green
Positive treatment
10.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
In re Corey C.
See In re Albert M., 124 Conn. App. 561, 565 , 6 A.3d 815 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1050 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Egypt E.
See In re Katia M. , 124 Conn. App. 650 , 666, 670, 6 A.3d 86 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010) (although incarceration alone may not form basis for termination of parental rights and it limits services that department can provide incarcerated parent, it does not excuse parent's failure to use resources offered).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Leilah W.
Although incarceration certainly is not indicative of abandonment of a child and never, in and of itself, provides a proper basis for terminating parental rights; see In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650 , 661, 6 A.3d 86 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010) ; In re Juvenile Appeal ( Docket No. 10155 ), 187 Conn. 431 , 443, 446 A.2d 808 (1982); "incarceration nonetheless may prove an obstacle to reunification due to the parent's unavailability"; In re Katia M., supra, at 661, 6 A.3d 86 ; and, thus, is properly considered by the court in considering whether to terminate parental righ…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Messiah S.
The court found, however, that the foster parents were willing to adopt the children and to permit the children to maintain a relationship with the respondent, which was the objective of the respondent’s motion to transfer guardianship to Lisa B.-J. 22 Finally, the court determined that the children needed permanency and stability; see In re Katia M., 124 Conn. App. 650, 658 , 6 A.3d 86 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010); which their foster parents were willing and able to provide for them.
discussed
Cited "see"
Romprey v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
See DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1053 (2010). 8 Additionally, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact about whether suit or arbitration proceedings were commenced not more than 180 days after the alleged exhaustion of Kempton’s coverage and that they had satisfied the second tolling provision. 9 General Statutes § 52-576 (a) provides in relevant part: “No action for an account, or on any simple or implied contract, or on any contract in writing, shall be brought but within six years after the right of acti…
cited
Cited "see"
Milliun v. New Milford Hospital
See DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1053 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Vega
See DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583, 613 , 2 A.3d 963 (“[t]he underlying principle is that if any reasonable qualifications can be established, the objection goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the [expert’s opinion] evidence” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. granted on other grounds, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1053 (2010).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Alison M.
See generally In re Katia M., 124 Conn. App. 650, 658-59 , 6 A.3d 86 , cert, denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Jadiel B.
The reasonableness of the department’s efforts must be viewed in the context of these limitations.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Karter F., 207 Conn. App. 1 , 15–16, 262 A.3d 195 , cert. denied, 339 Conn. 912 , 261 A.3d 745 (2021); see also In re Katia M., 124 Conn. App. 650, 661 , 6 A.3d 86 (‘‘[a]lthough we agree that incarceration alone is not a sufficient basis to terminate parental rights . . . incarceration none- theless may prove an obstacle to reunification due to the parent’s unavailability’’ (citation omitted)), cert. denied, 299 Conn.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re G. H.
Rather, at the insistence of [the department], the [respondent] agreed to do so.’’ Moreover, she asserts that because Patrick H. died on May 12, 2021, ‘‘there is no danger that [she] will ever reside with [Patrick H.] again after she is reunified with her children.’’ We disagree. ‘‘As our Supreme Court has observed, in considering whether a parent has failed to rehabilitate, trial courts have relied on evidence that a parent has continued to associate with a party who poses a danger to a child.’’ In re Lillyanne D., 215 Conn. App. 61 , 93, 281 A.3d 521 (‘‘court found th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Jacob W.
See, e.g., In re Katia M., 124 Conn. App. 650, 661 , 6 A.3d 86 (parent’s unavailability, due to incarceration, is an obstacle to reunification), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010); see also In re Gwynne P., 346 Ill.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Jacob W.
See, e.g., In re Katia M. , 124 Conn. App. 650 , 661, 6 A.3d 86 (parent's unavailability, due to incarceration, is an obstacle to reunification), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010) ; see also In re Gwynne P. , 346 Ill.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Joheli V.
Although the court considered the respondent’s incarceration, which it is entitled to do, as acknowledged by the respondent himself; see, e.g., In re Katia M., 124 Conn. App. 650, 661 , 6 A.3d 86 (parent’s unavailability, due to incarcera- tion, properly considered ‘‘an obstacle to reunifica- tion’’), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010); it did not base its determination that the respondent failed to rehabilitate solely on the ground that he was incarcerated.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Joheli V.
Although the court considered the respondent's incarceration, which it is entitled to do, as acknowledged by the respondent himself; see, e.g., In re Katia M., 124 Conn. App. 650 , 661, 6 A.3d 86 (2010) (parent's unavailability, due to incarceration, properly considered "an obstacle to reunification"), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010) ; it did not base its determination that the respondent failed to rehabilitate solely on the ground that he was incarcerated.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Katia M.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 8, 2010.
Elizabeth Knight Adams, in support of the petition., John E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, in opposition.
Published
The petition by the respondent father for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 124 Conn. App. 650 (AC 31672), is denied.
KATZ and McLACHLAN, Js., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.