Date: 11-02-2024

Case Style:

In Re S.F., et al.

Case Number: AC47517

Judge: Conway

Court: Superior Court, New Haven County, Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney: New Haven County, Connecticut District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best New Haven Family Law Lawyer Directory

Description:

New Haven, Connecticut family law lawyer represented father in termination of parental rights case.

The respondent father, Perry F., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his children, A, B, and C.[1] On appeal, the respondent claims that he was denied his due process right to the effective assistance of counsel.[2] We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A was born in December, 2016, B was born in September, 2018, and C was born in April, 2020. The family's involvement with the Department of Children and Families (department) dates back at least to April, 2017, when A was adjudicated neglected and committed to the petitioner's custody. In December, 2018, Bwas adjudicated neglected and committed to the petitioner's custody. In October, 2019, the court revoked the commitment as to both A and B, and the children were reunified with the respondent under a six month order of protective supervision, ''with an explicit mandate that [the children's mother, Bernisha] not have unsupervised contact with the children, nor was she to reside with the children. Unbeknownst to [the department], throughout the period of the court-ordered protective supervision continuing through the time when [the department] administratively closed its case in September, 2020,[3] and beyond, [Bernisha] covertly resided with the respondent . . . and [the] children, and [the respondent] left the children in [Bernisha's] unsupervised care.'' (Footnote in original.)

''In the early morning hours of December 12, 2020, [the department] . . . assumed temporary custody of [A, B, and C] after police found the three children alone in a Days Inn hotel room, a room [the respondent] checked into with the three children just hours before [Bernisha] was shot in the leg as she was returning to her separate Days Inn room after having purchased cigarettes at a nearby gas station.''

On December 15, 2020, the petitioner obtained ex parte orders of temporary custody. The following day, on December 16, 2020, the petitioner filed neglect petitions as to the children.

''The alleged shooter [of Bernisha], Jaymar Kelly, an acquaintance of [the respondent], was arrested and incarcerated in January, 2021. In April, 2021, [the respondent] was arrested on various charges, including conspiracy [to commit] assault, risk of injury [to a child], and threatening . . . stemming from the December 11 shooting and its aftermath. From April to August, 2021, [the respondent] was held on bond by the Department of Correction .... In October, 2022, [the respondent] pleaded [guilty] to possession of narcotics with the intent to sell (in November, 2020, [the respondent] had been arrested for possession of one hundred packets of cocaine/fentanyl) and to threatening [Bernisha]. The alleged conspiracy [to commit] assault and risk of injury charges were not pursued due, at least in part, to [Bernisha's] refusal to testify and/ or her recantation of [the respondent's] involvement in the planning and carrying out of the shooting.'' (Footnote omitted.)

On March 11, 2021, the respondent entered pleas of nolo contendere as to all three children's neglect petitions, and the children were adjudicated neglected and committed to the petitioner's custody. On March 28, 2022, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the respondent's parental rights with respect to the children on the grounds that the children previously had been adjudicated neglected and that the respondent had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B).

A trial on the petitions for the termination of parental rights was held over the course of several days in November, 2023, and January, 2024, before the court, Conway, J. The petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses, department social worker Julie Dixon and Dr. Jessica Biren Caverly, an expert in clinical and forensic psychology who performed a psychological evaluation with respect to the respondent. The respondent testified and presented the testimony of David Melchionne, an employee of 'r Kids Family Center. Mel-chionne supervised visitation between the respondent and the children.[4]

On February 2, 2024, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it terminated the respondent's parental rights. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the minor children with the respondent and that the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

The court also found that the respondent had failed to achieve an appropriate degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time, considering the ages and needs of the minor children, he could assume a responsible position in their lives. Specifically, the court found that intimate partner violence (IPV) has permeated the respondent's relationship with Bernisha, dating back to approximately 2017. The court found that the respondent ''remains woefully ignorant as to how his controlling and threatening interactions toward [Bernisha] not only define their relationship but is a textbook example of controlling, coercive IPV behavior.... [The respondent's] deep denial about his pathological behaviors toward [Bernisha], and his persistent refusal/unwilling-ness to substantively engage in and successfully benefit from mental health and IPV treatment (to meaningfully alter his intolerably unbalanced and dangerous relationship with [Bernisha]), forecloses him from being a safe and competent caregiver to [A, B, and C].''[5] (Citation omitted; footnote omitted.) In addition to the IPV behavior, the court noted the respondent's ''entrenched, loud and authoritative parenting style,'' and found that the respondent was not capable of providing ''the nuanced parenting style'' that A and B require because of their trauma. The court also found that ''credible testimony and evidence reveal that, if given the opportunity, the respondent . . . would, as he has done in the past, relegate some or much of the daily parenting responsibilities to [Bernisha], and he would not comply with court orders barring [Bernisha's] unsupervised access to the three children.''

In the dispositional phase of the proceedings, the court made findings as to each of the criteria set forth in § 17a-112 (k) and concluded that the termination of the respondent's parental rights was in the minor children's best interests. Accordingly, the court rendered judgments terminating the respondent's parental rights and appointing the petitioner as the minor children's statutory parent. This appeal followed.

* * *

In re S. F., AC 47517 (Conn. App. Oct 30, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: