AC46140 - In re Judah B. (“The respondent mother, Amanda B., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to her minor children, Judah, Angelika, Malachi, and Moses. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred in concluding that (1) the respondent failed to rehabilitate, (2) the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, and (3) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with the children. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45864 - In re Christina C. (“The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, appeals from the judgment of the trial court (1) granting the motion of the respondent father, Christopher C., to transfer legal guardianship of his biological daughter, C, from the petitioner to his mother, D, and (2) denying the petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent with respect to C. The petitioner claims that, in granting the motion to transfer guardianship, the court erred as a matter of law by assuming that transferring guardianship was in C’s best interests, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner to demonstrate that granting the motion would be detrimental to C. The petitioner also claims that, having found that multiple grounds existed for terminating the respondent’s parental rights with respect to C, the court thereafter erred in denying the petition to terminate his parental rights without considering whether that ruling was in C’s best interests. We agree with both of the petitioner’s claims and therefore reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46293, AC46327 - In re Amani O. (In these two related appeals, the respondent father, Carlos O., and the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, appeal from the trial court’s order granting the emergency motion filed by the attorney for the minor child, Amani O., to cease reunification efforts with the respondent. The respondent also appeals from the court’s order rejecting the petitioner’s proposed permanency plan for Amani, which called for reunification with the respondent. In their respective appeals, the respondent and the petitioner claim that the court exceeded its authority when it ordered that the Department of Children and Families (department) cease reunification efforts with the parents. The respondent also claims that the court improperly rejected the petitioner’s proposed permanency plan, which, he argues, will irreparably prejudice him in the pending trial proceedings. We agree with the respondent and the petitioner that the court exceeded its authority by ordering the department to cease reunification efforts and, therefore, reverse and vacate the court’s judgment as to that order. We further conclude that the court’s rejection of the petitioner’s proposed permanency plan was not an appealable final judgment and, therefore, dismiss the portion of the respondent’s appeal that challenges that action.)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45846 - In re Kyreese L. (“The respondent mother, Naila S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to her minor child, Kyreese L., Jr. (Kyreese). The respondent claims that the court erred in concluding that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with Kyreese, (2) the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, and (3) 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

AC45979,AC46006 - In re Ryan C. (“The respondent father, Chester C., and his minor child, Ryan C., appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of Ryan C.’s intervening foster parent, Jeanette P., denying motions to revoke commitment filed by the respondent and the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, and granting Jeanette P.’s motion to transfer guardianship of Ryan C. to herself. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the court properly allowed Jeanette P. to intervene in the dispositional phase of the neglect proceeding for the purposes of objecting to the motions to revoke commitment and filing the motion to transfer guardianship.4 We conclude that, in the circumstances of the present case, the court improperly allowed Jeanette P. to intervene and to file a motion to transfer guardianship and that her intervention improperly tainted the court’s adjudication of the motions to revoke commitment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case for a new trial on the motions to revoke commitment.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20745 - In re Paulo T. (“This certified appeal arises from the motion of the petitioner mother, Mae T., to reinstate her guardianship rights with respect to her minor child, Paulo T. In the course of its oral decision granting the motion, the trial court stated that parents are entitled to a presumption that reinstatement of guardianship rights is in the best interests of the child. The respondent father, Horace W., appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, contending, among other things, that this presumption does not apply in cases between two parents. In re Paulo T., 213 Conn. App. 858, 860, 866, 279 A.3d 766 (2022). The Appellate Court agreed with the respondent but nevertheless affirmed the judgment because, after reviewing the record as a whole, it discerned no indication that the trial court had in fact applied the presumption. See id., 866, 877–78, 892. The respondent filed a petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which we granted, limited to the following questions: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the presumption that reinstatement of guardianship is in the best interest of the child does not apply in cases in which both parties are the parents of the minor child?’’ And (2) ‘‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude that, notwithstanding the trial court’s statement that a presumption applies, the trial court did not apply the presumption but, rather, correctly applied the proper best interest balancing test?’’ In re Paulo T., 344 Conn. 904, 281 A.3d 460 (2022). Under the circumstances in which this case is presented to us, we need not address the first certified question, and we answer the second question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20788 - In re Gabriel S. ("This appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court violated the constitutional due process right of the respondent father, Gabriel S., to adequate notice of the grounds for terminating his parental rights when, after the close of evidence, it granted the motion of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, to amend the petition to allege a different ground for the termination of his parental rights pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3). The petitioner initially filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent with respect to his minor child, Gabriel S., Jr. (Gabriel), pursuant to § 17a112 (j) (3) (E) (ground (E)). After the conclusion of evidence, the respondent requested that the court deny the petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to present any evidence that would support a finding that he previously had had his parental rights terminated with respect to another child pursuant to a petition filed by the petitioner, as is required under ground (E). The trial court then granted the petitioner’s motion to amend the petition to allege another ground for termination pursuant to Practice Book § 34a-1 (d). The trial court also granted a continuance to allow the respondent to prepare a response to the amended petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an amended summary of the facts in support of the petition, alleging that grounds for termination of the respondent’s parental rights existed pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (ii) (ground (B) (ii)). The petitioner did not, however, amend the petition itself to reflect the new ground for termination alleged in the amended summary of the facts. At the conclusion of the continued trial, the trial court granted the petition to terminate the respondent’s parental rights as to Gabriel on ground (B) (ii). The respondent now appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights, claiming that the court violated his due process right to adequate notice of the grounds for the petition to terminate his parental rights by (1) allowing the petitioner to amend the petition after the close of evidence, and (2) terminating the respondent’s parental rights pursuant to ground (B) (ii) when the petitioner never filed an amended petition alleging that ground. We disagree, and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46183 - In re Serenity W. (The respondent mother, Tanisha S., appeals from the judgment 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 child, Serenity. