In re Jason R., No. 18847.

• Decision Date: 10 September 2012
• Docket Number: No. 18847.
• Citation: 306 Conn. 438,51 A.3d 334
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: In re JASON R., et al.

306 Conn. 438

51 A.3d 334

In re JASON R., et al.^*

No. 18847.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 15, 2012.

Decided Sept. 10, 2012.^**

Erich H. Gaston, with whom was Alison P. Gaston, for the appellant (respondent mother).

Gregory T. D'Auria, solicitor general, with whom were Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, George Jepsen, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, HARPER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.^***

EVELEIGH, J.

This certified appeal ¹ arises from the termination of the parental rights of the respondent mother to her two minor children, Jason R. and Fernando R. (children).² The respondent appeals, following our grant of her petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, terminating her parental rights to the children.³In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 748, 23 A.3d 18 (2011). On appeal, the respondent asserts that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court did not improperly shift the burden of proof on the issue of personal rehabilitation to the respondent. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts and procedural history. “The respondent was born in Hartford in 1989. The respondent's mother had a history of substance abuse, and the respondent was raised by her grandmother. The [involvement of the department of children and families (department) ] with the respondent began when she was a teenager. At that time, the respondent had mental health and behavioral problems.

“Fernando and Jason were born less than one year apart in 2006 and 2007, respectively.⁴ On December 13, 2007, the petitioner filed with the court neglect petitions and motions seeking ex parte orders of temporary custody of the children. These motions were denied by the court. On January 25, 2008, believing that the children were in imminent risk of physical harm from their surroundings and that immediate removal from such surroundings was necessary to ensure their safety, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–101g, the department removed the childrenfrom the respondent, and they have been in the petitioner's custody since that date. On January 28, 2008, the petitioner again filed motions seeking ex parte orders of temporary custody of the children, and those motions were granted by the court. On February 1, 2008, the court sustained the orders of temporary custody. On April 8, 2008, the respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the neglect allegations concerning each of the children, the court adjudicated each child neglected pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–120 (9)(B) and (C), and the court committed each child to the care, custody and guardianship of the [petitioner] pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–129 (j). The children were placed together in a preadoptive foster home, and the children's foster mother has expressed a willingness to allow the respondent to have a relationship with the children if she is able to adopt them. The children have strong bonds with both the respondent and their foster parents.

“Both prior to and after the removal of the children from the respondent's custody, the department provided the respondent with services dealing with her mental health, substance abuse, parenting education and housing issues and needs. A series of department social workers worked with the respondent to reunite the family. Additionally, after the children were removed from her care and custody, the department provided visitation services to the respondent in a variety of venues with varying degrees of supervision.

“In addition to direct services, the department offered the respondent support and services from other agencies. From August 12 until December 30, 2008, the respondent received individual counseling at Catholic Charities. The focus of the counseling was on stabilizing the respondent and ‘creating a home environment that would allow reunification.’ This service was discontinuedbecause the respondent ‘continued to show no consistent progress. She continued exhibiting signs of being extremely overwhelmed when faced with simple requests regarding working toward reunification.... She poorly demonstrates her ability to take initiative in making decisions for herself or for her family on her own. She expressed that she had a low tolerance level for stress and anger. She does show that she cares for her children; however, she seemed to lack the understanding of the importance of proving that she was able to maintain the family on her own without assistance.’ ... Catholic Charities recommended that the respondent ‘address her mental health issues and receive assistance obtaining medical insurance so she can be able to receive individual therapy.’ ... The respondent also was prescribed medication, but she often did not take it. She stated she did not need the medication or that she could not obtain it because of insurance problems.

“In October, 2008, the respondent participated in a court-ordered evaluation by Logan L. Green, an expert in forensic and clinical psychology. Green reported that the respondent had achieved a wide range of scores on various performance criteria. The respondent's verbal IQ was 77, which ranked at the sixth percentile and is classified as ‘borderline.’ The respondent's performance IQ was 103, which ranked at the fifty-eighth percentile and is classified as ‘normal functioning.’ Green concluded that ‘[a] verbal-performance difference of this size is suggestive of learning disabilities, poor academic achievement, poor reading ability, and at times left hemisphere or diffuse brain damage.’ Green also noted that the respondent's ‘exceptional guardedness and extremely idealized self-presentation prevents interpretation of her capacity for bonding. Therefore, the extent to which she is capable of offering relatively consistent parental love could not be determined.’ Green diagnosed the respondent with anxiety disorder with compulsive defenses, dysthymic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Green recommended that the respondent be evaluated to determine whether she had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ... and that she receive psychological treatment with appropriate medication therapy, academic and vocational training, reliable support from family and practical training to plan and monitor solutions to everyday problems. Green also recommended a parenting education program called Parent/Child Interactive Therapy (parenting program) in which the respondent would be observed interacting with her children through a one-way mirror while being directed by the observer through the use of an earpiece. Green, however, was not sure if the parenting program would be an available option and stated that ‘parenting training that allows for feedback immediately after the interaction session ... would certainly be acceptable.’

“Following Green's evaluation and report, the department recommended to the respondent that she attend the intensive outpatient program at the Rushford Center, where she began receiving services in February, 2009.⁵ The respondent was discharged from this program in March, 2009, because of poor attendance. She returned to the Rushford Center in April, 2009, where she participated in the program. She completed the program satisfactorily and was referred to the ‘women seeking safety trauma group.’

“The department then asked that the Rushford Center prepare another intake evaluation on May 14, 2009, because of the respondent's acknowledged use of marijuana.The respondent was tested for marijuana on twenty occasions between October 3, 2008, and December 15, 2009. Five of those test results were positive and fifteen were negative. The respondent acknowledged that she had begun using marijuana when she was twelve years old and that she continues to use it.

“The respondent also attended sessions at Family Matters, a center for child visitation and clinical parenting consultation, from April 9 to May 28, 2009. Family Matters provided supervised visitation with a parent education and feedback component. Family Matters also recommended that the department follow steps ‘to assure a safe and positive transition for [the children] to [the respondent's] home’ and noted the respondent's ‘significant progress.’

“Approximately sixteen months after the children were placed in the custody of the petitioner, on June 8, 2009, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respondent and the father as to [the children]. Pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112 (j), the petitioner alleged that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify each of the children with the respondent, termination was in the best interest of each of the children and, pursuant to § 17a–112 (j)(3)(B), the children previously were adjudicated neglected in a prior proceeding and that the respondent had failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of each of the children, the respondent could assume a responsible position in their lives.

“After the petitioner filed the termination of parental rights petitions, the department continued to provide services to the respondent. From August 7 to November 7, 2009, the respondent received services at Community Residences, Inc., a family reunification and preservationprogram supported by the department. Community Residences, Inc., provided the respondent with supervised visitation, parent education and feedback. Community Residences, Inc., continued to work with the respondent through February, 2010. Its final evaluation and recommendation described the...