author: ALVORD, J.

text:
    PEOPLE’S UNITED BANK v. EDWARD KUDEJ
    (AC 33106)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Sheldon, Js.

      Submitted on briefs January 13
    officially released March 27, 2012

      Kristen L. Zaehringer filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).

      David A. Lavenburg filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

ALVORD, J.

The defendant, Edward Kudej, appeals from the decision of the trial court granting the application of the plaintiff, People’s United Bank, for a prejudgment remedy of attachment against the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly found probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought would be rendered for the plaintiff. Specifically, the defendant claims that the court erred when it found sufficient evidence that a merger between the plaintiff and the original holder of a promissory note and personal guarantee had taken place and, thus, that the plaintiff had standing to enforce the note and guarantee. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of the defendant’s appeal. On August 20, 1995, Advanced Back and Neck Center of Massachusetts, P.C. (back and neck center) executed and delivered a security agreement covering all of the back and neck center’s assets to the Bank of Western Massachusetts (Western). The defendant was then the vice president of the back and neck center. On the same date, the defendant executed and delivered a personal guarantee (guarantee) of all debts owed or later owing to Western from the back and neck center. The guarantee provided that, upon default by the back and neck center, the obligations of the defendant would be due forthwith and would be payable to Western without demand or notice. The guarantee also provided that the defendant’s liability would be unlimited and that he would be liable for all costs and expenses in connection with enforcing the guarantee. Additionally, the guarantee stated that Western was not required to attempt collection from the back and neck center in the event of the back and neck center’s default before initiating collection from thé defendant.

On July 7, 1998, the back and neck center executed and delivered a promissory note (1998 note) to Western in which the back and neck center promised to pay the principal amount of $100,000. The note provided that the principal balance would be payable on demand and that the interest on the unpaid principal balance would be paid monthly. Both the 1998 note and the guarantee state that they are to be “governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . . . .”

On February 5, 2007, Western, the back and neck center and Advanced Medical Group, Inc. (Advanced Medical), executed an assumption agreement wherein Western assented to the assumption of three notes including: the 1998 note, a note owed by the president of the back and neck center, Michael Spagnoli (Spagnoli note), and a note owed by another entity called Chir-omed and Associates, Inc. (Chiromed note). Spagnoli signed the assumption agreement in his personal capacity and as president of the back and neck center, Advanced Medical, and Chiromed and Associates, Inc. The assumption agreement also was signed by the vice president of Western, Kevin M. Bowler.

The plaintiff filed a prejudgment remedy application on May 24,2010, and the court held a hearing on September 29, 2010. Bowler testified at the hearing that Western was a wholly owned subsidiary of Chittenden Corporation, a bank holding company. He further testified that, in January, 2008, Chittenden Corporation sold all of its stock to the plaintiff. According to Bowler’s testimony, initially each of the Chittenden banks had maintained its own separate bank identity, but all were merged into the plaintiff in January, 2009. Payments had been made on the assumption agreement by either Spagnoli directly or by Advanced Medical, but payments ceased as of March, 2009. The defendant never made any payments on any of the notes or on the assumption agreement. Subsequently, the plaintiff initiated proceedings against Spagnoli and the defendant, respectively, including attaching certain of Spagnoli’s investment accounts and attempting to recoup from certain of Spagnoli’s business ventures and other property.

Bowler testified that, on the basis of voluntary and involuntary payments by Spagnoli, the plaintiff reduced the defendant’s liability. Bowler calculated the principal balance remaining on the assumption agreement to be $83,529.65, but he prorated the amount owed by the defendant based on the payments by Spagnoli on the general assumption agreement account. According to Bowler’s testimony, the prorated amount owed by the defendant came to $78,131.95, including interest but not including costs and fees totaling approximately $13,000.

Additionally, the parties stipulated to the following facts prior to the hearing on the prejudgment remedy application: the defendant never received notice of the assumption agreement prior to the time of execution; there was no action taken by Western to collect against the defendant until the present action; and there was no notice to the defendant that the back and neck center had defaulted on the 1998 note.

Following the prejudgment remedy hearing, the parties filed supplemental briefs on October 6, 2010, and October 20, 2010, as requested by the court. Thereafter, in a memorandum of decision issued January 21, 2011, the court found that the affidavit and testimony of Bowler were sufficient to establish the amount of the debt and that Western merged into the plaintiff. The court thus found that there was probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought would be rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The court also found that any defenses raised by the defendant were insufficient to overcome the court’s finding of probable cause. The court thus granted the plaintiff’s application for a prejudgment remedy of attachment in the full amount requested. This appeal followed.

The defendant argues that it was clear error for the court to find that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence that a merger had taken place between Western and the plaintiff. The defendant argues that, because the evidence of a merger was insufficient, the court should have concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the 1998 note and the guarantee, and, therefore, there was not probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought would be rendered for the plaintiff. We disagree.

As a preliminary matter, we first address whether Connecticut or Massachusetts law applies, because the 1998 note and the guarantee contain choice of law clauses stating that they are to be governed by and construed in accordance with Massachusetts law. “Contracts clauses which require the application of the laws of other states upon breach or dispute are recognized as proper in Connecticut.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., 57 Conn. App. 316, 321, 748 A.2d 900 (2000). “The ordinary rule is that where a cause of action arising in another [s]tate is asserted in our courts, we look to the laws of that [s]tate to determine all matters of substance involved in it, but that matters of procedure are governed by our own law . . . .” Broderick v. McGuire, 119 Conn. 83, 101, 174 A. 314 (1934). Therefore, we are guided by Massachusetts substantive law in deciding the defendant’s claims, but we must apply the procedural laws of Connecticut.

The defendant’s jurisdictional argument is based on his claim that the court erred by finding sufficient evidence that a merger between Western and the plaintiff took place, and, therefore, the defendant contests the court’s finding of probable cause. As a threshold matter, we set forth the standard of review with regard to issues of standing. “[T]he appropriate standard of review is a procedural issue and is governed by Connecticut law.” Zenon v. R. E. Yeagher Management Corp., supra, 57 Conn. App. 322; see Montoya v. Montoya, 280 Conn. 605, 612 n.7, 909 A.2d 947 (2006). “[A] party must have standing to assert a claim in order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. . . . Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion. One cannot rightfully invoice the jurisdiction of the court unless he has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 94 Conn. App. 79, 83, 891 A.2d 75 (2006), aff'd, 282 Conn. 454, 922 A.2d 1043 (2007).

The court never made a determination as to whether the plaintiff had standing, however, it did determine that the plaintiff had shown probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the remedy sought would be rendered in its favor. The court based this determination on its finding that the plaintiff was the successor in interest to the 1998 note and the guarantee and on its finding that the defendant had no valid defenses and had unconditionally guaranteed the 1998 note. The defendant challenges that ruling based on his claim that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence at the prejudgment remedy hearing to prove that a merger had taken place between Western and the plaintiff. In our determination of whether the court properly found probable cause that the prejudgment remedy sought would be rendered for the plaintiff at trial, we must first determine whether the evidence was sufficient for the court properly to conclude that the plaintiff owned the 1998 note and the guarantee.

In determining whether the court properly found sufficient evidence that a merger had taken place, we are guided by the standards and legal principles relating to prejudgment remedies in Connecticut. “General Statutes §§ 52-278a through 52-278n establish the procedures and requirements for seeking a prejudgment remedy, which is defined as any remedy or combination of remedies that enables a person by way of attachment, foreign attachment, garnishment or replevin to deprive the defendant in a civil action of, or affect the use, possession or enjoyment by such defendant of, his property prior to final judgment .... As these statutes make clear, a decision regarding an application for a prejudgment remedy is based on a preliminary hearing generally held long prior to a trial on the merits of the plaintiffs claims.

