April 1, 2024
AC 46639
Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, claiming that the trial court erred in finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child, that it improperly denied her motion for a continuance, and that its best interest determination was clearly erroneous.
The Court held that the trial court did not err in its judgment. First, the Court found that Mother’s challenge to DCF’s reunification efforts was moot, as she failed to challenge the trial court’s separate and independent finding that she was unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services. Because either finding independently supported termination under the applicable statutory standard, reversal was unwarranted.
Second, the Court rejected Mother’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a 60-day continuance filed 3 days before trial. Although she argued the continuance was necessary to allow time for paternity testing of a newly identified putative father, the Court noted that the motion implicated the putative father’s potential rights, not her own. Accordingly, the denial did not infringe on any constitutional due process right personal to her and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Lastly, the Court concluded that the trial court’s determination that termination was in the best interest of the child was not erroneous. While there was evidence that Mother loved the child and participated in visitation, the record also reflected that she failed to stabilize her mental health, could not regulate her behavior during visits, and disrupted sessions to the point that emergency personnel were required. The Court emphasized that love alone is insufficient to preclude termination, and found the trial court’s findings were well supported by the evidence.
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP224/AP224.183.pdf
