March 1, 2025
AC 47852
Father appealed from the trial court’s judgment removing him as a guardian of his minor child and appointing the child’s aunt and uncle as coguardians, claiming the court abused its discretion in finding, by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to § 45a-610(3), that removal was warranted.
The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing Father as guardian. Rather, the record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the child had been denied the care, guidance, and control necessary for her well-being as a result of acts of parental commission or omission, and that it was not in the best interest of the child for Father to retain guardianship. The trial court appropriately considered the child’s emotional and educational needs, the circumstances surrounding her temporary placement with the petitioners, and the events leading up to and following Father’s attempt to abruptly terminate the temporary guardianship arrangement.
Specifically, the court noted concerns over the child’s distress during her time living with Father and the conditions in which she was allowed to live. It also found that Father prioritized his relationship with his current wife over the needs of the child, and that he had voluntarily recognized the petitioners’ ability to care for the child by repeatedly entering into voluntary guardianship agreements. The court concluded that petitioners had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the statutory grounds under § 45a-610(3) had been met and that removal was in the child’s best interest under § 45a-605.
Accordingly, the trial court did not misapply or overlook any relevant legal standard, and the judgment removing Father as guardian and appointing the petitioners as coguardians was affirmed.
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP231/AP231.157.pdf
