In re Omar I.

• Decision Date: 27 May 2020
• Docket Number: AC 43251
• Citation: 231 A.3d 1196,197 Conn.App. 499
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE OMAR I. et al.

197 Conn.App. 499

231 A.3d 1196

IN RE OMAR I. et al.^*

AC 43251

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 16, 2020

Officially released May 27, 2020^**

Ammar A. I., self-represented, the appellant (respondent father).

Brian T. Walsh, New Britain, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, were Robert W. Lewonka, assigned counsel, and Katarzyna Maluszewski, assigned counsel, for the appellees (petitioners).

Carolyn A. Signorelli, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon and Jane Rosenberg, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (Commissioner of Children and Families).

Lavine, Keller and Bishop, Js.

Opinion

KELLER, J.

The self-represented respondent father, Ammar A. I.¹ appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating his parental rights pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) as to three of his biological minor children, the petitioners, Omar, Safiyah, and Muneer (children), and denying his motion to revoke the court's order committing the children to the care, custody, and guardianship of the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner). The respondent claims that (1) judicial bias deprived him of a fair

trial, (2) the court improperly found that he failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and needs of the children, he could assume a responsible position in the children's lives, (3) the court improperly found that the termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests, (4) the court improperly found that the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children, (5) the department was estopped from supporting the petitions brought by the children to terminate his parental rights, and (6) the court improperly denied his motion to revoke the court's order that committed the children to the care and custody of the commissioner.² We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are not in dispute. The respondent is the biological father of the three children at issue in this appeal. The respondent and the children's biological mother married in May, 2005, and separated in 2015. The respondent is also the biological father of three sons who were born prior to the respondent's relationship with and marriage to the mother. On December 18, 2017, Omar, Safiyah, and Muneer were adjudicated neglected by the court, Lobo, J ., and committed to the care and custody of the commissioner. The court, Lobo, J ., ordered specific steps, pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B), for the respondent and the mother to take to facilitate the return of the children to them.³ Thereafter, the department made efforts to reunify the children with the respondent and the mother.

In November, 2018, attorneys representing the children⁴ filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respondent and the mother pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i)⁵ on the grounds that the children had

been adjudicated neglected in a prior proceeding and that the respondent and the mother, who had been provided specific steps to facilitate reunification, had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, considering the ages and needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children. The court, Burgdorff, J ., conducted a trial on the petitions over the course of fifteen days between January and April, 2019. Although the commissioner did not initially support the position of the children, she did so by the time of trial. On July 26, 2019, the court issued a thorough memorandum of decision in which it terminated the parental rights of the respondent and the mother and denied the parents’ motions to revoke the order committing the children to the care and custody of the commissioner.⁶ This appeal by the respondent followed.⁷

I

TRIAL COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION⁸

ARelevant Procedural History

In its well reasoned and thorough memorandum of decision, the court set forth the following procedural history: "This family first became involved with

[the department] in 2011 due to issues of physical and emotional neglect. A report was made to [the department] concerning [the] mother's concerns that Safiyah had a rash in her vaginal area, which [the] mother felt was related to [the respondent's] older son, Oais, having [had] inappropriate sexual contact with her, as observed by [the] mother. No trauma was noted by Safiyah's physician, and the allegation was unsubstantiated. On February 11, 2012, [the department] received an anonymous report from [the respondent's] oldest child, Adnan, that [the] mother was suffering from schizophrenia

and that she had accused him of making sexual advances against her. ... The allegations were unsubstantiated. On April 12, 2012, [the department] received a referral from St. Vincent's Behavioral Health reporting that Adnan had been admitted to the hospital on March 30, 2012. Adnan was diagnosed with mood disorder, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and polysubstance abuse. Adnan admitted to a suicide attempt when jumping out of a car [the respondent] was operating en route to the police station to report Adnan's stealing. ... [The respondent] and [the] mother refused to take him home from the hospital. The allegations of physical neglect were substantiated, and Adnan was adjudicated neglected and removed from [the respondent's] care on April 20, 2012. He was committed to [the department] until his eighteenth birthday. On April 9, 2015, [the] mother contacted the Plymouth Police Department to report her concern that [the respondent] had allowed Oais in the family home and reported that he had a history of sexually inappropriate behavior with Safiyah, and that [the respondent] had directed [the] mother to lie to [the department] about what she had witnessed. On May 16, 2015, [the respondent] reported to [the department] that [the]

mother was diagnosed with mental health issues, including manic depression

and anxiety, and was prescribed with many medications that she left around the house, which [the] mother denied. The allegations by [the respondent] were unsubstantiated.

"After [the] mother and [the respondent] separated in May, 2015, [the respondent] moved out the family home. On July 29, 2015, [the respondent] filed [a motion for] an emergency ex parte order of temporary custody along with a sworn affidavit with the Superior Court for family matters in New Britain .... [The respondent] reported [that] he filed the motion for [an] ex parte order of custody with the expectation that he would be awarded immediate custody of the children. The court, Abery-Wetstone, J ., issued a bench order of temporary custody removing the children from [their] parents’ care, and vested their care and custody with [the commissioner] based on the allegations contained in [the respondent's] affidavit. The [order of temporary custody] was sustained on August 7, 2015, [by the court, Frazzini, J .].

"Thereafter, on the evening of July 29, 2015, and after the issuance of the [order of temporary custody], the Plymouth Police Department contacted the [department's] Careline to report that [the] mother [had] reported that [the respondent had] texted her, stating that he was outside of the home and demanded to be let in; that [the respondent] had previously texted [the] mother threatening messages stating that he had hidden in the garage on a prior occasion to watch for [the] mother's boyfriend, and that, if he found an intruder in his home, he had the right under the law to kill any home invader who enters the home. [The] [m]other reported that she texted [the respondent] to tell him [that] he did not have permission to enter the home and to leave. [The respondent] then entered the home against her wishes. [The] [m]other reported that, upon

hearing [the respondent] in the home, she locked the children in the bathroom and she locked herself in a bedroom; that [the respondent] forced himself into the bedroom; that [the] mother was struck by [the respondent] on the arm and was struck in the head with a glass bottle resulting in a cut to her head. When the police arrived at the home, they observed [the] mother bleeding, with a cut approximately one inch [in length] over her right eye. [The respondent] admitted to going in the locked family home and entering the home with the garage door opener against [the] mother's wishes and that he refused to leave when [the] mother requested him to do so. [The] mother reported that the children did not witness the violence. However, the children reported to the police [that] they heard [the] mother and [the respondent] arguing, witnessed [the] mother bleeding after the assault, and saw her being transported from the home by ambulance. [The] [m]other reported to the police that ‘she has been subjected to physical and mental abuse from [the respondent] throughout the course of the marriage.’ [The respondent] denied assaulting [the] mother and stated that she self-inflicted her injuries. [The respondent] was arrested on July 30, 2015, and charged with [assault in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, disorderly conduct, burglary in the third degree, and three counts of risk of injury to a child]. The investigating detective testified during the neglect trial that [the] mother's financial situation would be potentially compromised if [the respondent] was charged. [The] [m]other chose not to cooperate with the police. The charges against [the respondent] were subsequently dismissed.

"[The respondent] later contacted the Plymouth Police Department on at least three occasions requesting that [the] mother be charged [with] filing a false report and three counts of risk of...