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.
by Penn, Michele
- 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 ยง 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.")