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly concluded that she had failed to rehabilitate to such a degree as to reasonably encourage a belief that, within a reasonable time, she could assume a responsible position in Serenity's life. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45822 - In re Caiden B. (Termination of Parental Rights; "On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (1) and that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification services, (2) he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3), and (3) termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46100 - In re Fayth C. (Termination of parental rights; "The respondent father, Makai C., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Fayth C. (Fayth). On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly determined that he had failed to rehabilitate sufficiently. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45501, AC45552 - In re Deboras S. ("These related appeals concern the parental rights and guardianship of Deboras S., Dorkas S., and Joe S., the minor children. In Docket No. AC 45552, the respondent mother appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights as to the minor children. The respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the minor children pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1); (2) she failed to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilitation required by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B); and (3) termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. In Docket No. AC 45501, the maternal grandmother of the minor children, Ana R. (intervenor), who intervened in the underlying neglect action, appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating the respondent’s parental rights and denying her motion to transfer the guardianship of the minor children to herself. The intervenor claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the respondent’s parental rights due to its failure to join the intervenor as a necessary party, (2) applied an incorrect legal standard when adjudicating her motion to transfer guardianship, and (3) violated her right to equal protection under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (title VI), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46117 - In re Timothy B. (“The respondent mother, T’Naja T., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, T and A.1 On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children and that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from those reunification efforts and (2) considered the best interests of the children during the adjudicatory phase of the termination proceeding. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45917 - In re Marie J. (“The respondent father, Juan J., 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, Marie. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) improperly concluded that the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that (a) the respondent failed to rehabilitate in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) and (b) there was no ongoing parent-child relationship pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D), and (2) abused its discretion by denying S’s motion to transfer guardianship to Marie’s maternal grandmother, Elizabeth, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129 (j). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45891 - In re Daniel D. (Termination of Parental Rights; "The respondent mother, Chrystal P., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to two of her minor children, Daniel D. and James D. The respondent claims that the court improperly (1) admitted into evidence certain documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and (2) concluded that the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunite her with James or that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45534 - In re Cameron H. (Appeal of termination of parental rights pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (ii); "The respondent mother, Joyce F., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to her minor children, Cameron H. and Noah H. (children), pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (ii). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children, and that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification services; and (2) she failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives. We affirm the judgments of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45968 - In re Kharm A. (“The respondent mother, Letishag A., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, K.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 General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1). The respondent does not brief a claim that the court erred in its additional conclusion that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. Because the respondent challenges only one of the two bases for the court’s determination that § 17a-112 (j) (1) had been satisfied, we conclude that the respondent’s appeal is moot.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45719 - In re Amanda C. (“The respondent mother, Christine C. (respondent), appeals from the judgments of the trial court granting the motion of the children’s father, Robert L. (father), to revoke the commitments of their three minor children, A, B, and D; approving the permanency plan requested by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (petitioner); reinstating guardianship in the father; and vesting coguardianship in the children’s paternal aunt, S. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly determined that the compact does not apply under the circumstances of the present case. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45575 - In re Autumn O. ("The respondent mother, Michelle O., 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 two of her minor children, Autumn O. and Joshua W., pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that (1) the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, (2) the respondent had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, and (3) it was in the best interests of the minor children to terminate her parental rights. We conclude that the appeal is moot as to the first claim and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45549 - In re Anthony S. ("The respondent mother, Agnes W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Anthony S. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly determined that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts toward reunification between the respondent and Anthony, (2) the respondent had failed to rehabilitate to such a degree as to reasonably encourage a belief that she could assume a responsible position in the life of her child, and (3) the termination of the respondent's parental rights was in the best interest of Anthony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45434 - In re Kylie P. ("The respondent mother, Isheika P., 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, Kylie P. (Kylie). On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court (1) violated her "right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal . . . as guaranteed by the due process clause to the United States constitution" when it purportedly ordered Kylie's attorney to call an additional witness at trial after the close of evidence, (2) was precluded from finding that she failed to rehabilitate because the Department of Children and Families (department) improperly interfered with her parent-child relationship by threatening to remove her youngest child if she returned to Connecticut, (3) erred in concluding that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify her with Kylie, (4) erred in concluding that the department was not required to make reasonable efforts pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-111b (a) (2) because it already had approved a permanency plan for termination of parental rights, and (5) erred in finding that she failed to rehabilitate because there was insufficient evidence on which to make that finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions