In re Noah R.-R.

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re Noah R.-R.

IN RE NOAH R.-R.*
(AC 48482)
Cradle, C. J., and Seeley and Lavine, Js.

Syllabus

The respondent father appealed from the judgment of the trial court terminat-
ing his parental rights with respect to his minor child. The father claimed
that the court improperly determined that it was in the child’s best interest
to terminate his parental rights. Held:

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, as that court aptly addressed
the arguments raised in this appeal and this court adopted the trial court’s
thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as a proper statement
of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.
Argued May 29—officially released June 30, 2025**

Procedural History

Petition by the Commissioner of Children and Fami-
lies to terminate the respondents’ parental rights with
respect to their minor child, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Hartford, Juvenile Mat-
ters, where the petition was withdrawn as to the respon-
dent mother; thereafter, the case was tried to the court,
Hon. Stephen F. Frazzini, judge trial referee; judgment
terminating the respondent father’s parental rights,
from which the respondent father appealed to this
court. Affirmed.
Matthew C. Eagan, assigned counsel, for the appel-
lant (respondent father).
* In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142
(b) and Practice Book § 79a-12, 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 court.
Moreover, in accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3)
(2018); we decline to identify any person protected or sought to be protected
under a protective order or a restraining order that was issued or applied
for, or others through whom that person’s identity may be ascertained.
** June 30, 2025, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion,
is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
In re Noah R.-R.

Nisa Khan, assistant attorney general, with whom
were Chelsea Ruzzo, assistant attorney general, and,
on the brief, William Tong, attorney general, for the
appellee (petitioner).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The respondent father, Jorge R.-M.,
appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating
his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Noah
R.-R. (Noah).1 On appeal, he claims that the court
improperly determined that it was in Noah’s best inter-
est to terminate the respondent’s parental rights. We
disagree and affirm the judgment.
After a trial on the petition to terminate the respon-
dent’s parental rights, the court, Hon. Stephen F. Fraz-
zini, judge trial referee, found that the Department of
Children and Families had made reasonable efforts to
locate the respondent and reunify him with Noah, that
the respondent was unwilling or unable to benefit from
those efforts, that Noah previously had been adjudi-
cated neglected, and that, after having been provided
specific steps for reunification with Noah, the respon-
dent failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilita-
tion as would encourage the belief that, within a reason-
able time and considering the age and needs of Noah,
the respondent could assume a responsible position in
Noah’s life. See General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B)
(i) and (ii). Additionally, the court found that Noah had
‘‘been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental
commission or omission, including but not limited to
. . . severe physical abuse or a pattern of abuse, the
care, guidance or control necessary for [Noah’s] physi-
cal, educational, moral or emotional well-being . . . .’’
1
The petition filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and
Families, initially also sought to terminate the parental rights of the respon-
dent mother, Madelei R. The petitioner, however, withdrew the petition as
to the respondent mother prior to trial. In this opinion our references to
the respondent are to the father only.
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re Noah R.-R.

General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C). In the disposi-
tional phase of the termination proceeding, the court
concluded that, in light of the factors in § 17a-112 (k),
termination of the respondent’s parental rights was in
Noah’s best interest. Accordingly, the court rendered
judgment terminating the respondent’s parental rights.
This appeal followed.
The sole claim the respondent raises on appeal is
that the court improperly determined that it was in
Noah’s best interest to terminate the respondent’s
parental rights. We are persuaded by our examination
of the record, briefs2 and arguments of the parties that
the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. In
a thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of deci-
sion, the trial court analyzed the law in a manner consis-
tent with our statutes and case precedents and made
factual findings that are supported by the record. In re
Noah R.-R., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford,
Juvenile Matters, Docket No. CP-21-019080-A (Decem-
ber 19, 2024). Because that memorandum addresses the
arguments raised in this appeal,3 we adopt the trial
court’s well reasoned decision as a proper statement
2
The attorney for the minor child has filed a statement adopting the
position set forth in the petitioner’s brief.
3
We note that the respondent included a subsection entitled ‘‘[t]he least
restrictive means’’ in the argument section of his brief to this court. The
petitioner construed this subsection as an attempt by the respondent to
state a claim that he had a substantive constitutional right to the least
restrictive disposition, which the termination of his parental rights violated,
and argued that such claim was inadequately briefed. At oral argument
before this court, the respondent’s counsel advised that it was not the
respondent’s intention to raise a constitutional ‘‘least restrictive means argu-
ment’’ and he conceded that, had it been, such claim would have been
inadequately briefed. See, e.g., In re S. F., 229 Conn. App. 1, 11 n.7, 326
A.3d 609 (‘‘We repeatedly have stated that [w]e are not required to review
issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inade-
quate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required
in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 350 Conn. 932, 326 A.3d
1108 (2024).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
In re Noah R.-R.

of the facts and applicable law on these issues. It would
serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion
contained therein. See In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App.
73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996); see also Kennynick, LLC
v. Standard Petroleum Co., 222 Conn. App. 234, 237,
305 A.3d 632 (2023); Trejo v. Yale New Haven Hospital,
Inc., 218 Conn. App. 781, 786, 293 A.3d 111, cert. denied,
346 Conn. 1027, 295 A.3d 945 (2023).
The judgment is affirmed.