In re A. H.

************************************************
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 A. H.

IN RE A. H. ET AL.*
(AC 47052)
Bright, C. J., and Clark and Seeley, Js.

Syllabus

The respondent father appealed to this court from the judgments of the
trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor
children, A and K. Following the court’s adjudication of A as neglected,
the court ordered the father and the respondent mother, C, to undergo
a psychological evaluation conducted by L, a clinical psychologist. Fol-
lowing K’s birth, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Fami-
lies, filed a neglect petition for K, and the father and C both participated
in an evaluation with R, a court-appointed psychological evaluator. At
the start of the consolidated trial on the termination of parental rights
petitions for both children and the neglect petition for K, counsel for
C addressed the court regarding C’s motion in limine. The motion, joined
by the father’s counsel, challenged various hearsay statements in the
petitioner’s exhibits, including, inter alia, statements or information
within multiple social studies prepared by the Department of Children
and Families and status reports that derived from L’s evaluation. The
trial court denied the motion and overruled the objections to the hearsay
statements except with statements made by A, which the court con-
cluded were not admissible. The court considered this information in
both the adjudicatory and dispositional phases of the termination of
parental rights proceedings and concluded that the father had failed to
achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the
belief that within a reasonable period of time, given and ages and needs
of the children, he could assume a responsible position in their lives.
On appeal, the father claimed, inter alia, that the court’s reliance on
the social studies submitted into evidence by the petitioner during the
adjudicatory phase of the trial constituted both a violation of the applica-
ble statute (§ 45a-717) and rule of practice (§ 35a-9). Held:
1. The trial court’s use of and reliance on the social studies in the adjudicatory
phase of the trial was not improper; this court was bound by its precedent
in In re Tabitha P. (39 Conn. App. 353), which held that a court properly
may rely on a social study in the adjudicatory phase of a termination
of parental rights proceeding, and the respondent father failed to seek
en banc review of his appeal to overrule that precedent.

* 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.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
In re A. H.
2. This court declined to review the respondent father’s unpreserved claim
that the trial court’s consideration of the social studies during the adjudi-
catory phase of the trial violated his rights to due process; the claim
challenged the admission of the social studies and thus was evidentiary
in nature and not of constitutional magnitude, and, thus, it was not
reviewable pursuant to the second prong of State v. Golding (213
Conn. 233).
3. The respondent father could not prevail on his claim that the trial court
improperly admitted hearsay evidence contained in the petitioner’s
exhibits, specifically the multiple social studies and status reports that
derived from L’s psychological evaluation and statements from the chil-
dren’s foster mother, and that the alleged hearsay was harmful: assum-
ing, without deciding, that the testimony was improperly admitted into
evidence, the father has failed to demonstrate the harmfulness of the
challenged hearsay as it was cumulative of other properly admitted
evidence, including testimony from a social worker regarding the father’s
inconsistent participation in recommended services, his inability to pro-
vide for the children’s safety and well-being, and concerns as to his
parenting skills, mental health and substance abuse, testimony from R
including, inter alia, that the father would not shield the children from the
adverse impact of C’s behavior and that he suffered from a personality
disorder, and the psychological evaluation performed by R, which was
admitted as a full exhibit without objection and which set forth informa-
tion that was cumulative of alleged hearsay statements from L and
referenced a separate evaluation of the father that made an identical
statement to the one in L’s evaluation but to which the father did not
object; moreover, the alleged hearsay statements of the foster mother
were also cumulative of other evidence in the record, including testi-
mony from a visitation supervisor and a social worker and R’s evaluation.

Argued March 4—officially released June 3, 2024**

Procedural History

Petitions by the Commissioner of Children and Fami-
lies to terminate the respondents’ parental rights with
respect to their minor children, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of New London, Juvenile
Matters at Waterford, and tried to the court, Hoffman,
J.; judgments terminating the respondents’ parental
rights, from which the respondent father appealed to
this court. Affirmed.
** June 3, 2024, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion,
is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

Matthew C. Eagan, assigned counsel, for the appel-
lant (respondent father).
Nisa Khan, assistant attorney general, with whom,
on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for
the appellee (petitioner).
Opinion

SEELEY, J. The respondent father,1 Terrel H., appeals
from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor
of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and
Families (commissioner), terminating his parental
rights with respect to his minor children, A. H. (A) and
K. H. (K). On appeal, the respondent claims that (1)
the court’s reliance on social studies prepared by the
Department of Children and Families (department) in
the adjudicatory phase of the trial violated General Stat-
utes § 45a-717 and Practice Book § 35a-9, despite this
court’s holding in In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn. App. 353,
664 A.2d 1168 (1995), (2) the court’s use of the social
studies in the adjudicatory phase violated his due pro-
cess rights, and (3) the court improperly admitted hear-
say evidence contained in exhibits submitted by the
commissioner, and the admission of that evidence was
harmful to the respondent. We disagree with the respon-
dent’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of
the court.
The following relevant facts, which the court found
by clear and convincing evidence, and procedural his-
tory are relevant to this appeal. A, the second child of
the respondent and Alexandria C., was born in May,
2018. At that time, Alexandria C. was incarcerated and
a petition for the termination of the parental rights of
the respondent and Alexandria C. had been filed as to
The parental rights of Alexandria C., the respondent mother of the minor
1

children, also were terminated with respect to both children. She has not
appealed from those judgments. All references in this opinion to the respon-
dent are to Terrel H. only.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
In re A. H.

their first child, E. H. (E). Thus, immediately following
A’s birth, on May 25, 2018, the commissioner sought an
order of temporary custody for A, which was granted
that day and sustained on May 31, 2018. Also on May
25, 2018, the commissioner filed a neglect petition with
respect to A, and the court ordered specific steps for
the respondent to facilitate his reunification with A.2
A consolidated trial was held with respect to the
termination petition concerning E and the neglect peti-
tion concerning A. On January 11, 2019, the court ren-
dered judgments terminating the respondent’s parental
rights as to E and adjudicating A neglected and commit-
ting her to the custody of the commissioner until further
order of the court. On December 4, 2019, the commis-
sioner filed a petition to terminate the respondent’s
parental rights as to A. The petition alleged that reason-
able efforts had been made to reunify the respondent
with A, that the respondent was unable or unwilling to
benefit from reunification efforts, and that reasonable
efforts to reunify were not required because the court
previously had approved a permanency plan other than
reunification in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-
111b. The petition further alleged that A had been found
in a prior proceeding to have been neglected, abused,
or uncared for and that the respondent had failed to
achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation as would
encourage the belief that, within a reasonable time,
considering the age and needs of A, the respondent
could assume a responsible position in her life.
2
The specific steps ordered the respondent, inter alia, to keep all appoint-
ments set by or with the department; to take part in counseling and make
progress toward parenting and individual treatment goals, specifically, to
maintain stable mental health and learn appropriate parenting skills; to
submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow the recommendations
about treatment; not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine; to
cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/
family counseling; to get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal
income; not to get involved with the criminal justice system; and to visit
with the children as often as the department permits.
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

In February, 2021, the court ordered the respondent
and Alexandria C. to undergo a psychological evalua-
tion to help determine (1) ‘‘the present relationship
between each parent and [A],’’ (2) whether ‘‘[t]he par-
ents have a good understanding of [A’s] needs and the
capacity to meet them,’’ (3) which permanent place-
ment would be in A’s best interest, and (4) whether the
parents could ‘‘achieve such a degree of rehabilitation
as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable
period of time, they could resume a responsible position
in the life of [A].’’ The evaluation was conducted by Dr.
Wendy Levy, a clinical psychologist, in August, 2021.
In December, 2021, the respondent and Alexandria
C.’s third child, K, was born. On December 27, 2021, the
commissioner sought an order of temporary custody,
which the court granted that day and sustained on Janu-
ary 6, 2022. Subsequently, the commissioner filed a
neglect petition with respect to K. Also on December
27, 2021, the court ordered specific steps for the respon-
dent to facilitate his reunification with K.3 On June 20,
2022, the commissioner filed a petition to terminate the
respondent’s parental rights as to K. The petition alleged
that the department had made reasonable efforts to
reunify K with the respondent, that the respondent was
unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts,
and that the respondent had failed to achieve such a
degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage
the belief that, within a reasonable period of time, con-
sidering the age and needs of K, he could assume a
responsible position in her life.
In January, 2023, the respondent and Alexandria C.
both participated in an evaluation with Dr. Kelly F.
Rogers, a court-appointed psychological evaluator. Dr.
The December 27, 2021 specific steps were similar to the May 25, 2018
3

specific steps; see footnote 2 of this opinion; with an updated treatment
goal of gaining an understanding ‘‘of the importance of stability . . . in the
life of a child.’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 7
In re A. H.

