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. |
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.
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
TRIAL COURT'S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION8
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Annessa J.
... ... in a case involving termination of parental rights is a delicate task and, when supporting evidence is not lacking, the trial court's ultimate determination as to a child's best interest is entitled to the utmost deference." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Omar I. , 197 Conn. App. 499, 58384, 231 A.3d 1196, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 924, 233 A.3d 1091, cert. denied sub nom. Ammar I. v. Connecticut , U.S. , 141 S. Ct. 956, 208 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2020). In the present case, the court considered each of the seven statutory factors delineated in 17a-112 ... ...
-
In re Annessa J.
... ... The schism created by any conflict between the parent and a foster or adoptive parent also can prove disruptive to the children and their caretakers or new family. 15 See, e.g., 343 Conn. 702 In re Omar I. , 197 Conn. App. 499, 533, 231 A.3d 1196 (respondent father sent threatening e-mail to foster parents accusing them of emotional abuse and of alienating children from him), cert. denied, 335 Conn. 924, 233 A.3d 1091, cert. denied sub nom. Ammar I ... v. Connecticut , U.S. , 141 S. Ct. 956, ... ...
-
In re Aubrey K.
... ... "As we have stated previously, the court's inquiry in the dispositional phase of the proceeding was properly focused on whether termination of the respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interest." In re Omar I. , 197 Conn. App. 499, 586, 231 A.3d 1196, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 924, 233 A.3d 1091, cert. denied sub nom. Ammar I. v. Connecticut , U.S. , 141 S. Ct. 956, 208 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2020). "The respondent's efforts to rehabilitate, although commendable, speak to [her] own conduct, not the best ... ...
-
In re Annessa J.
... ... evidence is not lacking, the trial court's ultimate ... determination as to a child's best interest is entitled ... to the utmost deference.'' (Citation omitted; ... internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Omar I. , ... 197 Conn.App. 499, 583-84, 231 A.3d 1196, cert. denied, 335 ... Conn. 924, 233 A.3d 1091, cert. denied sub nom. Ammar I ... v. Connecticut , U.S., 141 S.Ct. 956, 208 L.Ed.2d 494 ... (2020) ... In the ... present case, the court considered ... ...