“The threshold issue to be decided at the prejudgment remedy hearing is whether . . . there is probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought . . . taking into account any defenses, counterclaims or set-offs, will be rendered in the matter in favor of the plaintiff .... General Statutes § 52-278d (a) (1). [Our Supreme Court] has clarified that prejudgment remedy hearings are not involved with the adjudication of the merits of the action brought by the plaintiff or with the progress or result of that adjudication . . . and therefore are independent of and collateral thereto and primarily designed to forestall any dissipation of assets by the defendant .... Although the attachment of a defendant’s assets while an action is pending can have significant consequences, a probable cause determination rests on a low level of proof and a prejudgment remedy hearing generally is far more abbreviated than a trial on the merits.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bacon Construction Co., 300 Conn. 476, 483, 15 A.3d 147 (2Q11). The prejudgment remedy hearing is narrow in scope and “should not require the time or resources of a full blown trial.” Id, 485.

“Proof of probable cause as a condition of obtaining a prejudgment remedy is not as demanding as proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence. . . . The legal idea of probable cause is a bona fide belief in the existence of the facts essential under the law for the action and such as would warrant a man of ordinary caution, prudence and judgment, under the circumstances, in entertaining it. . . . Probable cause is a flexible common sense standard. It does not demand that a belief be correct or more likely true than false. Under this standard, the trial court’s function is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in a trial on the merits.

“This court’s role on review of the granting of a prejudgment remedy is very circumscribed. ... In its determination of probable cause, the trial court is vested with broad discretion which is not to be overruled in the absence of clear error. ... In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 137-38, 943 A.2d 406 (2008).

Bowler testified that Western merged into the plaintiff, that he had at one point seen a page of the merger document, and that he used to work for Western but now, due to the merger, works for the plaintiff. Bowler also testified that he had physically held the note and that it was in the plaintiffs files due to the merger. As noted previously, the court had broad discretion to determine whether probable cause existed, and its determination rested on the plaintiffs meeting a low burden of proof. The court credited Bowler’s testimony that the merger took place and found his testimony, in conjunction with the 1998 note, the guarantee, the assumption agreement and Bowler’s affidavit, to be sufficient evidence of that fact. “Weighing the evidence and judging the credibility of the witnesses is the function of the trier of fact and [appellate courts] will not usurp that role.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 143. We decline to usurp the court’s weighing of the evidence and its determination of the credibility of the witness in the present case. The court properly determined that the evidence provided by the plaintiff, in the context of the very low burden of proof required in a probable cause hearing, was sufficient to show that a merger had taken place.

The court rested its determination of probable cause on its finding that the merger had taken place and that, therefore, the plaintiff had standing to enforce the 1998 note and the guarantee. Before we can determine whether the court properly concluded that the plaintiff had standing to enforce the 1998 note and the guarantee, we must first set out the substantive law of Massachusetts as it relates to the transfer of the rights and liabilities of a bank in a merger. Merger of banks is governed by statute in Massachusetts. Specifically, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 168, § 34B governs the merger or consolidation of savings banks and thrift institutions. Pursuant to that statute, after a merger or consolidation has taken place, the new entity becomes a successor in interest with regard to all existing rights and liabilities, simply stepping into the shoes of its predecessor. See New Bedford Institution for Savings v. Gildroy, 36 Mass. App. 647, 650 n.3, 634 N.E.2d 920, review denied, 418 Mass. 1106, 639 N.E.2d 1082 (1994). The statute provides in relevant part: “All and singular the rights, privileges and franchises of each discontinuing institution and its right, title and interest to all property of whatever kind, whether real, personal or mixed, and things in action, and every right, privilege, interest or asset of conceivable value or benefit then existing which would inure to it under an unconsolidated existence, shall be deemed fully and finally, and without any right of reversion, transferred to or vested in the continuing institution, without further act or deed, and such continuing institution shall have and hold the same in its own right as fully as if the same was possessed and held by the discontinuing institution from which it was, by operation of the provisions hereof, transferred, and other provisions of law relative to limitations on the number of directors, corporators or trustees and on the investment of funds of such institutions shall not apply. . . .” Mass. Gen. Laws c. 168, § 34B. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, under the law of Massachusetts, when one bank merges with another bank, every right, privilege, interest or asset of conceivable value or benefit then existing is transferred to the new entity without further act or deed. Mass. Gen. Laws c. 168 § 34B. The court properly found sufficient evidence that a merger took place between Western and the plaintiff. Once the two entities merged, the 1998 note and the guarantee transferred from Western to the plaintiff by operation of law. As a successor in interest, the plaintiff possesses a real interest in the cause of action and a legal interest in the subject matter of the controversy. Therefore, the plaintiff has standing to enforce the 1998 note and the guarantee against the defendant. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not commit clear error when it found that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence that a merger had taken place between Western and the plaintiff and that there was probable cause that a judgment would be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The grant or denial of a prejudgment remedy is a final judgment for purposes of appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 52-2781 (a). State v. Bacon Construction Co., 300 Conn. 476, 484, 15 A.3d 147 (2011).

       The defendant also claims that the court erred by finding that there was an assignment of the 1998 note and the guarantee to the plaintiff. Because we determine that there was probable cause to support the court’s granting of the prejudgment remedy due to its finding that there was sufficient evidence of a merger, we need not address the defendant’s second claim regarding assignment.

       The three notes assumed by Advanced Medical included the 1998 note, at that time totaling $100,327.41 plus per diem interest of $23.78, the Chir-omed note totaling $22,952.52 plus per diem interest of $5.49, and the Spag-noli note totaling $5395.73 plus per diem interest of $1.22.

       The following colloquy took place upon redirect examination of Bowler:
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: What’s the bottom line number there?
      “[The Witness]: The bottom line principal balance, $83,529.65.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Okay. Now, before coming here today, you did a proration based on the payments, correct?
      “[The Witness]: Correct.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: All right. Would you explain to the judge what your thought process was in that proration?

        “[The Witness]: Well, my thought process was that [the defendant] would object to the consolidation, and therefore want some proration of the payments. . . .
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And did you do an analysis, did you do a proration of payments?
      “[The Witness]: Yes, I did.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And you used the numbers in the assumption agreement to determine the percentages of the consolidation based on the three obligations, [the] Spagnoli [note], [the] Chiromed [note], and [the] 1998 [note]?
      “[The Witness]: Yes.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: All right. So what was the percentage of the total consolidation of the 1998 note?
      “[The Witness]: The 1998 note, the percentage was around 70 percent.”

       Bowler testified that the plaintiff is a thrift institution; however, we note that the applicable laws as regarding the rights and liabilities of a bank or thrift institution following a merger are the same, regardless of whether the merger was conducted under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 168, § 34B or under another merger statute in Massachusetts.
      For instance, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 168, § 34, which governs the merger or consolidation of one savings bank with another savings bank, is almost identical to § 34B and provides-in relevant part: “The corporate existence of all but one of the consolidating corporations shall be discontinued and consolidated into that of the remaining corporation, which shall continue. All and singular the rights, privileges and franchises of each discontinuing corporation and its right, title and interest to all property of whatever kind, whether real, personal or mixed, and things in action, and every right, privilege, interest or asset of conceivable value or benefit then existing which would inure to it under an unconsolidated existence, shall be deemed fully and finally, and without any right of reversion, transferred to or vested in the continuing corporation, without further act or deed, and such continuing corporation shall have and hold the same in its own right as fully as if the same was possessed and held by the discontinuing corporation from which it was, by operation of the provisions hereof, transferred, and other provisions of law relative to limitations on the number of corporators or trustees and on the investment of funds of such corporations, and shall not apply.
      This language is applied consistently in the Massachusetts statutes relating to merger or consolidation. The exact statute is immaterial to our disposition of the defendant’s claim. See New Bedford Institution for Savings V. Gildroy, 36 Mass. App. 647, 660 n.3, 634 N.E.2d 920 (“[a]lthough no relevant documents reflecting [the type of transaction] are in the record, it appears to have been a consolidation pursuant to either [Mass. Gen. Laws ] c. 168, § 34, or § 34D, under either of which [the plaintiff] would be deemed a successor in interest which simply ‘stepped into the shoes’ of [the original holder of the note] with respect to all existing rights and liabilities”), review denied, 418 Mass. 1106, 639 N.E.2d 1082 (1994).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    BERNARD WALKER v. DANA SUPEAU ET AL.
    (AC 33687)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Sheldon, Js.

