10/30/2009Below are the juvenile law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
-
AC29911 - In re Christopher B. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Christopher. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify Christopher with her, (2) determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and (3) relied on evidence of her history prior to 2005 and disregarded current evidence in reaching its findings.”)
-
AC29890 - In re G.S. (“This appeal underscores the sad distinction between willingness and ability to parent a child. The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to G, her minor child. She contends that the court (1) erroneously found that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with G, (2) failed to make that finding pursuant to the clear and convincing evidence standard and (3) erroneously found that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3).”)
-
AC30083 - In re Tremaine C. (“The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor son, Tremaine. On appeal, the respondent claims that his constitutional due process rights to be present at trial and to confront witnesses were violated.”)
-
AC29565 - In re Jason S. (“The respondent, a minor child, appeals from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating him a delinquent for having committed the crimes of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly found that he had acted with the mental state necessary for the commission of sexual assault in the fourth degree.”)
-
AC30020 - In re Tremaine C. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor son, Tremaine. The respondent claims that the court improperly found that (1) she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and (2) it would be in the best interest of the child to terminate her parental rights.”)
9/24/2009
In re Jorden R. SC18169 (Termination of parental rights; certification from Appellate Court; "The petitioner, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court’s judgment terminating the respondent mother’s parental rights with respect to her infant son, Jorden R. In re Jorden R., 107 Conn. App. 12, 36, 944 A.2d 402 (2008). The commissioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly: (1) interpreted § 17a-112 (j) (1) to require the department of children and families (department) to prove that it made reasonable efforts to reunify a family before a court can find that a parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services; (2) substituted its judgment for the trial court’s in overruling the trial court’s finding that the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services; and (3) concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding from evidence a psychological evaluation of the respondent.") 9/2/2009
-
AC29907 — In re Zion R. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Zion. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that she had failed to achieve such degree of rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position in the child’s life and (2) considered the best interest of the child during the adjudication phase of the petition.”)
-
AC30089 — In re Nathan B. (“The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner mother, terminating the respondent’s parental rights with respect to his minor child, Nathan B. The sole issue on appeal is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the trial judge’s continuing to preside at the trial created an appearance of impropriety, requiring his recusal.”) 7/31/2009
-
AC30611 - In re Justin F. ([N]eglect judgments, orders modifying, suspending visitation; order permitting withdrawal of motion to suspend visitation; denial of motion to revoke commitment; orders re: children’s care; motion to dismiss the proceedings; order modifying visitation; denial of motion for contempt; orders re: children’s care)
-
AC29555 - In re Elysa D. (“The respondent father…appeals from the judgment of the trial court transferring guardianship of his three minor children to their maternal grandmother, claiming that the trial court…(1) violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel in a proceeding affecting his parental rights and (2) improperly transferred custody of the children from the respondent mother…to their maternal grandmother.”) 6/30/2009
-
AC29053 - In re S.D.
“This appeal arises out of a termination of parental rights petition filed by the petitioner, the mother of the minor child, in the Court of Probate for the district of East Hartford pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-715. Following the termination of his parental rights as to the child, the respondent, the child’s father, appealed from that judgment to the trial court, which again terminated his parental rights. On appeal to this court, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to find that reasonable efforts were made to locate and to reunite him with the child, (2) found that he had abandoned the child and that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship and (3) found that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate his parental rights.” 6/1/2009
-
AC29904 - In re Lyric H.
“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor daughter, Lyric. On appeal, the respondent claims that Lyric was entitled, under the state and federal constitutions, to conflict free legal representation in the termination proceedings and that she was deprived of that right. Because the record is not adequate for us to determine that Lyric’s attorney indeed had a conflict of interest, we do not reach the substantive claims set forth by the respondent…” 5/11/2009
State v. Juan L. - SC18295 ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 54-56d (m), which governs the commitment or release of criminal defendants who are not competent to stand trial, applies in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. The state appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing juvenile delinquency proceedings brought against the respondent, Juan L., on the ground that he was not competent to stand trial, and that § 54-56d (m) did not apply in this case.") 3/31/2009
-
AC29991 - In re Xavier D.
“This appeal from the termination of parental rights does not challenge the merits of the adjudication of the mother’s capacity to care for her child. The issue instead is whether the doctrine of res judicata precluded further proceedings on the termination petition by any trial court after another trial court had granted the mother’s motion for dismissal of the petition.” 3/2/2009
Below are the juvenile law Appellate Court opinions issued in February 2009:
-
AC29151 - In re Cheila R.
“The respondent mother, Melissa R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her daughter after concluding that she had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position in the life of the child pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). On appeal, the respondent claims that there was an insufficient basis for the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation.”
