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 JONATHAN M.* (SC 16330)
McDonald, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Sullivan, Js. Argued September 27, 2000--officially released January 16, 2001 Counsel

Raymond J. Rigat, for the appellant (petitioner father). Eliot D. Prescott, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (respondent department of children and families). Jeanne Milstein and Christy Scott filed a brief for the state office of the child advocate as amicus curiae.
Opinion

KATZ, J. The principal issue in this appeal is whether a petition for habeas corpus is the appropriate procedural vehicle through which a party may challenge a judgment terminating his or her parental rights based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.1 We conclude that a habeas petition may not be so used to

attack collaterally the termination judgment. Neither party in this case disputes the underlying facts, which were set forth in the memorandum of decision terminating the petitioner's parental rights. The petitioner, John M., and Stacie M. (mother)2 are the biological parents of Jonathan M., who was born on May 19, 1997. On October 13, 1997, following a verbal domestic dispute resulting from the petitioner's refusal to hand Jonathan over to the mother after her extended absence from their home, the petitioner filed a police incident report in which he related that he had not felt comfortable leaving Jonathan in the mother's care because of her recent drug use. No action was taken on the incident report at that time, but the department of children and families (department) was notified. On October 21, 1997, following a meeting with an investigations worker from the department, the petitioner signed a service agreement with the department. The agreement directed the petitioner to pursue custody of Jonathan through the Probate Court, to abstain from using drugs himself, to provide adequate supervision to Jonathan, to apply for financial assistance for Jonathan, to obtain parenting support from the YWCA and to cooperate with the department. The petitioner failed to take steps consistent with any of these directives. Thereafter, on October 29, 1997, approximately two weeks after the initial incident report, the petitioner refused to leave Jonathan in the mother's care while he went to work because he thought that she had been using drugs. Jonathan's mother, who had endured a long history of drug abuse, had been on a cocaine ``binge'' and had been absent from the home for the preceding two weeks. With Jonathan between them, the petitioner and the mother fought verbally and physically. The police arrived and arrested the mother, and Jonathan was placed in foster care. On October 31, 1997, the department filed coterminous petitions against the mother and the petitioner for neglect and termination of their parental rights under General Statutes (Rev. to 1997)

Download In re Jonathan M. (dissent below).pdf

Connecticut Law