Opinion
No. H12-CP04-014606-A.
December 14, 2006.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These are actions brought by Department of Children and Families ("DCF" or "Petitioner") seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the father of Adalia C. (hereinafter referred to as "Adalia C." or "the child"). The biological mother of this child is Latricia S. (hereinafter referred to as "Latricia S." or "Mother") and the father of this child is James C. (hereinafter referred to as "James C." or "Father").
The court finds that the Father of the child was noticed of the pendency of this action by publication in The Hartford Courant in Hartford, Connecticut, on 01/16/06 and in-hand service on 6/29/06 and the Mother of the child was noticed by abode service on 6/28/06.
The court finds that notice has been given as above and is in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes and the Connecticut Practice Book. The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting the custody of this child and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.
On 10/21/04, an Order of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petitions were filed on behalf of Adalia C. by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.
On 3/31/05, Adalia C. was adjudicated neglected and was committed to the care and custody of DCF as a neglected child by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters which made a finding on 2/21/06 and 3/28/06 that the Orders of Commitment of said child be maintained until further order of the court.
On 5/30/06, a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed with a Case Status Conference scheduled for 9/6/06.
In accordance with the notice to the Respondents, the trial for the Termination of Parental Rights and the Permanency Plan was set to commence on 12/4/06. At that appointed time neither the Respondent Mother nor the Respondent Father was present in the courthouse.
Soon after court opened a request was made by counsel for DCF for the entry of a default for both Respondents. The court granted the motions for default of both Respondents and counsel for DCF commenced with a default proceeding with regard to Respondent Mother and Respondent Father on 12/4/06.
At the time of the trial the State submitted five exhibits designated A-E, including a Status Report dated 9/5/06, designated Exhibit D and a Social Study for Termination of Parental Rights dated 6/26/06, designated Exhibit C. Also a Psychological Evaluation of Dr. David L. Tobin, dated 10/4/05 was designated Exhibit B. These exhibits were entered without objection from counsel for any of the parties.
Counsel for DCF stated to the court that she had witnesses present and called Carl Harrison, Social Worker, and Dr. Tobin who testified.
At the conclusion of testimony and statements by counsel with regard to a position, the court stated that a written decision would be forthcoming.
The grounds of this petition for the Termination of Parental Rights as to the biological Mother, Latricia S. and the Father, James C., are abandonment and Failure to Rehabilitate and as to Mother alone, no ongoing parent-child relationship. The court carefully considered all the evidence presented at trial. The court applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights petitions. Only evidence relevant to the adjudication date was considered as a part of adjudication proceedings on the termination petition.
I FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Background, Reason for Petition.
Petitions of alleged neglect were filed by the Department of Children and Families, State of Connecticut in Superior Court Juvenile Matters on behalf of the above-named child.
The allegations of the petition were Neglect in that the child had been abandoned, was being denied proper care and attention and permitted to live under conditions injurious, and Uncared For.
DCF has been involved with Latricia S. since 1992 and with James C. since 1999. The presenting problems with this family were inadequate housing, chronic mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence, physical abuse, physical neglect, abandonment of children and leaving them with inappropriate caretakers, unstable home environment and inconsistent income.
A 96-hour hold was invoked on 9/12/98 due to Mother leaving Adalia C. with a male friend and not returning for her child. Father was identified through the Department of Social Services as receiving assistance for Adalia C. He had left child in Mother's care and child was subsequently abandoned by Mother.
Adalia C., DOB 8/11/97, is a 9-year-old African-American child who is currently residing in a DCF licensed foster home. She was removed from the home of Patience J. on 3/16/05 and placed at The Waterford Country Safe Home where she remained until 5/31/05. On 5/31/05 she was placed at a DCF licensed foster home where she remains to date.
Father, James C., DOB 7/9/62, is an African-American male. He and Adalia C. have scheduled weekly supervised visits which are usually held at the Hartford Public Library. Their last visit together occurred on 12/14/05. On 12/21/05, 12/28/05, and 1/4/06 James C. left a voice message canceling the scheduled supervised visit with his daughter. Efforts have been made to contact James C. by telephone and mail but he has not been in contact with the Department since leaving a voice message on 1/4/06. Adalia C. and her foster mother report that James C. has not had any contact with his daughter since December 2005 despite her numerous telephone calls to him.
