Opinion
H12CP15016241A
12-27-2017
IN RE JOSHUA C.[1]
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Caption Date: December 22, 2017
OPINION
C. Taylor, J.
This memorandum of decision addresses issues raised by the petition filed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF or the department) for Joshua C. (Joshua) seeking to terminate parental rights (TPR) of the child’s father Pedro C. (Pedro) and his mother Liza R. (Liza).
In accordance with the spirit and intent of § 46b-124(b) and Practice Book § 32a-7, the full names of the parties 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.
The court has jurisdiction over the proceedings; notice of all hearings were provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book; and no evidence or pleadings indicate the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), as contemplated by Practice Book § 32a-3(c), is applicable in this litigation.
DCF alone bears the burden of proving each essential allegation of the TPR petition by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to the applicable provisions of General Statutes § 17a-112(j).
See § 17a-112(j); In re Dylan C., 126 Conn.App. 71, 87-88, 10 A.3d 100 (2011); Practice Book § 32a-3(b).
After considering the verified petitions, the parties’ motions, the facts as found by clear and convincing evidence, and applying the relevant standards and law to those facts, the court resolves all issues in favor of DCF. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the court orders termination of parental rights.
In deciding the TPR issues, the court had adhered to § 17a-112(q) providing that related legislative " provisions ... shall be liberally construed [by the court] in the best interests of any child for whom a petition under this section has been filed."
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND INITIAL FACTUAL FINDINGS
The parties’ procedural interaction is relevant to the TPR issues. See In re Paul O., 141 Conn.App. 477, 480, 62 A.3d 637, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 933, 64 A.3d 332 (2013).
The court has used appropriate standards for assessing the weight of the evidence as a whole.
Upon consideration of the verified pleadings and the evidence in its entirety, the court finds the facts set forth in this memorandum of decision to have been proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The history of the file and the evidence produced at trial reflects that Department of Children and Families (DCF) has been involved with this family since 2006, due to issues of substance abuse, mental health, parenting issues, and inadequate housing.
On July 26, 2015, DCF received a report from the Hartford Police Department (HPD) concerning Joshua being assaulted by his mother Liza.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in the city of Hartford, Liza assaulted Joshua during a car ride. She struck Joshua in the face, grabbed him by the neck, restrained him and spat upon him. Joshua called maternal aunt Lisa (MA Lisa) and explained the situation to her. He also attempted to call 911, but was prevented from doing so by Liza.
MA Lisa drove to the scene and managed to physically separate Liza from Joshua. MA Lisa put Joshua in her car and, eventually, went to HPD to make a complaint.
HPD personnel noted that Joshua had dried blood on his lower lip, two welts on his right arm, and red marks around his neck.
Joshua told HPD personnel that Liza used PCP every day of the week.
Phencyclidine (PCP) is a Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act. It is known for its hallucinogenic effects on humans when consumed. See Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, " Phencyclidine" (last modified January 2013), available at https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugcheminfo/pcp.pdf (last visited December 12, 2017); See also Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR), University of Maryland, " Phencyclidine (PCP), " available at http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/pcp.pdf (last visited December 12, 2017).
HPD personnel called Liza and met her at her home. Upon meeting her, officers found her to be under the influence of PCP, based upon their training and belief.
Liza denied that anything had occurred and denied being under the influence.
HPD arrested her for Breach of Peace in the Second Degree, Assault in the Third Degree, Risk of Injury of a Child, and Interfering With A 911 Call.
The court notes there was no evidence proffered that indicated that Liza was ever convicted of any charges relating to this incident.
While being transported to HPD, Liza told the officers that, " My son is going to pay for this! He is going to regret this!"
On July 27, 2015, DCF contacted Pedro. Subsequently, he agreed with a family arrangement that called for Joshua to be cared for by his maternal aunt, Lisette R., (MA Lisette) at her home in Hartford.
On September 2, 2015, Liza was arrested by West Hartford Police Department (WHPD) and was charged with Violation of a Protective Order.
On September 23, 2015, Liza was incarcerated at York Correctional Institution.
On November 13, 2015, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters (SCJM), 12th District, located in Hartford, DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Joshua. DCF alleged that he had been denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, and that he had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well-being.
On December 29, 2015, in SCJM, (Burgdorff, J.), both Liza and Pedro, who were each represented by counsel, appeared in court and were advised of their rights.
Each respondent parent entered pro forma denials as to the neglect allegations.
On March 14, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Amend Social Study.
On March 17, 2016, in SCJM, Liza entered a written plea of nolo contendre to the conditions injurious section of the neglect petition. She was canvassed by the court (Burgdorff, J.). The court then committed Joshua to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to both respondent parents.
Pedro failed to appear in court and was defaulted.
The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent Joshua’s removal from the home.
The court also granted DCF’s Motion to Amend Social Study.
On December 15, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Joshua. The permanency plan (PP) called for termination of parental rights and adoption, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On January 26, 2017, Liza, through her counsel, filed an Objection to the Permanency Plan.
On January 26, 2017, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for termination of parental rights (TPR) and adoption. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP. The court overruled Liza’s objection to the PP.
On April 20, 2017, in SCJM, the respondent father Pedro failed to appear in court.
On June 7, 2017, in SCJM, Pedro failed to appear in court for the case status conference. The court (Dannehy, J.) found that appropriate notice had been given and entered a default as to Pedro.
On September 27, 2017, the TPR trial commenced before this court and was concluded the same day.
Pedro failed to attend the trial.
For the reasons stated below, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the TPR issues against the respondent parents and in favor of the petitioner DCF.
This court has jurisdiction over the pending case. Notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book. No action is pending in any other court affecting custody of the child.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
The court has reviewed the Neglect and TPR petitions and the exhibits, which include the TPR social study and the addendum to same. The court has also reviewed the various motions and objections to same, which are the subject of this trial, and has taken judicial notice of the record.