      Argued February 8
    officially released March 27, 2012

      Bernard Walker, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

      Paul S. Bailin, with whom, on the brief, was Gabriel J. Jiran, for the appellee (named defendant).

      Kirsten S. P. Rigney, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant Miriam Mendoza).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action, wherein the self-represented plaintiff, Bernard Walker, seeks damages from the defendants, Dana Supeau and Miriam Mendoza, for an alleged violation of General Statutes § 46a-70, the plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint for noncompliance with General Statutes § 52-46a. Under § 52-46a, the plaintiff in any civil action for damages, including the plaintiffs present action, must return process in that action to the clerk of the Superior Court not later than six days before the return day in that action. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction; see Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10, 31, 848 A.2d 418 (2004); without reaching the merits of the plaintiffs underlying claims, if the defendants file a timely motion to dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 10-31.

In this action, although the return day selected by the plaintiff was May 17, 2011, he did not cause process in the action to be returned to the Superior Court until May 31, 2011, twenty days after the statutory deadline for that purpose had come and gone. In response to the defendants’ timely motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Practice Book § 10-31, the court properly dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, without ever considering, much less ruling on, the merits of the plaintiffs underlying claims. Accordingly, there is no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

       General Statutes § 5246a provides in relevant part: “Process in civil actions returnable to the Supreme Court shall be returned to its clerk at least twenty days before the return day and, if returnable to the Superior Court... to the clerk of such court at least six days before the return day.”

       Practice Book § 10-31 (a) provides in relevant part: “The motion to dismiss shall be used to assert ... (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person . A motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction must be filed within thirty days of the filing of an appearance. See Practice Book § 10-30.


text:
    WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. v. ROBERT J. WALPUCK ET AL.
    (AC 33146)
    Beach, Sheldon and Bishop, Js.
    Argued January 18
    officially released March 27, 2012

      Robert J. Walpuck, pro se, the appellant (named defendant).

      S. Bruce Fair, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure action the defendant Robert J. Walpuck appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the confirmation of the sale of the foreclosed property. The defendant claims that the plaintiff, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., did not have standing to take title to the property because, having been acquired by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., prior to the court’s approval of the sale, the plaintiff did not exist at that time. As the trial court held, this court’s opinion in Dime Savings Bank of Wallingford v. Arpaia, 55 Conn. App. 180, 738 A.2d 715 (1999), is dispositive of the defendant’s claim. In that case, this court held that an assignee has the option to pursue litigation in its own name or in the name of its assignor. Id., 184. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim must fail.

The judgment is affirmed.

       Servco Oil Company, Lockwood Sterling & Betts, LLC, Angelo DeCaxo, and ADC-27 Indian Valley Road, LLC, also are defendants in this matter. Because they are not parties to this appeal, we refer in this opinion to Walpuck as the defendant.

       The defendant also claims that the four month limitation for opening a judgment prescribed by General Statutes § 52-212a does not apply when a motion to open is directed to the confirmation of a foreclosure sale rather than the underlying judgment of foreclosure. Because we address the defendant’s claim on its merits, we need not address this claim.


author: BEACH, J.

text:
    LI LI v. CANBERRA INDUSTRIES ET AL.
    (AC 32744)
    Gruendel, Beach and Flynn, Js.
    Argued October 25, 2011
    officially released March 27, 2012

      Li Li, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

      T. Christopher Donnelly, pro hac vice, with whom was James C. Graham, and, on the brief, Jeffrey M. Ernst, pro hac vice, and Daniel J. JQ.au, for the appel-lees (defendants).
   Opinion

BEACH, J.

The self-represented plaintiff, Li Li, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Canberra Industries, Packard BioScience (Packard), Perkin-Elmer Life Sciences, Darren Lee, Roberta Tyska (formerly Roberta Kuhn), Mark Schmeizl, Wayne Richardson, Eugene Della Vecchia, Richard McKeman and Emery G. Olcott. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to her common-law and statutory claims of wrongful discharge. We agree and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

In this action, which arises from the plaintiffs employment with and subsequent termination from Packard, the following undisputed facts are relevant. At various times, the plaintiffs supervisors reviewed her work performance. While he was the plaintiffs supervisor, Mike Wasyl wrote three written performance reviews. On September 1, 1997, he rated the plaintiff as “meets requirements” in all categories and recommended her acceptance as a regular employee. In his reviews on April 1, 1998, and April 1, 1999, he rated the plaintiff overall as “meets requirements,” but rated her as “needs improvement” in some categories.

The plaintiff worked with her next supervisor, Lee, until December, 1999. In a written performance review dated April 26,2000, Lee assigned the plaintiff an overall rating of “unacceptable,” and stated that the plaintiff “came into my group complaining.” Although “her attitude improved as did the quality of her work,” her improvement faded within months and “[s]he became argumentative . . . the quality of her work decline[d]. . . [and] [i]t was decided it was best for the company if we moved her to a position on [another] product line . . . .”

The plaintiffs next supervisor, Richardson, sent her a review of her performance via e-mail on February 29, 2000, after having supervised her for two and one-half months. Richardson rated the plaintiff poorly and commented that “[i]f improvement doesn’t happen, other disciplinary action may be taken up to and including termination.” The review also stated that the plaintiff was being transferred to a position under the supervision of Schmeizl, who would establish goals for her and review her performance after ninety days. The plaintiff was placed on probation for a period of ninety days.

In March, 2000, Schmeizl directed the plaintiff to telephone competitors to obtain certain information while she pretended to be someone else. The plaintiff informed Schmeizl of her assessment that the practice was illegal. On March 27, 2000, Schmeizl sent an e-mail to Kris Keegan, a lawyer in Packard’s legal department, inquiring whether it was legal to telephone competitors’ customer support lines or their sales representatives while pretending to be “Dr. Smith from State University” in order to obtain “pricing information,” “literature” and “quotations.” Keegan advised against such practice.

On March 30, 2000, having supervised the plaintiff for thirty days, Schmeizl sent the plaintiff an e-mail reviewing her performance. He noted “serious concerns” regarding missed deadlines and noted that “[i]n light of the needs improvement review you received from [Richardson] before joining my group, it will be important that I see significant improvements over the next sixty days.” He outlined various tasks for her to perform, and recorded the date each task was assigned, due and completed. Sixty days after the plaintiff was assigned to his group, Schmeizl, on May 1, 2000, sent the plaintiff a second e-mail regarding her work performance, stating that he had tried to be lenient regarding her requests for time off, “but when the time off is combined with substandard work I must become more strict regarding your horns.” He added “take your work seriously. . . I would very much like to give you a good review at the end of May.” Schmeizl’s ninety day review on May 31,2000, rated the plaintiffs work performance overall as “unacceptable.” He commented that the plaintiff was “unfriendly with co-workers, has not completed certain assignments, and . . . refused to take an assignment I gave her.” Schmeizl recommended termination of her employment. On June 1, 2000, the plaintiffs employment with Packard was terminated.