B. Mother, Latricia S.
Latricia S., an African-American of the Baptist faith, was born in Hartford, CT on 7/15/59. She attended Hartford schools. She was married for ten years to Gary S. before they separated. She is reported to be aggressive and explosive.
Latricia S. acknowledged, during an interview with a DCF social worker, that she had completed the Chemical Dependency Program (14-day drug addiction program at Hartford Hospital) on 11/15/92 due to a cocaine addiction. Latricia S. was physically abused by a parent when she was young and she has suffered from flashbacks, especially at night, which have interrupted her sleep. Bernadette L., M.D. at Hartford Hospital, has treated Latricia S. and prescribed 100mg of trazodine to take as needed for sleep.
Latricia S. was arrested on 6/28/02 for disorderly conduct and went to Coventry House. She was discharged from the Coventry House on 9/10/02 and moved to 825 Palisado Ave, Windsor, CT where she stayed with Mr. and Mrs. M., James C. and Adalia C. On 10/12/97 she was incarcerated in the Niantic Correctional Institute for failure to appear and was released on 10/31/97. Soon after this arrest, Latricia S. was incarcerated again on 11/12/97 until 12/16/97 at the Niantic Correctional Institute.
Mother has not worked but supports herself on income received from DIM. She has had an open child protective case regarding her other children.
C. Father, James C.
James C. was born in Hartford, Connecticut on 07/9/62. Both of his parents are deceased, his mother having died when he was four years old and his father in 2002. He was not close with his parents and was removed from his father's care around four years of age, shortly before his mother died. He was placed with his maternal aunt, Evelyn N. He was not fond of his aunt or her husband, Leroy N., who used excessive physical discipline on James C. and his brothers.
James C. has three brothers who were all separated at birth: Michael C., the oldest of the four boys, Edward C., who passed away in November 2004, and the youngest brother, Gregory C. James C. is not aware of Gregory C.'s whereabouts and only knows his brother's name. His youngest brother was born shortly before his mother's death and that was the last time James C. remembers seeing him. James C. has a good relationship with his older brother, Michael C. He also has half brothers (with whom he shares a father) but he is not sure of their names and their whereabouts.
James C. attended Mark Twain Elementary School, Fox Middle School and Weaver High School in Hartford, Connecticut. Following his freshman year in high school, he attended Bloomfield High School for his last three years. In his late thirties, James C. enrolled in 300 hours of personal computer repair and a troubleshooting program at Capital Region Education Center, in Hartford, CT. James C. was employed at Unclaimed Freight Hartford, CT from 1980 to 1985 as a warehouse manager; at Crescent Construction in Hartford, CT as a self-employed contractor from 1985 to 1995; at Stop-'n-Shop as a Stock Clerk in 1999; at the Home Depot warehouse and a Shell gas station in Hartford, CT as a gas station attendant in 2000. Since 1990 James C. has been employed seasonally as a caddie at the Hartford Golf Course in Hartford, CT.
James C. has never been married, is in good health and currently does not have a police record.
D. Child, Adalia C.
Adalia C. was born on 8/11/97 to James C. and Latricia S. in Hartford, child with a male friend and a 96-hour hold was invoked on behalf of Adalia C. On 9/15/98, custody of Adalia C. was given to James C., subject to an order of Protective supervision. On 1/22/99, the Court (Dyer, J.) gave sole custody and guardianship to James C.
Adalia C. is up-to-date with her immunizations and has not had any major illnesses or operations. She did have problems with vaginal bleeding, but was taken to the doctor and diagnosed with an acute urinary tract infection which was treated accordingly; a cystogram was performed on 7/25/03.
Adalia C. missed half of her first year of school because her Father would not enroll her in school while they were in a shelter. The shelter staff had to convince him to enroll her in Killingly Memorial School which he did on 2/10/04. She subsequently attended Putnam Elementary School while in the first grade and did well.
In July 2004, Adalia C. was left by her Father in the care of Patience J., her Father's ex-girlfriend. On 10/26/04 the court vested the Order of Temporary Custody in Patience J., as Adalia C. had been residing in her home. On 3/16/05 Adalia was removed from Patience J.'s home due to her living conditions and placed at The Waterford Country Safe Home where she remained until 5/31/05. On 5/31/05 she was placed at a DCF licensed foster home where she remains to date. She is currently doing well in her foster home and is not exhibiting any behavioral problems. Her foster mother reported that Adalia has had episodes when she has cried and stated that she wished she had a mother of her own. She currently participates in weekly individual therapy sessions at The Village for Children and Families, to address her issues of abandonment.