The court also took judicial notice of the pleadings, petitions, motions, summaries of facts, specific steps, transcripts and court memorandum not related to any judicial pretrials or case status conferences. The court did not review any status reports, social studies or evaluations not otherwise entered into evidence as full exhibits in this case. See In re Stacy G., 94 Conn.App. 348, 354-55, 892 A.2d 1034 (2006).
Relevant to default judgments in child protection cases, Practice Book § 35a-8 provides in pertinent part: " (a) ... All parties except the child or youth shall be present at trial unless excused for good cause shown. Failure of any party to appear in person or by their statutorily permitted designee may result in a default ... for failure to appear for trial, as the case may be, and evidence may be introduced and judgment rendered. (b) If a parent fails to appear at the initial hearing and no military affidavit has been filed, the judicial authority shall continue the proceedings prior to entering a default for failure to appear until such time as the military affidavit is filed ..."
Further, General Statutes § 46b-121(a)(1) and Practice Book § 32a-2(a) provide that child protection proceedings, including termination of parental rights trials, are civil matters. As in other civil matters, " [t]he entry of a default constitutes an admission by the defendant of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint." DeBlasio v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 186 Conn. 398, 400, 441 A.2d 838 (1982); see also Bank of America, FSB v. Franco, 57 Conn.App. 688, 693, 751 A.2d 394 (2000) (" A default admits the material facts that constitute a cause of action ... and entry of default, when appropriately made, conclusively determines the liability of a defendant." [Internal quotation marks omitted.]) Where a default entered against a non-appearing respondent-parent in a TPR case is supported by a military affidavit, as contemplated by Practice Book § 17-21, the party’s absence establishes his or her admission of each of the material facts supporting the petitioner’s adjudicatory and dispositional claims. See Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723, 732-33, 830 A.2d 228 (2003) (respondent in child support proceeding who fails to respond to pleadings " is deemed to have judicially admitted the underlying facts of the support petition"). Thus, as in other civil matters, it correspondingly follows that a default against a TPR respondent enables a finding that the petitioner has prevailed on all issues, although evidence may be introduced before judgment is rendered, as provided by Practice Book § 35a-8(a). See In re Kamal R., 142 Conn.App. 66, 68, 62 A.3d 1177 (2013) (respondent failed to attend trial, was defaulted, and trial proceeded in his absence).
Despite the default against the respondent father, the court did take the evidence in the case in chief against the respondent father and rendered judgment as if he had not been defaulted.
The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering the evidence and the testimony of trial witnesses. Upon deliberation, the court finds that the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence at trial.
" It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony." In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000); see also In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 366, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). " The probative force of conflicting evidence is for the trier to determine ..." In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528-29, 777 A.2d 695 (2001).
Respondent Parents
Liza
(includes physical, mental, social and financial condition) (DOB: 9/28/85)
Liza was born in Hartford to Henry R. (MGF) and Elizabeth R. (MGM).
Liza reported that she grew up in Hartford and was raised by her maternal grandparents. She reported that she had a good relationship with her maternal grandparents and that her maternal grandmother was very supportive. Liza indicated that maternal grandfather died when she was eleven years old.
Liza stated that she was devastated when her maternal grandmother died approximately seven years ago. She attributed this loss to the commencement of her substance abuse.
DCF indicates that Liza did not have a relationship with MGF and MGM.
Liza has four sisters and one brother. She reported having a good relationship with her siblings during childhood.
Liza denied suffering any physical, emotional or sexual abuse during her childhood. She also denied having behavioral problems as a child.
DCF was involved with Liza in 2003, regarding an emancipation petition requested by MGM.
Liza reported to DCF that she failed to graduate from high school due to her pregnancy, but she subsequently earned her GED in an adult education. She reported that she enrolled in community college, but failed to graduate due to childcare issues. Liza reported that she did well in school and had no learning issues or behavioral concerns.
As of the time of the writing of the TPR social study and at the time of the trial, Liza was unemployed. She had previously been employed full time at Victoria’s Secret and at Jackson & Hewitt Tax Services. She has also been employed at Wal-Mart, but had been suspended for misconduct.
As of December 14, 2016, Liza was employed as a cleaner at Victoria’s Secret.
Liza reported that she has never married, and, at the writing of the TPR social study, was not in a relationship.
Liza reported no medical concerns.
Liza has an extensive history of substance abuse. She has been referred for services in the past.
Liza has never served in the military experience.
On September 2, 2015, Liza was arrested by West Hartford Police Department (WHPD) for Criminal Attempt to Violate a Protective Order. In this case, Liza was convicted of Criminal Trespass in the First Degree and received a suspended sentence and probation. This incident was a domestic violence case. On June 19, 2017, Liza was convicted of Violation of Probation in this matter.
On October 1, 2015, Liza was arrested by WHPD for Violation of a Protective Order. She was convicted of this felony on May 15, 2016, and received a split suspended sentence and probation. This incident was a domestic violence case. She was released from jail in May 2016, and commenced probation.
On May 14, 2017, Liza was arrested by WHPD for Assault in the Third Degree and other charges. This incident was a domestic violence case, which involved Liza assaulting MA Lissette in the presence of five juveniles, including Joshua. The clear and convincing evidence showed that, during the course of the assault, Joshua attempted to restrain Liza and prevent her from attacking MA Lissette.
While being booked on this incident, Liza told the WHPD booking officer that, " Let a West Hartford Cop step another foot into my house. Next time I’m gonna be ready. I’ll have some weapons."
As a result of this incident, Liza was convicted of Assault in the Third Degree and two counts of Violation of Probation. She received a jail term for the Assault in the Third Degree and was placed back on probation. This probation expires on July 5, 2019.
One of the special conditions of her probation was that Liza was to have no contact with her siblings.
On August 11, 2017, Liza was released from York Correctional Institution and resumed supervision by Department of Adult Probation (APO).
Liza was placed on the Central Registry.
On March 16, 2017, a protective order/restraining order search was conducted. Liza does not have any current protective orders or restraining orders against her.
On May 24, 2016, following her release from incarceration, the protective order was lifted and Liza was provided with supervised visits.
Liza has made unannounced visits to Joshua’s foster home and the boys and girls club, and she has threatened to call the police.
As of the time of the writing of the TPR social study, Liza was provided with weekly supervised visits for two hours in duration.
Liza was referred to the Village for Families and Children’s Therapeutic Family Time (TAFT) for parent coaching and supervised visitation. On October 7, 2016, Liza attended an intake with her TAFT Case Manager Sol Rivera and began engaging in services.
On January 12, 2017, Liza was successfully discharged from the Village for Families and Children’s TAFT Program, Liza was successfully discharged as she attended eleven out of twelve visits and complied with the program expectations as it pertains to attendance.
On January 11, 2017, Liza was referred to Klingberg Family Centers (KFC) Parenting Education Support Group per the recommendation of the TAFT Program. Liza began attending on February 2, 2017. On March 29, 2017, Liza successfully completed the parenting class.
The date of this referral was stipulated to by the parties at the beginning of the trial.
On December 20, 2016, Liza was referred to family therapy with Joshua through KFC. On January 12, 2017, Liza and Joshua attended an intake at KFC with Kathy Carbine. Liza and Joshua were recommended to complete individual sessions prior to beginning family sessions.
Liza did successfully complete a parenting class at KFC in 2017.
On June 7, 2016, Liza was referred to Intercommunity for a substance abuse evaluation. Liza attended her evaluation on July 29, 2016. During the evaluation, Liza’s urine test tested positive for PCP and cocaine. Liza challenged the result and subsequently verbally revoked the release of information between DCF and Intercommunity. She did not engage in services.
On August 19, 2016, DCF referred Liza to Community Renewal Team (CRT) for substance abuse evaluation. Liza did not attend the evaluation.
On October 6, 2016, Liza was referred to Catholic Charities for a substance abuse evaluation by her probation officer after being unsuccessfully discharged from their program in September 2016, due to lack of attendance.
In regards to Liza’s individual mental health treatment, on November 1, 2016, Liza reported she was engaged in individual and substance abuse treatment through Hartford Behavioral Health with Kristen (last name unknown). Liza was asked on November 10 and 14, 2016, to sign a release to allow for follow-up with Hartford Behavioral Health to assess her progress with the identified treatment goals. Liza refused and stated she would rather obtain a letter from her provider.
Liza did not provide DCF with documentation of her treatment or sign releases allowing DCF to contact her mental health treatment provider.
Liza did attend a substance abuse and mental health evaluation at Catholic Charities. On December 30, 2016, Liza was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Moderate Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent episode. Catholic Charities recommended that she participate in their group therapy program.
On January 4, 2017, Liza reported that she was discharged from mental health services for missing two sessions at Hartford Behavioral Health. Liza reported that she had to wait six months in order to re-engage in services. DCF was unable to verify this as Liza would not sign a release of information. DCF did offer to make a referral to Hartford Behavioral Health.
On January 14, 2017, Liza began engaging in a substance abuse group at Catholic Charities.
On January 21, 2017, Liza tested positive for PCP.
On January 28, 2017, Liza was unsuccessfully discharged from Catholic Charities due to violating program rules.
Catholic Charities recommended that Liza engage in inpatient substance services followed by intensive outpatient services. She failed to comply.
On February 7, 2017, Liza was referred for a hair test. On February 10, 2017, Liza reported she would be completing the hair test. Liza has not completed the hair test to date.
Liza completed a urine test for probation on February 15, 2017. It was positive for PCP.
Liza completed a urine test for Wheeler Clinic on February 24, 2017, which came back negative.
Liza has been supervised by probation since being released from incarceration on August 10, 2017.
Liza will be on probation until July 5, 2019. In order to maintain her compliance with probation, Liza must get employment, stable housing, stay clean from all drugs, attend mental health treatment, and anger management treatment.
On September 12, 2017, Liza signed releases allowing DCF to establish contact with her probation officer Rebecca Barrett.
APO reported to DCF that, since her release from incarceration on August 11, 2017, Liza met with Ms. Barrett as scheduled on August 14 and 28, 2017, and September 12, 2017. She was referred by APO to Wheeler Clinic for substance abuse treatment. She attended an intake there and rendered a negative urine to Wheeler on September 11, 2017.
Wheeler Clinic recommended that Liza engage in the Women’s Cognitive Behavioral (CBT) Group, medication management and individual therapy. She started group therapy on September 15, 2017. However, Liza missed both her individual therapy appointment on September 18, 2017, and her medication management appointment on September 19, 2017.
On September 12, 2017, Liza signed a release for KFC allowing DCF to re-refer her and Joshua to family therapy. DCF has not made this referral as Joshua refused to engage in family therapy.
Liza has maintained stable housing, with the financial assistance of DCF.
Pedro
(includes physical, mental, social and financial condition) (DOB: 8/10/84)
Pedro was born and raised in Hartford to Pedro C. (PGF) and Madeleine C. (PGM). He indicated to DCF that he was a graduate of Newington High School.
Pedro reported to DCF that he resides with his girlfriend Hiranda M. (Hiranda) and their daughter in Hartford. He stated that he is in a committed relationship with his girlfriend.
Pedro mentioned that Joshua and Hiranda " get along well." Joshua has made positive comments to DCF in regards to Hiranda. Pedro reported that he has never been married.
Pedro described his childhood as being good. He disclosed to DCF that he has two sisters and that he has a good relationship with his siblings.
Pedro denied any history of emotional, physical or sexual abuse while growing up.
Pedro works full time at Chase Land Painting in Hartford, where he has been employed for the past four years. Pedro reported that he is able to pay for rent and provide for the basic needs of his family.
Pedro told DCF that he was buying a house in Hartford. DCF has been unable to assess the condition of the home due to Pedro’s refusal to cooperate with DCF.
