Read on Twitter
This appellate win has me thinking about the discontents of law as an engine of change. I've already been thinking about it because the pandemic has given me a lot of time to do organizing and politics, which feel like more immediate avenues for change. But this case... 1/13
2. In January of 2019, my client and his pregnant wife, who had had several children removed by CT DCF, decided they would never get a fair shake here and moved to Florida. They felt they'd made a fresh start, but didn't think Conn. child protection would give them a shot.
3. They had a pending term. of parental rights case on an older child, but went to Gainesville, where their daughter was born. When she born, they had a year lease, my client was employed and registered to vote in Florida, and his wife had begun mental health treatment there.
4. But CT DCF told FL DCF they wanted the baby (who had never been in CT) so they could place her with her older siblings. FL DCF obliged, over my client's objection. He and his wife were willing to consent to losing custody if they could just fight the case in Florida.
5. Trial counsel saw this coming and brought in appellate counsel (me) early. We filed to dismiss the Connecticut neglect petition as soon as it was filed, because we knew it would be hard for our client to have visits at a crucial time for bonding in an infant's life.
6. Lawyers for the state actually argued that our client had acted in bad faith by moving "to avoid jurisdiction," as though the state of Connecticut could assert a claim on his future children in perpetuity, no matter where they were born. They opposed visitation.
7. The trial judge, disappointingly, went along with all this, probably because he knew our client had lost previous children and wanted to make the whole thing as smooth as possible.
8. That is not how the law is supposed to work: every parent has a constitutional right to raise every child they have, and every child has a constitutional right to family integrity. Courts are supposed to make every presumption in favor of keeping kids with their parents.
9. So we appealed right away. Our client was 1000 miles from his baby with no visits on the strength of an extraordinary expansion of state power: CT asserted a right to take his kids away from any state forever.
10. IT TOOK THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT OVER A YEAR TO ISSUE A DECISION. Don't get me wrong: I'm glad we won. But my client hasn't seen his daughter in a year and a half. What CT DCF has lost in theory it will win in practice: he is unlikely to regain custody at this point.
11. This is how the courts treat parents in child protection: presumptively unfit. During the pandemic, the only cases CP courts would hear were those where DCF wanted to remove a child. When a parent was denied court-ordered visits, no hearing was available.
12. But time is not neutral. When parents are denied contact, it becomes harder and harder for them to regain custody later. We have cases that acknowledge this. But our courts still treat DCF's prerogatives like emergencies and our clients' needs like afterthoughts.
13. It's frustrating to lose when you win. This ruling likely won't save my client's family. I despair a little of the usefulness of all my flowery words and expertise.
Oh, here's the decision: https://www.jud.ct.gov//external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR335/335CR78.pdf
And here's the dissent: https://www.jud.ct.gov//external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR335/335CR78D.pdf
And here's the dissent: https://www.jud.ct.gov//external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR335/335CR78D.pdf