The plaintiff filed an eleven count revised complaint in January, 2009, which alleged common-law wrongful discharge (count one), breach of implied contract (count two), breach of express contract (count three), fraudulent misrepresentation (count four), negligent supervision (count five), statutory wrongful discharge (count six), hostile work environment (count seven), defamation (counts eight and nine), intentional infliction of emotional distress (count ten) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (count eleven).

On April 1, 2009, the defendants moved for summary judgment as to all counts of the complaint. The motion was accompanied by a memorandum of law and sixty exhibits. On August 11, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion in opposition to summary judgment, which was accompanied by more than forty exhibits. On July 23, 2010, the court issued a memorandum of decision granting the defendants’ motion as to all counts. This appeal followed.

Our standard of review for summary judgment is well settled. “Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... On appeal, we must determine whether the legal conclusions reached by the trial court are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision of the trial court. . . . Our review of the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aspetuck Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Weston, 292 Conn. 817, 822, 975 A.2d 1241 (2009).

“A material fact is a fact that will make a difference in the outcome of the case. . . . Once the moving party has presented evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue .... It is not enough, however, for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue. Mere assertions of fact . . . are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court under Practice Book § [17-45]. . . . The movant has the burden of showing the nonexistence of such issues but the evidence thus presented, if otherwise sufficient, is not rebutted by the bald statement that an issue of fact does exist. ... To oppose a motion for summary judgment successfully, the nonmovant must recite specific facts . . . which contradict those stated in the movant’s affidavits and documents.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 68 Conn. App. 556, 559, 791 A.2d 719 (2002).

I

The plaintiff claims that the court erred m granting summary judgment as to her common-law claim of wrongful discharge. We agree.

She framed her action in the following manner. In count one of her revised complaint, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants discharged her under the pretext of poor performance reviews when, in fact, the discharge was retaliatory for her “whistle-blowing.” Regarding this count, the plaintiff alleged the following facts. In March, 2000, when her supervisor, Schmeizl, wanted her to call competitor companies pretending to be a customer to obtain information, she refused to do so, stated such act was illegal and suggested that Schmeizl contact the legal department. Schmeizl did so and on March 27, 2000, he received an e-mail from the legal department advising him to refrain from such practices. Schmeizl, nonetheless, continued to direct the plaintiff to call competitors in the manner at issue and commented negatively in a thirty day performance review on March 30, 2000, regarding her failure to call competitor customer support lines.

“Generally, contracts of permanent employment, or for an indefinite term, are terminable at will. ... In Sheets [v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 475, 427 A.2d 385 (1980)], however, the court also recognized a common law cause of action in tort for the discharge of an at will employee if the former employee can prove a demonstrably improper reason for dismissal, a reason whose impropriety is derived from some important violation of public policy. ... To prevail on [a] claim under the Sheets exception, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving that his dismissal occurred for a reason violating public policy. . . . [E]ven with respect to questions of motive, intent and good faith, the party opposing summary judgment must present a factual predicate for his argument in order to raise a genuine issue of fact.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Yancey v. Connecticut Life & Casualty Ins. Co., supra, 68 Conn. App. 559-60.

Statutory actions for wrongful discharge typically follow the analytic route outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Under this analysis, the plaintiff has a minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing that he or she engaged in a protected activity or otherwise fell within the protection of the statute, that he or she was subsequently discharged, and that there was a causal connection between the two. If a prima facie showing is made, the burden of going forward shifts to the employer to demonstrate a permissible reason for the termination of employment. If the employer’s burden of going forward is satisfied, the plaintiff has the ultimate burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s reason is pretextual or, even if true, the improper reason likely motivated the employer in the decision to terminate. See Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395, 400-401, 880 A.2d 151 (2005); Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 507, 831 A.2d 260, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932, 837 A.2d 804 (2003).

A common-law action brought pursuant to Sheets includes a causation element. See Sophia v. Danbury, 116 Conn. App. 68, 74-75, 974 A.2d 804 (2009). A common-law case logically should be analyzed in the same framework as a statutory cause of action. The court in this case explicitly decided only the third step, that is, the actual reason or reasons for termination. A failure to prove causation defeats the action in any event, so that the court did not decide whether the plaintiff had engaged in activity protected by public policy.

The plaintiff attached exhibits to her motion in opposition. Richardson’s negative review was written in February, 2000. The plaintiff questioned the legality of certain practices in March, 2000. Lee’s April 26, 2000 negative review, Schmeizl’s two negative reviews on March 30, 2000, and May 1, 2000, and Schmeizl’s May 31, 2000 ninety day review recommending termination, all occurred within several months of the plaintiffs remonstrance.

More specifically, in Schmeizl’s March 30, 2000 review, he directed the plaintiff, inter alia, to “[c]all competitors’ customer support lines and gather pricing information and literature.” The review noted that the task first had been assigned on March 1, 2000, and was to have been completed on March 10, 2000. The review also said that the first calls were placed on March 23, 2000, but that the literature had not been collected. In the plaintiffs deposition, she stated that “the only way” to get information regarding competitors, at least within the time frame set forth by Schmeizl in his thirty day review, was to telephone them pretending to be “Dr. Smith from XYZ University.” She stated that after she informed Schmeizl of her view that such practice was unlawful, she telephoned competitors, but identified herself as a Packard employee. The competitors refused to give information to her and she informed Schmeizl that unless she pretended to be another person she could not obtain information from competitors. She stated that, despite this, Schmeizl expected her to continue to telephone competitors pretending to be someone else, which practice is common within the industry. She further stated that Schmeizl was “punishing” her for not making the telephone calls in the manner directed. In Schmeizl’s ninety day review, in which he recommended termination, he stated, inter alia, the plaintiff “refused to take an assignment I gave to her. [The plaintiff] leaves me no choice but to recommend her immediate termination.”

The plaintiff claims that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the cause of her termination of employment. She appears to argue that the court erred in concluding that the only genuine reason for her termination was poor performance. In the documents submitted in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted materials that raised a genuine factual issue regarding the reason for her discharge. A fact finder may consider the temporal proximity between the plaintiffs complaint to Schmeizl and her discharge. See Gordon v. New York City Board of Education, 232 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir. 2000) (causation is proven by showing that protected activity was temporally close or “followed closely by . . . evidence of retaliatory animus directed against the plaintiff by the defendant”); see also Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 2009) (period of only six months between protected activity and retaliation sufficient to support inference of causation). Termination within several months of the time the allegedly protected activity occurred may be sufficient to create an inference of causation. Although there surely was evidence of perfectly permissible reasons for the plaintiffs discharge as well, a genuine issue of fact nonetheless existed. We therefore conclude that the court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to count one.

II

In count six of her revised complaint, the plaintiff claims that her employment was terminated because, inter alia, she exercised her constitutional right to free speech by criticizing her coworkers and supervisors for improper and illegal activities within the company. She claims her discharge was accomplished in violation of General Statutes § 31-51q.

Section 31-51q provides in relevant part: “Any employer . . . who subjects any employee to . . . discharge on account of the exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution or section 3, 4 or 14 of article first of the Constitution of the state, provided such activity does not substantially or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employee and the employer, shall be liable to such employee for damages caused by such . . . discharge. . . .”

Our Supreme Court has stated: “As a statutory matter, a statute that protects constitutional rights in the workplace should not be construed so as to transform every dispute about working conditions into a constitutional question. The legislature made its intention in that respect clear by stating expressly, in § 31-51q, that the statute provides a cause of action only against discharge for expressions of opinion that do not substantially or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employee and the employer .... The statute applies only to expressions regarding public concerns that are motivated by an employee’s desire to speak out as a citizen.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1, 17, 738 A.2d 623 (1999). “[WJhether the subject matter addressed by a particular statement is of public concern involves a question of law for the court. . . . [WJhether a particular statement addresses such a matter depends on its content, its form, and the context in which it is made. This later inquiry necessarily involves a question of fact.” Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 249 Conn. 766, 777, 734 A.2d 112 (1999).

