In re Martin K.

Connecticut Appellate Court

In re Martin K.

741 A.2d 10, 56 Conn. App. 10, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 458

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

DocketAC 18917

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 741 A.2d 10 (In re Martin K.) 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 Martin K., 741 A.2d 10, 56 Conn. App. 10, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 458 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[11]*11 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent mother¹ appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her son. The sole issue is whether the court had clear- and convincing evidence to support its decision to terminate the parental rights of the respondent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On appeal, the respondent asks this court to review the trial court’s findings of fact. It is well established that an appellate court cannot retry the facts. Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s judgment was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Northeast Parking, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 47 Conn. App. 284, 290-91, 703 A.2d 797 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 969, 707 A.2d 1269 (1998).

In this case, the court filed a detailed and comprehensive memorandum of decision reciting the facts that it found to support its decision. “This court does not retry the case or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. . . . Rather, we must defer to the [trier of fact’s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude. ... In a case that is tried to the court . . . the judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to their specific testimony.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wieler v. Commissioner of Correction, 47 Conn. App. 59, 61, 702 A.2d 1195, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 957, 704 A.2d 806 (1997). Because the court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, we cannot disturb them.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

[11]*11 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent mother¹ appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her son. The sole issue is whether the court had clear- and convincing evidence to support its decision to terminate the parental rights of the respondent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On appeal, the respondent asks this court to review the trial court’s findings of fact. It is well established that an appellate court cannot retry the facts. Our review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s judgment was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Northeast Parking, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 47 Conn. App. 284, 290-91, 703 A.2d 797 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 969, 707 A.2d 1269 (1998).

In this case, the court filed a detailed and comprehensive memorandum of decision reciting the facts that it found to support its decision. “This court does not retry the case or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. . . . Rather, we must defer to the [trier of fact’s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude. ... In a case that is tried to the court . . . the judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to their specific testimony.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wieler v. Commissioner of Correction, 47 Conn. App. 59, 61, 702 A.2d 1195, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 957, 704 A.2d 806 (1997). Because the court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, we cannot disturb them.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 A.2d 10, 56 Conn. App. 10, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-martin-k-connappct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack