The Connecticut Appellate Court overturned a lower court’s termination of parental rights, arguing that courts must make written findings as to why it is in the best interest of the child to have parental rights terminated in a case brought by a mother whose rights were terminated by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF).

DCF was involved in the child’s life since her birth in 2018 and took temporary custody of the child in 2023 after a court determined she had been neglected. Both parents had a history of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and fentanyl abuse. In 2024, DCF filed to terminate parental rights after the mother “failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation,” according to the appellate court decision.

The mother had also failed to show up for the court proceeding to terminate her rights, claiming that she was unable to get time off from work; the father had a history of substantiated sexual abuse allegations and was also not present for the termination proceedings. The trial court granted DCF officials’ request to terminate parental rights and take full custody of the child.

The mother, however, appealed the lower court’s decision granting DCF custody of the child, claiming the court violated her constitutional rights by proceeding without her, and that the court failed to make any written, mandatory findings as to the best interest of the child. 

The appellate court rejected her first argument, finding that she was given ample notice of the court date and was adequately represented by counsel, but agreed with her second claim that the court did not make written findings regarding the child’s best interest for several of the statutorily required factors.

Under Connecticut statute, there are seven factors that shall be considered by a court when determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of a child who is in the custody of DCF: The nature and timeliness of services provided to the parent to reunite with the child; whether DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the parent; whether the parties have complied with applicable court orders; the child’s emotional attachment to either the parent or another caregiver; the child’s age; the parent’s efforts to change their conduct or adjust their circumstances to be in the child’s best interest; and the extent to which the parent has been “prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child.”

Although the Connecticut Supreme Court had previously determined that termination of parental rights cannot be overturned based on just one of those factors when the determination is “otherwise factually supported and legally sound,” the Appellate Court determined that the trial court must make some kind of determination in writing.

“Our Supreme Court has never held that a best interest determination may be upheld when a trial court fails to make any written findings regarding one of the seven best interest factors,” the Appellate decision said. “We do not read the court’s decisions to mean that we should decline to reverse a trial court’s best interest determination in a case in which the trial court fails to make any written findings with respect to one or more of the best interest factors.”

The Appellate Court said that without any written findings, the trial court’s decision would “contradict the plain language” of Connecticut statute, which says the court “shall make written findings” regarding each of the seven factors.

Although the Appellate Court decision concerns DCF and parental termination cases, it may have implications for family court, where critics say custody decisions are made and reversed with little justification and often based on determinations by a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or a court-appointed psychologist in a system that some describe as “the wild west.”

Connecticut’s family court system, too, is required to make custody determinations based on the “best interest of the child,” however, there are sixteen factors to be considered that constitute “best interest” as opposed to the seven outlined in termination proceedings.

Those factors include — to a larger extent than DCF proceedings — the child’s preferences, the child’s physical and emotional safety, attempts by the parents to involve the child in their divorce proceedings, and the effect of any domestic abuse between the parents on the child – factors that some groups claim judges ignore when making their custody determinations.

According to Connecticut statute, “the rights and responsibilities of both parents shall be considered and the court shall enter orders accordingly that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests,” and although the court is not required to assign any particular weight to “the factors that it considers,” the court “shall articulate the basis for its decision.”

In DCF’s case, Appellate Court only reversed the termination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child, and sent the matter back to the trial court for a new hearing “at which the trial court must make written findings as to all the factors set forth in [state statute] to determine if termination of the respondent’s parental rights is in the minor child’s best interest.” 

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.