In re Riley B.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: AC 43959
• Citation: 248 A.3d 756,203 Conn.App. 627
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE RILEY B.

203 Conn.App. 627

248 A.3d 756

IN RE RILEY B.^*

AC 43959

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 10, 2020

Officially released March 31, 2021^**

Albert J. Oneto IV, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent mother).

Elizabeth Bannon, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Stephen G. Vitelli, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

Alvord, Moll and DiPentima, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent mother, Jacquanita B., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor daughter, Riley B. On appeal, the respondent¹ argues that the court deprived her of substantive due process as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution because there was no compelling reason, as required under the strict scrutiny standard, to sever the respondent's liberty interest in the integrity of her family while the parties waited to learn whether guardianship of the child could be transferred to a maternal relative in New Jersey. We conclude that the record is inadequate to review the respondent's unpreserved constitutional claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the trial court or as undisputed in the record, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The respondent is the mother of Riley, who was born in 2016, and two older daughters, Nyasia and Corrynn. The Department of Children and Families (department) has been involved with the respondent and her family since 2009, as a result of issues of physical neglect, physical abuse, and emotional neglect. On March 29, 2018, the department received a referral from Corrynn's school after Corrynn visited the school nurse with a blood blister on her finger, as well as extensive bruising and red welts on both of her inner forearms. Corrynn stated that the respondent had hit her with a belt that morning because she had forgotten to do her homework and that she was afraid to go home for fear of being hit again. The respondent denied the allegations, did not show concern for Corrynn, and was arrested for risk of injury to a child and assault in the second degree.

On April 4, 2018, the department held a considered removal meeting, which resulted in a safety plan that allowed the children to stay with a maternal great-aunt until the Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) program could begin working with the respondent and the children at home. On April 6, 2018, the children were allowed to return to the respondent's care on the condition that she agree to work with the department and IFP and continue counseling for Corrynn. The respondent refused to engage with the department, but she worked with IFP in the home. A department social worker attempted to visit the home to assess the safety of the children on numerous occasions but was unsuccessful in gaining access to the home. The social worker additionally attempted to join the respondent in an IFP session but was unsuccessful. From May to June, 2018, the social worker was able to speak to the respondent on only one occasion, on the telephone.

Between May and June, 2018, the respondent was informed that neglect petitions would be filed, the department would be requesting protective supervision of the children, and she would have to comply with court-ordered specific steps to facilitate reunification. The steps included, but were not limited to, keeping all appointments set by or with the department, cooperating with the department's home visits, and taking part in individual counseling. The respondent failed to adhere to the required steps and, as a result, the petitioner filed neglect petitions on behalf of Corrynn and Riley on June 7, 2018. While the neglect petitions were pending, the department received a referral on June 19, 2018, wherein it was reported by multiple individuals that the respondent was physically and verbally abusing Corrynn on a regular basis. The department immediately commenced an investigation.

A department investigator and social worker attempted an unannounced visit to the home on June 20, 2018, with a New Haven police officer, but they were unsuccessful in gaining access to the home or seeing the children. However, the investigator and social worker were able to meet with the police officer, who informed them of an incident involving an assault by the respondent on a neighbor, which also had occurred on June 19, 2018, for which a warrant would be sought for the charge of assault in the second degree.

Also on June 20, 2018, a department supervisor was able to make telephone contact with the respondent. The respondent was extremely agitated and defensive and refused to meet with the department supervisor. The department supervisor then made another visit to the home, but nobody was present. The department notified the New Haven police, who agreed to assist in searching for the respondent's car. The department investigator and social worker attempted to visit the home on June 21, 2018, but were unsuccessful in gaining entry, even though it was apparent, on the basis of the loud music heard inside, that people were present.

That same day, the department investigator received a telephone call from the respondent's criminal defense attorney, during which she impressed upon the attorney the urgency for the respondent to contact her and for her to assess the safety of the children. The respondent contacted the social worker and, after initially refusing to meet, agreed to schedule a meeting for the next day, June 22, 2018, with the children only. In a text message sent later that day, however, the respondent refused to make the children available the following day. Nevertheless, on June 22, 2018, the respondent made the children available at the maternal great-aunt's home. The department social worker conducted a short meeting with the children; the respondent was not present. Almost daily communication between the respondent and the department followed the June 22, 2018 meeting with the children in an attempt to schedule a home visit, but the respondent refused to cooperate.

A home visit was eventually scheduled for July 11, 2018, at 2 p.m. That morning, the respondent sent a text message to the department investigator, asking her to arrive at 3 p.m. instead. When the investigator arrived at the home at 3 p.m., no one answered the door. The investigator waited until 3:30 p.m., but the respondent never appeared.

On July 12, 2018, the department received a telephone call from the New Haven Police Department informing it that the respondent had been taken into custody after being arrested for assault in the second degree and disorderly conduct regarding the June 19, 2018 assault by the respondent on her neighbor and that the children were in need of a caretaker. The respondent identified some family resources, but they were either not available or deemed not appropriate. The department then invoked a ninety-six hour administrative hold on behalf of both Corrynn and Riley. As a result of the foregoing, the petitioner applied for ex parte orders of temporary custody on behalf of Corrynn and Riley, which were granted on July 16, 2018. The children were placed in a nonrelative foster home, where they remained as of January, 2020.

The respondent appeared at her plea date on the neglect petitions on July 10, 2018, was advised of her rights, was appointed counsel, and entered pro forma denials. She additionally appeared at the preliminary hearing for the orders of temporary custody, choosing to contest them, and a hearing was scheduled for July 27, 2018. The respondent left the hearing early on July 27, 2018, without permission of the court, during the testimony of the department social worker. The hearing did not conclude until August 2, 2018, at which time the court sustained the orders of temporary custody. The respondent failed to appear on August 2, 2018, as well. In addition, the department established a visitation schedule for the respondent, Riley, and Corrynn between August and December, 2018. The respondent's compliance with the visitation schedule was sporadic.

The respondent failed to appear at the case status conference on September 18, 2018. The same day, Riley was adjudicated neglected and was committed to the custody of the petitioner, subject to review in April, 2019. Final specific steps were ordered for the respondent as well. A permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption was approved by the court on June 5, 2019, with respect to Riley.

On June 11, 2019, a maternal relative,² who is a resident of New Jersey, contacted the department, offering to be an adoptive resource for Riley. In June, 2019, the petitioner attempted to submit a request for action, pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), to the state of New Jersey; see General Statutes § 17a-175 ; but, as a result of a delay in obtaining Riley's social security card, the ICPC package was not submitted until one week before December 5, 2019, the date of the trial conducted in the present case. The ICPC results were pending at the time of trial.

On August 1, 2019, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate the respondent's parental rights as to Riley, alleging, as the sole ground for termination, that the respondent had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation under General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i).³ Following a judicial pretrial on October 1, 2019, the respondent filed a motion to transfer guardianship to the maternal relative in New Jersey. The motion was consolidated for trial with the termination of parental rights petition.

A trial on the petition was held on December 5, 2019. The respondent appeared at trial by writ of habeas corpus, as she was serving a two year term...