In re Michael R.

714 A.2d 1279, 49 Conn. App. 510, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 323
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJuly 28, 1998
DocketAC 17630
StatusPublished
Cited by105 cases

This text of 714 A.2d 1279 (In re Michael R.) 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 Michael R., 714 A.2d 1279, 49 Conn. App. 510, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 323 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent appeals, following a trial to the court, from the judgment terminating his parental rights as to his son, Michael R. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly found (1) that he had abandoned Michael R. and (2) that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of Michael R. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses that Michael R. had been in the care and custody of the petitioner, the commissioner of the department of children and families (commissioner), since March 25,1988. At that time, the commissioner placed Michael R. in the physical custody of his maternal great-grandmother, where he remained at the time of the trial. Michael R.’s mother died in April, 1988.

In October, 1995, the commissioner sought to terminate the respondent’s parental rights, alleging that the respondent had abandoned Michael R. In the event that the respondent’s parental rights were terminated, the commissioner intended to arrange Michael R.’s adoption by his maternal great-grandmother. Michael R., who was twelve years old at the time of trial, testified on his own behalf.

[512]*512To prevail in a nonconsensual termination of parental rights, the commissioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that one of several grounds for termination exists. General Statutes § 17a-112 (c) (3). The commissioner in this case has alleged the ground of abandonment as defined by § 17a-112 (c) (3) (A). If the trial court determines that abandonment has been proved by the appropriate standard, it must then determine if termination of the parental rights is in the best interests of the child. General Statutes § 17a-112 (c) (2); In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 356-57, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).

The trial court’s findings as to both issues will be reversed on appeal only if they are clearly erroneous. In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn. App. 353, 362, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995). Our examination of the record and briefs, and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. In a thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision, the trial court analyzed the law in a manner consistent with our statutes and case precedents. In re Michael R., 45 Conn. Sup. 364, 717 A.2d 858 (1997). Because that memorandum addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt the trial court’s well reasoned decision as a statement of the applicable law on these issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

In re Noah R.-R. (Appendix)
Connecticut Appellate Court, 2025
In re Avia M.
Connecticut Appellate Court, 2019
In Re Nicole J., (Jun. 25, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 7691 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
In Re Jose R., (Feb. 28, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2311 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
In Re Diane W., (Dec. 21, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 17038 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In Re Brian R., (July 11, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9118 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In Re Samantha D., (Jul. 9, 2001) Ct Page 8973
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 8972 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In the Interests of Frederic N., (May 17, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6348 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In Re Zaire T., (Mar. 15, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3796 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In the Interests of Alexander M., (Mar. 2, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3758 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In Re Daelyon C., (Feb. 27, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2961 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In the Interests of Tameeka M., (Feb. 5, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2270 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In the Interests of Jayvone S, (Jan. 15, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1257 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In the Interests of Destiny, (Jan. 15, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1263 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In Re Axavian F., (Dec. 19, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 16034 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
In Re Joseph B., (Oct. 5, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12344 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
In Re Jesse S., (Aug. 24, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 9706 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
In the Interest of Derrick G., (Aug. 15, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10547 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
In Re Alize G., (Aug. 3, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 9416 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
In Re Michael W., (Jul. 28, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8849 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 A.2d 1279, 49 Conn. App. 510, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-r-connappct-1998.