In re A'Vion A.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | AC 45357 |
| Citation | 217 Conn.App. 330,288 A.3d 231 |
| Parties | IN RE A'VION A. et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Joshua Michtom, assistant public defender, for the appellant (respondent mother).
Chelsea Ruzzo, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Evan O'Roark, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Elgo, Cradle and Clark, Js.
The respondent mother appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights as to A'vion, Aaliyah, and Azra, her minor children.1 On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) denied her October 2, 2019 motion to compel the Department of Children and Families (department) to provide additional reunification services, (2) concluded that she failed to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilitation required by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) with respect to Azra, and (3) determined that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the minor children pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (1). We conclude that the appeal is moot as to the final claim and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The respondent is a convicted felon who has a variety of mental health issues. She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, recurrent depression, borderline personality disorder, and adult antisocial behaviors.
The respondent began a romantic relationship with the father in 2011, and they married in 2015. Both the respondent and the father have extensive histories of domestic violence incidents and violations of protective orders.
A'vion and Aaliyah were born in 2012 and are fraternal twins. On April 17, 2014, the department received a report of an incident involving the respondent and A'vion and Aaliyah. After the father left the family's home following a domestic altercation with the respondent, the respondent sent him a text message stating that she was holding a knife to A'vion; she then threatened to kill A'vion and Aaliyah if he did not return. The respondent at that time also slashed the couches in the home. Police responded and arrested the respondent for threatening A'vion and Aaliyah with a knife.
Following that incident, A'vion and Aaliyah were adjudicated neglected and placed under an order of protective supervision, which was allowed to expire in June, 2016. The department referred the respondent to two parenting programs and an individual therapy and medication management program, which she completed. The respondent also participated in a psychological evaluation conducted by Bruce Freedman, a licensed psychologist. In his written evaluation, Freedman stated that the respondent's "history of fighting and assaults, her inadequately treated psychological problems, her early maladjustment, and her failure to accept court restriction on her behavior all are factors associated with a high probability of future aggressive behavior." Between May 5, 2014, and February 24, 2016, the respondent was arrested for threatening to kill her mother, creating a public disturbance, and violating a protective order on multiple occasions that had been issued to protect the father.
On May 11, 2017, the department received a report of physical neglect pertaining to A'vion and Aaliyah stemming from a motor vehicle accident in which the vehicle operated by the respondent struck another vehicle and then fled the scene. The police later located the respondent's vehicle and confirmed that, although A'vion and Aaliyah were inside, the vehicle contained no booster seats for the children. The respondent, who at that time was seven and one-half months pregnant, refused a request by the police to have the children evaluated for injuries.
On May 18, 2017, the department received another report alleging physical abuse of A'vion by the respondent. A bystander witnessed the respondent strike A'vion on the back of the head, causing him to fall to the sidewalk. The bystander flagged down a police officer, who found the respondent to be uncooperative with his investigation and expressed concern about the respondent's use of profanity around the child. Although the allegations of physical abuse were unsubstantiated, the case was transferred to ongoing services with the department. Azra was born several weeks later.
On October 3, 2017, the department received a report from school officials of facial injuries to A'vion, which A'vion indicated were caused when the respondent struck him in the face. Although the respondent denied any involvement in causing those injuries and blamed a teenage babysitter,2 Aaliyah subsequently confirmed that the respondent had hit A'vion in the face with a boot. In response, the department initiated a ninety-six hour hold on behalf of the minor children.
The next day, A'vion and Aaliyah were evaluated by Rebecca Moles, a pediatrician at Connecticut Children's Medical Center, who was admitted without objection at trial as an expert in child abuse pediatrics. Moles opined that the injuries to A'vion’s face were "highly suspicious for inflicted injury." Moles also observed bruising on Aaliyah's forehead and linear scars on her back, which Moles opined were "suspicious for inflicted injury." The respondent later was arrested and pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 with respect to the injuries sustained by A'vion.
On October 6, 2017, the petitioner applied for and secured an order of temporary custody for all three minor children, which was sustained on October 13, 2017. The minor children thereafter were adjudicated neglected and were committed to the care and custody of the petitioner on January 11, 2018. At that time, the court issued specific steps for the respondent to take to facilitate her reunification with the children, which the respondent signed.3 The children subsequently disclosed additional details regarding the trauma they endured while in the respondent's care, including additional acts of physical violence and an incident in which A'vion and Aaliyah had soiled themselves and "were so afraid that they were going to get beat[en]" by the respondent that they ate their own feces.
On March 27, 2019, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the respondent's parental rights predicated on her failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). In response, the respondent denied the substance of those allegations and filed a motion to revoke the commitment of the minor children.4 A trial on the termination petitions was held over the course of ten days on various dates in 2021, at which the parties submitted documentary and testimonial evidence. On December 28, 2021, the court issued its memorandum of decision, in which it granted the petitions to terminate the respondent's parental rights. In so doing, the court made extensive findings of fact and concluded that the petitioner had established that the adjudicatory grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the best interests of the minor children. From those judgments, the respondent now appeals.
Before turning to the respondent's claims, we first set forth the legal principles that govern our review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Tresin J ., 334 Conn. 314, 322–23, 222 A.3d 83 (2019).
Section 17a-112 (j) provides in relevant part: "The Superior Court, upon notice and hearing ... may grant a petition ... if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the [department] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to section 17a-111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required, (2) termination is in the best interest of the child, and (3) ... (B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected, abused or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected, abused or uncared for and has been in the custody of the [petitioner] for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent ... and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Caiden B.
-
In re Judah B.
...enough to render her challenge moot, especially because this court has used the same phrasing at times. See, e.g., In re A'vion A., 217 Conn.App. 330, 357, 288 A.3d 231 (2023) ("the respondent makes no mention of any claim regarding the court's unwilling or unable to rehabilitate finding").......
-
In re Marie J.
...supra, 334 Conn. 327-28. The respondent does not adequately brief this argument in his principal appellate brief. See In re A'vionA., 217 Conn.App. 330, 356-57, 288 A.3d 231 (2023). Although he states that the department's actions, in removing Marie from the home and requiring that his visi......