Generally, we dismiss an appeal as moot where the respondent fails to challenge separate and independent bases for the court's determination that the requirements of § 17a-112 were satisfied. See In re Miracle C., 201 Conn.App. 598, 605, 243 A.3d 347 (2020) (''[b]ecause the respondent challenges on appeal only one of the two separate and independent bases for the court's determination that the requirements of § 17a-112 (j) (1) had been satisfied, this court can afford the respondent no relief''). In the present matter, both grounds for termination of parental rights require the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.

Because the respondent challenges only one of the two separate and independent bases set forth in § 17a-112 (j) (1), there is no practical relief that this court can provide. See, e.g., In re Jorden R. , supra, 293 Conn. at 555, 979 A.2d 469 ; In re Miracle C. , 201 Conn. App. 598, 605, 243 A.3d 347 (2020). II

Because the respondent argues only that the court erred in finding that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, even if we were to agree with his claim, the fact that there is a second independent basis for upholding the court's determination renders us unable to provide him with any practical relief with respect to this claim on appeal. See In re Miracle C. , 201 Conn. App. 598, 605–606, 243 A.3d 347 (2020) (dismissing appeal because court could offer respondent no relief when respondent challenged only one of two separate and independent bases for court's determination that requirements of § 17a-112 (j) (1) had been satisfied); In re Daniel A. , 150 Conn. App. 78, 98, 89 A.3d 1040 (declining to review respondent's claim that court erred in finding that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts because it was moot for same reason), cert. denied, 312 Conn. 911, 93 A.3d 593 (2014). We, therefore, dismiss as moot the respondent's claim that the court erred in finding that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services.