**************************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of this opinion is the date the opinion was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. This opinion is subject to revisions and editorial changes, not of a substantive nature, and corrections of a technical nature prior to publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. **************************************************************** IN RE OMAR I. ET AL.* (AC 43251) Lavine, Keller and Bishop, Js. Syllabus The respondent father appealed to this court from the judgments of the trial court terminating his parental rights as to the petitioners, his three minor biological children, and denying his motion to revoke their com- mitment to the custody and care of the Commissioner of Children and Families. The father claimed, inter alia, that the trial court erred in concluding that the children had proved, by clear and convincing evi- dence, that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilita- tion, as required by statute (§ 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i)), that would encour- age the belief that, within a reasonable time, he could assume a responsible position in their lives. Court-appointed attorneys for the children had filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the father and the children’s biological mother after the children had been adjudi- cated neglected in a prior proceeding and committed to the custody of the commissioner. The trial court, which also terminated the mother’s parental rights, found that the children had proved, by clear and convinc- ing evidence, that the Department of Children and Families had made reasonable efforts to reunify them with the father but that he had attempted to manipulate and control some of the service providers offered to him by the department, and engaged in coercive and control- ling behavior that led to the failure of the parenting services that had been provided to the parents. The court also found that the parents could not adequately meet the children’s developmental, emotional and medical needs, that the parents had not acquired the ability to care for the children, had failed to meet some of their basic needs and failed to ensure their school attendance. The court further found that there was a pattern of intimate personal violence between the parents in the pres- ence of the children and that, in the four years since the children had been removed from the family home and later placed in foster care, the father consistently maintained that he had done nothing wrong and failed to gain insight into his controlling behavior and how it impacted the children. Held: 1. The respondent father could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that judicial bias deprived him of a fair trial, as he failed to demonstrate the existence of plain error: the father’s disagreements as to several of the court’s adverse rulings and factual findings were not a proper basis for a …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
   
New User Registration
*Required field