The plaintiff seems to argue that the court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to count six because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the cause of her termination. In granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to count six, the court reasoned that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the reason for the plaintiffs discharge and that the plaintiffs “unsupported factual assertions are insufficient to demonstrate that she was discharged on any other basis, including her criticisms of her coworkers and her supervisors.” The court determined that the plaintiff was unable to state a cause of action under § 31-51q because “she is unable to prove the causal connection between her exercise of her free speech right and her discharge.”

Our analysis regarding causation as to count six is identical to the analysis in part I of this opinion. The plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact as to the cause of her discharge. For this reason, we conclude that the court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to count six.

The judgment is reversed only as to counts one and six of the revised complaint alleging wrongful discharge and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The plaintiff also argues that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the remaining nine counts of the complaint. Having examined the record and the briefs and having considered the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the remaining counts and that further discussion is not merited.

       Packard was the parent company of Canberra Industries and Packard Instrument Company. In 2001, Perkin-Elmer Life Sciences purchased Packard.

       The action was commenced years earlier.

       Our extensive review of the file reveals that there may be some question as to whether the plaintiffs materials submitted in opposition to summary judgment were properly authenticated. Because the trial court appears to have considered all the materials, however, and no challenge appears to have been made, we likewise will consider the substance of the materials presented.

       As noted previously, the court did not discuss whether the activity implicated a public policy sufficient to trigger a Sheets claim. It is inappropriate for us to do so.

       We express no opinion as to the existence of a material fact as to any other element of wrongful discharge.

       We express no opinion as to whether the plaintiffs claim satisfies other elements of a claim pursuant to § 31-51q, but note only that the court’s conclusion that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the cause of her termination is erroneous.

       In its consideration of counts one and six, the court did not expressly consider any element other than causation.


text:
    DOROTHY KUBALA v. HARTFORD ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN CORPORATION ET AL.
    (AC 33509)
    Alvord, Sheldon and West, Js.
    Argued February 8
    officially released March 27, 2012

      John A. Cirello, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Beverly S. Knapp, with whom was James A. Alissi, for the appellees (defendants).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Dorothy Kubala, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her action against the defendants, Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, St. Augustine’s Church and Robert Rousseau, on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs action because the allegations against the defendants involved an impermissible interference with the defendants’ right to the free exercise of religion prescribed by the state and federal constitutions and General Statutes § 52-571b. We have examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Kubala v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 52 Conn. Sup. 218, 41 A.3d 351 (2011). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    JOHN A. BRACA, JR. v. ROBERT UTZLER
    (AC 33701)
    Lavine, Beach and Dupont, Js.

      Argued February 2
    officially released March 27, 2012

      John A. Braca, Jr., pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

      Robert Utzler, pro se, the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The self-represented plaintiff, John A. Braca, Jr., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the self-represented defendant, Robert Utzler. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, a former investor in the plaintiffs real estate development and construction business, seeking damages for the defendant’s alleged intentional torts and violation of various civil and criminal statutes. On May 2, 2011, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed an objection on June 6, 2011. On June 30, 2011, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that (1) the plaintiffs fraud, extortion and statutory claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and the doctrine of res judicata, and (2) the defendant’s success in prior litigation foreclosed the plaintiffs vexatious litigation claim.

On appeal, the plaintiff makes no argument as to the merits of the summary judgment rendered by the court. Rather, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied his third motion for a continuance, filed June 17, 2011, thereby depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to oppose the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the court did not consider his June 17, 2011 continuance motion until after it had granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The record reflects that the plaintiffs third motion for a continuance was denied by the court, nunc pro tunc, on July 1, 2011. We conclude that this decision by the court does not constitute reversible error.

In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court issued a memorandum of decision, which is a concise and thoughtful statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. We therefore adopt the decision of the trial court as our own. See Braca v. Utzler, 52 Conn. Sup. 242, 41 A.3d 1210 (2011). It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wysocki, 243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997).

The judgment is affirmed.

       The plaintiffs seven count complaint alleged claims of fraud, extortion, money laundering, unfair debt collection, vexatious litigation and violation of 18U.S.C. § 1964(c)ofthe Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., for which the plaintiff sought punitive damages, interest, costs, legal expenses and equitable relief. The court dismissed the money laundering and unfair debt collection claims and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the remaining five counts.

       In the prior case, Utzler v. Braca, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV-06-5003257 (April 25, 2008), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 115 Conn. App. 261, 972 A.2d 743 (2009), the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant (therein the plaintiff) on, inter alia, claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., which rulings this court affirmed. Id. The plaintiff (therein the defendant) did not file a petition for certification with our Supreme Court.

       The court granted the plaintiffs first two continuance motions, filed May 19, 2011, and June 2, 2011.

       We note that the plaintiff claims that he was deprived of the opportunity “to present his evidence of cashed checks by [the defendant], supporting transcripts [and] witnesses in court . . . .” On June 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff did not file opposing affidavits or any other documentary evidence as provided in Practice Book § 17-45.
      “A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when the pleadings, affidavits and other proof show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book § [17-49] . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Orenstein v. Old Buckingham Corp., 205 Conn. 572, 574, 534 A.2d 1172 (1987). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opponent must show that a genuine issue of material fact is in dispute, together with evidence that discloses the existence of such an issue. The procedure of obtaining a summary judgment is defeated if, without any such showing, a case could be forced to be tried. E.g., Farrell v. Farrell, 182 Conn. 34, 38-40, 438 A.2d 415 (1980). In the present case, even if argument on the motion had been continued, the plaintiff would not have been permitted to introduce the testimony of witnesses. A summary judgment should be summary; that is, made in a prompt, simple manner without a full-scale trial. The opposition to such a motion may include the filing of affidavits or other documentary evidence; Practice Book § 17-45; but does not include the live testimony of any witnesses.

       The record reflects that the plaintiff filed his third motion for a continuance on June 17,2011, the Friday preceding the argument on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, 2011. In its ruling denying the plaintiffs June 17, 2011 continuance motion, issued on July 1, 2011, the day after its June 30, 2011 memorandum of decision granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court, Dooley, J., stated: “The court considered this motion on the papers submitted. [The plaintiffs] objection is wholly without merit.”


text:
    IN RE CHRISTOPHER C., JR.

    (AC 33640)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Espinosa and Pellegrino, Js.

      Argued January 30
    officially released March 16, 2012

      Christopher C., pro se, the appellant (respondent father).

      Colleen B. Valentine, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

      Michael P. Maggiacomo, for the minor child.

       In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142 (b) and Practice Book § 79-3, the names of the parties involved in this appeal are not disclosed. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the Appellate Court.

       March 16,2012, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.

   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights as to his child, Christopher C., and committing the child to the custody of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred (1) in finding that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent and the child, (2) in finding that the respondent had failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation and (3) in refusing to recuse itself because the court, Foley, J., had sentenced the respondent in an. earlier, unrelated criminal case. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Certain facts and the procedural history are not in dispute. The child was bom on February 29, 2008. The respondent was verbally and physically abusive toward the child’s mother, and the parents separated in May, 2009. The respondent is a registered sex offender. Pursuant to the terms of his probation, the respondent is prohibited from having unsupervised contact with the child. The petitioner took custody of the child on August 22, 2009, after the child was treated at a hospital emergency room for multiple marks and bruises to his face that were consistent with physical abuse. On August 26,2009, the petitioner filed a neglect petition and order of temporary custody on behalf of the child, which the court granted. The court adjudicated the child neglected on May 7, 2010, and committed him to the custody of the petitioner on October 6, 2010.

