminating her parental rights to her minor children after a termination trial.
Standard of review
The failure-to-rehabilitate determination is reviewed for evidentiary sufficiency, with subordinate factual findings reviewed for clear error. The best-interests determination is reviewed for clear error, with every reasonable presumption made in favor of the trial court’s ruling.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Respondent mother v. Commissioner of Children and Families
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

termination of parental rightsparental rightsfamily law procedurestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawjuvenile lawtermination of parental rightsappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court properly determined that the respondent mother failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation required by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i).
  2. Whether the trial court properly determined that termination of the respondent mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

Holdings

  1. The trial court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother had failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would support a reasonable belief that, considering the children’s ages and needs, she could assume a responsible parental position within a reasonable time.
  2. The trial court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests was not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the bond between the mother and the children.

Key quotations

Personal rehabilitation as used in [§ 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i)] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent. (0 Conn. App. 1, 19-20)
The existence of a bond between a parent and a child, while relevant, is not dispositive of a best interest determination. (0 Conn. App. 1, 29-30)

Factual background

The children had been involved with the Department of Children and Families since 2019, including after one child was born prematurely with opioid-withdrawal symptoms. The mother had a longstanding substance-use disorder involving fentanyl, heroin, and opiates, continued to test positive for illicit substances, inconsistently engaged in treatment, failed to comply with requested testing and releases, and lacked stable housing and employment. The children were removed from her custody in February 2021 and remained in foster care, eventually bonding with a stable fourth foster placement. Although the mother maintained visitation and had a bond with the children, the trial court found that she had not corrected the conditions leading to removal or developed the ability to provide a safe and stable home.

Procedural history

The Commissioner of Children and Families filed neglect petitions in the Superior Court, initially in the judicial district of Litchfield, Juvenile Matters, and the matters were transferred to New London, Juvenile Matters at Waterford. The trial court adjudicated the children neglected, committed them to the commissioner, ordered specific steps, and later terminated the parental rights of the mother and father. The mother appealed, challenging the findings that she had failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…