74 Conn. App. 637 (2002)
Abuse and Neglect :
Connecticut Appellate Court
Nov. 19, 2002

The appellate court issued a rare reversal of termination of parental rights involving the father of a young boy less than seven years of age. In November 2000, the state Department of Children and Families (“department”) filed a coterminous petition alleging that the child, “V”, was neglected and uncared for and requesting termination parental rights. The trial court found that V had been neglected and uncared for, and in the dispositional phase of the neglect hearing, found by clear and convincing evidence that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify V with his father (who was in a residential drug treatment facility at the time the alleged neglect occurred). In addition, the court determined that the father had been either unable or unwilling to benefit from such efforts. Upon such findings, the court terminated parental rights and appointed the department V’s statutory parent.

On appeal, the father successfully claimed that the department failed to undertake reasonable efforts at reunification with V.* In a thoughtful discussion that references the recent appellate court decision of Ebony H, 68 Conn. App. 342, 349 (2002), the court outlined the objective nature of what constitutes “reasonableness” in an analysis of “reasonable efforts” at reunification. Underlying this case was the ever present knowledge that V’s family had been “involved” with the department for approximately six years and that the court had previously terminated the father’s parental rights in two of his other minor children. Despite those circumstances, the court found that the father had successfully completed a long term substance abuse treatment program, and that he had attended regularly scheduled department supervised visits with V after his discharge from the treatment program. The combination of his successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program, anger management counseling and his regular attendance at visitation sessions with “V” presented the department with a “window of opportunity” during which reasonable efforts at reunification were not made. Thus, the department could not meet its burden of proving that the father was unwilling or unable to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts by clear and convincing evidence. The court remained unpersuaded by the department’s attempt to link “reasonableness” with the father’s intent to reunite with the child’s mother, whose parental rights were terminated at trial. Despite the possibility that this “ill-advised” plan would come to fruition, the court held the department responsible for providing services and counseling to the father to ensure V’s health, safety and well being. The case may be accessed at the Judicial Department’s web site at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP73/73ap33.pdf