Pedro reported that he is healthy with no medical concerns and reported no current or history of any mental health concerns.
Pedro told DCF that he had no history of substance abuse. On September 4, 2015, he was referred to Wheeler Clinic and completed a substance abuse evaluation and drug screening. Pedro tested negative for all substances.
However, on October 8, 2015, Joshua reported to DCF that Pedro smoked marijuana in the basement of his home. Pedro denied this allegation. He was agreeable to participate in another toxicology test, but failed to cooperate, claiming work conflicts.
Pedro denied having a criminal history. However, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that he is a convicted felon. On September 15, 2006, Pedro was convicted of Failure to Appear in the First Degree.
In 2011, Pedro was convicted of Operating Under Suspension.
In February 2016, Pedro refused to cooperate with DCF following a report from Joshua, who stated that Pedro was using marijuana and was also verbally abusive. Pedro has failed to respond to DCF efforts to contact him, and he has made no efforts to contact DCF and request visitation with Joshua.
Joshua indicated to DCF that he started seeing Pedro in July 2017, and that Pedro had purchased school uniforms for him.
On August 29, 2017, DCF personnel conducted a walk through visit with PGF and PGM, pursuant to a request by Joshua. PGF and PGM are approved caretakers for Joshua. PGF and PGM agreed to provide their son Pedro with the assigned social worker’s contact information. As of the date of the TPR trial, Pedro has failed to make any contact with DCF.
On September 19, 2017, Joshua provided DCF with Pedro’s current address in Hartford.
Child for Whom Petition was Filed
Joshua
Joshua was born to Liza and Pedro on July 11, 2003, in Hartford. DCF indicates that he presents initially as shy and respectful. When he establishes a relationship with an individual he becomes outgoing, bright, articulate, well-natured and talkative. Joshua enjoys sports, especially basketball and baseball.
Since DCF’s involvement, Joshua has been placed in a DCF relative foster home with his maternal aunt, Lisette R. (Lisette). Joshua has been able to form a positive relationship with his maternal aunt and her family. Lisette indicated to DCF that Joshua is bonded with his cousins. Joshua has reported having a good relationship with his maternal relatives and mentioned that they have always been his strongest support throughout his life. Joshua stated that he received minimal support from his paternal relatives.
Joshua is medically, dentally and visual up to date. He has had all immunizations.
Joshua suffers from seasonal asthma and takes medication as required. His braces were removed on July 26, 2017.
On June 14, 2016, DCF referred Joshua at Klingberg Family Center CATS Program for a weekly individual therapy to address his childhood trauma while living with his mother. The goal of therapy was to develop and implement effective coping skills that would allow for Joshua to lessen his strong anger in interactions with his parents and sometimes with peers, and for Joshua to demonstrate the use of new coping skills at home and in the community.
On October 21, 2016, Joshua’s therapist, Jessica Grazado, reported that Joshua had been attending therapy and sharing his childhood trauma. On November 28, 2016, Ms. Grazado reported that Joshua was doing very well. She indicated Joshua was not very symptomatic and had done well in processing his feelings.
Ms. Grazado indicated that Joshua was opinionated and capable of self-advocacy. Joshua was discharged from individual therapy on December 7, 2016.
Joshua and Liza were referred to family therapy through Klingberg Family Centers (KFC).
On January 12, 2017, Liza and Joshua attended an intake at KFC with Kathy Carbine. KFC recommended that they complete individual sessions prior to beginning family sessions.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Joshua attended three sessions at KFC, but missed two sessions. Liza attended two family sessions, but missed six other sessions.
Joshua and Liza were discharged from KFC on June 6, 2017.
DCF records indicate that Joshua refused to continue family therapy.
As of September 21, 2017, Joshua was enrolled at Public Safety Academy in Enfield as a 9th grader in regular education. He finished the 2016-17 academic year with a 2.875 GPA and made the honor roll during the first three quarters of the academic year.
As of September 21, 2017, Joshua continued to reside with his maternal aunt Lisette and his five cousins. Three of his cousins are cared for by Lisette as foster children. Joshua originally began residing with Lisette through a family arrangement in July 2015.
Lisette is a DCF licensed relative foster parent. She is aware of DCF’s plan to pursue TPR in this case. Lisette wishes to adopt Joshua and believes that this is in his best interest.
Lisette is not in agreement with a permanent subsidized transfer of guardianship (PSTOG). However, as of September 21, 2017, she was agreeable to an open adoption and was willing to come to an agreement regarding visitation between Joshua and Liza.
Joshua has visited with Liza throughout the pendency of this case, except when Liza was incarcerated. Joshua refused to visit her in jail.
Liza has demonstrated volatility and inappropriate behavior during visits. DCF and service providers have had to terminate visits due to Liza’s behavior. Both Joshua and service providers have had to redirect Liza due to inappropriate behavior during visits.
Joshua reported he likes living with his maternal aunt and his cousins. He stated that he feels loved and believes that he is placed in a safe and structured home environment. He understands the direction of DCF.
Joshua indicated that he did not want to return to Liza’s care due to her instability and her inability to provide for him financially and emotionally. He reported his mother needs help and wants to maintain a relationship with her. However, Joshua understands that Liza may not improve given her lack of progress in maintaining her sobriety and mental health treatment.
RELATIVE RESOURCES
The clear and convincing evidence shows that there are relative resources for Joshua.
Joshua has lived with Lisette since the inception of this case. Lissette has indicated that she is willing to remain a permanent resource for Joshua.
MA Lisa has also served as a placement resource for Joshua in the past.
The paternal grandparents have served as a respite resource for Joshua.
Pedro supplied the paternal grandparents’ names as placement resources for Joshua.
ADJUDICATION
On November 13, 2015, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 12th District, located in Hartford, DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Joshua. DCF alleged that he had been denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, and that he had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well being.
