Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it 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. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

IN RE EMILE L.* (AC 32295) (AC 32330)
Bishop, Beach and West, Js. Argued November 9, 2010--officially released January 25, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Child Protection Session at Middletown, Baldwin, J.) Edward L., pro se, the appellant in AC 32295 (respondent father). Julie L., pro se, the appellant in AC 32330 (respondent mother). Tammy Nguyen-O'Dowd, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner). Melissa A. Federico, for the minor child.

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The respondent mother and the respondent father, appearing pro se, appeal separately from the judgment of the trial court terminating their parental rights as to their minor child, Emile.1 On appeal, the respondents appear to present the following collective claims: (1) the court improperly determined that they had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the child's life pursuant to General Statutes

Download In re Emile L..pdf

Connecticut Law