Opinion
(AC 32528)
The respondent mother appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child. Held that the respondent mother's claim to the contrary notwithstanding, the trial court's finding that the mother had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that she could, within a reasonable time, assume a responsible position in the life of the child was supported by sufficient evidence in the record and was not improper.
Argued March 8, 2011
Officially released April 12, 2011
Petition by the commissioner of children and families to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to their minor child, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Litchfield, Juvenile Matters at Torrington, and transferred to the Child Protection Session at Middletown, where the matter was tried to the court, Bentivegna, J.; judgment terminating the respondents' parental rights, from which the respondent mother appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Sandra T., pro se, the appellant (respondent mother).
Michael J. Besso, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Nancy Owens McMahon, for the minor child.
Opinion
The respondent, Sandee B., the mother of Kyle L., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to the minor child. The respondent claims that the court's critical finding, namely, that she had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that she could, within a reasonable time, assume a responsible position in the life of the child, was not supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents of the child. Only the respondent mother appealed. We therefore refer to the mother as the respondent. The court-appointed attorney for the child supports the position of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, that the judgment should be affirmed.
Certain facts and the procedural history are not in dispute. The child was born on August 17, 2004. In October, 2005, the department of children and families first became involved with the family, regarding issues of substance abuse and domestic violence. On November 30, 2005, the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, filed a neglect petition pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129, and on January 26, 2006, the petitioner assumed custody of the child pursuant to an order of temporary custody. The neglect petition ultimately was granted on September 13, 2006, and the child was committed to the petitioner's custody and guardianship.
On October 8, 2009, the petitioner filed this petition for termination of parental rights, on the ground that the child previously had been adjudicated neglected and 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 child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). The court, Bentivegna, J., held a three day trial in May, 2010, and, on July 1, 2010, issued a lengthy memorandum of decision and rendered judgment granting the petition. This appeal followed.
The petitioner had filed an earlier petition for termination of parental rights that the court, Hon. Samuel S. Goldstein, judge trial referee, denied on March 4, 2008.
The respondent's sole claim is that the evidence does not support the court's finding that she had failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation specified in the statute. We disagree.
We have reviewed fully the claims of the respondent, both in her brief and in oral argument to this court, the court's memorandum of decision, and the record of the case. The court's findings are detailed, carefully and thoroughly stated, and cover all of the statutory requirements. The evidence supporting each is, as well, thoroughly summarized by the court, and amply supports the critical challenged finding. We cannot agree with the respondent that the finding is not supported by the evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.