On December 29, 2015, in SCJM, (Burgdorff, J.), both Liza and Pedro, who were each represented by counsel, appeared in court and were advised of their rights.
Each respondent parent entered pro forma denials as to the neglect allegations.
On March 17, 2016, in SCJM, Liza entered a written plea of nolo contendre to the conditions injurious section of the neglect petition. She was canvassed by the court, (Burgdorff, J.). The court then committed Joshua to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to both respondent parents.
Pedro failed to appear in court and was defaulted.
The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent Joshua’s removal from the home.
On December 15, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Joshua. The Permanency Plan (PP) called for termination of parental rights and adoption, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On January 26, 2017, Liza, through her counsel, filed an Objection to the Permanency Plan.
On January 26, 2017, in SCJM, the court, (Dannehy, J.), granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for termination of parental rights (TPR) and adoption. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP. The court overruled Liza’s objection to the PP.
On April 20, 2017, in SCJM, the respondent father Pedro failed to appear in court.
On June 7, 2017, in SCJM, Pedro failed to appear in court for the scheduled case status conference. The court, (Dannehy, J.), found that appropriate notice had been given and entered a default as to Pedro.
On September 27, 2017, the TPR trial commenced before this court and was concluded the same day.
Pedro failed to attend the trial.
The court is next called upon to determine whether DCF has met its burden of proving the allegations presented by the pending TPR petition concerning Joshua. Practice Book § 35a-3.
A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ... In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [in General Statutes § 17a-112(j) ] exists by clear and convincing evidence. if the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child ... In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 469-70, 816 A.2d 707 (2003). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Rafael S., 125 Conn.App. 605, 610-11, 9 A.3d 417 (2010). While there are two phases to a hearing on a termination of parental rights petition, adjudicatory and dispositional; see In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658, 664, 783 A.2d 534 (2001); the two phases may be combined in a single, nonbifurcated proceeding. See In re Jennifer W., 75 Conn.App. 485, 494, 816 A.2d 697, cert. denied, 263 Conn. 917, 821 A.2d 770 (2003); In re Deana E., 61 Conn.App. 197, 205, 763 A.2d 45 (2000), [cert. denied, 255 Conn. 941, 768 A.2d 949 (2001) ] ...
In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 226, 15 A.3d 194 (2011). In such a nonbifurcated proceeding, " disposition may not be considered until the adjudicatory phase has concluded." Practice Book § 35a-7(b).
In the adjudicatory phase of these proceedings, the court has considered the evidence related to circumstances and events prior to March 23, 2017, the date upon which the TPR petition was filed. With regard to the allegations of failure to achieve rehabilitation brought against the respondent parents, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony relating to circumstances occurring through the close of trial. Upon review, the court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist as to the respondent parents.
LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION EFFORTS
The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial establishes that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate and maintain contact with the respondent parents throughout this litigation, as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(1).
Liza and DCF have maintained contact with each other.
Pedro and DCF have not maintained contact with each other.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the failure of the respondent putative father to maintain contact with DCF is solely the responsibility of Pedro.
A. Reunification Efforts for Liza
The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial establishes that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify Liza with Joshua during the adjudicatory period. The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial also establishes that the respondent-mother was " unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts ..." Section 17a-112(j)(1). See In re Paul O., supra, 141 Conn.App. 483-85; In re Chevol G., 125 Conn.App. 618, 621, 9 A.2d 413 (2010); In re Alison M., supra, 127 Conn.App. 205.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the following services were offered to or provided to Liza:
Catholic Charities: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
Community Health Services: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
CRT: substance abuse testing and treatment.
DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, funding for housing deposit and housing assistance, transportation assistance, and visitation.
APO: supervision, referrals for substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment and placement in the Technical Violation Unit.
Hartford Behavioral Health: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
Institute for Hispanic Families: substance abuse testing and treatment.
InterCommunity Recovery Centers: substance abuse testing and treatment.
KFC: for intensive family preservation program, family therapy and parenting education and support group.
Village for Families and Children: TAFT for parenting education and supervised visitation.
Wheeler Clinic: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
The credible evidence put forth in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes both that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts for the respondent mother and that she is unable or unwilling to benefit from § 17a-112(j)(1) efforts.
B. Reunification Efforts for Pedro
DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF was unable to provide additional services to Pedro due to his failure to make contact with DCF, his failure to make himself available for services, and his failure to engage in the services.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the following services were offered to or provided to Pedro prior to the filing of the TPR petition on March 23, 2017:
DCF: casework services, considered removal meeting, and visitation.
Wheeler Clinic: mental health and substance abuse evaluation.
The credible evidence put forth in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes both that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts for the respondent father and that he is unable or unwilling to benefit from § 17a-112(j)(1) efforts.
II. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO LIZA
A. Parental Failure to Rehabilitate- General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
DCF alleges that Liza’s parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Joshua has been adjudicated neglected and Liza was provided with specific steps, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent mother has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render her able to care for her son. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Liza has yet to achieve a sufficient " level of rehabilitation ... which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child’s life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000); see In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005); In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001).
First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent mother has not achieved § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports, the exhibits, and the testimony, which showed that Liza has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza’s issues are those of mental health, substance abuse, parenting deficits, criminal activity, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Liza has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on March 17, 2016, the court, (Burgdorff, J.), ordered specific steps for Liza. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Liza failed to fully comply with the majority of those steps, which, as enumerated below, were intended to facilitate the return of Joshua to Liza’s care.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to fully comply with this step.
From May 24, 2016 through November 2016, Liza refused to allow DCF to conduct home visits.
Liza did keep appointments with DCF and participated in case planning meetings on May 16, 2016, and November 1, 2016.
Keep child’s whereabouts and your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to fully comply with this step.
From May 24, 2016 through November 2016, Liza refused to provide DCF with her address.
Take part in parenting, individual and family counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to fully comply with this step.
