In re Travis R.
Decision Date | 06 January 2004 |
Docket Number | (AC 23919). |
Citation | 80 Conn. App. 777,838 A.2d 1000 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | IN RE TRAVIS R. ET AL. |
Foti, Schaller and McLachlan, Js. Roseann C. Canny, for the appellant (respondent mother).
Nina F. Elgo, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
The respondent mother appeals from the denial of her motion to open the judgments of voluntary termination of her parental rights with respect to her two minor children.2 On appeal, the respondent contends that (1) the court improperly denied her motion to open because the evidence demonstrated that she was under duress when she consented to the terminations and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the court to conclude that it was in the best interests of the children to open the judgments. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The respondent and her two minor children have a history of involvement with the department of children and families (department) dating back to 1995. Due to the respondent's substance abuse, criminal history and instances of domestic violence with her husband, the children have been in foster care since approximately January, 1998, and in foster care with their maternal aunt and uncle since February, 2001.
On September 27, 2000, the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner), filed termination of parental rights petitions against the respondent with respect to the children.3 Trial on the termination petitions commenced on September 24, 2001, and, on September 25, 2001, the respondent consented to the termination of her parental rights, as permitted by and in accordance with General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 17a-112 (b), now (i). The court, Levin, J., thoroughly canvassed the respondent on her consent to termination. During the canvass, the court specifically inquired of the respondent: "Have any promises or threats been made to you in order to obtain your consent?" The respondent replied, "No." The court also inquired of the respondent's attorney: "[A]fter consultation with your client, are you satisfied that she has knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly consented to the termination petitions?" Counsel responded, "Yes, Your Honor, I am." Accordingly, the court concluded that the respondent had provided her consent knowingly and voluntarily with a full understanding that she was giving up all legal rights to and responsibilities for her children in the future.
Consequently, the court entered termination orders, and the department initiated adoption efforts. The children's aunt and uncle, with whom the children currently reside, expressed interest in adopting them and initiated adoption efforts soon after the entry of the termination judgments. The relevant paperwork had been prepared and the adoption process was underway when, on February 7, 2002, the process was halted when the respondent, acting pro se, filed a motion to open the judgments terminating her parental rights.
The respondent filed the motion to open the judgments pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-719,4 alleging that she had provided consent to the termination under duress.5 Specifically, the respondent alleged that on September 25, 2001, the second day of termination proceedings, Marcy Wood, a department social worker assigned to the case, approached her and her husband in the hallway of the courthouse and informed them that if they continued to contest the termination, the two children would be removed from their current foster care home with their aunt and uncle and put in separate placements, and that the department also would remove the respondent's newborn from her care. The respondent maintained that Wood's threats induced her to provide consent to the termination proceedings and that the termination judgments should, therefore, be opened on the ground of duress. The court, Jongbloed, J., heard evidence on the motion to open on July 16, and August 13 and 14, 2002.6 In its memorandum of decision filed December 6, 2002, the court denied the respondent's motion and concluded that the evidence adduced at the hearing failed to establish that her consent had been procured under duress. The court also concluded that opening the termination judgments would not be in the best interests of the children. This appeal followed.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weinstein v. Weinstein, 79 Conn. App. 638, 642, 830 A.2d 1134, cert. granted on other grounds, 266 Conn. 933, 837 A.2d 807 (2003).
The respondent first claims that the court improperly denied her motion to open because the evidence demonstrated that she was under duress when she provided consent to the termination of her parental rights. We disagree.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Noble v. White, 66 Conn. App. 54, 59, 783 A.2d 1145 (2001).
A motion to open grounded on duress necessarily requires a court to make factual determinations with respect to the elements of duress and, therefore, any allegation of duress must be accompanied by supporting evidence, either documentary or testimonial, on which such factual determinations can rest. See In re Salvatore P., 74 Conn. App. 23, 28, 812 A.2d 70 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934, 815 A.2d 135, cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. Connecticut, 538 U.S. 1036, 123 S. Ct. 2107, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (2003). Those determinations as to the elements of duress are findings of fact that we will not disturb on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. See Noble v. White, supra, 66 Conn. App. 60.
The court found that the respondent had failed to establish the existence of a wrongful act or threat, the effect of which was to compel her to consent to the termination of her parental rights. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered testimony adduced during the hearing as to the content of and circumstances surrounding the respondent's encounter with Wood on the second day of the termination proceedings.
The respondent testified that Wood had approached her in the hallway of the courthouse where she was standing with her husband and threatened that if she did not consent to the termination, the department would prevent her from seeing the children again and that the department also would initiate termination proceedings against the respondent's newborn child. The respondent testified that Wood's threat induced her to consent to the termination.
Contrary to the respondent's rendition of the encounter, Wood testified that she did not initiate a discussion with the respondent, but instead was approached by the respondent and the respondent's husband, and asked about the department's plans with respect to the newborn.7 Wood further testified that she responded to the inquiry by informing the respondent that the commissioner could file a neglect petition with respect to the newborn child in view of certain ongoing issues surrounding the respondent's suspected relapse into drug use. Wood emphatically denied threatening the respondent or suggesting that the department's actions with respect to any of the respondent's children was contingent on whether she continued to contest the terminations.
After considering those conflicting versions of the encounter, the court found as follows: "The court fully credits Ms. Wood's testimony that she did not seek [the respondent's] consent in exchange for not taking action with regard to [the newborn] and that she did not offer to withhold action on [the newborn] if [the respondent] consented to [the] termination [of her parental rights as to the other two children]." The court also stated: "There simply was no threat that [the newborn] would be removed if [the respondent] did not consent, and there was no threat that [the other two children] would be removed from [their aunt's and uncle's] care and separated if [the respondent] did not consent."
As stated previously, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Noble v. White, supra, 66 Conn. App. 60.
Although Wood and the respondent offered conflicting testimony, the court was entitled to credit Wood's testimony as more reliable.8 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zilkha v. Zilkha
...will not disturb on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Travis R., 80 Conn.App. 777, 782–83, 838 A.2d 1000, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 904, 845 A.2d 409 (2004). In making those factual determinations, “[i]t is within the provin......
-
In re Zen T.
...(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 46; see also In re Samantha S., 300 Conn. 586, 588 n.3, 15 A.3d 1062 (2011); In re Travis R., 80 Conn. App. 777, 786, 838 A.2d 1000, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 904, 845 A.2d 409 (2004).6 The respondent first claims that the court improperly found that i......
-
In re Zen T.
...marks omitted.) Id., at 46, 936 A.2d 674; see also In re Samantha S., 300 Conn. 586, 588 n. 3, 15 A.3d 1062 (2011); In re Travis R., 80 Conn.App. 777, 786, 838 A.2d 1000, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 904, 845 A.2d 409 (2004).6 The respondent first claims that the court improperly found that it w......
-
In re Valerie G.
...will not be disturbed so long as the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Travis R., 80 Conn.App. 777, 781–82, 838 A.2d 1000, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 904, 845 A.2d 409 (2004). In its memorandum of decision denying the motion to open, the cour......