Adalia C. is currently in the 3rd grade at the Oliver Ellsworth School in Windsor, Connecticut where she is considered a mainstream student. She is doing well in school and there are no reported concerns.
E. Relatives
James C. is not close with his family. Adalia C. has never met any of her paternal relatives. The only member of his family that James C. speaks to is his brother, Michael C. but he has not seen Adalia C. since she was a baby. James C. has three (3) aunts who have not had contact with Adalia C., Evelyn N., who resides in Hartford, CT, Francis C., who resides in Bloomfield, CT and Mamie F. who resides in Hartford, CT.
F. Present Situation
Adalia C., DOB 8/11/97, is a 9-year-old African-American child who is currently residing in a DCF licensed foster home. She was removed from the home of Patience J. on 3/16/05 and placed at The Waterford Country Safe Home. She remained there until 5/31/05 when she was placed at a DCF licensed foster home where she remains to date.
Adalia C. is currently doing well in her foster home and has no behavioral problems. She participates in individual therapy sessions at The Village for Children and Families every two weeks to address her issues of abandonment. She is currently in the 3rd grade at Oliver Ellsworth School in Windsor, CT where she is considered a mainstream student. She is doing well in school and there are no reported concerns.
On 6/29/06 Father was residing with Mother, Latricia S., in Harford, was not in service. On 7/18/06 DCF visited the apartment of James C. and Latricia S. and left a business card requesting that they contact DCF. On 8/24/06 a letter was sent to Father and Mother, requesting that they contact DCF. On 8/29/06 Mother contacted DCF supervisor Dan G. to report that she would contact social worker, Carl H. on 8/30/06. She did not provide a telephone number where she could be reached and she has not been in touch with DCF since then.
Father and Adalia C. had scheduled weekly supervised visits which were usually held at The Hartford Public Library. Their last visit together occurred on 12/4/05. On 12/21/05, 12/28/05 and 1/4/06, Father left a voice message canceling the scheduled supervised visit with his daughter and he has not been in contact with her since. Adalia C. and her foster mother report that Father has not had contact with his daughter since December 2005, despite her numerous telephone calls to him.
II TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION
The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate James C.'s and Latricia S.'s parental rights as of the date of the filing of the petition.A. Reasonable Efforts Finding Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are not longer appropriate, DCF, in order to terminate parental rights, initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify Adalia C., with the parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts." C.G.S. Sec. 17a-112(j)(1). "Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).
DCF has spoken with relatives, performed an internet search of phone records, searched the Department of Corrections and the Department of Motor Vehicles in an attempt to locate the parents of Adalia C.
The following reasonable and active efforts were made to prevent removal of the child and to reunify the child with the child's parent, James C. James C. was provided with a subsidized housing application, psychiatric evaluation, substance abuse evaluation and screen. The psychiatric evaluation completed on 10/4/05 recommended that he participate in individual therapy for at least 4 months before reunification was considered. A referral was made for him to participate in therapeutic services at Catholic Charities on 1/5/06. The referral was accepted, however, Catholic Charities was unable to provide therapeutic services to James C. as contact could not be established.
Latricia S. was not provided with any services because she was not in contact with DCF. Her only contact with DCF was a voice message that she left, despite being notified on several occasions of DCF's legal involvement with Adalia C.
In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan.
B. Grounds for the Termination: Abandonment — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) as to the Father and biological Mother.
This ground is established when the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child. Sporadic efforts are insufficient to negate the claim of abandonment. The test for determining abandonment of a child for purposes of termination of parental rights is not whether a parent has shown "some interest" in his or her child, but rather, whether the parent has maintained any reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare. In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 36, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).
Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts and financial support are indicia of "interest, concern or responsibility." In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 209, 504 A.2d 533 (1986).
The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes: (1) express love and affection for the child; (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child; (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care; (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted, In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17-18, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993); In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).
Ground A. — Abandonment as to Adalia C. by biological Mother, Latricia S. and biological Father, James C.
