In re Xavier H.

<p>**************************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of this opinion is the date the opinion 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. This opinion is subject to revisions and editorial changes, not of a substantive nature, and corrections of a technical nature prior to publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. **************************************************************** IN RE XAVIER H.* (AC 43770) (AC 43774) Bright, C. J., and Prescott and Alexander, Js. Syllabus The respondent parents filed separate appeals to this court from the judg- ment of the trial court terminating their parental rights with respect to their minor child, who had previously been adjudicated neglected. The respondents claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly concluded that they had failed to achieve the requisite degree of personal rehabilita- tion as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time they could assume responsible positions in the child’s life as required by the applicable statute (§ 17a-112). Held: 1. The respondent father’s claim that the trial court made clearly erroneous subordinate factual findings and applied those findings in reaching its decision that there was sufficient evidence to terminate the father’s parental rights was unavailing; contrary to the father’s claim that the evidence demonstrated that he complied with each of the specific steps ordered by the court, there was ample evidence in the record that the Department of Children and Families was unsuccessful in offering therapy service providers to the father because the father rejected those providers and, instead, chose his own providers and lied to his chosen providers, which made his therapy unsuccessful, the father admittedly did not participate in mediation or couples counseling and was untruthful about his continuing relationship with the respondent mother, and, although the court’s factual finding that the father was in the courtroom and had seen a video that showed him entering the mother’s apartment at 1:55 a.m. prior to his testimony that he had arrived at the apartment at 5:15 a.m., was in error, such error was harmless because it did not undermine the court’s principal finding that the father lied to the court about his time of arrival at the apartment. 2. The respondents could not prevail on their claims that the trial court failed to employ the proper standard in assessing whether, pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3), the respondents had each failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time they could assume a responsible position in the child’s life: although the court did not employ the precise statutory language, it correctly set forth the legal standard at the beginning of its analysis and found by clear and convincing evidence that the department provided reasonable efforts for reunification of the child with the respon- dents but that the respondents did not achieve the required level of rehabilitation, ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799651/in-re-xavier-h/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid In re Xavier H. in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from In re Xavier H.. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
In re Xavier H. is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.