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 TYSCHEICKA H.* (AC 20369)
Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Hennessy, Js. Argued September 20--officially released December 5, 2000 Counsel

R. J. Rigat, with whom, on the brief, was Matthew T. Gilbride, for the appellant (respondent mother). Bette L. Paul, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (petitioner). Howard J. Haims for the minor child.
Opinion

HENNESSY, J. The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights in her daughter.1 On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly found that the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner), proved by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the respondent had failed to achieve sufficient

personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes

Download In re Tyscheicka H..pdf

Connecticut Law