On November 19,2010, the petitioner filed its petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent. On January 31, 2011, the respondent filed a motion to disqualify the trial court judge, Foley, J., from presiding over the trial on the termination petition. The court denied the motion. Following a three day trial, the court issued a memorandum of decision on June 9, 2011, and rendered judgment granting the petition. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the department had made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent and the child as required by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1), and (2) the respondent had failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation as required by § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (ii). This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The respondent claims that the evidence does not support the court’s finding that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent and the minor child, as required by § 17a-112 (j) (1). The petitioner counters, inter alia, that this claim need not be reviewed because the respondent has failed to challenge the court’s finding that he was unable to benefit from reunification efforts. We agree with the petitioner.

Section 17a-112 (j) provides in relevant part: “The Superior Court, upon notice and hearing as provided in sections 45a-716 and 45a-717, may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the [department] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-lllb, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts . . . .” (Emphasis added.) In the present case, the court expressly found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with the child and (2) the respondent was unable to benefit from reunification efforts to a degree sufficient to permit reunification to occur.

Our Supreme Court addressed this issue in In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 979 A.2d 469 (2009). Interpreting the language of § 17a-112 (j) (1), the court stated: “Because the two clauses are separated by the word ‘unless,’ this statute plainly is written in the conjunctive. Accordingly, the department must prove either that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts. Section 17a-112 (j) clearly provides that the department is not required to prove both circumstances. Rather, either showing is sufficient to satisfy this statutory element.” (Emphasis in original.) Id., 552-53. In the present case, the respondent has not challenged the court’s finding that he was unable to benefit from reunification efforts. This unchallenged finding provides an independent basis for meeting the requirement of § 17a-112 (j) (1). See id., 556; see also In re Alison M., 127 Conn. App. 197, 204-205, 15 A.3d 194 (2011).

Review of the respondent’s challenge to the court’s finding that the department failed to make reasonable reunification efforts would be improper because it can not afford him any practical relief and, therefore, is moot. See In re Jorden R., supra, 293 Conn 557; see also In re Alison M., supra, 127 Conn. App. 205-206. “[ft is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jorden R., supra, 556. We conclude that the respondent’s claim regarding the trial court’s finding that the department made reasonable reunification efforts is moot because the statutory requirements of § 17a-112 (j) were met by the independent finding of the respondent’s inability to benefit from reunification efforts. Accordingly, we decline to review this claim.

II

The respondent next claims that the evidence does not support the court’s finding that the respondent failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child within a reasonable period of time, as required by § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). We disagree.

“Our standard of review on appeal from a termination of parental rights is limited to whether the challenged findings are clearly erroneous. ... A finding is clearly erroneous when either there is no evidence in the record to support it, or the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. . . . [G]reat weight is given to the judgment of the trial court because of [the trial court’s] opportunity to observe the parties and the evidence. . . . [An appellate court does] not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached. . . . [Rather] every reasonable presumption is made in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sole S., 119 Conn. App. 187, 191, 986 A.2d 351 (2010).

“Section 17a-112 (c) (3) (B) [now (j) (3) (B)] requires the court to determine whether the degree of personal rehabilitation [achieved by the parent] . . . encourage [s] the belief that within a reasonable time . . . such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child .... Personal rehabilitation refers to the reasonable foreseeability of the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent, not merely the ability to manage his or her own life. ... In conducting this inquiry, the trial court must analyze the respondent’s rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child .... The trial court must also determine whether the prospects for rehabilitation can be realized within a reasonable time given the age and needs of the child. ... [A] trial court’s finding that a parent has failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Tremaine C., 117 Conn. App. 590, 597, 980 A.2d 330, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 920, 984 A.2d 69 (2009).

The record supports the court’s finding that the respondent failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation. The respondent has a history of substance abuse and unresolved mental health issues. He has an extensive criminal record that includes multiple sex offenses. The respondent remains a registered sex offender and is not permitted to have unsupervised contact with children. We conclude that the. court’s finding that the respondent failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time and considering the age and needs of the minor child, he could assume a responsible position in the child’s life is not clearly erroneous.

111

The respondent claims that the court, Foley, J., erred in refusing to recuse himself. Specifically, the respondent claims that the court’s ability to remain objective during the trial on the termination petition was compromised because the court had sentenced the respondent in a prior criminal case. We disagree.

Rule 2.11 (a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct governs judicial disqualification and provides in relevant part: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . . .”

A trial court’s ruling on a motion for disqualification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. “In applying that standard, we ask whether an objective observer reasonably would doubt the judge’s impartiality given the circumstances. ... If an objective observer, in view of all of the facts would reasonably doubt the court’s impartiality, the court’s discretion would be abused if a motion to recuse were not granted. In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling. . . . Reversal is required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn. App. 137, 143-44, 1 A.3d 260 (2010). “Courts have routinely held that the prior appearance of a party before a trial judge does not reflect upon the judge’s impartiality in a subsequent action involving that party.” State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 461, 680 A.2d 147 (1996), aff'd after remand, 252 Conn. 128, 750 A.2d 448, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 835, 121 S. Ct. 93, 148 L. Ed. 2d 53 (2000).

In November, 2002, the court sentenced the respondent pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. The respondent claims that the court’s knowledge of the criminal case implicated its ability to remain objective during the termination proceedings. There exists nothing in the record to support the respondent’s claim, and the respondent has offered no evidence that tends to demonstrate judicial impropriety. To the contrary, in its March 4, 2011 memorandum of decision denying the respondent’s motion, the court indicated that it had no independent recollection of the eight year old criminal case nor any preexisting opinion of the respondent. We conclude that there is no merit to the respondent’s claim; see McKenna v. Delente, supra, 123 Conn. App. 144 (“unverified assertions of opinion, speculation and conjecture cannot support a motion to recuse” [internal quotation marks omitted]); and that the court properly denied the motion to disqualify.

The judgment is affirmed.

       The trial court terminated the parental rights ofboth parents. The mother is not a party to this appeal. The mother’s appeal to this court was released the same day. See In re Christopher C., Jr., 134 Conn. App. 473, 39 A.3d 1127 (2012). Accordingly, we refer to the father as the respondent. The court-appointed attorney for the minor child supports the position of the petitioner in this appeal.

       The neglect petition was later sustained by agreement of the parties. The mother entered a no contest plea, and the respondent, being noncustodial, stood silent as to the allegations.

       The respondent appealed from the judgment, which was affirmed by this court. In re Christopher C., 129 Conn. App. 55, 20 A.3d 689 (2010).

       General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) provides in relevant part: “The Superior Court, upon notice and hearing as provided in sections 45a-716 and 45a-717, may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-l 1 lb, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to section 17a-lllb, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required . . . .”

       General Statutes § 17a-112 Q) provides in relevant part: “The Superior Court, upon notice and hearing as provided in sections 45a-716 and 45a-717, may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ... (3) ... (B) the child . . . (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . . .”

       Specifically, the court stated: “The court further finds that [the department] has made reasonable efforts to reunify the families but that [the respondent] is unable to benefit from reunification efforts until he stabilizes his own life and resolves his long standing personality and psychiatric related problems.”

       The court considered: “{the respondent’s] poor history as a parent to three children, his significant history as a sexual offender, his unstable interpersonal relationships, his history of abusing illicit drugs and alcohol, his explosive personality, his mood lability, and his failure to fully accept his personal responsibility for being unavailable as a parent. . . the prognosis for reoffending, [and] the time he would necessarily have to spend in a community to establish a record of sobriety, civil obedience and vigorous consistent mental health therapy to deal with his unresolved personality disorder . . .

