May 1, 2024
AC 46612
Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, claiming that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding her failure to rehabilitate and that the court erred in concluding that she had not achieved such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief she could assume a responsible position in her children’s lives within a reasonable time. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
The Court held that the trial court did not improperly shift the burden of proof. Although Mother referenced one statement in the memorandum of decision as indicating a burden shift, the Court concluded that, when viewed in its entirety, the trial court’s decision reflected a proper application of the law. The trial court explicitly stated that it had applied the appropriate clear and convincing standard and relied on relevant statutory and case law in concluding that DCF had met its burden of proving failure to rehabilitate.
The Court further held that the trial court did not err in determining that Mother failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation. The evidence demonstrated that, despite years of domestic violence, including a severe stabbing incident inflicted on Mother, she continued her relationship with the children’s father in violation of a protective order, minimized the impact of that relationship on her parenting, and concealed their ongoing contact from authorities. Additionally, Mother demonstrated inconsistent engagement with services, difficulty managing her children’s emotional and behavioral needs, and failed to internalize the risk posed by her continued relationship with the children’s abuser. The trial court's finding that termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and the appointment of the Commissioner of Children and Families as statutory parent was proper.
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP225/AP225.194.pdf
