In re Jaelyn K.M., et al.

Waterbury, Connecticut family law lawyers represented the parties in a termination of parental rights action.

Prior to the birth of Jayden and Jaelynn, the two older children had been adjudicated neglected due to the respondent's substance abuse, and the respondent's parental rights with respect to the older children were terminated at separate proceedings in 2021. Thereafter, Jayden and Jae-lynn were born prematurely in August, 2022. The Department of Children and Families (department) immediately became involved with the children's care after a mandated reporter at the hospital notified the department that the children had tested positive for cocaine and opiates at birth. Due to their premature births and exposure to drugs in utero, the children have medically complex needs.



On August 30, 2022, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, filed neglect petitions on behalf of the children. On the same date, the petitioner obtained ex parte orders of temporary custody. The respondent failed to appear at both the September 7, 2022 hearing on the orders of temporary custody and the September 28, 2022 initial plea hearing on the neglect petitions, and, each time, the court rendered a default judgment against the respondent. After the respondent again failed to appear at the October 12, 2022 dispositional hearing on the neglect petitions, the court adjudicated the children neglected and committed them to the care of the petitioner.



On June 6, 2023, the court approved permanency plans for the termination of the respondent's parental rights. On July 11, 2023, pursuant to the approved permanency plans, the petitioner filed a petition for termination of parental rights on behalf of each child. On the same day, the petitioner also filed, and the court granted, a motion for order of notice by publication with respect to the respondent.[3] On July 20, 2023, notice of the next hearing, which was scheduled for August 2, 2023, was published in the Waterbury Republican-American.[4] On the same day the notice was published, Morgan Bell, a department social worker assigned to the respondent's case, spoke on the phone with the respondent, who was at Rushford, a provider of addiction and mental health treatment programs, after entering an inpatient drug detoxification treatment program two days earlier, and told the respondent about the upcoming hearing.[5] The respondent also asked Bell about visitation with her children, but a clinician at Rushford informed Bell that the respondent could not have visitors while in the detoxification treatment program. On July 26, 2023, the respondent went to the trial court clerk's office and applied for the appointment of counsel with respect to the termination petitions, indicating on the application that she was homeless and had ''just got[ten] out of detox ....'' She listed a homeless shelter for her address.



FAMILY LAW. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. The case involves an appeal by a mother against the termination of her parental rights over her twin children, where the court had to assess claims of due process violations, including deprivation of counsel, denial of a continuance, and notice adequacy, under the fourteenth amendment. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, ruling that any due process errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.



PROCEDURAL LAW. DUE PROCESS IN TERMINATION HEARINGS. The case examines whether procedural due process rights were violated during the termination of parental rights, focusing on whether the respondent mother was constructively deprived of counsel by the court's failure to grant a continuance and the adequacy of notice provided for termination hearings. The court applied harmless error analysis, emphasizing the importance of a prompt resolution for the children's best interests.



Key Phrases Termination of parental rights. Effective assistance of counsel. Motion to open judgments. Notice by publication. Due process rights.

Affirmed