       The respondent pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 with an agreement to a total effective term of ten years, execution suspended after five years and ten years probation with the right to argue for less. The court imposed the agreed on cap of ten years, execution suspended after five years and ten years probation.

       In the affidavit submitted in support of his motion, the respondent stated: “In November 2002 Judge Foley sentenced me in a criminal case that might become an issue in the termination of parental rights trial. ... I am concerned that Judge Foley formed an opinion of me based on this prior interaction between us that will make it difficult for him to maintain the objectivity required of a [jjudge.”


author: PELLEGRINO, J.

text:
    IN RE CHRISTOPHER C., JR., ET AL.

    (AC 33751)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Espinosa and Pellegrino, Js.

      Argued January 30
    officially released March 16, 2012

      Alison P. Gaston, with whom was Erich H. Gaston, for the appellant (respondent mother).

      Colleen B. Valentine, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, and Michael Besson, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

      Michael Maggiacomo, for the minor children.

       In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142 (b) and Practice Book § 79-3, the names of the parties involved in this appeal are not disclosed. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the Appellate Court.

       March 16,2012, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.

   Opinion

PELLEGRINO, J.

The respondent mother appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, Christopher C. and Allyson L. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred in finding (1) that the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent and the children, (2) that the respondent was unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts and (3) that the respondent failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts were found by the court during the adjudicatory phase of the termination proceedings. The respondent has been involved with the department of children and families (department) since she was thirteen years old. As a child, the respondent was exposed to domestic violence, substance abuse and sexual abuse. She was removed from her mother’s home and remained in the care of the department until she was eighteen. The respondent has a history of substance abuse, mental health issues and relationships with violent and abusive men.

The respondent met Christopher’s father, a registered sex offender, when she was sixteen years old and the father was thirty years old. They were married in May, 2007. Christopher was bom on February 29, 2008, when the respondent was nineteen. Christopher’s father was verbally and physically abusive toward the respondent. The respondent and the father abused illegal drugs together. They were homeless and transient from December, 2008, to April, 2009, when they separated. The respondent began a relationship with Allyson’s father in May, 2009, and thereafter she resided with him. The respondent’s relationship with Allyson’s father also was characterized by instances of domestic violence and abuse.

The petitioner took custody of Christopher on August 22, 2009, after he was treated at a hospital emergency room for multiple marks and bruises to his face that were consistent with physical abuse. On August 26, 2009, the petitioner filed a neglect petition and order of temporary custody on behalf of Christopher, which the court granted. The court adjudicated Christopher a neglected child on May 7, 2010, and committed him to the custody of the petitioner on October 6, 2010.

Allyson was bom on April 11, 2010. The petitioner took custody of Allyson on April 16, 2010, when she was five days old, after Allyson was treated at a hospital emergency room for bleeding from her nose and mouth and bruising to her mouth that was consistent with physical abuse. On April 20, 2010, the petitioner filed a neglect petition and order of temporary custody on behalf of Allyson, which the court granted. The court adjudicated Allyson a neglected child and committed her to the custody of the petitioner on August 31, 2010. The children have remained in the custody of the petitioner. Since November, 2010, the children have resided together in a preadoptive foster home.

On November 19, 2010, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respondent as to the minor children. On June 9, 2011, after a three day evidentiary hearing, the court rendered judgments in favor of the petitioner. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the department had made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent and the minor children as required by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (l), and (2) the respondent had failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation as required by § 17a-112 Q) (3) (B) (ii). This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) provides in relevant part: “The Superior Court . . . may grant a petition filed [for termination of parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the [department] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent ... (2) termination is in the best interest of the child, and (3) . . . (B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent . . . and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . . .”

“A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition. ... In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [under § 17a-112 (j)] exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child. . . .

“Our standard of review on appeal from a termination of parental rights is limited to whether the challenged findings are clearly erroneous. ... A finding is clearly erroneous when either there is no evidence in the record to support it, or the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. . . . [G]reat weight is given to the judgment of the trial court because of [the trial court’s] opportunity to observe the parties and the evidence. . . . [An appellate court does] not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached. . . . [Rather] every reasonable presumption is made in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sole S., 119 Conn. App. 187, 190-91, 986 A.2d 351 (2010).

I

The respondent claims that the court erred in finding that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent and the minor children, as required by § 17a-112 (j) (l). We disagree.

“In order to terminate parental rights under § 17a-112 (j), the [department] is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it has made reasonable efforts ... to reunify the child with the parent, unless the court finds . . . that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification. . . . [Section 17a-112] imposes on the department the duty, inter alia, to make reasonable efforts to reunite the child or children with the parents. The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department’s efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof. Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn. . . . [Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible. . . . The trial court’s determination of this issue will not be overturned on appeal unless, in fight of all of the evidence in the record, it is clearly erroneous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re G.S., 117 Conn. App. 710, 716, 980 A.2d 935, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919, 984 A.2d 67 (2009).

The court’s memorandum of decision describes the department’s efforts to reunite the respondent with the children. The petitioner issued specific steps for the respondent to follow in order to regain custody of Christopher on October 6, 2010. In accordance with the specific steps, the respondent participated in Intensive Safety Planning Services through United Community and Family Services in October, 2009, which did not support reunification with Christopher. The department offered domestic violence counseling, which the respondent undertook in 2009, and parenting courses, which the respondent took from September through November, 2009, and then again in January, 2010. From January to April, 2010, the Birth to Three program worked in home with Christopher, the respondent and Allyson’s father. Intensive Family Preservation was engaged to assist in reunification. The respondent also participated in the Reconnecting Families program, a six month in-home service provided by the department and designed to facilitate successful reunification, beginning in February, 2010.

In April, 2010, at the time of Allyson’s birth, the respondent was “within days of a reunification” with Christopher. Reconnecting Families discontinued its work with the respondent only after Allyson was injured and removed from the respondent’s custody. The department discontinued its efforts to immediately reunite the respondent with Christopher, but it continued to offer services to the respondent. On April 20, 2010, following Allyson’s removal, the petitioner issued specific steps for the respondent to follow in order to regain custody of Allyson. The department offered the respondent referrals to service providers so that she could satisfy the specific steps, but the respondent refused.

The petitioner provided supervised visitation for the respondent with both minor children. The respondent missed numerous visits during April, May, June, July, August, September and October, 2010. From November, 2010, to January, 2011, the respondent did not attend any scheduled visits.

The respondent does not dispute the accuracy of these factual findings, but argues that the department failed to make reasonable reunification efforts because it (1) did not offer the respondent assistance in ending her relationship with Allyson’s father and (2) “dropped the ball” in terms of engaging the respondent in individual mental health counseling. We are not persuaded.

“[Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re G.S., supra, 117 Conn. App. 716. The specific steps issued on April 20, 2010, required the respondent to take part in individual counseling to address her mental health issues and to participate in domestic violence education. Despite the department’s repeated offers of referrals and assistance, the respondent refused to comply. The court found: “The specific steps identify individual counseling as necessary, [and state that the respondent is required to] ‘make progress on [m]ental [h]ealth issues.’ Exhibit FF is a group of letters addressed to [the respondent] which all but beg her to cooperate with the social worker by signing releases necessary to make referrals for required treatment. The letters were all ignored. The one-to-one conversations urging [the respondent] to cooperate, that the social worker had with [the respondent] . . . were ignored.”

After careful consideration of the respondent’s arguments, the evidence and the court’s specific findings of fact, we conclude that the court’s findings, that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with the children and, further, that the respondent was unwilling to benefit from the department’s reunification efforts, are not clearly erroneous.

II

The respondent claims that the court erred in finding that she had failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that she could assume a responsible position in the lives of her children within a reasonable period of time, as required by § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). We disagree.

