Summary
This Connecticut Appellate Court decision affirms the trial court's judgment terminating a father's parental rights over his minor child. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the father failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation required by statute to assume a responsible position in his child's life within a reasonable time. The appellant's challenge regarding the standard of review was also rejected as bound by prior Supreme Court precedent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court had sufficient evidence to conclude under General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) that the respondent father had failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation necessary to support a belief that he could assume a responsible position in the child's life within a reasonable time.
- Whether the evidentiary-sufficiency standard of review applied by the Connecticut Supreme Court in In re Shane M. should be replaced by the former clear-error standard.
Holdings
- The trial court's determination that the respondent father failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation under General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) was supported by ample evidence.
- The Connecticut Appellate Court was bound by the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in In re Shane M. and therefore rejected the respondent's request to replace the evidentiary-sufficiency standard with the former clear-error standard.
Key quotations
“Personal rehabilitation as used in [§ 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i)] refers to the restoration of a parent to [his] former constructive and useful role as a parent.” (p. 1)
“the appropriate standard of review is one of evidentiary sufficiency” (p. 2)
Factual background
The respondent father had a long history of substance abuse involving cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamines, with repeated relapses after inpatient and outpatient treatment. He had not demonstrated a meaningful sustained period of sobriety, had unresolved mental-health and legal issues, lacked stable housing, and had inconsistent visitation and communication during the child-protection proceedings. Although he completed a parenting course and later visited more regularly, the trial court found significant parenting deficits and concerns about his ability to provide reliable and sober care for the child's medical, allergy, and speech-related needs.
Procedural history
The Commissioner of Children and Families filed a petition to terminate the respondents' parental rights in the Superior Court for the judicial district of New Haven, Juvenile Matters. After a trial to Knight, J., the court terminated the respondents' parental rights. The respondent father appealed, and the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.