On June 7, 2016, Liza was referred to InterCommunity for a substance abuse evaluation. Liza attended her evaluation on July 29, 2016. During the evaluation, Liza’s urine test tested positive for PCP and cocaine. Liza challenged the result and subsequently verbally revoked the release of information between DCF and Intercommunity. She did not engage in services.
In August 2016, Liza was referred by her probation officer to Catholic Charities for a substance abuse evaluation. She cancelled her scheduled evaluations there on August 12 and 17, 2016. On August 19, 2016, DCF referred Liza to CRT for a substance abuse evaluation, Liza did not attend the evaluation at CRT. Liza cancelled her evaluation at CRT on August 25, 2016, and failed to show for her evaluation on August 31, 2016, with Catholic Charities. In September 2016, she was unsuccessfully discharged from Catholic Charities for failure to attend.
On October 6, 2016, Liza was again referred to Catholic Charities for a substance abuse evaluation by her probation officer. Liza failed to appear for her scheduled substance abuse evaluations on October 15 and 21, 2016. On November 4, 2016, Liza attended her substance abuse evaluation and her urinalysis drug test was negative. Catholic Charities recommended that she continue with services she was receiving through Hartford Behavioral Health.
On November 1, 2016, Liza reported to DCF that she was engaged in individual and substance abuse treatment through Hartford Behavioral Health with Kristen (last name unknown). Liza was asked on November 10 and 14, 2016, to sign a release allowing DCF to follow up with her provider to assess her progress with the identified treatment goals. Liza refused and stated she would rather obtain a letter from her provider.
As of the date of the filing of the TPR social study, Liza has not provided DCF with documentation of her mental health treatment or with signed releases allowing DCF to contact her mental health treatment provider.
Liza did attend a substance abuse and mental health evaluation at Catholic Charities. On December 30, 2016, Liza was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Moderate Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent episode. Catholic Charities recommenced that she participate in their group therapy program.
On January 4, 2017, Liza reported to DCF that she was discharged from mental health services for missing two sessions at Hartford Behavioral Health. Liza reported that she had to wait six months in order to re-engage in services. DCF was unable to verify this as Liza would not sign a release of information. DCF did offer to make a referral to Hartford Behavioral Health.
DCF referred Liza for parenting education and supervised visitation on September 26, 2016, to the Village for Families and Children. She was to participate in the TAFT program.
Liza attended an intake at the Village on October 17, 2016, with her TAFT Case Manager Sol Rivera.
On January 12, 2017, Liza was successfully discharged from the Village for Families and Children’s TAFT Program. Liza was successfully discharged as she attended eleven out of twelve visits and complied with the program expectations as for attendance.
However, Liza failed to meet the program’s mutually agreed-upon goals and objectives. The clear and convincing evidence showed that Liza had difficulty in conducting herself appropriately during supervised visitation. She would have to be redirected during the visits and had two visits ended early due to inappropriate behavior on her part.
It was recommended that Liza participate in additional parenting education in reference to Joshua’s age and stages of development. Ms. Rivera reported Liza was coached and prompted to hold age-appropriate conversations with Joshua.
Ms. Rivera reported that Liza had difficulty understanding and accepting that Joshua was no longer a child and had his own demands, such as his preference to hold appropriate mother-son conversations.
On November 11, 2017, Liza was referred to Klingberg Family Centers’ Parenting Education Support Group as a reason of the recommendation of the TAFT Program. Liza attended sessions on February 2, 7, and 21, 2017 and April 11, 2017.
Liza failed to attended sessions at Klingberg Family Centers on January 26, 2017, February 14 and 28, 2017, March 2 and 23, 2017 and April 3, 2017.
Accept in-home support services and cooperate with them .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to comply with this step.
Liza refused to allow the Village for Families and Children’s TAFT Case Manager Sol Rivera to conduct home visits until late December 2016.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to comply with this step.
On June 7, 2016, Liza was referred to InterCommunity for a substance abuse evaluation. Liza attended her evaluation on July 29, 2016. During the evaluation, Liza’s urine test tested positive for PCP and cocaine. Liza challenged the result and subsequently verbally revoked the release of information between DCF and InterCommunity. She did not engage in services.
In August 2016, Liza was referred by her probation officer to Catholic Charities for a substance abuse evaluation. She cancelled her scheduled evaluations there on August 12 and 17, 2016.
On August 19, 2016, DCF referred Liza to CRT for a substance abuse evaluation, Liza did not attend the evaluation at CRT. Liza cancelled her evaluation at CRT on August 25, 2016, and failed to show for her evaluation on August 31, 2016, with Catholic Charities.
In September 2016, she was unsuccessfully discharged from Catholic Charities due to failure to attend.
On October 6, 2016, Liza was again referred to Catholic Charities for a substance abuse evaluation by her probation officer. Liza failed to appear for her scheduled substance abuse evaluations on October 15 and 21, 2016. On November 4, 2016, Liza attended her substance abuse evaluation and her urinalysis drug test was negative. Catholic Charities recommended that she continue with services she was receiving through Hartford Behavioral Health.
On November 1, 2016, Liza reported to DCF that she was engaged in individual and substance abuse treatment through Hartford Behavioral Health with Kristen (last name unknown). Liza was asked on November 1 and 14, 2016, to sign a release allowing DCF to follow up with her provider to assess her progress with the identified treatment goals. Liza refused and stated she would rather obtain a letter from her provider.
As of the date of the filing of the TPR social study, Liza had not provided DCF with documentation of her mental health treatment or with signed releases allowing DCF to contact her mental health treatment provider.
Subsequently, DCF referred Liza to CRT for a hair test. On December 1, 2016, Liza notified DCF that she was refusing to take the hair test.
On December 2, 2016, Liza was ordered by her probation officer to complete her substance abuse treatment at Catholic Charities. Liza was scheduled to attend intakes there on December 16 and 19, 2016, but she cancelled both appointments.
On December 5, 2016, Liza admitted to her probation officer that she had relapsed and used PCP.
