Argued
September 18, 2019
Page 84
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 85
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 86
Superior
Court in the judicial district of Hartford, Juvenile Matters,
and tried to the court, C. Taylor, J.
Page 87
David
J. Reich, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent
father).
Sara
Nadim, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief,
were William Tong, attorney general, Clare Kindall, solicitor
general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for
the appellee (petitioner).
Robinson,
C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
OPINION
ROBINSON,
C. J.
[334
Conn. 315] In this certified appeal, we consider whether the
parental rights of a father were properly [334 Conn. 316]
terminated for lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship
when, at
Page 88
the time of the termination trial, the six year old child had
no knowledge or memory of his father, who had been
incarcerated when the child was two years old. The respondent
father, Aceion B., appeals, upon our grant of his petition
for certification,[1] from the judgment of the Appellate
Court affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of
the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families,
which terminated his parental rights as to the child, Tresin
J., pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3)
(D).[2] [334 Conn. 317] In re Tresin
J., 187 Conn.App. 804, 805-806, 203 A.3d 711 (2019).
Relying on the Appellate Courts decision in In re Carla
C., 167 Conn.App. 248, 143 A.3d 677 (2016), the
respondent claims that the trial court should have applied
the virtual infancy and interference exceptions to the lack
of an ongoing parent-child relationship ground for the
termination of parental rights because Tresin was only two
years old when the respondents incarceration separated them,
and the circumstances of this case, particularly the
deficiencies of Tresins mother, rendered contact impossible
during his incarceration. In light of our recent explication
of these exceptions in In re Jacob W., 330 Conn.
744, 200 A.3d 1091 (2019), we disagree with the respondents
claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate
Court.
The
record and the Appellate Courts opinion set forth the
following background facts and procedural history.
"Tresin was born in June, 2011. The respondent last
spoke to Tresin in April, 2013, when Tresin was less than two
years old. In May, 2013, the respondent was convicted of
possession
Page 89
of marijuana, his probation was revoked,[3] and he was sentenced
to a term of incarceration. The respondent subsequently was
taken into custody by federal authorities and detained for
immigration violations. The respondent remained in federal
custody until the fall of 2017."[4] (Footnote in
original.) In re Tresin J., supra, 187 Conn.App. at
806, 203 A.3d 711.
[334
Conn. 318] The Department of Children and Families
(department) became involved with Tresin in May, 2015. The
department initiated an investigation when it was notified
after one of Tresins half siblings was not picked up from
school on time. The department learned during its
investigation that Tresin and his two half siblings were not
up to date medically and that Tresins mother recently had
been evicted and had been experiencing substance abuse
difficulties; it referred her to mental health and substance
abuse treatment programs, but she failed to comply with those
programs requirements over the ensuing year. Tresins mother
subsequently failed to arrange mental health evaluations and
care for Tresins older half sibling, who had been
experiencing severe behavioral issues in school over the
course of that year. In July, 2016, the department invoked a
ninety-six hour hold with respect to Tresin and his two half
siblings after Tresins mother informed her caseworker that
her life was in danger and she planned to flee the state with
the children.
Subsequently, the petitioner "filed a neglect petition
with respect to Tresin and his two [half siblings], who were
in the care of Tresins mother. In addition, the petitioner
obtained an order of temporary custody with respect to all
three children.
"In
August, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate
the parental rights of the respondent. The [334 Conn. 319]
petitioner alleged that, pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D),
the respondent had no ongoing parent-child relationship with
Tresin. The termination of parental rights trial was held on
February 5 and March 9, 2018.
"In
a thoughtful memorandum of decision, issued on May 22, 2018,
the court found that the petitioner had proved by clear and
convincing evidence that there was no ongoing parent-child
relationship with respect to the respondent and Tresin. In
reaching its conclusion, the court found that Tresin does
not know who his father is and has no ...