Rogers’ evaluation concluded that the respondent
‘‘evinces a long-standing pattern of maladaptive behav-
ior characterized by criminal activity, impulsive action
and decision-making, negativity and resistance to influ-
ence. He has few effective coping skills, and external
pressures episodically make him ‘overwhelmed.’ Per-
ceiving himself to be the victim of cruel fate and an
uncaring society, he has few qualms about violating
rules and proscriptions to gain the rewards of which
he feels he has been cheated. He accepts little blame
for his action[s], inaction and circumstances. Though
his decisions and behavior have brought him little satis-
faction or reward, he remains resistant to self-examina-
tion or change. His unenviable situation has made him
sour on life, and he has little joy or satisfaction. Findings
support a primary diagnosis of [o]ther [s]pecified [p]er-
sonality [d]isorder ([p]assive-[a]ggressive, [n]arcissistic
and [a]ntisocial [t]raits with inadequate information for
diagnosis of a specific personality disorder). His present
unhappiness is best described as an [a]djustment [d]is-
order with [d]epressed [m]ood.’’ Dr. Rogers further
opined that, although the respondent ‘‘could potentially
serve as an appropriate caretaker’’ if he were no longer
in a relationship with Alexandria C., he was too strongly
‘‘enmeshed’’ with her to ‘‘be expected to shelter [their
children] from her volatility and its attendant risks. Any
representations he makes about willingness to divorce
himself from [Alexandria C.] to care for [the children]
should be regarded skeptically, and because of the like-
lihood of his failing to protect [the children] from [Alex-
andria C.’s] adverse impact, termination of his parental
rights is . . . most consistent [with the children’s] psy-
chological well-being.’’
A consolidated trial on the termination of parental
rights petition for A and the neglect and termination of
parental rights petitions for K was held on July 10 and 14
and August 7, 2023. During the trial, the commissioner
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

8 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

presented testimony from the following witnesses:
Susan Allen, the assistant director of Safeway Family
Services; Haley Flax, a department social worker; and
Dr. Rogers. Alexandria C. testified, and called as a wit-
ness M’Kayla Gay, a friend of hers. The respondent did
not testify or call any witnesses.
On the first day of trial, before any witnesses were
called, counsel for Alexandria C. addressed the court,
Hoffman, J., regarding her motion in limine, filed on
July 10, 2023. Counsel for the respondent joined in the
motion, which challenged various hearsay statements
in the commissioner’s exhibits, including, inter alia,
statements or information within multiple social stud-
ies4 and status reports that derived from Dr. Levy’s 2021
psychological evaluation, statements of the children’s
foster mother contained in those documents, and state-
ments attributable to A. 5 The commissioner argued in
4
A social study is a document prepared by the department that compiles
relevant information regarding the respondent’s history with the department,
including notes from caseworkers, medical professionals, visit supervisors,
and other relevant parties. See In re Gabriel C., 196 Conn. App. 333, 358,
229 A.3d 1073 (‘‘‘[t]he purpose of the social study is to put parents on notice
of allegations that need to be explained or denied’ ’’), cert. denied, 335 Conn.
938, 248 A.3d 708 (2020). In a termination of parental rights proceeding,
there may be multiple social studies produced by the department as the case
develops and the department’s goals progress (i.e., shift from reunification
to termination, or vice versa).
5
Specifically, during argument on the motion in limine, counsel for the
respondent orally joined in the motion, arguing that ‘‘any statements that
come from someone who is not testifying is hearsay. We do not have the
ability to cross-examine them.’’ In response to the motion in limine, with
respect to the statements from Dr. Levy’s report contained within various
department exhibits, counsel for the commissioner argued that Dr. Levy’s
report was ‘‘part of the court file. . . . [H]er report is part of the depart-
ment’s record. The department has put [Dr. Levy’s] record within its own
business record. The court is able to take judicial notice of any part of the
court file that the court deems appropriate at any time. Dr. Rogers addition-
ally relied on Dr. Levy’s report.’’ The court overruled the respondent’s objec-
tion and admitted the statements from Dr. Levy’s report, stating that ‘‘[t[he
report was relied on by Dr. Rogers in preparing his report. . . . [C]ounsel
can go ahead and question Dr. Rogers on what he relied on of Dr. Levy’s
report . . . .’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9
In re A. H.

opposition that certain of the challenged statements
were admissible under the business records exception
to the rule against hearsay.

Following argument on the motion in limine, the trial
court denied the motion and overruled the objections
to the hearsay statements contained within the exhibits,
except with respect to statements made by A, which
the court concluded were not admissible. As a result,
the following department social studies and reports
were admitted as full exhibits over objection from Alex-
andria C. and the respondent: exhibit three, a social
worker affidavit dated December 27, 2021; exhibit
seven, a study in support of the permanency plan dated
August 17, 2021; exhibit eight, a social study in support
of the termination petition for K dated June 14, 2022;
exhibit nine, a status report dated September 6, 2022;
exhibit ten, a study in support of the motion to support
the permanency plan dated September 16, 2022; exhibit
eleven, an addendum to a social study in support of the
The court next addressed statements from Joel Tudisco in exhibit three,
a social worker affidavit dated December 27, 2021, in which Tudisco, an
advanced practice registered nurse who has provided psychiatric care for
Alexandria C. since June, 2020, commented on Alexandria C.’s medication
management and her mental health issues, and expressed concerns about
Alexandria C.’s use of medical marijuana. Counsel for the commissioner
argued that the statements should be admitted as a business record, as
they were made ‘‘pursuant to a valid release’’ and were ‘‘collected [by the
department] in the ordinary course of business.’’ Counsel for Alexandria C.
reiterated the objection, arguing that ‘‘[i]t’s not a business record exception.
They will repeat this completely, all throughout. . . . I mean, everything
that is contained in [the department] arguably is subject to being admitted
because it’s in their business records. That’s not what the hearsay rule is
about.’’ The court overruled the objection and allowed the statements in as
‘‘part of the medical evaluation.’’
At that point, there was an exchange between counsel for Alexandria C.
and the court regarding the remaining objections. Counsel indicated that
he would be making the ‘‘same argument’’ for the remaining objections and,
therefore, chose not to proceed paragraph by paragraph through the rest
of the motion in limine. The court proceeded to overrule the remaining
objections, with the exception of the statements made by A.
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

10 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

termination petitions dated September 8, 2022; exhibit
twelve, a status report dated November 28, 2022; exhibit
thirteen, a status report dated December 16, 2022;
exhibit fourteen, a status report dated January 20, 2023;
exhibit fifteen, a status report dated January 23, 2023;
exhibit sixteen, an addendum to a social study in sup-
port of the termination petitions dated April 21, 2023;
and exhibit seventeen, an addendum to a social study
in support of the termination of parental rights petitions
dated June 27, 2023.
Although the motion in limine raised hearsay objec-
tions regarding exhibit eighteen, a preliminary report
from Dr. Rogers, and exhibit nineteen, the court-
ordered psychological evaluation from Dr. Rogers, the
motion in limine asserted that there would be no objec-
tion to those exhibits so long as Dr. Rogers testified,
which he did. No further objection was raised concern-
ing the admission of those two exhibits.
On September 1, 2023, the court issued a memoran-
dum of decision in which it adjudicated K neglected
and terminated the respondent’s parental rights as to
A and K. After setting out the procedural history and
finding that it had jurisdiction, the court stated that it
had ‘‘carefully considered the termination of parental
rights petition[s], the criteria set forth in the relevant
General Statutes, the applicable case law, as well as
the evidence and testimony presented, the demeanor
and credibility of the witnesses, the evidence, and the
arguments of counsel according to the standards of
law. With [regard] to the termination of parental rights
petition[s], the court makes its findings by clear and
convincing evidence.’’
Relevant to the adjudicatory phase6 of the termination
proceeding, the court made the following findings con-
cerning the respondent. The respondent became
6
‘‘Proceedings to terminate parental rights are governed by . . . [General
Statutes] § 17a-112. . . . Under § 17a-112, a hearing on a petition to termi-
nate parental rights consists of two phases: the adjudicatory phase and the
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 11
In re A. H.

involved with the department in 2016, when he was
caring for E. ‘‘In April, 2016, there was a Careline7 report
over concerns that [the respondent] was on parole stem-
ming from a conviction for robbery, was using mari-
juana, and . . . was not providing adequate supervi-
sion for [E]. [E] was removed from [the respondent’s]
care in April, 2016.
‘‘In May, 2016, [the respondent] was incarcerated due
to a violation of probation and remained in prison until
June, 2016. Upon his release, [the department] referred
him for parenting education and substance abuse/men-
tal health assessment in December, 2016.
‘‘In December, 2016, [the respondent] absconded
from the halfway house and was considered a fugitive
on the run until he was found hiding in [Alexandria
C.’s] basement. [The respondent] was discharged to the
Isaiah House in June, 2017. The department referred
[the respondent] to the Renaissance Program on several
occasions for a full assessment of his needs, however,
he failed to participate in any services until October,
2018. . . .
‘‘On January 11, 2019, [the respondent’s parental]
rights were terminated as to [E]. Following the termina-
tion of his parental rights, [the respondent] was mini-
mally engaged in case planning; he was discharged from
dispositional phase. During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must
determine whether one or more of the . . . grounds for termination of
parental rights set forth in § 17a-112 [(j) (B) (3)] exists by clear and convinc-
ing evidence. . . . If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for
termination exists, then it proceeds to the dispositional phase. During the
dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is
in the best interests of the child. . . . The best interest determination also
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) In re Niya B., 223 Conn. App. 471, 476 n.5, 308 A.3d 604,
cert. denied, 348 Conn. 958, 310 A.3d 960 (2024).
7
‘‘‘Careline is a department telephone service that mandatory reporters
and others may call to report suspected child abuse or neglect.’ In re Kather-
ine H., 183 Conn. App. 320, 322 n.4, 192 A.3d 537, cert. denied, 330 Conn.
906, 192 A.3d 426 (2018).’’ In re Anthony S., 218 Conn. App. 127, 136 n.9,
290 A.3d 901 (2023).
Page 10 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

12 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

the Renaissance Program and failed to maintain consis-
tent contact with the department. [The respondent] did
not reengage with the department until January, 2020,
although he refused to discuss services until July, 2020,
at which time he was referred to [Community Health
Resources]. [The respondent] completed the services
offered by [Community Health Resources], but [Com-
munity Health Resources] did not conduct urine screens
and [the respondent] admitted to continued mari-
juana use.

‘‘From January, 2021, to December, 2021, the depart-
ment recommended [that the respondent] attend ser-
vices and assessments at [Community Health
Resources]. [The respondent] did not complete the
intake until the day [K] was born. [The respondent] was
diagnosed with cannabis use disorder, moderate, and
tobacco use disorder, mild. [The respondent] was rec-
ommended to engage in services with [Community
Health Resources], however, his last kept appointment
with [Community Health Resources] was in March, 2022
. . . . [A]ll appointments since then have been no
shows, and he was unsuccessfully discharged [in] Octo-
ber, 2022. [The respondent] was recommended to com-
plete an updated mental health and substance abuse
evaluation . . . . To date, [the respondent] is not
engaged in treatment. There are concerns that [the
respondent] minimizes his marijuana use, and he is
noted to arrive at supervised visits, court dates and
appointments, smelling strongly of marijuana and per-
fume.

‘‘In January, 2023, [the respondent] participated in a
court-ordered psychological evaluation with [Dr. Rog-
ers]. Dr. Rogers indicated that his diagnostic impres-
sions of [the respondent] included other specified per-
sonality disorder, noting passive-aggressive,
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 13
In re A. H.

narcissistic, and antisocial traits but [that he] had inade-
quate information for [a] diagnosis of a specific person-
ality disorder. He reported [that the respondent’s] pres-
ent unhappiness is best described as an adjustment
disorder with depressed mood. Dr. Rogers stated that
[the respondent] ‘accepts little blame for his actions,
inaction and circumstances, and remains resistant to
self-examination or change.’ He indicated that [the
respondent] could potentially benefit from individual
psychotherapy, although noting that, given [the respon-
dent’s] ‘resistance to influence, the prognosis for mean-
ingful engagement is guarded.’ Dr. Rogers opined that
[the respondent] is ‘largely resistant to efforts at educa-
tion and remediation’ and ‘has made little adjustment
in his circumstances to encourage the belief that, within
a reasonable period, he could assume the role of care-
taker for either child.’ Dr. Rogers further opined that
[the respondent] ‘fails to recognize [Alexandria C.’s]
serious limitations and the impact of her labile emotions
and behavior’8 and is likely to permit such behavior to
continue in the [children’s] presence. [The respondent]
continues to maintain a relationship with [Alexandria
C.], and they continue to reside in an apartment
together. [The respondent] reported that he worked for
Target in April, 2022, but the department does not have
an update as to his current employment status.’’ (Foot-
notes added.)
After making those findings, the court addressed the
statutory ground of failure to rehabilitate. With respect
to the respondent, the court stated: ‘‘As to personal
8
Alexandria C. has a documented history of erratic and problematic behav-
ior. Despite the multitude of services offered to her over the years, she has
struggled to regulate her behavior appropriately, including while interacting
with her and the respondent’s children. Although she is not a party to this
appeal; see footnote 1 of this opinion; department social workers and clinical
evaluators, such as Dr. Rogers, expressed concern over the respondent’s
ongoing relationship with Alexandria C. and his inability to understand the
negative impact her behavior has on the children.
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

14 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

rehabilitation . . . [the respondent] has attempted to
engage in services for many years to address his sub-
stance use and mental health issues. [He] has also his-
torically engaged in, and completed, numerous parent-
ing programs. His participation has been inconsistent,
and his progress is limited. [He] has a history of unad-
dressed mental health needs, substance abuse, parent-
ing deficits, and transient housing. [He] has not com-
plied with his specific steps and has not successfully
engaged in services and, therefore, has not achieved
sufficient rehabilitation.’’ The court also noted its con-
tinued ‘‘concerns regarding [the respondent’s] insight
into [Alexandria C.’s] behaviors, which impacts his abil-
ity to safely care for his children.’’ The court further
concluded that the respondent does not have ‘‘the stabil-
ity in [his] own [life] to enable [him] to care for [A]
and [K]. [The respondent] has [not] made significant
progress toward personal rehabilitation and clearly can-
not assume a responsible position in [the children’s]
lives considering their age[s] and needs.’’ The court
explained: ‘‘Of paramount consideration to the court is
the issue of stability and permanency for [the children].
. . . [Their] need for permanence far outweighs any
remote chance that . . . [the respondent] may rehabili-
tate in the far distant future. . . . [The respondent has]
. . . failed to successfully accomplish what was needed
to consider reunification as an appropriate conclusion.
[A] and [K] cannot wait for their parents to rehabilitate.’’
(Citation omitted.)
Accordingly, the court concluded, by clear and con-
vincing evidence, that the department had made reason-
able efforts to reunify the respondent with A and K,
that the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit
from those reunification efforts, and that the respon-
dent had ‘‘failed to gain the necessary insight needed
to care for [A] and [K]’’ Furthermore, the court deter-
mined, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15
In re A. H.

respondent had failed to achieve the degree of personal
rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within
a reasonable period of time, given the ages and needs
of A and K, the respondent could assume a responsible
position in their lives.

In the dispositional phase of the termination of paren-
tal rights trial; see footnote 6 of this opinion; the court
considered and made the requisite factual findings pur-
suant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (k)9 and concluded
that the commissioner had proven by clear and convinc-
ing evidence that terminating the respondent’s parental
rights was in the children’s best interests. Accordingly,
the court granted the petitions and rendered judgments
terminating the respondent’s parental rights. This
9
General Statutes § 17a-112 (k) provides in relevant part: ‘‘Except in the
case where termination of parental rights is based on consent, in determining
whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall
consider and shall make written findings regarding: (1) The timeliness,
nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the
parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with
the parent; (2) whether the [d]epartment . . . has made reasonable efforts
to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997, as amended from time to time; (3) the terms of any applicable
court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and
the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations
under such order; (4) the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect
to the child’s parents, any guardian of such child’s person and any person
who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least
one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties;
(5) the age of the child; (6) the efforts the parent has made to adjust such
parent’s circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest
of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including,
but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact
with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent,
provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications
or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communica-
tion with the guardian or other custodian of the child; and (7) the extent
to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relation-
ship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent
of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic
circumstances of the parent.’’
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as
necessary.
We first set forth the following relevant legal princi-
ples governing termination of parental rights proceed-
ings. ‘‘A hearing on a termination of parental rights
petition consists of two phases, adjudication and dispo-
sition. . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the court must
determine whether the [petitioner] has proven, by clear
and convincing evidence, a proper ground for termina-
tion of parental rights. . . . In the dispositional phase,
once a ground for termination has been proven, the
court must determine whether termination is in the
best interest of the child.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) In re Aurora H., 222 Conn. App. 307, 317, 304
A.3d 875, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 931, 306 A.3d 1 (2023).
‘‘Proceedings to terminate parental rights are gov-
erned by § 17a-112. . . . Because a respondent’s funda-
mental right to parent his or her child is at stake, [t]he
statutory criteria must be strictly complied with before
termination can be accomplished and adoption pro-
ceedings begun. . . . Section 17a-112 (j) provides in
relevant part that [t]he Superior Court, upon notice and
hearing . . . may grant a petition filed pursuant to this
section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that
(1) the [d]epartment . . . has made reasonable efforts
to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the
parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section
17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that
the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunifi-
cation efforts, except that such finding is not required
if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to
section 17a-111b, or determines at trial on the petition,
that such efforts are not required, (2) termination is in
the best interest of the child, and (3) . . . (B) the child
(i) has been found by the Superior Court . . . to have
been neglected, abused or uncared for in a prior pro-
ceeding . . . and the parent of such child has been
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 17
In re A. H.

provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return
of the child to the parent pursuant to [General Statutes
§] 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 responsi-
ble position in the life of the child . . . .