“Section 17a-112 (c) (3) (B) requires the court to determine whether the degree of personal rehabilitation [achieved by the parent] . . . encourage [s] the belief that within a reasonable time . . . such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child .... Personal rehabilitation refers to the reasonable foreseeability of the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent, not merely the ability to manage his or her own life. . . . In conducting this inquiry, the trial court must analyze the respondent’s rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child .... The trial court must also determine whether the prospects for rehabilitation can be realized within a reasonable time given the age and needs of the child. ... [A] trial court’s finding that a parent has failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Tremaine C., 117 Conn. App. 590, 597, 980 A.2d 330, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 920, 984 A.2d 69 (2009).

The court’s memorandum of decision describes the respondent’s failure to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation; specifically, the respondent’s refusal to obtain mental health and substance abuse treatment and to secure a safe environment for the children. The respondent refused to comply with many, if not all, of the specific steps ordered by the court. The respondent refused to participate in individual counseling to address her mental heath issues and “significant traumatic history.” She missed and cancelled appointments to participate in substance abuse evaluation, was unsuccessfully discharged from a substance abuse treatment program and refused to submit to random drug testing. She did not cooperate with home visits and refused, on multiple occasions, to permit social workers to inspect the apartment she shared with Allyson’s father. She moved and did not advise the department of her change of address. She did not attend scheduled visits with the children.

The respondent argues that the court’s finding that she had not achieved sufficient rehabilitation was in error because (1) it was premised on the respondent’s failure to end her relationship with Allyson’s father, which was not required by the specific steps, and (2) the court gave undue weight to the respondent’s refusal to participate in individual counseling and substance abuse treatment. We are not persuaded.

The respondent has a history of severe and longstanding mental health and substance abuse issues and involvement with violent and abusive men. The record reveals that the respondent’s unwillingness to leave Allyson’s father, a man who was abusive toward her and was suspected of inflicting the injuries to the children that resulted their removal by the petitioner, was inextricably linked to the respondent’s unresolved mental health issues. The court found: “[The respondent] is a woman with monumental mental health needs. Her whole life has been affected by sexual predators and abusive relationships. She desperately needs mental health counseling.” Considering the respondent’s refusal to comply with the specific steps, the court stated: “Perhaps most troubling is that [the respondent] has never engaged in individual counseling to deal with her significant traumatic history. She selects significantly disturbed mates. She has forsaken her children for a very ill man [Allyson’s father]. There certainly are issues of profound dependence. Her relationships have been characterized by control, violence and instability. The specific steps identify individual counseling as necessary, [and state that the respondent is required to] ‘make progress on [m]ental [h]ealth issues.’ ”

The court concluded: “The court finds that whatever the problems are with respect to [the respondent’s] inability to protect her children and keep them safe from abuse, those problems remain unresolved and have not been addressed. A paramount concern of the court is the safety of the children. [The respondent] has done nothing to enable her to protect her children. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that she has failed to rehabilitate.” In its articulation, the court found: “There is nothing in the record to suggest that whatever caused her to stay with the abuser [Allyson’s father] has been addressed in treatment and therapy.”

After careful consideration of the respondent’s arguments, the evidence and the court’s specific findings of fact, we conclude that the court’s finding that the respondent failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time and considering the age and needs of the minor children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives is not clearly erroneous.

The judgments are affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The court’s adjudicatory and dispositional orders also named as respondents the fathers of the minor children, but neither is a party to this appeal. Accordingly, we refer to the respondent mother as the respondent. Christopher’s father’s appeal to this court was released on the same date as this opinion. See In re Christopher, Jr., 134 Conn. App. 464, 39 A.3d 1122 (2012).

       Pursuant to Practice Book § 67-13 (2), counsel for the minor children filed a statement adopting the brief of the petitioner in this appeal.

       The neglect petition was sustained by agreement of the parties. The respondent entered a no contest plea and the father, being noncustodial, stood silent as to the allegations.

       General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1) provides: “The Superior Court, upon notice and hearing as provided in sections 45a-716 and 45a-717, may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the [department] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-lllb, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to section 17a-lllb, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required . . . .”

       General Statutes § 17a-112 Q) (3) (B) (ii) provides: “The Superior Court, upon notice and hearing as provided in sections 45a-716 and 45a-717, may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the child ... is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . . .”

       The respondent also claims that the court erred in finding that she was unwilling to benefit from the department’s reunification efforts. As these claims challenge the court’s finding with respect to § 17a-112 Q) (1), we consider them together.

       The department is not required to provide reasonable efforts to a parent when the parent refuses to participate or engage in any of those efforts. General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1); In re Krystal J., 88 Conn. App. 311, 318, 869 A.2d 706 (2005); see also In re Antony B., 54 Conn. App. 463, 476, 735 A.2d 893 (1999) (“[i]t is axiomatic that the law does not require a useless and futile act”).

       The respondent was afforded biweekly supervised visitation with Allyson. Beginning in May, 2010, the respondent was offered once a week supervised visitation for one hour with Allyson and once a week supervised visitation for one hour with both Christopher and Allyson, together. Beginning September 7,2010, the respondent was offered once a week supervised visitation for one hour with both Christopher and Allyson, together. As of January 4, 2011, the respondent had failed to attend the following scheduled supervised visits:
      April 20, 2010 (Allyson);
      April 22, 2010 (Allyson);
      April 27, 2010 (Allyson);
      April 29, 2010 (Allyson);
      May 19, 2010 (Allyson);
      May 21, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      May 26, 2010 (Allyson);
      June 2, 2010 (Allyson);
      June 9, 2010 (Allyson);
      June 23, 2010 (Allyson);
      June 26, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);

        June 30, 2010 (Allyson);
      July 7, 2010 (Allyson);
      July 14, 2010 (Allyson);
      July 21, 2010 (Allyson);
      July 30, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      August 4, 2010 (Allyson);
      August 13, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      August 18, 2010 (Allyson);
      August 20, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      August 27, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      September 1, 2010 (Allyson);
      September 17, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      October 1, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      October 15, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      October 22, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      November 3, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      November 10, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson);
      November 17, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson); and
      December 3, 2010 (Christopher and Allyson).

       With respect to the respondent’s unwillingness to benefit from the services offered by the department, the court found: “[The respondent] was doing the right things to achieve reunification until Allyson was bom and was abused. Whatever courses she had taken, whatever education she had received, appear to have had no benefit to [the respondent]. And, after April of 2010, [the respondent] appears to have lost interest in participation in services.”

        In its articulation, issued July 29,2011, the court stated: “[The department] was offering the same or similar services as [the respondent] had successfully engaged in the past. The same kind of services that [the respondent] actually participated in before Allyson’s injuries. What changed? Not [the department’s] manner of doing business. What changed was [the respondent’s] unwillingness to participate in the services. . . . The court specifically finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that [the department] made reasonable efforts from the time it became involved with [the respondent] and her children, to reunify them with her. . . . The court specifically finds that [the respondent] did not cooperate with [the department] after the removal of Allyson in April, 2010. [The respondent] was unwilling to cooperate. She had signed the specific steps. She knew from her prior experience with Christopher, what she could do to work with [the department]. After Allyson was removed, she no longer cooperated. She was unwilling to cooperate. She clearly understood what was required for a successful reunification. She had nearly achieved it prior to the birth of Allyson. With or without a lawyer, she was told by the social worker and she knew from the specific steps what was required. She valued her relationship with the abuser over the possibility of reunification with her children. That constitutes an unwillingness on her part.”

       The respondent also claims that the court was inconsistent in its consideration of the events that occurred after the termination petitions were filed. We note that “[i]n making its determination, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child’s life within a reasonable time”; (internal quotation marks omitted) In re Sole S., supra, 119 Conn. App. 192 n.8; and conclude that the respondent’s claim is without merit.