In re Lucia C.
| Citation | 211 Conn.App. 275,271 A.3d 1108 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 44807, (AC 44809) |
| Parties | IN RE LUCIA C. In re Christian C. et al. |
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
David E. Schneider, Jr., assigned counsel, for the appellant in both appeals (respondent father).
Evan M. O'Roark, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee in both appeals (petitioner).
Prescott, Alexander and Harper, Js.
In these consolidated appeals,1 the respondent father, Eddie C., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights as to his three minor children, Lucia C., Christian C., and Alexander C. The respondent claims that the court improperly concluded, in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C), that he had denied his children, by an act or acts of commission or omission, the care, guidance, or control necessary for their physical, educational, moral, or emotional well-being.2 In connection with his claim, the respondent argues that the court improperly "speculat[ed]" that, because he was incarcerated following his conviction of sexual assault of a minor, his absence from his children's lives and his children being left in the custody of their mother caused his children to be denied the care, guidance, or control necessary for their well-being. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The following facts, as found by the court or as otherwise undisputed in the record, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. Prior to his incarceration, the respondent was his children's primary caregiver. The respondent housed, fed, clothed, and financially supported his children. In addition to providing for their basic necessities, the respondent played with his children, read to them, and played an active role in their educational and extracurricular activities. By contrast, the children's mother, Ashley C. (mother), who suffers from significant mental health issues and has been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder
, did not show significant interest in engaging with or parenting her children, despite residing in the same home with the children. Prior to the respondent's arrest, the family was not involved with the Department of Children and Families (department).
In October, 2015, the respondent was convicted of the sexual assault of a five year old extended family member and was sentenced to twenty-five years of incarceration. His maximum release date is November 7, 2039. Following his arrest, the respondent was "afraid" that the safety of his children would be compromised in the care of their mother.
After the respondent was incarcerated, Lucia, Christian, and Alexander initially remained in the care and custody of their mother. Thereafter, the department began to receive reports of the abuse, neglect, inadequate supervision, and inadequate shelter of the children in their mother's care. Specifically, the department received reports alleging that the mother physically and verbally abused the children, including beating them, choking them, calling them by derogatory names, and threatening to abandon them. In March, 2016, for example, Christian was hospitalized due to behavioral issues and reported to medical staff that his mother repeatedly choked him following his misbehavior and told him that she would "put him in foster care and get a new kid." Additionally, the department received reports that their home had no food or electricity and was in an unsanitary condition. During this time, the department also received reports documenting substantial deterioration in the children's emotional well-being and hygiene.3 The mother declined to engage in parenting support services to which she had been referred by the department. Due to her noncompliance, she was discharged from these services. In sum, while the children were in her care, the mother subjected them to abuse, neglect,4 and housing instability.
On June 7, 2016, the petitioner filed neglect petitions with respect to the three children. On September 15, 2016, the petitioner filed ex parte applications for orders of temporary custody (OTC) of the children, which the court, Turner, J. , granted. The court vested temporary custody of all three children in the petitioner. On October 14, 2016, the court vacated the existing OTC, adjudicated the children neglected, and committed Lucia and Christian to the care and custody of the petitioner. The court ordered that Alexander remain in the custody of his mother subject to a nine month period of protective supervision by the department.
In February, 2017, the department received a report concerning Alexander's hygiene and behavior at school and an allegation that Alexander had sustained a suspicious injury. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for an ex parte OTC of Alexander, which the court, Maronich, J. , granted, as well as a motion to modify the order of protective supervision to an order of commitment of Alexander to the care and custody of the petitioner. On March 6, 2017, following a contested trial, the court, Hon. Thomas F. Upson , judge trial referee, vacated the OTC with respect to Alexander. On June 19, 2017, however, the court, Turner, J. , granted the motion to modify the order of protective supervision of Alexander and committed Alexander to the care and custody of the petitioner by agreement of the parties.
After removing them from the care and custody of their mother, the department placed Lucia and Alexander in various foster homes. Before eventually placing Christian in the foster home of his paternal grandfather and paternal stepgrandmother,5 the department initially placed Christian in a residential treatment program, and he subsequently was hospitalized on numerous occasions to receive inpatient psychiatric care.6 Following the respondent's incarceration, Christian has suffered from significant mental health issues, including adjustment disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
, oppositional defiant disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, for which he receives therapy and is prescribed medication. Likewise, following the respondent's incarceration, Lucia has been hospitalized in order to receive psychiatric care, and she has been diagnosed with acute adjustment disorder and anxiety for which she receives therapy and is prescribed medication. Following the respondent's incarceration, Alexander has struggled, and continues to struggle, with behavioral issues and emotional regulation, for which he receives therapy, receives other support, and is prescribed medication. Specifically, he exhibits impulsivity, aggression, and destructive behaviors and has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
and trauma specific disorder. With respect to each child, the record reflects a significant deterioration of their well-being following the respondent's incarceration.7
In June, 2019, the petitioner filed petitions for the termination of the parental rights of the respondent and the mother as to Lucia, Christian, and Alexander. The mother consented to the termination of her parental rights as to each of the three children, which the court, Grogins, J. , accepted on November 27, 2019. In May and December, 2019, the respondent filed two separate motions to revoke the commitment of Lucia and Alexander to the care and custody of the petitioner and to transfer guardianship of Lucia and Alexander to the care and custody of his mother, their paternal grandmother.
The court, Woods, J. , conducted a trial concerning the petitions for the termination of the respondent's parental rights and the motions to transfer guardianship of Lucia and Alexander to the care and custody of their paternal grandmother over a span of several nonconsecutive days between December, 2019, and March, 2021. In a memorandum of decision dated April 30, 2021, the court terminated the respondent's parental rights as to Lucia, Christian, and Alexander, denied the respondent's motions to transfer guardianship of Lucia and Alexander to their paternal grandmother, and granted the respondent posttermination visitation with the children. The court determined that the respondent, by acts of parental commission or omission, had denied his children the care, guidance, or control necessary for their physical, educational, moral, and emotional well-being. The court's memorandum of decision is not entirely clear as to which acts of commission or omission the court identified. In context, however, we read the memorandum of decision to accept the petitioner's primary argument that, as a result of his sexual assault of a minor and consequent incarceration, the respondent left his children to be abused and neglected in the custody of their mother and, in turn, denied his children the care, guidance, or control necessary for their well-being. Ultimately, the court terminated the respondent's parental rights as to each child. This appeal followed.
We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lucia C.
...attorney general, in opposition.The petition of the respondent father for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 211 Conn. App. 275, 271 A.3d 1108, is denied. MULLINS, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this ...