On December 30, 2016, Liza attended her substance abuse evaluation. At this time, she tested positive for PCP.
On January 4, 2017, Liza reported to DCF that she was discharged from mental health services for missing two sessions at Hartford Behavioral Health. Liza reported that she had to wait six months in order to re-engage in services. DCF was unable to verify this as Liza would not sign a release of information. DCF did offer to make a referral to Hartford Behavioral Health.
On January 4, 2017, Liza admitted to relapsing and using PCP.
On January 14, 2017, Liza began engaging in a substance abuse group at Catholic Charities.
On January 21, 2017, Liza tested positive for PCP.
On January 28, 2017, Liza was unsuccessfully discharged from Catholic Charities due to violating program rules.
Catholic Charities recommended that Liza engage in inpatient substance abuse treatment followed by intensive outpatient treatment. Liza was instructed to contact inpatient providers in order to attempt to obtain treatment, but failed to do so.
On February 7, 2017, Liza was referred for a hair test, but failed to complete it.
On February 15, 2017, probation tested Liza for substances. She tested positive for PCP.
On February 24, 2017, Wheeler Clinic tested Liza for substances. She tested negative for illicit substances.
Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of [which] will be up to DCF to decide .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has partially complied with this step.
The court will incorporate its comments in the previous section, " Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, " by reference.
Not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to comply with this step.
Liza tested positive for illicit substances on the following dates:
July 29, 2016
positive for PCP & cocaine
December 30, 2016
positive for PCP
January 21, 2017
positive for PCP
February 15, 2017
positive for PCP
Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to fully comply with this step.
On June 7, 2016, Liza was referred to InterCommunity for a substance abuse evaluation. Liza attended her evaluation on July 29, 2016. During the evaluation, Liza’s urine test tested positive for PCP and cocaine. Liza challenged the result and subsequently verbally revoked the release of information between DCF and Intercommunity. She did not engage in services.
In August 2016, Liza was referred by her probation officer to Catholic Charities for a substance abuse evaluation. She cancelled her scheduled evaluations there on August 12 and 17, 2016.
On August 19, 2016, DCF referred Liza to CRT for a substance abuse evaluation, Liza did not attend the evaluation at CRT. Liza cancelled her evaluation at CRT on August 25, 2016, and failed to show for her evaluation on August 31, 2016, with Catholic Charities.
In September 2016, she was unsuccessfully discharged from Catholic Charities due to failure to attend.
DCF referred Liza for parenting education and supervised visitation on September 26, 2016, to the Village for Families and Children. She was to participate in the TAFT program.
Liza attended an intake at the Village on October 17, 2016, with her TAFT Case Manager Sol Rivera.
On January 12, 2017, Liza was successfully discharged from the Village for Families and Children’s TAFT Program. Liza was successfully discharged as she attended eleven out of twelve visits and complied with the program expectations as for attendance.
On October 6, 2016, Liza was again referred to Catholic Charities for a substance abuse evaluation by her probation officer. Liza failed to appear for her scheduled substance abuse evaluations on October 15 and 21, 2016.
On November 4, 2016, Liza attended her substance abuse evaluation and rendered a negative urinalysis drug test at Catholic Charities’ Institute for Hispanic Families. It was recommended that she continue to receive services through Hartford Behavioral Health.
Subsequently, DCF referred Liza to CRT for a hair test. On December 1, 2016, Liza notified DCF that she was refusing to take the hair test.
On December 2, 2016, Liza was ordered by her probation officer to complete her substance abuse treatment at Catholic Charities. Liza was scheduled to attend intakes there on December 16 and 19, 2016, but she cancelled both appointments.
On December 30, 2016, Liza attended her substance abuse evaluation. At this time, she tested positive for PCP.
On January 4, 2017, Liza reported to DCF that she was discharged from mental health services for missing two sessions at Hartford Behavioral Health. Liza reported that she had to wait six months in order to re-engage in services. DCF was unable to verify this as Liza would not sign a release of information. DCF did offer to make a referral to Hartford Behavioral Health.
On January 11, 2017, Liza was referred to Klingberg Family Centers’ Parenting Education Support Group as a reason of the recommendation of the TAFT Program. Liza attended sessions on February 2, 7, and 21, 2017, and April 11, 2017.
On January 14, 2017, Liza began engaging in a substance abuse group at Catholic Charities.
Liza failed to attended sessions at Klingberg Family Centers on January 26, 2017, February 14 and 28, 2017, March 2 and 23, 2017, and April 3, 2017.
On January 28, 2017, Liza was unsuccessfully discharged from Catholic Charities due to violating program rules.
Catholic Charities recommended that Liza engage in inpatient substance abuse treatment followed by intensive outpatient treatment. Liza was instructed to contact inpatient providers in order to attempt to obtain treatment, but failed to do so.
On February 7, 2017, Liza was referred for a hair test, but failed to complete it.
On February 15, 2017, probation tested Liza for substances. She tested positive for PCP.
Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the court did not specifically order any evaluations.
Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check on your attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings with this court. Sign the release within 30 days .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to fully comply with this step.
On June 7, 2016, Liza was referred to InterCommunity for a substance abuse evaluation. Liza attended her evaluation on July 29, 2016. During the evaluation, Liza’s urine test tested positive for PCP and cocaine. Liza challenged the result and subsequently verbally revoked the release of information between DCF and Intercommunity. She did not engage in services.
On November 1, 2016, Liza reported to DCF that she was engaged in individual and substance abuse treatment through Hartford Behavioral Health with Kristen (last name unknown). Liza was asked on November 1 and 14, 2016, to sign a release allowing DCF to follow up with her provider to assess her progress with the identified treatment goals. Liza refused and stated she would rather obtain a letter from her provider. She failed to do so.
On January 4, 2017, Liza reported to DCF that she was discharged from mental health services for missing two sessions at Hartford Behavioral Health. Liza reported that she had to wait six months in order to re-engage in services. DCF was unable to verify this as Liza would not sign a release of information. DCF did offer to make a referral to Hartford Behavioral Health.
