May 1, 2022
In Re Katia V. (AC 45026)
TPR; Americans with Disabilities Act; Reasonable Efforts
August 2022
Mother appealed the judgment terminating her parental rights with respect to her child, who had been in foster care since birth. The trial court made the statutory (§ 17a-112 (j) (1)) findings that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify, and that Mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts. Mother claimed that DCF and the trial court violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in determining that DCF had made reasonable efforts at reunification, and that the court erred in denying her motions to bifurcate the adjudicatory and dispositional phases of the TPR proceedings and to sequester the child’s foster parents during trial.
The Court here held that Mother’s challenge to the trial court’s finding that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify, which was based on her claim that DCF and the court had violated her rights under the ADA, was moot. Mother failed to challenge the court’s finding that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from DCF’s reunification efforts. Because either finding is an independent basis to terminate parental rights, a review of her challenge to the finding that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify could not have afforded her any practical relief.
Additionally, the Court here held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mother’s motion to bifurcate the proceedings. It was reasonable for the court to conclude that a unified trial was appropriate because two separate hearings would have undermined the court’s interest in judicial economy, as well as the child’s interest in the efficient resolution of the proceedings. Moreover, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the court improperly considered dispositional evidence in the adjudicatory phase of the trial.
Lastly, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Mother’s motion to sequester the child’s foster parents, the Mother having failed to provide any basis for such a finding. The motion was neither specific nor supported by evidence, and it failed to establish a likelihood that the foster parents would testify falsely if they were not sequestered.
https://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP214/214AP361.pdf
