Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site

Map
University of Connecticut School of Law,
65 Elizabeth St, Hartford, CT 06105

You are here > KidsCounsel Home > Case Library > Case: In Re Latifa K.

KidsCounsel Home
· Case Library Case: In Re Latifa K.
· Abuse and Neglect 67 Conn. App 742 (2002)
· Adoption Abuse and Neglect :
· All Cases CT Appelate Division
· Civil Liberties & Civil Jan 29, 2002
Rights
· Discrimination The respondent father appealed the decision by the
· Education trial court to terminate his parental rights with respect to
his two minor children. The father’s main claim was
· Family Law that that the court erred in denying his motion to amend
· Guardianship the petition to terminate parental rights. The respondent
· Juvenile Justice claimed that under Practice Book S 35-1(c), the trial
· Legal Representation court could not and did not consider events subsequent
· Medicaid to the filing of the petition in determining whether he
had achieved personal rehabilitation, thus committing
· Mental Health error. Finally, respondent claimed that the trial court
· Search/View Case(s) improperly admitted hearsay evidence that was
· Conferences and contained in a social study offered by Commissioner.
Training The Appellate Court rejected all three arguments and
· Legal Resources affirmed the termination order.
· Legislative News Respondent two minor children were born in 1994. At
· Placement Resources birth, the children both tested positive for cocaine. At
· Pleadings Bank that time, the father denied abusing illegal substances
· Professional Resources and refused DCF’s offer to provide him with substance
· Useful Web Links abuse treatment. In April of 1995, respondent was
arrested for robbery, was sentenced to fifteen years,
· About Us with execution suspended after eight years, and three
years probation. In July 1996, the Commissioner) filed
Search KidsCounsel: neglect petitions with regard to the two children and
OK obtained temporary custody in September of 1996. In
March 1997, after a paternity test confirmed that he
was indeed the father, the father began monthly
visitation with his children at the prison. These visits
ended in August of that same year as a result of a
disciplinary action. In June 1998, the commissioner
filed TPR petitions. The trial was held in April and May
of 2000. Subsequent to the trial, however, the
defendant was released from prison, living with his
sister, and working a full-time and part-time job. The
children, however, exhibited increased emotional and
behavioral problems and demonstrated an opposition
toward the respondent. Furthermore, they had bonded
well with their foster family who intended to adopt them.
The Appellate Court rejected respondent's first
argument that it was procedurally improper under
Practice Book S 35-1(c) to grant his motion to amend
the petition to terminate paternal rights. Practice Book S
35-1 (c) does provide any party with the opportunity to
amend the petition. However, the option to amend is
usually invoked by the petitioner, as noted by the
Appellate Court. Furthermore, respondent's proposed
amendment sought to add allegations that he had been
discharged from prison, was fully compliant with all the
conditions of his probation and was employed full time,
all of which occurred after the filing of the petition.
Since the petitioner has the burden of proving the
allegations of the petition, the proposed amendments
would have required the petitioner to prove the
defenses that the respondent wanted asserted, forcing
the Commissioner to prove allegations that she did not
necessarily believe. Considering this burden, the
Appellate court found that to allow the respondent to
amend the petition would work a substantial injustice to
the commissioner.

The court also rejected the father’s claim that the trial
court could not and did not consider events that
occurred after the filing date of the petition in the
adjudicatory phase of the termination proceedings as a
result of the denial of the motion to amend. The court
noted that facts occurring after the date that the petition
is filed can be heard in termination petitions brought
under S 17a (c)(3)(B) in determining whether a
respondent has achieved a sufficient degree of
personal rehabilitation within the meaning of the statute.
The court found that events that occurred subsequent
to the filing of the petition to terminate could and were
considered by the trial court. The trial court used them
to determine that respondent had failed to achieve
personal rehabilitation sufficient to foresee that he "may
resume a useful role in the child's life within a
reasonable time."; They noted that his incarceration
resulting from his own criminal conduct established that
he failed to rehabilitate and that even if his parole for
January 2000 was certain in June 1998, the end of the
adjudicatory period, he would not have been able to
assume a responsible position in the children's lives in
a reasonable time.

The court rejected the father’s last claim regarding

hearsay evidence. The court found that even if
admittance of a letter within a report was improper, the
error was harmless, and the admitted evidence was
cumulative in nature.
(AA 3/02)

DocID: 2002012901 ExtDocID: 20020129A

 Printer-friendly version

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© 2002 Center for Children's Top of Page | Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site
Advocacy Map