In re Olivia W.

• Docket Number: AC 46196
• Decision Date: 04 January 2024
• Citation: In re Olivia W., 223 Conn.App. 173, 308 A.3d 571 (Conn. App. 2024)
• Parties: IN RE OLIVIA W.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

308 A.3d 571

223 Conn.App. 173

IN RE OLIVIA W.^*

(AC 46196)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 12, 2023

Officially Released January 4, 2024^**

Kristen W., self-represented, the appellant (respondent father).

Katrina W., self-represented, the appellant (respondent mother).

Nisa Khan, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Evan O’Roark and Albert J. Oneto IV, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (petitioner).

Bright, C. J., and Moll and Clark, Js.

PER CURIAM.

₁₇₇The self-represented respondents, Kristen W. (father) and Katrina W. (mother), appeal¹ from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating their minor child, Olivia W., to be neglected and committing her to the custody of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families. On appeal, the respondents raise numerous claims, which we interpret as asserting that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s neglect determination, (2) the court improperly determined that committing Olivia to the custody of the petitioner was in her best interest, and (3) they "were denied equitable treatment" as a result of various procedural or evidentiary errors that purportedly occurred during the neglect proceedings.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On November 5, 2021, the Department of Children and Families (department) invoked a ninety-six hour hold on Olivia, who was fourteen years old at the time. On November 9, 2021, the petitioner applied for an ex parte order of temporary custody. On the same day, the trial court, Hon. Stephen F. Frazzini, judge trial referee, issued an order of temporary custody, which the court, Dannehy, J., sustained by the agreement of the parties on November 19, 2021.

Additionally, on November 9, 2021, the petitioner filed a neglect petition on the grounds that Olivia was ₁₇₈being (1) denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally, or (2) permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, or associations injurious to her well-being. Along with the neglect petition, the petitioner filed a summary of facts substantiating the allegations of neglect, which set forth the following relevant allegations. On October 14, 2021, the department received a report alleging "[e]motional [a]buse/[m]altreatment" of Olivia by the father, which was submitted after Olivia’s school had discovered an electronic document written by Olivia indicating that the father had abused her. Specifically, Olivia wrote that (1) " ‘[the father’s] ways of punishment never work when it causes pain,’ " (2) the father called her names "such as ‘retarded’ and ‘a disgrace,’ " and (3) the father got " ‘physical’ " with her at times by "throwing objects." When approached by school staff about the electronic document, Olivia began crying and making suicidal statements, which resulted in Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services responding and evaluating her.

On October 21, 2021, the department conducted a response visit, during which the father conveyed that he did not believe that Olivia was suicidal but, rather, that her "issues stem[med] from [her] being ‘unmotivated and lazy.’ " During the same visit, Olivia appeared "fearful" of the father as evidenced by "heavy breathing, nervousness and motioning to the responding social worker not to share the things in the [October 14, 2021] report with [the] [f]ather."

On November 2, 2021, the department received a second report alleging abuse of Olivia by the father. Per the report, on the morning of November 2, 2021, the father brought Olivia to the emergency department of the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC) "for concerns of her mental health and behavior," where he expressed that he " ‘just want[ed] the [s]tate to take ₁₇₉[Olivia]’ and to ‘put her in foster care.’ " An evaluation at the emergency department revealed that Olivia had sustained "physical injuries on her body from her head down to her left shin …. "³ Olivia stated that the father had caused her injuries and that "there ha[d] been physical altercations ‘going on for a while’ " between herself and the father. Olivia further stated that (1) the father had slammed and broken her computer during the prior evening and (2) the father had " ‘anger issues.’ "

The father’s initial explanation of the events preceding Olivia’s arrival at CCMC was that (1) "Olivia was ‘being mean to [the] mother, swearing and giving [the mother] the finger,’ " (2) there was a "verbal altercation" about Olivia finishing her schoolwork, and (3) the father " ‘lost his shit’ and pushed Olivia into a closet where she fell and tried to get [up] and fell again a few times." In subsequent communications, however, the respondents stated that the father’s physical altercation with Olivia that resulted in her injuries "occurred as a reaction to protect [one of Olivia’s younger brothers] from [her]." The father stated that, in the moment, "he felt as though he had ‘no other choice’ " and admitted to physically injuring Olivia. The mother, who was present at the time of the incident but did not intervene to protect Olivia, supported the father’s account of the incident, "stating that [the] [f]ather stepped in to ‘protect [Olivia’s younger brother],’ and that Olivia ha[d] a recent history of aggressive and threatening behavior."⁴

₁₈₀On November 4, 2021, the respondents presented a safety plan that included (1) Olivia being discharged from CCMC into the mother’s care and (2) the father leaving the family home temporarily. Olivia was discharged from CCMC on the same day. Later that evening, the mother contacted a department social worker "insist[ing] that [the] [f]ather and Olivia have contact [that night] despite Olivia’s protest, due to th[e] situation being difficult for [the] [f]ather." The next day, Olivia reported that the father was present in the family’s car when she was discharged from CCMC. The father later (1) told a department social worker that, notwithstanding the safety plan, he did not leave the family home until 11:45 p.m. on November 4, 2021, after Olivia had fallen asleep, and he returned to the home at 4:45 a.m. the following morning, before Olivia had woken up for school, (2) requested that the department or another agency visit the family home to review the respondents’ rules with Olivia and to direct her to abide by them, and (3) asserted that the safety plan would not be successful because (a) the mother was afraid to be in the family home alone with Olivia and her two brothers and (b) he was unable to spend a significant amount of time outside of the home. On November 5, 2021, following a safety assessment, the department determined Olivia’s situation was unsafe as a result of (1) the respondents’ violation of the safety plan, (2) the mother’s inability to maintain boundaries between Olivia and the father, and (3) the father’s statements questioning the viability of the safety plan.

The trial on the neglect petition spanned twenty days between May 26 and December 14, 2022. Numerous ₁₈₁witnesses testified at trial, including medical personnel, department personnel, and the respondents, and the court, Hon. Stephen F. Frazzini, judge trial referee, admitted many exhibits in full into the record. Each respondent was represented by an attorney until November 29, 2022, the fourteenth day of trial, when, during their case-in-chief,⁵ the respondents filed appearances in lieu of their respective attor- neys and proceeded to represent themselves for the remainder of trial.⁶

On December 5, 2022, while the neglect trial was ongoing, the petitioner filed an emergency motion for an evidentiary hearing and an order authorizing the department to make medical, psychological, and educational decisions on behalf of Olivia (emergency motion). On December 8, 2022, after conducting an evidentiary hearing on December 7, 2022, and hearing argument from the parties, the court granted the emergency motion.⁷

On December 14, 2022, the evidentiary portion of the neglect trial was concluded and the court heard closing arguments from the parties. Thereafter, the court issued an oral decision on the record adjudicating Olivia to be neglected and committing her to the custody of the petitioner.⁸ This appeal followed.⁹ Additional procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

₁₈₂The self-represented respondents on appeal raise various claims, which we distill to be that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s neglect determination, (2) the court incorrectly determined that it was in Olivia’s best interest to commit her to the custody of the petitioner, and (3) they "were denied equitable treatment" because of a litany of procedural or evidentiary errors that purportedly occurred during the neglect proceedings. We address these claims in turn.

[1–6] Before examining the respondents’ claims, we observe that, "[a]lthough self-represented parties are not excused from complying with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law, [i]t is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of [self-represented] litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the [self-represented] party. … Thus, like the trial court, [this court] will endeavor to see that such a litigant shall have the opportunity to have his case fully and fairly heard so far as such latitude is consistent with the just rights of any adverse party. … Nonetheless, [a]lthough we al low [self-represented] litigants some latitude, the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law … and [w]e repeatedly have stated that [w]e are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief. …...