The Appellate Court of Connecticut reversed in part and remanded the trial court’s order terminating respondent biological mother’s parental rights to two daughters because the trial court failed to consider and make written findings as to the feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to the respondent as required by Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(k). In In re Romance M., 641 A.2d 378, the court held that “After an adjudicatory determination that a ground for the termination of parental rights has been established, § 17a-112(k) requires the trial court to make dispositional findings on each of [seven] enumerated criteria to assure that termination is in the best interest of the child.” In the instant case, respondent appealed the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights and claimed on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) made reasonable efforts at reunification; that the respondent had failed in her efforts to rehabilitate herself; and that the court did not make the required findings regarding the emotional relationship between respondent and the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to the first two assignments of error by detailing the reunification efforts made by the DCF over the years and by describing respondents’ multiple failed attempts at rehabilitation. As to the third assignment of error, the appellate court held that the trial court’s finding as to the emotional relationship between respondent and the children “is utterly unresponsive to the mandatory statutory requirement that the court consider and make written findings as to ‘the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child’s parents…’” Further, “The trial court’s decision, read in its totality, simply contains no finding at all concerning the feelings and emotional ties of either child with respect to the respondent, and thus gives no evidence that the court considered that critical issue, as the law required it to….”
Cite: No. AC 36596, 2014 Conn. App. LEXIS 495 (Connecticut Ct. App. November 24, 2014)
Link to Full Opinion
Support Us