Opinion
(AC 19723)
Argued March 21, 2000
Officially released June 20, 2000
Petitions by the commissioner of children and families to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to their three minor children, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield, Juvenile Matters at Torrington, and transferred to the Child Protection Session at Middletown, and tried to the court, Munro, J.; judgments terminating the respondents' parental rights, from which the respondent mother appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Maureen E. Donahue, for the appellant (respondent mother).
Maureen D. Regula, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Thomas S. Becker, for the minor children.
Opinion
The respondent mother appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her three minor children. She challenges the court's determination that the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, proved by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the children had been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission, the care, guidance, or control necessary for the children's physical, educational, moral or emotional well being, (2) that the respondent had failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, that the respondent could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children, and (3) that termination of the respondent's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children.
The court terminated the parental rights of the respondent mother, who participated in the termination proceedings, and two putative fathers, who did not appear at trial. Only the respondent mother has appealed. We refer to her as the respondent in this opinion.
Our examination of the record and briefs and consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the court should be affirmed. The court issued a memorandum of decision setting forth detailed findings of fact. "It is well established that an appellate court cannot retry the facts. Our review is limited to determining whether the court's judgment was clearly erroneous or contrary to law." In re Martin K., 56 Conn. App. 10, 11, 741 A.2d 10 (1999); see also In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 169, 554 A.2d 722 (1989). We, therefore, will not disturb the court's factual findings, as they are not clearly erroneous.
Additionally, the court properly considered the relevant case law and weighed the factors enumerated in the statutes, and we therefore find the court's conclusions fully supported by the record. In re Felicia D., 35 Conn. App. 490, 504, 646 A.2d 862, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 931, 649 A.2d 253 (1994).