March 6, 2023
March 2023
Failure to Rehabilitate
Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, claiming that the trial court improperly determined that, pursuant to statute (§ 17a-112 (j)), she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, and that the TPR was in the children’s best interests of the children.
The Court here declined to review the merits of Mother’s claim that the trial court improperly determined that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, as that claim was moot. Although the trial court found both that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify and that Mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from such reunification efforts, two independent bases for satisfying § 17a-112 (j) (1), Mother challenged only the determination that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reasonable efforts toward reunification. Because Mother’s ability to obtain relief required that she challenge both independent bases, her failure to do so foreclosed any possibility of practical relief.
The Court also found that Mother could not prevail on her claim that the trial court improperly determined that she failed to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilitation required by § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). There was sufficient evidence credited by the court to support its conclusion that she failed to rehabilitate, including evidence that she continued to associate with dangerous third parties, and failed to address the conditions that led to her children’s commitment, namely, incidents of violence in her home, as, even after the minor children were committed to DCF, Mother repeatedly invited interaction with two individuals who caused chaos and violence within the home. One of them had a chaotic, and often violent, relationship with Mother despite a protective order; moreover, police responded to Mother’s house numerous times because of the violent, destructive, or otherwise unlawful conduct of the two individuals. Furthermore, the trauma that one of them caused one of the children, and Mother’s continued association with them, demonstrated her failure to appreciate that her tumultuous interpersonal relationships exposed her, and the children, to harm.
Lastly, the Court here found that Mother could not prevail on her claim that the trial court improperly determined that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate her parental rights. The court considered and made findings under each of the seven factors of § 17a-112 (k); its findings as to the children’s best interests were factually supported and legally sound; and there was ample evidence in the record to support its conclusion, including evidence that established that Mother repeatedly interacted and cohabitated with individuals that routinely caused a chaotic and violent home environment, and, as a result, she would be unable to provide an appropriate home environment for her children within a reasonable period of time, considering their ages and needs and in light of the children’s need for stability and permanency.