-
AC29399, AC29400 – In re Anthony A.
“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, terminating the respondent’s parental rights with respect to her minor child, Anthony A. In AC 29399, the respondent claims that the court improperly terminated her parental rights. In AC 29400, the intervening maternal great-grandmother of Anthony, Rosalina R., appeals from the court’s denial of the motion to revoke Anthony’s commitment and to transfer guardianship of Anthony from his foster parents to her. She claims that the court improperly failed to find that it was in the best interest of Anthony to have guardianship transferred to her.” 2/2/2009
In re DeLeon J.- SC18228 (Neglect petition; "The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court improperly failed to provide adequate notice to the respondent of the time and date for the hearing on her petition, thereby violating her right to due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.") 1/30/2009
-
AC29159, AC29160 — In re Janazia S.
“In these consolidated appeals, the respondent father (father) appeals in AC 29159, and the respondent mother (mother) appeals in AC 29160 from the judgment of the trial court terminating their parental rights with respect to their minor child, Janazia. On appeal, the father claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to revoke the commitment of the child to the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, and to transfer guardianship to the mother or to the maternal stepgrandfather and (2) found that it would be in the best interest of Janazia to terminate his parental rights. The mother claims that the court improperly (1) refused to reopen the evidence for the results of a hair toxicology screening, (2) found that she had failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation, (3) failed to adjudicate her lack of personal rehabilitation before assessing the child’s best interest and (4) found that termination of her parental rights was in Janazia’s best interest.” 1/12/2009
In re Melody L. - SC18085, SC18086, SC18087 ("Termination of parental rights; appeals by respondent mother and her minor children from termination of respondent's parental rights and from denial of children's motion to stay execution of judgment and to continue visitation with respondent pending appeal from termination; whether trial court improperly determined that department of children and families had made reasonable efforts to reunite respondent with her children and that respondent had failed to rehabilitate herself as required by statute (§ 17a-112 [j] [3] [B] [ii]); standard of review of decision to terminate of parental rights; personal rehabilitation under statute, discussed; whether children have standing to appeal from termination of respondent's parental rights; statutory and classical aggrievement, discussed; whether trial court improperly admitted certain expert testimony by clinical psychologist regarding respondent's personal rehabilitation; whether termination of parental rights was in best interests of children; adjudicatory and dispositional phases of termination of parental rights proceeding; mootness; doctrine of capable of repetition, yet evading review; whether appeal from denial of continued visitation with respondent pending appeals rendered moot by decision affirming termination.")
1/5/2009
Below are the juvenile law Appellate Court opinions issued in December 2008:
-
AC29397 - In re Francisco R.
“This appeal concerns an adjudication of neglect of a child under the doctrine of predictive neglect. Specifically, the respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding the child neglected under General Statutes § 46b-120 (9) (B) and (C). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly found that the child was neglected on the date that the neglect petition was filed.”
-
AC29268 - In re Justice V.
[General Statutes 46b-129(j)] “The main issue in this appeal is whether the court’s failure to order specific steps to facilitate reunification following a finding of neglect precludes the granting of a petition for the termination of parental rights on the ground of abandonment.” 12/1/2008
-
AC29521 - In re Candids E. (“The respondent claims that the court (1) violated her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution by conducting the termination of parental rights trial in her absence and (2) committed plain error by trying the case in her absence in violation of the rules of practice and the statutory scheme for termination of parental rights.”) 10/31/2008
-
AC28345 - In re Tayler F. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgments of the trial court finding that her two minor children were neglected.”) 7/23/2008
Earl B. v. Commissioner of Children & Families - SC18063
(Juvenile; mootness; whether juvenile who was convicted as delinquent and committed to the custody of the commissioner of children and families, under General Statutes § 46b-140 (j), is entitled to hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-152 to challenge his continued placement at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School) 12/6/2007In re Leah S. - SC17737
(Child custody; contempt; certification from Appellate Court; claim that department of children and families improperly had been found in contempt of court for failure to comply with specific steps issued by trial court to facilitate child's reunification with family and to ensure child's safety). 11/5/2007
In re William D. - SC17783
(Petition for adjudication of delinquency; motion to extend respondent's commitment to custody of commissioner of children and families pursuant to statute ( §46b-141 [b]); whether trial court had jurisdiction to extend commitment; certification from Appellate Court; statutory ( §46b-120 [1]) definition of ``child'' for purposes of juvenile matters; whether motion to extend commitment relates to persons who satisfied definition of child at time of extension hearing or at time of original commitment proceeding; statutory construction; de novo review.
|
|
|
|