Termination of Parental Rights

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).

The Best Interests of the Minor Child

Guardian Ad Litem versus Attorney for the Child

The role of a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) is to advocate to the Court for what is in the Best Interests of the Child. The guardian ad litem may form his/her own opinion based upon the independent investigation made during the pendency of the litigation which may include information obtained by others including but not limited to doctors, state agencies, therapist, and teachers. No attorney client privilege exists so the Guardian Ad Litem may testify and be cross examined about the opinion being offered.

The Attorney for the Minor Child (AMC) is to be a zealous advocate for the child and to act as an advisor. The rules of professional conduct state in pertinent parts “a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation” Rule 1.2; “render candid advice” Rule 2.1 and “as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client.” Rule 1.14. The attorney client privilege does apply in this type of appointment.

Some of the factors considers in the “Best Interest” standards are the parenting skills; each parents relationship, both psychological and emotional, ties to the child; compliance with Orders of the Court specifically promoting access; past behavior as it related to parenting skills; recommendations of Family Relations; credibility and either parents coercive behavior involving the child in the litigation.

The child’s preference is important but is never conclusive upon the Court. The consideration that must be determined is if the child is of sufficient age and capable of forming an intelligent preference.

I like to describe the difference between the Guardian Ad Litem and the Attorney for the Minor child as follows: if your child wanted to eat ice cream for breakfast, lunch and dinner – every day – the Guardian would advocate that the best interests are not served by this type of diet while the Attorney for the Child would advocate for chocolate, strawberry or vanilla.