Appellate Court Affirms Rejection to Name Grandparents as Guardians

Grandparents who resided in another state might not be the most suitable guardians, if one had a criminal history and the other did not appear capable of managing children with challenging behavior.

Respondent mother, Nadine, gave birth to a son, Daniel, in 2006 and twins, Molli and Joel, in 2012. As a result of reports that Nadine was in a drug-induced condition and both fathers were incarcerated, in Sept. 2013 the Department of Children and Families obtained temporary custody. In Dec. 2013, the commissioner of the department filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the biological parents. The father of the twins moved to transfer guardianship to his parents. The trial court found that the paternal grandfather had a criminal history and that the paternal grandmother might not be capable of managing the twins, who exhibited challenging behavior. It also concluded that respondent mother suffered from substance abuse and domestic violence issues and failed to rehabilitate. The trial court granted the commissioner’s petition, and respondent mother appealed. Respondent mother claimed that the trial court failed to consider the least restrictive alternative to termination of parental rights to the twins, which she claimed would have been a transfer of guardianship to the paternal grandparents. The trial court clearly considered the paternal grandparents as a placement. Evidence existed that although the grandparents offered to move to Connecticut, the grandfather had a criminal history and doubts existed that the grandmother was capable of managing the twins. Respondent mother also claimed that termination of the rights of the biological parents was not in the best interests of the oldest child, because of his emotional connection to her. The trial court found that the oldest child, who had been hospitalized twice for psychiatric problems, was strongly attached to his foster parents, and that respondent mother did not demonstrate the ability to deal with his needs. The trial court considered all the statutory factors, which included the emotional ties between the children and their mother. Other “factors that support termination,” wrote the Appellate Court, “might override a child’s connection with his or her parent.” The trial court found that the respondent was unable to parent her children because of substance abuse and domestic violence issues. Judgment affirmed. The trial court, concluded the Appellate Court, “considered Daniel’s feelings toward his mother, but balanced them against those other factors and determined that termination was in Daniel’s best interests.”