1. The parents have not seen child in a lengthy period of time.
2. The parents have not provided financial support for child.
3. The parents have never sent cards, gifts or letters to child.
4 The parents have failed to acknowledge child's birthday or other special days.
5. The parents have failed to participate in the child's education or shown an interest in child's health or welfare.
6. The parents have not inquired about child or requested visitation in a lengthy period of time.C. Grounds for the Termination: Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) — as to biological Father, James C. and biological Mother, Latricia S.
The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that the parents have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child has been adjudicated as neglected. This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) states in part that:
[t]he Superior Court . . . may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the child . . . has been found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected . . . in a prior proceeding . . . and the parent of such child has been provided with specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent . . . and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.
Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a respondent to a constructive and useful role as a parent. In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 203, 504 A.2d 532 (1986). The parent's compliance with expectations or steps set after the adjudication of the neglect or uncared for case or the parent's success in fulfilling service agreements entered into with DCF are relevant, but not dispositive, to the rehabilitation finding, In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 167-68, 5545 A.2d 722 (1989). The ultimate question is whether the parent at the time of the filing of the termination petition is more able to resume the responsibilities of parents than he or she was at the time of the commitment. In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 126, 614 A.2d 832 (1992). Whether the age and needs of the child would support allowance of further time for the parent to rehabilitate must also be considered. In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 167. The reasonableness of the time period within which rehabilitation is sought to be accomplished is a question of fact for the court. In re Davon M., 16 Conn.App. 693, 696, 548 A.2d 1350 (1988). Also, in determining whether further allowance of a reasonable period of time would promote rehabilitation, a court can consider efforts made since the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. In re Sarah M., 19 Conn.App. 371, 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).
Failure to Rehabilitate as to biological Father, James C.
Father was not provided with specific steps, but social work staff informed him that he needed to secure appropriate housing, secure steady employment, and participate in therapy. He has not secured housing, steady employment, or participated in counseling. He was provided with a subsidized housing application on two occasions, but did not complete the application. James C. has had seasonal employment as a caddy. He has failed to secure steady, consistent employment. A referral was made for him to participate in therapeutic services at Catholic Charities on 1/5/06. This referral was accepted, however, Catholic Charities was unable to provide these services as James C. could not be contacted.
The psychological evaluation completed on 10/4/05 by Dr. David T., recommended that James C. participate in weekly individual therapy for at least four (4) months before reunification was considered. Dr. T. stated the Father "needs individual therapy to address his anger problems, reduce his interpersonal distrust, and improve his ability to experience and express emotions." Dr. T. also stated that "[i]t is not clear if James Crane will be able to provide a stable residence for Adelia. He has psychological and psychiatric problems that appear to interfere with his ability to provide a safe and stable residence." Dr. T. also recommended that Father and child should have weekly family therapy for the next year. He observed an interaction between Father and child and stated that "[t]hey interacted in a congenial way. However, the interactions had more of the flavor of a favorite uncle than a father."
Father will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his child within a reasonable time period.
Failure to Rehabilitate as to biological Mother, Latricia S. CT Page 23028
Mother has an extensive child protective service history related to her chronic mental health issues, substance abuse issues and domestic violence. She was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and a substance abuser while in treatment at Community Health Services (CHS). On 3/12/02, CHS contacted DCF indicating that Mother would be discharged due to non-compliance. Mother has a long history of cocaine addiction. She has had five (5) children, all of whom were removed from her care. Anthony A. was removed from Mother's care due to physical abuse. Mother and her last four (4) children tested positive for cocaine at their respective births.A 96-hour hold was invoked on 1/22/93 on behalf of Gary S. and Sonserea S. due to abandonment by Mother. Sonserae S. was sexually abused by Mother's boyfriend while in Mother's care. An Order of Temporary Custody was granted on 1/25/93 and the children were committed to the care and custody of DCF on 9/23/93. Gary S. transitioned into DCF's independent living program on his 18th birthday. Sonserea S. refused services at her 16th birthday and commitment was revoked on 8/5/99.
A 96-hour hold was invoked on 4/1/02 on behalf of Cashree S. An Order of Temporary Custody was granted 4/4/02 and subsequently sustained on 4/12/02. She was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF on 5/20/02 until further order of the Court. Sole custody and guardianship was vested in Cashree S.'s father subject to an order of protective supervision for six months. Soon after the child was returned home to her father, Mother relapsed and returned to her old routine of leaving for days and weeks at a time without letting anyone know where she was going or when she was returning. When Mother did return to the home, she usually slept for a day or two, assumed no caretaker responsibilities and then she disappeared again. The Protective Supervision was extended for an additional three (3) months on 10/24/03 and 1/24/04. Protective supervision expired on 6/15/04 and the Court (Bentivegna, J.) warned Cashree S.'s father against unsupervised contact with Mother.
With respect to the siblings' cases, Mother was offered the following services: case management, supervision visitation, shelter housing, domestic violence counseling, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, mental health counseling, parenting, family counseling to address corporal punishment and psychological evaluation. Service providers included, but were not limited to: CHS, ADRC, Interval House, Klingberg Family Center, Newington Children's Hospital School, Waterford Country School, Village for Families an.d Children, Kaiser Permanente and CCMC. Mother's whereabouts were unknown for long periods of time and she was in and out of jail during the pendency of the siblings' cases. DCF made numerous attempts to provide services for Mother and she continually refused services. Mother did not actively work towards reunification with her children and continued to actively use cocaine, crack and alcohol.
Mother's mental health status, her unaddressed substance abuse issues and her refusal to seek professional care negatively impacted her ability to be an appropriate caretaker for her older children as well as this child. Mother will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of her child within a reasonable time period.
D. Grounds for Termination: No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) as to biological Mother, Latricia S.
This ground alleged by DCF requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means "the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child."
This statutory definition, as it has been interpreted in case law, requires a finding that "no positive emotional aspects of the relationship survive." In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459, 470, 586 A.2d 597 (1991). It is inherently ambiguous when applied to non-custodial parents who must maintain their relationship with their children through visitation. Id., 459; In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 531, 613 A.2d 748 (1992). Although the ultimate question is usually whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent, the existence of a loving relationship or a "psychological parent" relationship with one other than the natural parent does not, of itself, establish the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination. In re Jessica M., supra, 473-75.
Unlike the other nonconsensual grounds to terminate parental rights, the absence of a parent-child relationship is considered a "no fault" ground for termination. To establish this ground requires the trial court to make a two-pronged determination. First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists; and second, the court must look to the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop. The absence of a parent-child relationship can be demonstrated in situations where a child has never known his or her parents so that no relationship ever developed between them, or where the child has lost that relationship so that despite its former existence, it has now been completely displaced. In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).
Judicial interpretation has imposed a requirement that a child have "present memories or feelings" for the parent, and "at least some aspects of these memories and feelings are positive" to overcome this ground. In re Jessica M., supra, 217 Conn. 475; In re Juvenile Appeal (84-6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 195 Conn. 801 (1984). The existence of positive feelings usually depends on the viewpoint of the child, In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 35, 534 A.2d 897 (1987). As the Appellate Court recently noted, "the feelings of the child are of paramount importance." In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 602 (1999). "Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only." Id.
Ground D (No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship) as to Adalia C. by Mother, Latricia S.
1. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of Ground A as to Adalia C. by Latricia S. are hereby incorporated by reference.
Mother has not seen child for a lengthy period.
Child's previous positive relationship with parents no longer exists.
To permit additional time to develop a parent-child relationship will not be in the child's best interests because Mother has shown no interest in having a relationship with Adalia C. and the child wishes to be included in a home such as with her caregivers where she has resided for one and a half years.
2. The evidence of no visits between Mother and child demonstrates that she has no interest in the child and does not have the capacity to develop a parental relationship with the child.
3. The child does not have a connection or bond with her Mother.
4. The child is significantly bonded with her foster parents.
5. Mother does not have the knowledge, skill or capability of dealing with the child on a day-to-day basis in that she has not kept updated in the growth and day-to-day life of her child.
For a long period there has been no on-going parent child relationship and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.
Summary of Adjudicatory Findings
This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence that James C., the biological Father and Latricia S., the biological Mother, have abandoned this child and have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected this child and in addition, the biological Mother has not maintained a parent-child relationship with her child.
III DISPOSITION
Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights, applying the appropriate standard of proof the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial, establish, by clear and convincing evidence, after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest. If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.
A. C.G.S. § 17a-112(k) Criteria
The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.
Before making a decision whether or not to terminate James C.'s and Latricia S.'s parental rights, as they did not consent, the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k). In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A2d 378 (1994).