‘‘The trial court is required, pursuant to § 17a-112, to
analyze the [parent’s] rehabilitative status as it relates
to the needs of the particular child, and further . . .
such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reason-
able time. . . . The statute does not require [a parent]
to prove precisely when [he or she] will be able to
assume a responsible position in [his or her] child’s life.
Nor does it require [him or her] to prove that [he or
she] will be able to assume full responsibility for [his
or her] child, unaided by available support systems.
It requires the court to find, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [he or she]
has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would
reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date
[he or she] can assume a responsible position in [his
or her] child’s life. . . . Personal rehabilitation as used
in [§ 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i)] refers to the restoration of
a parent to his or her former constructive and useful
role as a parent. . . . [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the
critical issue is not whether the parent has improved
[his or her] ability to manage [his or her] own life, but
rather whether [he or she] has gained the ability to care
for the particular needs of the child at issue. . . . [The]
completion or noncompletion [of the specific steps],
however, does not guarantee any outcome. . . .
Accordingly, successful completion of expressly articu-
lated expectations is not sufficient to defeat a depart-
ment claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient
rehabilitation. . . .
Page 16 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

18 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

‘‘During the adjudicatory phase of a termination pro-
ceeding, a court generally is limited to considering only
evidence that occurred before the date of the filing of
the petition or the latest amendment to the petition,
often referred to as the adjudicatory date. . . . Never-
theless, it may rely on events occurring after the [adjudi-
catory] date . . . [in] 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.’’ (Citations omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.) In re Niya B., 223 Conn.
App. 471, 487–89, 308 A.3d 604, cert. denied, 348 Conn.
958, 310 A.3d 960 (2024); see also In re Phoenix A., 202
Conn. App. 827, 841–42, 246 A.3d 1096, cert. denied,
336 Conn. 932, 248 A.3d 1 (2021).
Furthermore, ‘‘[i]t is well established that a respon-
dent’s failure to acknowledge the underlying personal
issues that form the basis for the department’s concerns
indicates a failure to achieve a sufficient degree of per-
sonal rehabilitation. See In re Kamora W., 132 Conn.
App. 179, 190, 31 A.3d 398 (2011) (respondent refused
to acknowledge drug or alcohol problem); In re Joc-
quyce C., 124 Conn. App. 619, 626–27, 5 A.3d 575 (2010)
(respondent failed to acknowledge habitual involve-
ment with domestic violence); In re Christopher B., 117
Conn. App. 773, 784, 980 A.2d 961 (2009) (respondent
blamed others for problems); In re Jermaine S., 86
Conn. App. 819, 834, 863 A.2d 720 (respondent’s inability
to admit she had substance abuse problem thwarted
her ability to achieve rehabilitation), cert. denied, 273
Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005); In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.
App. 470, 481, 771 A.2d 244 (2001) (respondent failed
to recognize her need for recommended counseling).
. . . In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569, 589–90, 122 A.3d
1247 (2015). [A]s a general proposition, the failure to
acknowledge and make progress in addressing the
issues that led to a child’s removal may be one of many
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 17

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 19
In re A. H.

contributing factors to a court’s determination that a
parent has failed to achieve a sufficient degree of per-
sonal rehabilitation.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
ted.) In re Niya B., supra, 223 Conn. App. 491–92. With
these principles in mind, we turn to the claims on
appeal.
I
The respondent first claims that the court’s reliance
on social studies submitted into evidence by the com-
missioner during the adjudicatory phase was impermis-
sible under § 45a-717 (e) (1) and Practice Book § 35a-
9, which he argues permit the court’s consideration
of and reliance on information in social studies solely
during the dispositional phase. He further argues that,
because In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn. App. 353,
was decided prior to the enactment of General Statutes
§ 1-2z,10 which he asserts ‘‘establishes policies of statu-
tory construction that were not utilized by this court
in considering the relevant statutory elements at work,’’
this court should conduct a new analysis of ‘‘the judicial
gloss applied in’’ In re Tabitha P. We disagree that the
court’s reliance on the social studies in the adjudicatory
phase violated § 45a-717 (e) (1) and Practice Book
§ 35a-9, but we take this opportunity to resolve the
persistent issue of the scope of In re Tabitha P. and
the permissible use of a social study in the adjudica-
tory phase.
‘‘Whether the trial court applied the proper legal stan-
dard is subject to plenary review on appeal. . . . The
interpretation of a trial court’s judgment presents a
10
General Statutes § 1-2z provides: ‘‘The meaning of a statute shall, in the
first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its
relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering
such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and
does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the
meaning of the statute shall not be considered.’’
Page 18 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

20 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Cita-
tion omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re
Fayth C., 220 Conn. App. 315, 320, 297 A.3d 601, cert.
denied, 347 Conn. 907, 298 A.3d 275 (2023).

Section 45a-717 (e) (1) and Practice Book § 35a-9
address the use of a social study in a termination of
parental rights hearing. Section 45a-717 (e) (1) provides
in relevant part that, in a hearing for the termination
of parental rights, ‘‘[t]he court may, and in any contested
case shall, request the [commissioner] . . . to make
an investigation and written report to it, within ninety
days from the receipt of such request. The report shall
indicate the physical, mental and emotional status of
the child and shall contain such facts as may be relevant
to the court’s determination of whether the proposed
termination of parental rights will be in the best inter-
ests of the child, including the physical, mental, social
and financial condition of the biological parents, and
any other factors which the commissioner . . . finds
relevant to the court’s determination of whether the
proposed termination will be in the best interests of
the child.’’ Practice Book § 35a-9 provides that ‘‘[t]he
judicial authority may admit into evidence any testi-
mony relevant and material to the issue of the disposi-
tion, including events occurring through the close of
the evidentiary hearing, but no disposition may be made
by the judicial authority until any mandated social study
has been submitted to the judicial authority. Said study
shall be marked as an exhibit subject to the right of
any party to be heard on a motion in limine requesting
redactions and to require that the author, if available,
appear for cross-examination.’’ Because both the stat-
ute and the rule of practice reference the issue of dispo-
sition and material in a social study that may be relevant
to a court’s determination of whether a termination of
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 21
In re A. H.

parental rights is in a child’s best interest, the respon-
dent argues that they do not authorize the court’s reli-
ance on information in a social study during the adjudi-
catory phase of a termination of parental rights trial.
This court first considered the appropriateness of a
court’s reliance on a social study in the adjudicatory
phase of a termination of parental rights proceeding in
In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn. App. 353. On appeal
in that case, the respondent mother claimed that ‘‘the
trial court improperly relied on dispositional material in
adjudicating the termination petitions’’; id., 367; which
material included ‘‘social studies prepared by [the
department] after the filing of the termination peti-
tion[s] for use in the dispositional phase.’’ Id., 368. This
court disagreed that the use of the social studies in
the adjudicatory phase was improper, concluding that,
although the court was prohibited ‘‘from considering
events subsequent to the filing of the termination peti-
tion[s] during the adjudicatory phase, the court is not
prohibited from considering material prepared after
the filing of the petitions, provid[ed] the facts and events
discussed in that material predate the filing of the peti-
tion.11 Social studies conducted by [the department] are
submitted to be used by the court in the dispositional
phase . . . but that does not preclude the studies from
being filed or considered by the court or used by counsel
during the adjudicatory phase of the hearing. In fact,
copies of the dispositional reports and any evaluations
are made available to counsel for the respondent, and
the author of any such report, if available, can be
required to testify and be subject to cross-examination
as to the reasoning supporting the conclusions con-
tained therein. . . . Furthermore, the procedural stat-
utes guiding termination hearings explicitly direct the
11
In the present case, no claim has been raised that any of the facts and
events discussed in the social studies admitted into evidence do not predate
the filing of the termination petition for each child.
Page 20 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

22 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

court to order evaluations and to consider the results
of the evaluations in ruling on the merits of the petition.
See General Statutes § 45a-717 (d).’’ (Citations omitted;
emphasis in original; footnote added; footnotes omit-
ted.) In re Tabitha P., supra, 368–69. Following our
decision in In re Tabitha P., this court consistently has
held that a court properly may rely on a social study
in the adjudicatory phase of a termination of parental
rights proceeding.12
In the present case, the respondent, in effect, asks
this court to reconsider our holding in In re Tabitha
P. We first note that, in the absence of en banc consider-
ation, we are unable to overrule our own precedent.
See State v. Gonzalez, 214 Conn. App. 511, 524, 281
A.3d 501 (‘‘[O]ne panel of this court cannot overrule
the precedent established by a previous panel’s holding.
. . . As we often have stated, this court’s policy dictates
12
See In re Prince S., 219 Conn. App. 629, 647, 296 A.3d 296 (court properly
may rely on social study in both adjudicatory and dispositional phases of
termination of parental rights proceeding), cert. denied, 347 Conn. 907, 297
A.3d 1011 (2023); In re Lillyanne D., 215 Conn. App. 61, 80 n.15, 281 A.3d
521 (‘‘[a]lthough the petitioner must submit a social study to the court for
purposes of the dispositional hearing in contested cases . . . the court may
rely on the social study in both the adjudicatory and dispositional phases
of a termination of parental rights proceeding’’ (citations omitted)), cert.
denied, 345 Conn. 913, 283 A.3d 981 (2022); In re Gabriel C., 196 Conn. App.
333, 355 n.20, 229 A.3d 1073 (‘‘any mandated department social study reports
submitted for the court’s use in the dispositional phase . . . may be filed
or considered by the court or used by counsel during the adjudicatory phase
of the hearing’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 335 Conn.
938, 248 A.3d 708 (2020); In re Anna Lee M., 104 Conn. App. 121, 128, 931
A.2d 949 (‘‘[s]ocial studies submitted by the department may be used by
the court in both the adjudicatory and dispositional phases of a termination
of parental rights hearing’’), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 939, 937 A.2d 696 (2007);
In re Galen F., 54 Conn. App. 590, 600, 737 A.2d 499 (1999) (‘‘the trial court
is not precluded from considering material in social studies . . . in the
adjudicatory phase of the hearing, even when the social study is prepared
after the filing of the petitions, provided that the events considered did not
occur after the petition date’’); In re Angellica W., 49 Conn. App. 541, 549,
714 A.2d 1265 (1998) (social studies submitted for use in dispositional phase
may be considered by court during adjudicatory phase).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 21

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 23
In re A. H.

that one panel should not, on its own, reverse the ruling
of a previous panel. The reversal may be accomplished
only if the appeal is heard en banc. . . . Prudence, then
dictates that this panel decline to revisit such requests.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 345
Conn. 967, 285 A.3d 736 (2022). The respondent did not
seek en banc review of his appeal;13 accordingly, we
are unable to overturn our own precedent in In re
Tabitha P., which authorizes the court’s use of a social
study in the adjudicatory phase of a termination of
parental rights proceeding, as well as in the disposi-
tional phase.14 Thus, because we are bound by our deci-
sion in In re Tabitha P. and its progeny,15 we conclude
that the court’s use of and reliance on the social studies
in the adjudicatory phase was not improper.16
13
The respondent acknowledges in his appellate brief that he did not seek
en banc review of this appeal and that this court is bound by its own
precedent. Nevertheless, he asserts that ‘‘this court has significant power
in determining issues that will be reviewed by our Supreme Court, either
through concurring opinions or dissents. Therefore, the respondent presents
the full argument for examination by this court.’’ In his reply brief he further
explains that he ‘‘did not seek consideration en banc because he is not asking
[this court] to reverse its own precedent . . . .’’ Instead, he recognizes
that any such change in the law on this issue ‘‘must be decided by our
Supreme Court.’’
14
Because we conclude that we are bound by our precedent in In re
Tabitha P., it is therefore unnecessary for us to conduct a new analysis of
the plain language of § 45a-717 and Practice Book § 35a-9 pursuant to § 1-
2z. Nevertheless, we note that our Supreme Court has held that the passage
of § 1-2z does not require that we ‘‘abandon prior interpretations of statutory
language [in cases that predate the enactment of the statute]. Rather, even
after the passage of § 1-2z, it is customary for us to begin with this court’s
prior interpretations of statutes in previous cases.’’ Peek v. Manchester
Memorial Hospital, 342 Conn. 103, 124, 269 A.3d 24 (2022). Accordingly,
although In re Tabitha P. was decided prior to the enactment of § 1-2z, it
does not follow that an application of § 1-2z would dictate a different analysis
of § 45a-717 and Practice Book § 35a-9.
15
See footnote 12 of this opinion.
16
We also note that, although the issue before this court in In re Tabitha
P. did not concern whether the statute authorizes a court to consider a
social study in the adjudicatory phase of a termination of parental rights
proceeding, we specifically concluded that the court’s consideration of such
material in the adjudicatory phase ‘‘did not violate any statute or rule of
Page 22 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

24 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

Nonetheless, we believe that this case presents an
opportunity to clarify the scope of our decision in In
re Tabitha P. As we have stated, the respondent mother
in In re Tabitha P. claimed on appeal ‘‘that the trial
court improperly relied on dispositional material in
adjudicating the termination petitions.’’ In re Tabitha
P., supra, 39 Conn. App. 367. Specifically, the respon-
dent mother’s challenge concerned the trial court’s
extensive citations in its memorandum of decision to
multiple reports of a court-appointed psychologist and
social studies that were prepared after the filing of the
termination petitions. Id., 368.

The issue before this court, therefore, was whether
it was appropriate for the trial court to consider those
materials when they ‘‘were prepared after the date the
termination petitions were filed.’’ Id. In answering that
question in the affirmative, we explained that the prohi-
bition on a trial court’s consideration of events
occurring after the filing of a petition to terminate
parental rights did not prohibit the court ‘‘from consid-
ering material prepared after the filing of the petitions,
provid[ed] the facts and events discussed in that mate-
rial predate the filing of the petition.’’ (Emphasis in
original.) Id. Because ‘‘[t]he materials cited to by the
court throughout the adjudicatory portion of its deci-
sion contained facts, findings and conclusions based
on events prior to the filing of the termination petitions
. . . [and] [t]he events on which the adjudication was
premised all occurred prior to the date of the petitions,’’
this court concluded that ‘‘the trial court’s consideration
of the challenged materials did not violate any statute
or rule of practice.’’ Id., 369.
practice.’’ In re Tabitha P. supra, 39 Conn. App. 369. Moreover, even though
the respondent argues that ‘‘[t]he plain language of the statute does not
authorize such use,’’ there is no language in the statute or the rule of practice
precluding the court from doing so.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 23

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 25
In re A. H.

The record available in In re Tabitha P. does not
indicate whether there was a hearsay objection to the
admission of the reports and social studies during the
trial. Moreover, the focus of our decision was whether
the court could consider social studies that were pre-
pared after the filing of the termination petitions in the
adjudicatory phase. Id., 368. Our holding that the court
could do so, however, was limited to the circumstances
of that case, in which the facts, findings and conclusions
contained in the social studies were based on events
that occurred prior to the filing of the termination peti-
tions, and the events on which the adjudication was
premised all occurred before the termination petitions
were filed. Our decision, thus, in no way created an
exception to any evidentiary rule, including the rule
against hearsay,17 nor did it prohibit counsel from
objecting to the admission of hearsay. Id., 368–69.
Therefore, counsel for a respondent parent may object
17
Furthermore, this court previously has held ‘‘that the rules of evidence—
including the prohibition on the admission of hearsay statements not covered
by an exception—apply to juvenile proceedings, which include child protec-
tion matters, to the same extent that they do in other civil proceedings.
See General Statutes § 46b-121; see also Conn. Code Evid. §§ 1-1 (b) and
commentary (b) (5), and 8-2 (a). [C]ertain procedural informalities are
authorized in juvenile proceedings under our common law, including a liberal
rather than a strict application of the formal rules of evidence, provided
due process is observed. . . . In re Juvenile Appeal (85-2), 3 Conn. App.
184, 190, 485 A.2d 1362 (1985). Any such looser application of the rules of
evidence, however, including the rule against hearsay, is unwarranted [if]
such evidence is likely to be determinative of the matter, in which case,
the court should return to the more formal rules of evidence. . . . Id. Given
the significant rights that a parent has in the companionship, care, custody,
and management of his or her children . . . laxity in procedural safeguards
cannot be swept away by mere reference to the so-called informalities of
[j]uvenile [c]ourt procedure. . . . Anonymous v. Norton, 168 Conn. 421,
425, 362 A.2d 532, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 935, 96 S. Ct. 294, 46 L. Ed. 2d 268
(1975). Accordingly, unlike in proceedings in which no adherence to the
rules of evidence is required, courts in juvenile proceedings, despite their
inherently informal nature, must remain cautious in admitting hearsay state-
ments that go to the very heart of the issue to be decided.’’ (Footnote
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Alizabeth L.-T., 213 Conn.
App. 541, 572–73, 278 A.3d 547 (2022).
Page 24 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

26 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

to the admission of material contained within a social
study on evidentiary or other grounds, and our decision
in In re Tabitha P. should not be construed to tacitly
allow admission of material that is otherwise inadmissi-
ble.18
II
The respondent next claims that, notwithstanding our
decision in In re Tabitha P., the court’s consideration
of the social studies during the adjudicatory phase of
the trial violated his due process rights under the three
part test set forth by the United States Supreme Court
in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893,
47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976).19 The respondent concedes that
this claim was not preserved for appeal and seeks
review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233,
18
We note that the commissioner agrees with this conclusion, acknowledg-
ing in her appellate brief that ‘‘social studies are subject to the normal rules
of evidence, which ensures that trial courts do not erroneously terminate
parental rights on irrelevant, unreliable, or prejudicial information contained
in the social studies.’’
19
‘‘The three factors to be considered [under Mathews] are (1) the private
interest that will be affected by the state action, (2) the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest, given the existing procedures, and the value of
any additional or alternate procedural safeguards, and (3) the government’s
interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens attendant to
increased or substitute procedural requirements. . . . Due process analysis
requires balancing the government’s interest in existing procedures against
the risk of erroneous deprivation of a private interest inherent in those
procedures.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Zoey H., 183 Conn.
App. 327, 336, 192 A.3d 522, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 906, 192 A.3d 425 (2018).
In the present case, the respondent argues that the private interest at
stake is the right to family integrity and that the risk of erroneous deprivation
is high because ‘‘under the current interpretation, the department is allowed
to compile all of its evidence and present it in a prosecutorial document
which is statutorily mandated to be admitted into evidence.’’ The respondent
further argues that the potential burdens to the state are limited to ‘‘requiring
the department to offer its proof at trial rather than relying upon hearsay
and unattributed statements from the social study as a substitute,’’ and that,
on the whole, ‘‘the Mathews factors weigh heavily in favor of limiting the
social study, which is a prosecutorial document . . . to the dispositional
portion of the hearing.’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 25

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 27
In re A. H.

239–40, 576 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel
R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). We decline
to review this unpreserved claim.
‘‘Pursuant to Golding, a [respondent] can prevail on
a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial
only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the
record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error;
(2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging
the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged
constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived
the [respondent] of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to
harmless error analysis, the [petitioner] has failed to
demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional
violation beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . [S]ee In re
Yasiel R., [supra, 317 Conn. 781] (modifying third prong
of Golding). The first two steps in the Golding analysis
address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last
two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Emphasis
in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re
Maliyah M., 216 Conn. App. 702, 707, 285 A.3d 1185
(2022), cert. denied sub nom. In re Edgar S., 345 Conn.
972, 286 A.3d 907 (2023).
The respondent argues that (1) the record is adequate
for review ‘‘because there is no dispute that the social
[studies] and [the] various amendments were admitted
into evidence and relied upon by the trial court in the
adjudicatory [phase]’’; (2) the claim is of constitutional
magnitude because ‘‘the use of [a] social study for adju-
dicatory purposes creates a fundamentally unfair pro-
ceeding that violates due process’’; (3) the constitu-
tional violation exists because, without reliance on the
social studies and supporting documents, ‘‘[t]he evi-
dence introduced at trial was not sufficient to warrant
termination of the [respondent’s] parental rights’’; and
(4) ‘‘the [commissioner] cannot prove that the constitu-
tional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’’
Page 26 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

28 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

We agree with the respondent that the record is ade-
quate for review; however, we conclude that the claim
is not of a constitutional magnitude.
Although the respondent characterizes his claim as a
violation of his due process rights, the claim, in essence,
challenges the admission of the social studies and, thus,
is evidentiary in nature. See In re Lillyanne D., 215
Conn. App. 61, 70–73, 281 A.3d 521 (respondent mother
challenged trial court’s evidentiary ruling admitting into
evidence social study and addendum), cert. denied, 345
Conn. 913, 283 A.3d 981 (2022); In re Galen F., 54 Conn.
App. 590, 600–601, 737 A.2d 499 (1999) (challenge to
admission of social study on hearsay grounds was evi-
dentiary in nature). It is well established that a ‘‘defen-
dant cannot raise a constitutional claim by attaching a
constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or
by asserting merely that a strained connection exists
between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental con-
stitutional right. . . . Thus, [o]nce identified, unpre-
served evidentiary claims masquerading as constitu-
tional claims will be summarily [rejected]. . . . We
previously have stated that the admissibility of evidence
is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant
denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific
constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Waters, 214
Conn. App. 294, 314, 280 A.3d 601, cert. denied, 345
Conn. 914, 284 A.3d 25 (2022); see also Kovachich v.
Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Services, 344 Conn.
777, 815 n.22, 281 A.3d 1144 (2022) (‘‘[r]obing garden
variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic
garb of constitutional claims does not make such claims
constitutional in nature’’ (internal quotation marks
omitted)). This principle applies equally in a termina-
tion of parental rights proceeding. ‘‘The fact that this
is a termination of parental rights case does not trans-
form an evidentiary matter into a constitutional matter.’’
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 27

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 29
In re A. H.

In re Miyuki M., 202 Conn. App. 851, 860, 246 A.3d
1113 (2021); see In re Antonio M., 56 Conn. App. 534,
544, 744 A.2d 915 (2000) (Even though ‘‘[t]he right of
a parent to raise his or her children has been recognized
as a basic constitutional right . . . [u]npreserved hear-
say claims do not automatically invoke constitutional
rights . . . . The appellate courts of this state have
consistently held that admission of statements that are
either irrelevant or impermissible hearsay is not a con-
stitutional error.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation
marks omitted.)).20 Accordingly, we conclude that the
respondent’s claim is not of a constitutional magnitude,
and, therefore, the claim is not reviewable.
III
The respondent’s final claim is that the trial court
improperly admitted hearsay evidence contained in the
commissioner’s exhibits and that the improperly admit-
ted hearsay was harmful. The commissioner concedes
that most of the challenged hearsay statements were
improperly admitted21 but claims that their admission
was harmless because ‘‘the outcome of the trial would
have been no different had the statements been
20
We note that our Supreme Court ‘‘has recognized that an unpreserved
evidentiary claim may be constitutional in nature if there is a resultant
denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right
. . . .’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner,
334 Conn. 660, 674, 224 A.3d 129 (2020). In light of our determination that
any error was harmless; see part III of this opinion; we need not reach the
issue of whether there was a denial of fundamental fairness or of a specific
constitutional right.
21
The only exception to the commissioner’s concession concerns the
hearsay statements of the children’s foster mother, which the commissioner
argues were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay
rule because she was an agent of the department. See In re Barbara J., 215
Conn. 31, 42, 574 A.2d 203 (1990). Because we conclude that any error
in the admission of the alleged hearsay statements in the commissioner’s
exhibits, including those of the foster mother, was harmless, we need not
decide whether the hearsay statements of the foster mother were properly
admitted under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay.
Page 28 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

30 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

excluded.’’ Specifically, the commissioner asserts, inter
alia, that ‘‘there is evidence to [the] same effect in the
record’’ and that ‘‘[t]he unchallenged portions of the
[social] studies provide additional, cumulative evidence
regarding [the respondent’s] history with the depart-
ment, his continued criminal behaviors, his inconsistent
engagement in mental health and substance use ser-
vices, his continued relationship with Alexandria C., his
lack of insight into her mental health, and his inability
to protect [A] and [K] from Alexandria C.’s erratic
behaviors.’’ We agree with the commissioner. Without
deciding whether the alleged hearsay was improperly
admitted,22 we conclude that the respondent has not
demonstrated that its admission was harmful.
We first set forth our standard of review and the legal
principles that govern our resolution of this claim. ‘‘Our
standard of review regarding challenges to a trial court’s
22
We note that portions of the alleged hearsay in this case were contained
in the evaluation performed by Dr. Rogers, who the parties stipulated is an
expert in clinical and forensic psychology. We further note that ‘‘ ‘[t]he fact
that an expert opinion is drawn from sources not in themselves admissible
does not render the opinion inadmissible, provided the sources are fairly
reliable and the witness has sufficient experience to evaluate the informa-
tion. Vigliotti v. Campano, 104 Conn. 464, 133 A. 579 (1926); Schaefer, Jr. &
Co. v. Ely, 84 Conn. 501, 508, 80 A. 775 (1911). An expert may base his opinion
on facts or data not in evidence, provided they are of a type reasonably
relied on by experts in the particular field. State v. Cuvelier, 175 Conn. 100,
107–108, 394 A.2d 185 (1978); see Fed. R. Evid. 703. This is so because of
the sanction given by the [witness’] experience and expertise. Burn [&
Crump] v. Metropolitan Lumber Co., 94 Conn. [1] 5, 6, 107 A. 609 (1919).’
[C. Tait, Tate and LaPlante’s Handbook of Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.
1988) § 7.16.8 (c), p. 182]. ‘[W]hen the expert witness has consulted numerous
sources, and uses that information, together with his own professional
knowledge and experience, to arrive at his opinion, that opinion is regarded
as evidence in its own right and not as hearsay in disguise.’ ’’ In re Barbara
J., 215 Conn. 31, 42–43, 574 A.2d 203 (1990); see also Kohl’s Dept. Stores,
Inc. v. Rocky Hill, 219 Conn. App. 464, 487–88, 295 A.3d 470 (2023); Conn.
Code Evid. § 7-4 (b); E. Prescott, Tait’s Handbook of Connecticut Evidence
(6th Ed. 2019) § 7.7.4, pp. 465–66. As we have indicated in this opinion,
however, we do not reach the issue of whether the alleged hearsay was
properly admitted.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 29

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 31
In re A. H.

evidentiary rulings is that these rulings will be over-
turned on appeal only where there was . . . a showing
. . . of substantial prejudice or injustice. . . . Addi-
tionally, it is well settled that even if the evidence was
improperly admitted, the [party challenging the ruling]
must also establish that the ruling was harmful and
likely to affect the result of the trial.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) In re Prince S., 219 Conn. App. 629,
644, 296 A.3d 296, cert. denied, 347 Conn. 907, 297 A.3d
1011 (2023). ‘‘It is [also] well recognized that any error
in the admission of evidence does not require reversal
of the resulting judgment if the improperly admitted
evidence is merely cumulative of other validly admitted
[evidence]. . . . In re Anna B., 50 Conn. App. 298, 305–
306, 717 A.2d 289 (1998); see also Duncan v. Mill Man-
agement Co. of Greenwich, Inc., 308 Conn. 1, 23, 60
A.3d 222 (2013) ([i]n determining whether evidence is
merely cumulative, we consider the nature of the evi-
dence and whether any other evidence was admitted
that was probative of the same issue as the evidence
in controversy).’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
In re Lillyanne D., supra, 215 Conn. App. 74; see also
Kovachich v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Ser-
vices, supra, 344 Conn. 819.
We next set forth the following additional facts,
which are relevant to this claim. As we stated previously
in this opinion, the petitioner joined in Alexandria C.’s
motion in limine, which sought to exclude various
alleged hearsay contained within the commissioner’s
exhibits. Specifically, the motion in limine first sought
to exclude alleged hearsay statements or information
within multiple social studies and status reports that
derived from Dr. Levy’s 2021 psychological evaluation,
some of which concerned Alexandria C. and others the
respondent.23 For example, exhibit eight is a social study
23
In his appellate brief, the respondent has not briefed or provided any
analysis regarding how he was harmed by the alleged hearsay from Dr.
Levy’s evaluation related to Alexandria C. ‘‘We repeatedly have stated that
Page 30 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

32 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

in support of the termination of the respondent’s paren-
tal rights with respect to K dated June 14, 2022. In the
portion of the social study addressing the respondent,
the study references the psychological evaluation that
was conducted by Dr. Levy in 2021, including her con-
clusions that the respondent’s ‘‘emotional functioning
confirms his history of antisocial behavior. It also sug-
gests failures [to form] close relationships, [sensitivity]
in interpersonal relationships, distrust, depression,
inflated self-esteem, hostility and bitterness; stress in
the environment and compulsiveness or rigidity.’’ It fur-
ther provides: ‘‘Dr. Levy . . . opined that [the respon-
dent] did not understand how [Alexandria C.’s] own
‘[dysregulation] affects others, particularly’ his child.
Dr. Levy noted that while [the respondent] demon-
strated some competencies in parenting such as knowl-
edge of child development, ‘the competency of clear
parental priorities, i.e. putting the child’s needs first, is
the least met competency and perhaps one of the most
important. The parental lack of consistency, stability
and trust, manifested by emotional dysregulation, inad-
equate and transient housing, employment, financial
struggles and frequent incarcerations do not place the
child’s needs first.’ Ultimately, Dr. Levy opined that
‘‘[i]t is unclear if the father would be able to sustain
employment and housing, in order to care for himself
[w]e are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented
to this court through an inadequate brief. . . . Analysis, rather than mere
abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by
failure to brief the issue properly. . . . [F]or this court judiciously and
efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties must
clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. . . . The parties
may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship
between the facts of the case and the law cited.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Colandrea v. Connecticut State Dental Commission, 221 Conn.
App. 597, 620 n.25, 302 A.3d 348 (2023), cert. denied, 348 Conn. 933, 306
A.3d 475 (2024). Accordingly, any such claim is deemed abandoned, and
we focus our analysis on the alleged hearsay from Dr. Levy concerning the
respondent.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 31

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 33
In re A. H.

and his child.’’ Similar statements from Dr. Levy’s evalu-
ation are contained in exhibit three (a social worker
affidavit dated December 27, 2021), exhibit ten (a study
in support of the motion to support the permanency
plan dated September 16, 2022), and exhibit eleven (an
addendum to a social study in support of the termina-
tion petitions dated September 8, 2022). The motion in
limine also sought to exclude alleged hearsay state-
ments from the foster mother24 in which the foster
24
The motion in limine also sought to exclude alleged hearsay statements
from Susan Allen, a visitation supervisor; statements within various exhibits
that summarize information contained within the evaluation of Dr. Rogers;
and exhibits eighteen and nineteen, which included Rogers’ initial report
and psychological evaluation. The motion acknowledged, however, that any
of those hearsay issues could be cured so long as Allen and Dr. Rogers
testified at trial, which did occur. Therefore, their statements and the reports
of Dr. Rogers in those exhibits are not at issue with respect to this claim.
Additionally, the motion in limine sought to exclude alleged hearsay state-
ments (1) from Joel Tudisco, who, as we stated previously in this opinion,
is an advanced practice registered nurse who has provided psychiatric care
for Alexandria C. since June, 2020, and whose comments related to Alexan-
dria C.’s medication management and her mental health issues and expressed
concerns about Alexandria C.’s use of medical marijuana; (2) attributable
to A; (3) from Akisha Cassermere, a visitation supervisor, in which she
referenced statements made to her by A and regarding her observations of
visits between A and the respondent and Alexandria C.; and (4) from Alicea
Corey, a psychologist who treated A, detailing conversations she had with
and statements made by A, expressing her opinion that it was not in A’s
best interest to continue visitations, and describing A’s behavior.
The respondent has not provided any analysis or argument in his appellate
brief regarding how he was harmed by any alleged hearsay from Tudisco,
Cassermere or Corey. Therefore, we deem any such claim abandoned.
‘‘[B]eyond their bald assertion of harm, the respondents do not explain how
the exclusion of this evidence was harmful to them. See In re Nevaeh G.-
M., 217 Conn. App. 854, 885–86, 290 A.3d 867 (‘[i]t is well settled that even
if [an evidentiary error is proven], the [party challenging the ruling] must
also establish that the ruling was harmful and likely to affect the result of
the trial’ . . .), cert. denied, 346 Conn. 925, 295 A.3d 418 (2023). Accordingly,
we deem this claim to be abandoned.’’ In re Olivia W., 223 Conn. App. 173,
196, 308 A.3d 571 (2024). Moreover, with respect to statements attributed
to A, and to the extent that the alleged hearsay from the foster mother,
Cassermere and Corey concern statements made by A, the court granted
the motion in limine in part with respect to any statements made by A,
which, therefore, are not at issue in this appeal.
Page 32 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

34 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

mother commented about concerns she had with how
A reacted to visits with the respondent and Alexandria
C., describing A’s behavior before and after such visits
and how she becomes ‘‘clingy,’’ and relating statements
made by A concerning the visits. 25 Thus, in this appeal,
the two sources of alleged hearsay to be addressed are
Dr. Levy and the foster mother.
We conclude that the respondent has failed to demon-
strate the harmfulness of the challenged hearsay
25
In his principal appellate brief, the respondent refers to alleged hearsay
statements in exhibit eleven, an addendum to a social study in support of
the petition for the termination of his parental rights with respect to K dated
September 8, 2022, from Joseph Ortiz, a case manager who was assigned
to the respondent in connection with fatherhood engagement services he
sought at Madonna Place. Ortiz’ alleged hearsay statements concern the
respondent’s attendance at Madonna Place, specifically, his failure to follow
through with attending a final group session. The hearsay objections raised
in the motion in limine before the trial court did not specifically mention
any statements made by Ortiz, nor did the respondent raise any such specific
claims regarding Ortiz or the particular statement in exhibit eleven before
the trial court, although the respondent objected at trial to ‘‘ ‘any statements
that come from someone who is not testifying’ . . . .’’ The commissioner
argues in her appellate brief that this court should decline to review the
respondent’s harmful error claim as it pertains to the statements of Ortiz.
We conclude that we need not decide whether the respondent’s objection
was sufficiently specific to include the statements of Ortiz because, even
if we review this aspect of the respondent’s claim, it nonetheless fails, as
the challenged hearsay from Ortiz is cumulative of other evidence and
testimony in the record concerning the respondent’s failure to complete
services to which he had been referred, including the testimony of Haley
Flax, a social worker, who specifically referenced the respondent’s failure
to complete parenting classes at Madonna Place.
The respondent also refers to an ‘‘unattributed opinion’’ in exhibit eleven
stating that ‘‘[the respondent] has made limited progress and appears to
lack judgment about healthy boundaries. Although [the respondent] has not
presented with threatening behaviors, he continues to support [Alexandria
C.’s] decision and it appears as though he has limited insight about the
impact of her erratic and threatening behaviors.’’ We note that it appears
that the alleged ‘‘unattributed opinion’’ in exhibit eleven was made by the
author of the addendum to the social study, Flax, who testified at trial
consistent with the challenged statement. In fact, the social studies, status
reports and addenda included in exhibits eight, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen,
fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen all indicate that they were submitted
by Flax.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 33

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 35
In re A. H.

because it is cumulative of other properly admitted
evidence and testimony. We first address the alleged
hearsay from Dr. Levy. At the trial, Haley Flax, a social
worker assigned to this matter, testified about the
respondent’s history with the department and the con-
cerns that led to the children’s removal, including the
respondent’s inconsistent participation in recom-
mended services, his inability to provide for the chil-
dren’s safety and well-being, and the department’s con-
cerns as to his ‘‘parenting skills, mental health, and
substance abuse.’’ Flax testified concerning the respon-
dent’s housing, explaining that, for the past two years,
he and Alexandria C. have had stable housing but that,
prior thereto, it was not consistent; that they currently
reside in an apartment; and that they were issued a
notice to quit in February, 2023, and a formal eviction
proceeding had been commenced, but they have not
vacated. She also testified as to Alexandria C.’s ‘‘erratic
and compulsive behavior.’’ For instance, she testified
about an incident in which Alexandria C. ‘‘had shown
up at the [department] office and was acting out in a
way to where the police almost needed to be called,’’
and that there were also concerns regarding what [the
department] perceived to be as passive threats made
on social media [by Alexandria C.] regarding the depart-
ment.’’ Flax also testified that the respondent and Alex-
andria C. continued to present as a couple, that Flax has
ongoing concerns regarding the respondent’s limited
insight and ability to manage his emotions, and that her
biggest concerns regarding the respondent are his lack
of engagement and failure to follow through with treat-
ment recommendations, as well as his limited insight
into Alexandria C.’s behaviors and how that affects the
children. According to Flax, she is concerned that the
respondent ‘‘would not be able to step in to protect the
children and be that protective capacity when [Alexan-
dria C.] is acting erratically.’’
Page 34 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

36 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

Dr. Rogers echoed these concerns in his testimony.
Specifically, he testified that Alexandria C. ‘‘is highly
impulsive [and] doesn’t cope well even with minor
stresses, and she is likely to act in highly impulsive
ways that would endanger the safety of someone who
is dependent on her,’’ and that the respondent ‘‘shows
very little insight into [Alexandria C.’s] behavior and
its impact on [the] children and would not, in fact,
shield [the] children from that adverse impact.’’ Dr.
Rogers also testified that the respondent presented with
‘‘a number of problematic personality traits that he
exhibited over a number of years, beginning in adoles-
cence with some conduct problems. Those extended
into adulthood with some criminal activity, and gener-
ally a negative and angry attitude about life and a feeling
of being cheated and misused. At times, this feeling
serves as rationale for acting likewise to other individu-
als and if you will, taking the law into his own hands.
Again, I think that’s been evidenced in his criminal
activity. Certainly, his anger is often present . . . usu-
ally expressed in indirect ways; resistance, negativity,
that kind of thing. And I indicated on that basis that I
thought that he suffered from a personality disorder.’’
Dr. Rogers testified further that the respondent does
not have the ability to meet the emotional, develop-
mental, and physical needs of the children, who need
permanency and stability, about the respondent’s fail-
ure to ‘‘substantially change, in the period since
removal,’’ and regarding his concern that the children
would suffer from ‘‘a lack of permanency and from
continued contact with the parents.’’
In addition to the testimony presented at the trial,
exhibit nineteen, which contains the psychological eval-
uation performed by Dr. Rogers, was admitted as a full
exhibit without objection. The psychological evaluation
performed was based on an ‘‘[e]valuation of each adult
[that] consisted of review of records, discussion of
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 35

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 37
In re A. H.

[those] records, review of a demographics question-
naire, clinical interview, mental status examination,
psychological testing, parent/child observations and
collateral contacts as directed and approved by the
court.’’ Dr. Levy’s psychological evaluation was one of
many records Dr. Rogers reviewed in conducting his
evaluation. Dr. Rogers’ evaluation addresses the respon-
dent’s work history, education, residence history, crimi-
nal history, rearing, relationship history, physical
health, mental health, and substance use. An examina-
tion of Dr. Rogers’ comprehensive and detailed evalua-
tion demonstrates that it sets forth information that
is cumulative of the alleged hearsay statements from
Dr. Levy.
The evaluation notes that the respondent has had an
unsettled work history, often ‘‘bouncing from job to
job,’’ with his longest job lasting three and one-half
years. His housing history has been equally unsteady.
With respect thereto, the evaluation provides: ‘‘Living
arrangements have been disrupted by incarcerations
and related halfway house placements upon release. In
and around [A’s] removal, he was living with his aunt.
[Alexandria C.] was also there. On occasion, he noted
he had been homeless for a time. He reported stable
housing since May, 2021, and he and [the respondent]
have cohabited since that time.’’
In his evaluation, Dr. Rogers referenced Dr. M. Debo-
rah Gruen, a psychologist who had performed a psycho-
logical evaluation of the respondent in November, 2016,
and Dr. Gruen’s ‘‘contention that the [respondent] did
not understand how [Alexandria C.’s] dysregulation
affects the children.’’ Notably, the respondent has not
raised any issue with Dr. Gruen’s statement, even
though it is identical to the one made by Dr. Levy in
her evaluation to which the respondent has objected.
Dr. Rogers’ evaluation further addresses the respon-
dent’s low self-esteem and how he is ‘‘sour on life,’’ and
Page 36 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

38 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

provides that his pervasive emotion is anger, he has
‘‘few skills for coping with the trials of everyday life,’’
and that ‘‘his behavior is difficult to predict.’’ According
to Dr. Rogers, the respondent ‘‘perceives little responsi-
bility for the children’s removal or for their continued
placement outside the home. Though he can function
adequately in some employment situations, he evinces
little skill in coping with pressures outside his narrow
routine, and added stresses readily precipitate impulse
decisions and erratic actions. His flight from a halfway
house, resulting in further criminal sanctions, seems a
good case in point. Though his actions have brought
him little success, he remains stubborn in his outlook
and resistant to examining or changing his approach.’’
Moreover, the evaluation provides that, ‘‘[w]hile the
[respondent] does not suffer from any major psychiatric
illness, he has demonstrated at best inconsistent partici-
pation in services. He is largely resistant to efforts at
education and remediation, and has made few adjust-
ments in his circumstance to encourage the belief that,
within a reasonable period, he could assume the role
of caretaker for either child. In addition, he fails to
recognize [Alexandria C.’s] serious limitations and the
impact of her labile emotions and behavior on a depen-
dent child, and he is likely to permit such behavior to
continue in their presence should reunification take
place.’’ In his evaluation, Dr. Rogers points out that the
respondent ‘‘is strongly enmeshed in a relation[ship]
with [Alexandria C.] . . . and would not be expected
to shelter [K] from her volatility and its attendant risks.
Any representations he makes about willingness to
divorce himself from [Alexandria C.] to care for this
child should be regarded skeptically . . . .’’ As
reported by Dr. Rogers, the respondent ‘‘evinces a long-
standing pattern of maladaptive behavior characterized
by criminal activity, impulsive action and decision-mak-
ing, negativity and resistance to influence,’’ and ‘‘he has
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 37

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 39
In re A. H.

few qualms about violating rules and proscriptions to
gain the rewards of which he feels he has been
cheated.’’26

In sum, the foregoing evidence and testimony are
probative of the same information as the challenged
hearsay from Dr. Levy’s evaluation regarding the
respondent’s history of antisocial behavior; his distrust,
hostility, and bitterness; his inability to understand how
Alexandria C.’s erratic and emotional behavior affects
others, especially the children; his failure to acknowl-
edge the issues that led to the children’s removal and
to make progress in addressing those issues; his failure
to comply with the specific steps ordered to facilitate
his reunification with the children; his lack of ability
to care for the needs of the children; his parental lack
of consistency; his unstable employment and his inade-
quate and transient housing; and his criminal history.
For that reason, any alleged hearsay from Dr. Levy is
cumulative of other properly admitted evidence and,
26
The record also contains other exhibits that were admitted in full without
objection, including exhibit one, a January 10, 2019 memorandum of decision
by the court, Randolph, J., terminating the respondent’s parental rights as
to E and adjudicating A neglected; exhibit eighteen, the initial report of Dr.
Rogers; exhibit twenty-one, the respondent’s criminal records; and exhibits
twenty-two, twenty-five, and twenty-six, the specific steps ordered for the
respondent. For instance, Judge Randolph’s decision discusses the respon-
dent’s criminal history, his failure to attend treatment sessions and other
appointments for an outpatient substance abuse program, and his need to
participate in extensive parental skills training. The criminal records show
that, despite having been issued specific steps in 2018, 2019, and 2021, which
directed the respondent not to become involved with the criminal justice
system, the respondent had been arrested on multiple occasions since
December, 2019, for interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, larceny in
the fourth degree, larceny in the sixth degree, and other misdemeanor
offenses such as illegally operating a motor vehicle.
Moreover, with respect to the social studies, status reports and addenda
contained in exhibits eight, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen,
sixteen, and seventeen, the hearsay objections pertained only to portions
of those exhibits. The portions to which the hearsay objections do not apply
contain ample information similar to the alleged hearsay.
Page 38 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

40 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
In re A. H.

thus, was not likely to have affected the result of the
trial.
Like with the challenged hearsay from Dr. Levy’s
evaluation, the alleged hearsay statements of the foster
mother also are cumulative of other evidence in the
record. Those statements primarily relate to the foster
mother’s concerns about A’s conduct before and after
visits with the respondent and Alexandria C., in that
she described A as being hesitant to attend weekly
visits, upset about having to go and refusing to attend
some of the visits, and being ‘‘clingy’’ after such visits.
That information, however, can be found throughout
the record before the court. For example, Allen, a visita-
tion supervisor, provided similar testimony at the termi-
nation of parental rights trial. Specifically, she
described A as being very vocal, engageable and talk-
ative while in her foster home, as opposed to during
visits with the respondent and Alexandria C. She also
recounted a visit in which A was hesitant to attend,
how she was upset afterward and that there was another
visit that A refused to attend. Additionally, Flax testified
that A would cry before visits or refuse to attend and
that, when she arrived back at her foster home, she
would be ‘‘clingy’’ or emotional. Finally, Dr. Rogers’
evaluation includes statements from collateral contacts
such as the foster mother that are similar to the ones
objected to on hearsay grounds contained in other
exhibits, and it sets forth in great detail A’s reluctance
to attend visits, as well as her conduct before and after
visits with the respondent.
Accordingly, we conclude that the respondent has
not demonstrated that he was harmed by any of the
alleged hearsay from Dr. Levy’s evaluation or the foster
mother’s statements in light of the abundance of similar
evidence and testimony in the record. In order to dem-
onstrate that he was harmed by the court’s alleged
improper admission of hearsay, it was incumbent on
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 39

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 41
In re A. H.

the respondent to ‘‘establish that, but for the evidentiary
error, the outcome of the trial likely would have been
different.’’ In re Lillyanne D., supra, 215 Conn. App.
73. The respondent cannot do so, however, in light of
the fact that the information contained in the alleged
hearsay is available elsewhere in the record. ‘‘It is well
established that if erroneously admitted evidence is
merely cumulative of other evidence presented in the
case, its admission does not constitute reversible error.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel D.,
219 Conn. App. 211, 220, 294 A.3d 1027, cert. denied, 347
Conn. 906, 297 A.3d 1011 (2023). Because the challenged
hearsay was cumulative of other properly admitted evi-
dence, the respondent has failed to demonstrate sub-
stantial prejudice or injustice, or that the result would
have been different without the alleged hearsay. See In
re Prince S., supra, 219 Conn. App. 644–45; In re Latifa
K., 67 Conn. App. 742, 752, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002). The
respondent, therefore, has not met his burden of demon-
strating harm. See DiNardo Seaside Tower, Ltd. v.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., 153 Conn. App. 10, 47–48, 100
A.3d 413, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 947, 103 A.3d 976
(2014).
The judgments are affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.