In re Juvenile Appeal (85-4)

Connecticut Appellate Court

In re Juvenile Appeal (85-4)

490 A.2d 95, 3 Conn. App. 507, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 905

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedApril 9, 1985

Docket2228

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 490 A.2d 95 (In re Juvenile Appeal (85-4)) 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 Juvenile Appeal (85-4), 490 A.2d 95, 3 Conn. App. 507, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 905 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The respondent in this appeal from the termination of her parental rights has attacked the factual findings of the trial court. Our review of this case discloses that the court’s findings, pursuant to the criteria set forth in General Statutes §§ 17-43a (b) (2) and 17-43a (b) (3), were amply supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court appropriately considered the statutory criteria and did not, as the respondent claims, apply an all-encompassing “best interests” [508]*508standard. See In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 672, 420 A.2d 875 (1979); In re Juvenile Appeal (84-3), 1 Conn. App. 463, 467, 473 A.2d 795, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 802, 474 A.2d 1259 (1984).

The function of this court on appeal is to determine whether the trial court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. Piantedosi v. Floridia, 186 Conn. 275, 276, 440 A.2d 977 (1982). We have determined that it was not.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The respondent in this appeal from the termination of her parental rights has attacked the factual findings of the trial court. Our review of this case discloses that the court’s findings, pursuant to the criteria set forth in General Statutes §§ 17-43a (b) (2) and 17-43a (b) (3), were amply supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court appropriately considered the statutory criteria and did not, as the respondent claims, apply an all-encompassing “best interests” [508]*508standard. See In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 672, 420 A.2d 875 (1979); In re Juvenile Appeal (84-3), 1 Conn. App. 463, 467, 473 A.2d 795, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 802, 474 A.2d 1259 (1984).

The function of this court on appeal is to determine whether the trial court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. Piantedosi v. Floridia, 186 Conn. 275, 276, 440 A.2d 977 (1982). We have determined that it was not.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 A.2d 95, 3 Conn. App. 507, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-juvenile-appeal-85-4-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack