February 1, 2025
Termination of parental rights; failure of parent to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation as required by statute (§ 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i)); unpreserved claim that parent’s right against self-incrimination pursuant to 5th Amend. to US Const. was violated.
- DCF involvement after verbal argument turned into physical altercation when child was 6mo old.
- Respondent (Father) arrested and charged w strangulation, assault, criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. Criminal case still pending while this matter was at trial.
- No contact order issued for mom, which expired early 2023.
- History of ongoing intimate partner violence where both parents blame each other for incidents.
- Temporary custody ordered for parents and commitment in 2022 to DCF.
- Court issued specific steps for reunification of child w parents.
- August 2022 DCF filed termination of parental rights petition, January 2023 Father filed motion to revoke commitment.
- Consolidated hearing January 2024 on DCF termination of parental rights and father’s motion to revoke commitment.
- Father didn’t engage in services until termination filed & says he doesn’t need them, says he’s done nothing wrong, there isn’t intimate partner violence & thinks criminal charges should be dismissed.
- April 2024 memo terminating father’s parental rights.
- Father didn’t comply w court ordered steps early on bc he wouldn’t engage in recommended services, denied history of DV, and said mother was lying ab incidents, and that engagement in services seemed performative and he denied any responsibility and growth from the program.
- Wouldn’t take drug test or engage in individual therapy.
- Father has been unable/unwilling to address the reasons child was removed and isn’t able to provide her w a safe, stable home environment.
- Father appealed from termination, claiming court violated 5th Amend. right against self-incrimination when terminated for failure to rehabilitate based on his willingness to admit to potentially criminal conduct.
- Father’s claim fails under 3rd prong of State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233) bc alleged constitutional violation didn’t exist, as court’s decision wasn’t based on invocation of father’s right to remain silent but based on his voluntary denials of intimate partner violence w child’s mother (which were contradicted by evidence: photos and texts admitted at trial).
- 3rd prong: the alleged constitutional violation exists and deprived D of a fair trial
- Fact that there may be adverse consequences when a D invokes the 5th Amend. in a civil proceeding doesn’t necessarily mean D is subject to unlawful compulsion for 5th Amend. purposes
- For the right against self-incrimination to be implicated, compulsion is required.
- No compulsion here, all his statements were voluntary
- Right against self-incrimination must be expressly invoked in civil proceedings.
- Never invoked 5th amend. right
- The court’s findings with respect to DV were supported by photographs of mother’s injuries, damage to their dwelling, and respondent’s self-incriminating text message to her.
- So court’s conclusion wasn’t based on fact that respondent wanted to remain silent as to the incident but, instead, on voluntary denials of any intimate partner violence in the relationship despite evidence to the contrary.
- Court also found father didn’t benefit from programs and participation was to gain advantage in criminal and custody cases → failure to engage.
- Court’s decision didn’t implicate respondent’s 5th Amend. privilege against self-incrimination.
- Affirmd.