These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
1. "The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent."Father has been provided with ample services to facilitate the return of his child. The services, as described above, were appropriate, were offered on a timely basis and were made available to Father. Mother has not kept in contact with DCF and has not made herself available for services.
2. "Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended."
The Petitioner has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with Father. The Father is unable or unwilling to benefit from such services. The Petitioner was unable to provide services to the Mother as she has not made herself available.
3. "The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order."No expectations or steps were ever set for Mother or Father as they have had little or no contact with DCF or their child for a lengthy period of time. The Department has informed Father of the requirements to facilitate reunification. Father has not fulfilled these obligations.
4. "The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his 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."The child has little of any positive feelings towards her Mother and the child does not look to her family to meet her day-to-day needs, but appears bonded with and has significant emotional ties with her current foster parents, with whom she has lived since 5/31/05.
5. "The age of the child."
Adalia C. is nine years old.
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 to such child's 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 that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child."The parents have made little effort to adjust their circumstances to permit their child to safely return to their care; they have failed to maintain regular contact with their child or with the Petitioner.
7. "The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship 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."The Petitioner has encouraged the parents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their child; neither economic circumstances nor the unreasonable actions of any person has presented the parents from having such a relationship.
B. Best Interest of the Child
The court finds that TPR is in the child's best interests, including the child's need for permanency, considering Mother and Father's lack of interest or concern regarding the child's well being. Since 6/24/04, Mother and Father have not made an effort to see their child, make plans for said child's care or contact DCF with regard to their child.
It is in the best interest of the child for the parental rights of Latricia S. and James C. to be terminated.
Neither parent is willing or able to provide competent, safe, and nurturing parenting to the child.
Neither parent has availed themselves of services in order to improve their circumstances such that they can play a responsible role in the child's life.
Neither parent has been able to put the child's interests ahead of their own interests.
The child has been in the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families for longer than fifteen months.
Adalia C. is at the age where he would understand and feel the importance of belonging to family. She is excited and wishes to be in a family situation similar to her foster parents. They have shown Adalia C. and DCF that they care about Adalia C. and her well being.
Mother, Latricia S.'s whereabouts have been unknown for a substantial amount of time. She has had no contact with Adalia C. for a lengthy period of time. She has an extensive history of substance abuse and an inability to take care of Adalia C.'s siblings. She has four other children of whom she no longer has guardianship.
Father, James C. has had no contact with Adalia C. since 12/4/95. He has failed to contact the DCF social worker regarding visitation with Adalia C. even after the social worker talked with him and scheduled visitation. He has failed to show any interest in Adalia C., to obtain employment or stable housing.
Father wasn't in contact with his daughter or the Department from July 2004 until November 2004. Since contacting the Department, he has been provided with a subsidized housing application, psychiatric evaluation, substance abuse evaluation and screening. He was not recommended for further substance abuse treatment based on the results of the substance abuse evaluation and screening. The psychiatric evaluation completed on 10/4/05 recommended that Father participate in individual therapy for at least 4 months before reunification is considered. A referral was made for him to participate in therapeutic services at Catholic Charities on 1/5/06. The referral was accepted, however Catholic Charities was unable to provide therapeutic services to Father as he could not be contacted.
Father and Adalia C. had scheduled weekly supervised visits which were usually held at The Hartford Public Library. Their last visit together occurred on 12/4/05. On 12/21/05, 12/28/05 and 1/4/06, Father left a voice message canceling the scheduled supervised visit with his daughter. Efforts have been made to contact him by telephone and mail. He has not been in contact with the Department since leaving a voice message on 1/4/06. Adalia C. and her foster mother reported that Father has not had contact with his daughter since December 2005 despite her numerous telephone calls to him.
Adalia C. is currently doing well in her foster home and has no behavioral issues.
She participates in therapy sessions twice a month at The Village for Families and Children where her issues of abandonment are being addressed. She is in the 3rd grade at Oliver Ellsworth School in Windsor, CT where she is a mainstream student. She is doing well in school and no concerns have been reported.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interests for Termination of Parental Rights to enter with respect to her biological Mother, Latricia S. and biological Father, James C.
IV CONCLUSION
The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Adalia C.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Latricia S. and James C., the biological Mother and Father of the child. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Adalia C. are hereby terminated.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for this child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for this child. The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as are required by state and federal law and which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of this child.