The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
AC42961, AC42962, AC42963, AC42964 - In re Gabriel C.
(Termination of parental rights; motion to disqualify
counsel acting as minor child’s GAL on ground that attorney was previously
mother’s GAL; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly failed
to order, sua sponte, an evaluation of her competency to assist her counsel at
trial, in violation of her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to
the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)
AC43066 - In re Geoffrey G. (Termination of parental rights; review sought under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015); "On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly failed
to order, sua sponte, an evaluation of her competency to assist her counsel at
trial, in violation of her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to
the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of the court")
- AC43032 - In re Brian P. ("As the trial court aptly observed, "[t]his is another
sad case involving opiates and their invidious harm to parents' lives and
families." The respondents, Jennifer
L. (mother) and Brian P. (father), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered
in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating
their parental rights with respect to the minor child, Brian P. On appeal, the respondents claim that the
court improperly (1) found that they had failed to achieve a sufficient degree
of personal rehabilitation, (2) failed to determine the needs of Brian P.
before deciding whether they had failed to rehabilitate, and (3) found that
termination of their parental rights was in the best interest of Brian P. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
- AC43119 - In re Brian P. ("The paternal
grandmother of the minor child and proposed intervenor, Susan P., appeals from
the denial of her motion to intervene, which was filed following the judgment
of the trial court granting the petition of the Commissioner of Children and Families
(commissioner) to terminate the parental rights of Brian P. (father) and
Jennifer L. (mother) with respect to the minor child, Brian P. We conclude that we lack subject matter
jurisdiction and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")
- AC43119 - In re Walker C. ("The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Walker C. III (child).In the termination of parental rights petition, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner), alleged 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, 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 (1) the court's finding that the child's attorney argued in favor of the termination of the respondent's parental rights is clearly erroneous, (2) the court's error was not harmless because there was insufficient evidence tending to support termination of parental rights over permanent transfer of guardianship, and (3) there was considerable evidence tending to show that a permanent transfer of guardianship was in the child's best interest.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42870 - In re Yolanda V.
(Termination of parental rights; “She contends that the
court improperly concluded that (1) she failed to achieve the requisite degree
of personal rehabilitation required by General Statutes § 17a-112, and (2)
termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. We
affirm the judgments of the trial court”).
SC20267 - In re Tresin J. (Termination of parental rights pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D); “In this certified appeal, we consider whether the parental rights of a father were properly terminated for lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship when, at the time of the termination trial, the six year old child had no knowledge or memory of his father, who had been incarcerated when the child was two years old…the respondent claims that the trial court should have applied the virtual infancy and interference exceptions to the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship ground for the termination of parental rights because Tresin was only two years old when the respondent’s incarceration separated them, and the circumstances of this case, particularly the deficiencies of Tresin’s mother, rendered contact impossible during his incarceration. In light of our recent explication of these exceptions in In re Jacob W., 330 Conn. 744, 200 A.3d 1091 (2019), we disagree with the respondent’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court”).