AC47618 - In re Elena M. ("The respondent father, Christopher W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights as to his minor child, Elena M., on the ground that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) and (E). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) violated his constitutional right to procedural due process by denying his oral motion for a continuance during the trial on the operative petition to terminate his parental rights, or (2) in the alternative, the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. We conclude that, in denying the motion for a continuance, the court did not (1) violate the respondent’s right to due process or (2) abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47980 - In re Christopher C. ("The respondent father, Christopher C., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Christopher C., and denying the respondent's motions for transfer of guardianship and for out-of-state placement. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court abused its discretion in denying the respondent's oral motion for disqualification. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC48130 - In re Tiara E. ("The respondent father, Anthony E., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Tiara E. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) relied on information contained in a social study that was admitted into evidence in determining that the petitioner had furnished sufficient evidence that the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunify him with Tiara and (2) determined that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from the services offered by the department. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47852 - In re C. Y. ("The respondent father, Carl Y., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioners, his sister, Cindy W. (Cindy), and her husband, Jacob W. (Jacob), removing the respondent as guardian of his minor child, C. Y., and appointing the petitioners as coguardians of the child. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court abused its discretion in determining that there was clear and convincing evidence to support its finding that the statutory ground for the removal of the respondent’s guardianship rights had been satisfied. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC47764 - In re Isabella S. ("In this child protection matter, the respondent parents, Billie Jean S. and Panyiotis S., appeal from the denial of their application for a writ of mandamus, in which they argued that the Department of Children and Families (department) was not providing their minor child, Isabella S., with appropriate mental health care. They sought an order requiring the department to place Isabella in an appropriate residential treatment setting in accordance with a March 15, 2024 decision issued by a department hearing officer. The respondents claim on appeal that the court (1) misinterpreted the meaning and the finality of the March 15, 2024 decision and (2) improperly concluded that a writ of mandamus was not the proper mechanism for seeking enforcement of the hearing officer’s decision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21055, SC21068 - In re Jewelyette M. ("These appeals concern the legal rights of foster parents to participate, as intervenors or otherwise, in neglect proceedings with respect to the best interest of any child who either is currently living with the foster parents or has been in the foster parents’ care within the year prior to the initiation of any such proceeding. The primary issue before us is whether General Statutes § 46b-129 (p) prohibits foster parents from intervening in the proceedings by conferring on them a limited ‘‘right to be heard and comment’’ in the proceedings. We conclude that the statute does not prohibit a trial court from permitting foster parents to intervene in such proceedings.")

• SC21055, SC21068 Concurrence & Dissent
• SC21055, SC21068 First Dissent
• SC21055, SC21068 Second Dissent

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47853 - In re Matthew W. ("The respondent mother, Johnna W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights to her minor child, Matthew W. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (E). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47807 - In re Aviana J. ("The respondent mother, Elizabeth T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Aviana J. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined (1) that she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), and (2) that the termination of her parental rights was in Aviana’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47760 - In re Skye B. (Termination of parental rights; "On appeal, the respondent claims that the court violated his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when it terminated his parental rights for failure to rehabilitate on the basis of his unwillingness to admit to the potentially criminal conduct that initiated the underlying child protection case. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47771 - In re Ryshan N. ("The respondent mother, Crystal G., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor son, Ryshan N. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly drew an inference that was unsupported by the evidence and relied upon that inference in finding that she failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that in a reasonable time, considering Ryshan’s age and needs, she could assume a responsible position in his life as required by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47376 - In re Juliany T. ("The respondent father, Julio T., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Juliany. The respondent raises three claims on appeal, each of which emanates from his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, in violation of his due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution and article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution. First, he claims that his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance ‘‘was of such magnitude that it created structural error as set forth in United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984),’’ and is therefore per se reversible error. Second, he claims that he has a due process right to a hybrid habeas fact-finding proceeding in the trial court to further develop the record as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because ‘‘the procedures available to him to vindicate his right to effective assistance of counsel are inadequate.’’ He further claims that, if he does not have a due process right to a hybrid habeas factfinding proceeding, this court should exercise its supervisory authority to create one. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and decline the respondent’s request that we exercise our supervisory authority.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47684 - In re Mikhail M. ("The respondent father, Daniel R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Mikhail M. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). We find no merit to the respondent’s claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC47796 - In re Hyrum D. ("The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, appeals from the judgments of the trial court revoking the commitment of the minor children, Hyrum D. and Antonio D., to the custody of the petitioner and returning the children to the custody of the respondent mother, Stephanie V. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court exceeded its statutory authority when it sua sponte revoked commitment of the minor children to the petitioner’s custody without providing all parties notice and a full evidentiary hearing. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47745 - In re S. G. ("The respondent mother, Elizabeth G., appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner), terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, M and S (collectively, children). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred when it determined that (1) she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), and (2) termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47485- In re Maci S. ("The respondent mother, Dayna L., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Maci S. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that (1) she was unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification efforts of the Department of Children and Families (department), (2) she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B), and (3) the termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of Maci. We disagree with the respondent's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47584 - In re Jacqueline K. ("The respondent father, Matthew S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his daughter, Jacqueline K. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with Jacqueline pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1); (2) he failed to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilitation required by § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B); and (3) termination of his parental rights was in Jacqueline's best interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47367 - In re Jaelynn K.-M. ("The respondent mother, Jessica K., appeals following the trial court’s judgments terminating her parental rights with respect to her children, twins Jayden and Jaelynn. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court violated her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution with respect to the termination trial in (1) constructively depriving her of her right to counsel, (2) denying her assigned counsel’s request for a continuance, and (3) finding that the respondent and her counsel had adequate notice of the proceeding. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47605 - In re Zarirai S. ("The respondent mother, Crystal S., appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, Z and L. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation because (1) the court’s determination was not supported by the evidence, (2) the court impermissibly compared the parenting of the respondent with that of the children’s foster parents, and (3) the court failed to apply the proper legal standard by ‘‘add[ing] a requirement of a ‘guarantee’ that the [respondent] must be able to rehabilitate within six months.’’ We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47510 - In re Charli M. ("The respondent father, Tyler M., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights as to his minor child, Charli M. (Charli). The respondent claims that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with Charli and that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from the department's reunification efforts, and (2) the respondent failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47268, AC47368 - In re Andrew C. ("These appeals arise from a child protection matter concerning the care and custody of the minor child, Andrew C. Andrew and his intervening foster parents separately appeal, in Docket Nos. AC 47368 and AC 472681 respectively, from the judgment of the trial court, granting the motion, filed by the respondent father of Andrew, Chester C. (respondent), to open and vacate the court’s judgment, rendered almost two years earlier, granting the foster parents’ motion to transfer guardianship of Andrew to themselves. We agree with the trial court that the foster parents did not have standing to intervene in this action and, thus, that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate their motion to transfer guardianship of Andrew. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47517 - In re S. F. ("The respondent father, Perry F., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his children, A, B, and C. On appeal, the respondent claims that he was denied his due process right to the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47325 - In re Jadiel B. ("The respondent father, Joel B.-R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Jadiel B. (Jadiel). On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with Jadiel and (2) the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from services. The respondent also contends that General Statutes § 17a-112, as applied, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions