In Re: Journey L.
Notwithstanding the trial court's choice of language, it was clear from its decision that the court considered the respondent's failure to achieve personal rehabilitation as pertaining to her unsuitability to parent any one of the children and not simply the four children as a group. The respondent mother appealed from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights to four minor children. The respondent claimed that the court failed to correctly apply the relevant law regarding her alleged failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation by improperly considering her ability to parent all four children together rather than her ability to parent each child individually and to apply relevant law in its determination that it was in the best interests of all four children to terminate parental rights instead of determining that it was in the best interest of each individual child. The Appellate Court disagreed and affirmed the judgment. While the trial court expressly found the respondent incapable of parenting all four of her children, within its finding is the clear implication that the respondent lacked the basic insights and capacities to parent any of the individual children. The record provided clear and convincing support for these conclusions. For the allegation that the respondent failed to achieve personal rehabilitation pursuant to C.G.S. §17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), the court made specific findings as to the circumstances and deficits of each child and the respondent's failing in regard to his or her care. The court found that before the children were removed from the respondent's care, conditions in the family home were "chaotic, dangerous, and the children's needs were unmet." Since their removal, the children's medical and behavioral issues improved. It was true that in stating its conclusions the court observed that the respondent did not have the ability to care for all four children and that some of the evidence adduced at trial pointed to the respondent's inability to care for four children with specialized needs and deficits. The decision clearly implied that the court found that the respondent's failure to continue in therapy, her lack of insight and her impaired reality testing bore on her capacity to be a parent.