Jose C., In re
| Decision Date | 14 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 5586,5586 |
| Citation | 11 Conn.App. 507,527 A.2d 1239 |
| Parties | In re JOSE C. * |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Robert B. Katz, Farmington, for the appellant (respondent mother).
Heather Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Jane S. Scholl, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty. Gen., and Robert W. Garvey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the appellee (petitioner).
James F. Kane, New Britain, for the minor child.
Before DUPONT, C.J., and HULL and SPALLONE, JJ.
The underlying action of this appeal is a petition by the commissioner of children and youth services for the termination of the parental rights of the respondent parents, alleging that their child was uncared for and neglected. General Statutes §§ 17-43a; 46b-120. After a hearing on the petition, pursuant to General Statutes § 45-61f, the trial court granted the petition. At that hearing, the trial court also heard evidence relevant to the posttermination disposition of the child. The respondent mother claims that the trial court erred in allowing evidence relevant to both the termination of parental rights and to the posttermination disposition of the child in one hearing.
The respondent asserts that she made a motion to bifurcate the proceeding which should have been granted, in order that the adjudication of whether to terminate the parental rights upon proof of "clear and convincing evidence" would not be contaminated by consideration of the dispositional standard of "the best interests of the child." The respondent claims specifically that the testimony of the child's foster mother about her desire to adopt the child "tainted the perceptions of the court." She has conceded, however, that the bifurcation of the proceedings lies solely within the discretion of the court. See In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 198-99 n. 6, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).
The claim that the court should have bifurcated this proceeding is thus necessarily that the court abused its discretion in not so doing. Rokus v. Bridgeport, 191 Conn. 62, 72, 463 A.2d 252 (1983). The trial court in this case concluded, on the respondent's motion for bifurcation made at the hearing, that it could properly distinguish the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.
...Electric Credit Corp., 15 Conn.App. 677, 689, 546 A.2d 315, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 819, 551 A.2d 755 (1988); In re Jose C., 11 Conn.App. 507, 508, 527 A.2d 1239 (1987); and appellate review is limited to a determination of whether that discretion has been abused. See Swenson v. Sawoska, 18......
-
Jessica M., In re, 16478
...adjudicatory phase has concluded." Practice Book § 1042.1(4), now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 33-3(b); see also In re Jose C., 11 Conn.App. 507, 508-09, 527 A.2d 1239 (1987). In this case, the trial court properly conducted a nonbifurcated trial and rendered a decision on the adjudicatory p......
-
O'Shea v. Mignone
...Electric Credit Corp., 15 Conn. App. 677, 689, 546 A.2d 315, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 819 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988); In re Jose C., 11 Conn. App. 507, 508, 527 A.2d 1239 (1987); and appellate review is limited to a determination of whether that discretion has been abused. See Swenson v. Sawoska,......
-
In re Deana E.
...ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jose C., 11 Conn. App. 507, 508, 512 A.2d 1239 (1987). The respondent claims that the court improperly denied his motion to bifurcate the adjudicatory phase of the terminat......