Skip to main content
· 7/14/2023

In re Gabriel S.

Citations

  • 347 Conn. 223

Syllabus

The respondent father appealed from the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights with respect to his child, G. Shortly after G was born, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, filed a petition of neglect, was granted temporary custody of G, and placed G in a foster home. Thereafter, using a preprinted form issued by the Judicial Branch, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate the respon- dent's parental rights pursuant to statute (§ 17a-112 (j) (3) (E)), which requires the petitioner to prove, inter alia, that the respondent's parental rights with respect to another child previously had been terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the petitioner. At trial, the petitioner's counsel presented evidence that the respondent's parental rights pre- viously had been terminated in Rhode Island. At the end of the petition- er's case, the respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner had failed, as a matter of law, to satisfy the requirements for termination set forth in § 17a-112 (j) (3) (E) because the petitioner did not present any evi- dence that the respondent's parental rights previously had been termi- nated in Connecticut. The petitioner's counsel indicated his belief that the termination petition had been amended to include grounds for termi- nation under § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), and, in the event it had not been amended, he moved to do so. The trial court granted counsel's oral motion to amend the petition, as well as a six week continuance of the trial to allow the respondent's counsel an opportunity to reevaluate the petitioner's position. The petitioner then filed a written motion to amend the petition to terminate the respondent's parental rights and, pursuant to the relevant rules of practice (§ 33a-1 (b)), an amended summary of the facts, both of which identified § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (ii) as the basis for termination. Under that provision, the petitioner was required to demonstrate, inter alia, that the respondent

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.