Home/Connecticut Appellate Court/In re Thomas L.

In re Thomas L.

492 A.2d 229, 4 Conn. App. 56, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 950
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedMay 14, 1985
Docket3100
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 492 A.2d 229 (In re Thomas 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 Thomas L., 492 A.2d 229, 4 Conn. App. 56, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 950 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Daly, J.

In this juvenile matter, the department of children and youth services (DCYS) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondents, whose son, then three and one-half years old, had been placed in its custody since he was two years old. The child had not resided with the respondents, his biological parents, since he was two weeks old. The respondents later filed a petition to revoke the order of commitment to DCYS. From the trial court’s denial of their petition, the respondents have appealed.

The burden is clearly upon the persons applying for the revocation of commitment to allege and prove that cause for commitment no longer exists. Once that has been established, the inquiry becomes whether a continuation of the commitment will nevertheless serve the child’s best interests. On this point, when it is the natural parents who have moved to revoke commitment, the state must prove that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be returned to his or her natural parents. In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 659, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).

In a detailed and comprehensive memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the respondents did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that cause for commitment no longer existed. It also concluded that the state did prove by a preponderance of the evidence that revocation was not in the child’s best interests. The credibility of witnesses is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact. In re Juvenile Appeal (Docket No. [58]*589268), 184 Conn. 157,171, 439 A.2d 958 (1981); Holden & Daly, Connecticut Evidence (1966 and Sup. 1983) § 118 (c). Since the court’s conclusions are logically supported by the evidence and facts, we will not disturb those conclusions.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

In Re Patricia C.
887 A.2d 929 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2006)
In Re Erica R., (Mar. 15, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3526 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In the Interests of Chauncey W., (Jan. 18, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 985 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
In the Interest of Amneris P., (Feb. 8, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 1700 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
In re Cesar G.
742 A.2d 428 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2000)
In the Interests of Sarah Jean S., (Sep. 28, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 13082 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
In the Interest of Amber S., (Aug. 2, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10547 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
In the Interest of Shaquanna M., (Apr. 29, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 4370 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
In Interest of Shaquanna M., (Mar. 26, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 4023 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
In the Interests of Brianna F., (Dec. 29, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15641 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
In the Interests of Alexander C., (Nov. 27, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 13698 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
In Re Paul G., (Aug. 3, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7309 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
In re Thomas L.
528 A.2d 413 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
492 A.2d 229, 4 Conn. App. 56, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thomas-l-connappct-1985.