green
Positive treatment
10.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
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"
Hope v. State
(2×)
See In re Addie May Nesbitt, 124 Conn. App. 400 , 406–407, 5 A.3d 518 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 917 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010); see also State v. Reddy, 135 Conn. App. 65, 71 , 42 A.3d 406 (2012).
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.
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 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.
Elise Piquet
v.
Town of Chester Et Al.
v.
Town of Chester Et Al.
SC 18723.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 8, 2010.
William F. Gallagher, in support of the petition., John S. Bennet, in opposition.
Norcott.
Published
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 124 Conn. App. 518 (AC 30440), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action because the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies?”[*918] The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18723. William F. Gallagher, in support of the petition. John S. Bennet, in opposition. Decided December 8, 2010
NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.