In re Ja'maire M.
| Decision Date | 20 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | AC 43710 |
| Citation | 201 Conn.App. 498,242 A.3d 747 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE JA'MAIRE M. |
Albert J. Oneto IV, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent father).
Seon Bagot, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Lavine, Alvord and Cradle, Js.
The respondent father, Randy F., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j). On appeal, the respondent claims that, in terminating his parental rights, the trial court improperly relied on a finding that the child was neglected, which was made at a previous proceeding at which the respondent was not present.1 Because the respondent's appeal constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the neglect judgment, we affirm the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights.
The following facts and procedural history set forth in the court's memorandum of decision and the record are relevant to this appeal. The child was born in November, 2016, to the respondent and E, the child's mother. E indicated to agents of the Department of Children and Families (department) that the man with whom the child was living, J, was his biological father. In August, 2017, when the child was nine months old, a department investigation into the child's circumstances resulted in an adjudication that the child was neglected.
Prior to the neglect proceeding, on August 10, 2017, the department received a report that the child had been admitted to Yale New Haven Hospital for emergency medical treatment. E's whereabouts were unknown and the putative father, J, who was not named on the child's birth certificate, lacked medical decision-making authority. After investigating the child's circumstances and instituting a ninety-six hour hold on the child, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner),2 obtained temporary custody of the child and filed a neglect petition.
On October 19, 2017, the court held a hearing to address the commissioner's neglect petition. The court dismissed J from the case on the basis of a department ordered paternity test, which established that he was not, in fact, the child's biological father. E testified that the respondent was the child's father. She entered a plea of nolo contendere to the neglect petition, which the court accepted. Finding that the child was neglected and had been permitted to live in conditions injurious to his well-being, the court determined on the record that it was in the best interest of the child for him to be committed to the custody of the commissioner. The court thus adjudicated the child neglected at the October 19, 2017 hearing and committed him to the custody of the commissioner pending further order of the court. After the neglect adjudication, the commissioner moved to cite the respondent into the case as a party on October 27, 2017. The court granted the motion. The commissioner filed a petition seeking commitment of the child to the commissioner's custody, and, after efforts to locate the respondent were unavailing, the department gave notice by publication in the New Haven Register.
On December 28, 2017, the department and the respondent appeared before the court for a hearing on the respondent's status. The court informed the respondent that the child had been adjudicated neglected and was in the care of the department. The court also informed the respondent that The respondent replied in the affirmative. Subsequently that day, the court appointed an attorney for the respondent. The court ordered a paternity test pursuant to the commissioner's outstanding motion.
On April 10, 2018, the court found, on the basis of the paternity test, that the respondent was, in fact, the child's father. A permanency plan hearing was held on June 28, 2018, before the court, at which the commissioner proposed termination of parental rights and adoption. The respondent objected. Subsequently, in July, 2018, the commissioner moved to amend the permanency plan with a new focus on reunification and to order specific steps for the respondent. The court granted the commissioner's motion on August 2, 2018, and ordered specific steps for the respondent.3
The department took measures to facilitate visitation between the child and the respondent pursuant to the permanency plans and specific steps, but the respondent failed to satisfy the specific steps set out for him. As a result, following a preliminary hearing, the commissioner filed a petition on July 1, 2019, seeking the termination of the respondent's parental rights pursuant to § 17a-112. The commissioner alleged that the child had been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected, that the father had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, considering the age and the needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the child's life, and that it was in the child's best interest for the respondent's parental rights to be terminated. In its social study, the department detailed the reasonable efforts it had made to reunify the child with the respondent.4
The respondent defaulted on the commissioner's petition for the termination of his parental rights. Following abode service on July 10, 2019, the respondent failed to appear on his plea date of July 30, 2019. The court scheduled a trial for September 5, 2019, to consider the termination of parental rights petition. The respondent failed to attend the trial. At trial, James Roth, a social worker for the department, testified as to the department's repeated efforts to reach the respondent. Roth characterized the respondent's progress as follows: Roth testified that he did not see any improvement from either parent and that the respondent had not demonstrated any stability. Roth opined that termination of parental rights and adoption were in the child's best interest.
On November 7, 2019, the court signed a transcript of its September 9, 2019 oral decision terminating the respondent's paternal rights pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). In the adjudicative portion of its decision, the court found that "the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for." The court found that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent and the child through visits and counseling services, but "[t]he [respondent] is also unable or unwilling to benefit from those reunification efforts."5 The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, considering the age and the needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the child's life. Finally, the court found that the respondent did not appear in the termination of parental rights case, despite having been notified by both Roth and the department during its last contact with the respondent in early August, 2019.
In the dispositional portion of its decision, the court considered and made findings as to each of the seven factors in § 17-112 (k) on the basis of clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the child and the respondent, had complied with all court orders, and had timely offered the respondent "services in accordance with the specific steps," but that the respondent "did not successfully engage in any services offered to [him] and failed to comply with [his] specific steps." The court found that providing additional time for the respondent to rehabilitate would be unavailing because the respondent had not made sufficient efforts "to adjust [his] situation in order to parent [the child]," or "to conform [his] conduct to even minimally acceptable parental standards." The court concluded that termination of the respondent's parental rights as to the child would serve the best interest of the child, and appointed the commissioner as statutory parent. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court erred by predicating its judgment terminating his parental rights as to the child on the prior neglect adjudication, which he contends was entered improperly. Specifically, he objects to the fact that the underlying neglect proceeding took place in his absence, as he first appeared in the case as a party more than two months later. He argues that because § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) requires a finding that the child "has been found by the Superior Court ... to have been neglected, abused or uncared for in a prior proceeding" and because he was denied an opportunity to participate or plead in response to the prior neglect proceeding, the neglect adjudication was invalid and that the trial court erred by relying on it as a predicate for its judgment terminating his parental rights as to the child. The respondent has not otherwise challenged the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Delilah G.
...cert. denied, 343 Conn. 934, 276 A.3d 974 (2022), and cert. denied, 343 Conn. 934, 276 A.3d 974 (2022) ; see also In re Ja'Maire M ., 201 Conn. App. 498, 505, 242 A.3d 747 (2020) ("We will not ... review claims that are collateral attacks on prior judgments. With regard to the statutory sch......
-
In re Ja'Maire M.
...attorney general, in opposition.The petition of the respondent father for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 201 Conn. App. 498, 242 A.3d 747 (2020), is ...