In Re Daniel L.

Connecticut Appellate Court

In Re Daniel L.

991 A.2d 748, 120 Conn. App. 450, 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 141

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedApril 13, 2010

DocketAC 30084

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 991 A.2d 748 (In Re Daniel L.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Daniel L., 991 A.2d 748, 120 Conn. App. 450, 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 141 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, the father of two minor children, Daniel L. and Diamond L., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating his parental rights as to the children. 1 In substance, he claims that two of the court’s critical findings are clearly erroneous. Those two findings are that (1) he failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the ages and needs of the children, he could assume a responsible position in their lives, and (2) the termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. See General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (2) and (3) (B). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Our scope of review of such findings is well settled. Such findings must stand unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Shaun B., 97 Conn. App. 203, 209-10, 903 *452 A.2d 246 (2006) (finding of lack of rehabilitation); In re Tyscheicka H., 61 Conn. App. 19, 26-27, 762 A.2d 916 (2000) (finding that termination in best interest of child). The court found that the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, had established both factors by clear and convincing evidence. We have considered the thorough and well reasoned decision of the court in light of the claims of the respondent, as well as the entire record, and conclude that there was abundant evidence to support the critical factual determinations of the court.

The judgments are affirmed.

1

The court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s mother. Because she has not appealed, we refer in this opinion to the respondent father as the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, the father of two minor children, Daniel L. and Diamond L., appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating his parental rights as to the children. 1 In substance, he claims that two of the court’s critical findings are clearly erroneous. Those two findings are that (1) he failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the ages and needs of the children, he could assume a responsible position in their lives, and (2) the termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. See General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (2) and (3) (B). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Our scope of review of such findings is well settled. Such findings must stand unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Shaun B., 97 Conn. App. 203, 209-10, 903 *452 A.2d 246 (2006) (finding of lack of rehabilitation); In re Tyscheicka H., 61 Conn. App. 19, 26-27, 762 A.2d 916 (2000) (finding that termination in best interest of child). The court found that the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, had established both factors by clear and convincing evidence. We have considered the thorough and well reasoned decision of the court in light of the claims of the respondent, as well as the entire record, and conclude that there was abundant evidence to support the critical factual determinations of the court.

The judgments are affirmed.

1

The court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s mother. Because she has not appealed, we refer in this opinion to the respondent father as the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

991 A.2d 748, 120 Conn. App. 450, 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-l-connappct-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack