Termination of Parental Rights in the State of Connecticut
Connecticut General Statutes Section 45a-717 (g) provides grounds for the Termination of Parental Rights. The Statute allows for termination based upon several grounds but requires the petitioner to prove only one cause of action exists by clear and convincing evidence. Section 45a-717 provides in relevant part for termination if:
(1) the termination is in the best interest of the child, and (2) (A) the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child, or (C) there is no ongoing parent-child relationship which is defined as the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.
Nonconsensual termination proceedings involve a two step process: an adjudicatory phase and a dispositional phase. General Statutes § 45a-717 (g). "In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence." In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn. App. 353, 360, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995). Examples of such statutory grounds are abandonment of the child by the parent, denial of care, guidance and control necessary for the child's well-being or no ongoing parent-child relationship. In re Bruce R., 234 Conn. 194, 204, 662 A.2d 107 (1995). "If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether the termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. In re Maximina V., 44 Conn. App. 80, 82-83, 686 A.2d 1005 (1997). In re Drew R., 47 Conn. App. 124, 127, 702 A.2d 647 (1997)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Lauren R., 49 Conn. App. 763, 768, 715 A.2d 822 (1998).
Showing posts with label child custody. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child custody. Show all posts
Friday, February 6, 2009
Custody Considerations when seeking to Relocate
Relocation out of Connecticut - Custody Issues
The rule for relocation in Connecticut up until the passage of C.G.S. §46b-56d was set forth in Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413 (1998). The Court’s approach, in Ireland involved a multiple step test that shifted burdens from the relocating parent to non-relocating parent. The Court borrowed from the American Law Institute in its Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations saying that “[a] parent who has been exercising a significant majority of the custodial responsibility for the child should be allowed to relocate with the child so long as the parent shows that the relocation is in good faith for a legitimate purpose and to a location that is reasonable in light of the purpose.” Ireland v. Ireland at 424. The Court further said that “a relocation motivated by a legitimate purpose should be considered reasonable, unless its purpose is shown to be substantially achievable without moving, or by moving to a location that is substantially less disruptive of the other parent’s relationship to the child.” Id. (Internal quotation marks omitted). This rule said the Court, “places the initial burden of proof on the custodial parent, which is the party with the best access to information relevant to the legitimacy of the motives behind the planned location.
Once the legitimacy and reasonableness of the move have been established by the relocating parent the burden shifted to the non-relocating parent to show that the move was not in the best interest of the child. See Ireland v. Ireland. In the end a scheme of shifting burdens was established; each party having to carry their part by a preponderance of the evidence.
C.G.S. §46b-56d Relocation of parent with minor child. Burden of proof. Factors considered by the court, was adopted by the Connecticut State Legislature to overturn the burden shifting scheme described above. The statute is printed in its entirety below:
(a) In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a significant impact on an existing parenting plan, the relocating parent shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child.
(b) In determining whether to approve the relocation of the child under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, but such consideration shall not be limited to: (1) Each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation; (2) the quality of the relationships between the child and each parent; (3) the impact of the relocation on the quantity and the quality of the child's future contact with the nonrelocating parent; (4) the degree to which the relocating parent's and the child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the relocation; and (5) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements.
Of immediate consequence is the third element described in “(a)”; viz., the relocating parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is in the best interest of the child. By allocating this burden to the non-relocating parent the Ireland burden shifting scheme is completely done away with.
The end result is that the current state of the law in Connecticut places the entire burden on the relocating parent, to show that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child. C.G.S. §46b-56d
The rule for relocation in Connecticut up until the passage of C.G.S. §46b-56d was set forth in Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413 (1998). The Court’s approach, in Ireland involved a multiple step test that shifted burdens from the relocating parent to non-relocating parent. The Court borrowed from the American Law Institute in its Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations saying that “[a] parent who has been exercising a significant majority of the custodial responsibility for the child should be allowed to relocate with the child so long as the parent shows that the relocation is in good faith for a legitimate purpose and to a location that is reasonable in light of the purpose.” Ireland v. Ireland at 424. The Court further said that “a relocation motivated by a legitimate purpose should be considered reasonable, unless its purpose is shown to be substantially achievable without moving, or by moving to a location that is substantially less disruptive of the other parent’s relationship to the child.” Id. (Internal quotation marks omitted). This rule said the Court, “places the initial burden of proof on the custodial parent, which is the party with the best access to information relevant to the legitimacy of the motives behind the planned location.
Once the legitimacy and reasonableness of the move have been established by the relocating parent the burden shifted to the non-relocating parent to show that the move was not in the best interest of the child. See Ireland v. Ireland. In the end a scheme of shifting burdens was established; each party having to carry their part by a preponderance of the evidence.
C.G.S. §46b-56d Relocation of parent with minor child. Burden of proof. Factors considered by the court, was adopted by the Connecticut State Legislature to overturn the burden shifting scheme described above. The statute is printed in its entirety below:
(a) In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a significant impact on an existing parenting plan, the relocating parent shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child.
(b) In determining whether to approve the relocation of the child under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, but such consideration shall not be limited to: (1) Each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation; (2) the quality of the relationships between the child and each parent; (3) the impact of the relocation on the quantity and the quality of the child's future contact with the nonrelocating parent; (4) the degree to which the relocating parent's and the child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the relocation; and (5) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements.
Of immediate consequence is the third element described in “(a)”; viz., the relocating parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is in the best interest of the child. By allocating this burden to the non-relocating parent the Ireland burden shifting scheme is completely done away with.
The end result is that the current state of the law in Connecticut places the entire burden on the relocating parent, to show that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child. C.G.S. §46b-56d
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