Liza did sign releases allowing DCF to contact her probation officer, Catholic Charities and the Village for Families and Children.
Sign releases allowing your child’s attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child’s medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Liza failed to comply with this step.
Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income .
Liza has been compliant with this step. After being released from jail, Liza was either homeless or transient for a period of time.
In November 2016, with financial assistance from DCF, Liza found an apartment.
DCF paid $2, 000.00 for her security deposit and first month’s rent.
Liza reported that she worked at Victoria’s Secret as a cleaner. She received health care coverage from DSS and a monthly bus pass from DCF.
Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Liza failed to comply with this step.
Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents .
Liza has been compliant with this step during the period of time between the issuance of the protective order (March 17, 2016) and the date of the filing of the TPR (March 23, 2017).
Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated that DCF ever referred Liza to an appropriate domestic violence program.
Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to fully comply with this step.
Although Liza was never convicted of any criminal activity that occurred during the period of time between the issuance of the protective order (March 17, 2016) and the date of the filing of the TPR (March 23, 2017), the clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza did engage in criminal activity in this period.
Liza tested positive for illicit substance on the following dates:
July 29, 2016
positive for PCP & cocaine
December 30, 2016
positive for PCP
January 21, 2017
positive for PCP
February 15, 2017
positive for PCP
Liza was not compliant with her conditions of probation, having been involved in substance abuse and having been placed in the Technical Violations Unit.
Take care of the child(ren)’s physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including keeping the child(ren)’s appointments with his/her/their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Liza failed to comply with this step.
Cooperate with the child(ren)’s therapy .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to fully comply with this step.
Liza failed to attended sessions at Klingberg Family Centers on January 26, 2017, February 14 and 28, 2017, and March 2 and 23, 2017.
However, the court is aware that the clear and convincing evidence shows that the family therapy at Klingberg Family Centers eventually foundered due to the fact that Joshua failed to cooperate with it.
Make all necessary child-care arrangements to make sure the child(ren) is/are properly supervised and cared for by appropriate caretaker(s) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Liza failed to comply with this step.
Keep the child(ren) in the state of Connecticut while this case is going on unless you get permission from the DCF or the court to take them out of state. You must get permission first .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Liza failed to comply with this step.
Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF permits .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has complied with this step. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Liza had difficulty in conducting herself appropriately during visitation.
Contact DCF upon release from incarceration .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Liza failed to comply with this step.
This court concludes that Liza has been unable to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of her child, insofar as she is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from the date of commitment through the date of the filing of the TPR petition and continuing through the time of trial, Liza has not been available to take part in her son’s life in a safe, nurturing, and positive manner, and, based on her issues of mental health, substance abuse, parenting deficits, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling and services, she will never be consistently available to Joshua.
The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Liza has consistently failed to be available for her son by virtue of her failure to address her issues appropriately and in a timely manner.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has attended the various referrals and programs for counseling, and has attended some of them. She apparently completed the Village’s TAFT program satisfactorily. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Liza has failed to show any consistent and adequate benefit from these referrals. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has failed to improve her parenting ability to acceptable standards as far as her child’s safety and emotional needs are concerned.
DCF has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Liza cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Joshua safe and healthy and to maximize his abilities to achieve.
When one also considers the high level of care, patience, and discipline that Joshua’s needs will require from his caregiver, it is patently clear that Liza is not in a better position to parent her child than she was at the time of Joshua’s commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent him. Effectively, Liza is no better able " to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than [s]he had been at the time of the child’s commitment." In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 367, 730 A.2d 106 (1999); see In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. 670 (" [i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by [DCF]"); see also In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 124-25, 614 A.2d 832 (1992); In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 206, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).
Even if Liza was finally capable of realizing and correcting her problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect her to be able to parent her son at any time in the near future, if ever.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Joshua’s needs for permanence and stability do not allow for the time necessary for Liza to attempt rehabilitation. Given this respondent’s history of mental health and substance abuse issues, it is reasonable to infer that she will remain besieged by those issues for some extensive time, and that she will not be physically available to serve as a custodial resource for Joshua during the time frame for rehabilitation contemplated in § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). See In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 670-72, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010). Thus, the evidence related to the effectiveness of her treatment supports the conclusion that DCF has met the burden of proof on this TPR element. See In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485, 515, 78 A.3d 797 (2013); In re Cheila R., 112 Conn.App. 582, 591-92, 963 A.2d 1014 (2009).
Given the age, sensibilities, needs, and special needs of the child involved, and given Liza’s failure and/or inability to correct her issues, it would be unreasonable to conclude that she would be able to achieve rehabilitation from her various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for Joshua within a reasonable time.
Joshua needs a parent who is able to effectively care for him now. He cannot wait for the remote possibility that his biological mother might overcome her mental health and substance abuse issues and her failure to appropriately benefit from referrals and services and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for him one day in the future. Joshua is unable to wait for Liza to show that she has rehabilitated herself and is ready to assume her parental role. It is fundamental that " in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384, 784 A.2d 457 (2001). Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that DCF has proved that Liza failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).
In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the child at issue, assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, and reached its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361-63.
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Liza and her son.
Continued foster care is detrimental to the child’s development; Joshua requires a permanent home that is safe and nurturing, along with a caregiver that is capable and up to the challenging task of raising him.
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Liza is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. See In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 354, 776 A.2d 487 (2001). In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent mother’s parenting deficits as they relate to her son’s need for a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent who can meet his requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Liza further time to rehabilitate herself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of her son, would not be in the best interests of Joshua. In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 507-08; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
III. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO PEDRO
A. Abandonment- General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)
The petitioner DCF has alleged that Pedro has abandoned Joshua as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).
In its pleadings, DCF alleged the following as to this statutory ground:
Pedro has not seen Joshua in lengthy period of time;
Pedro has not provided financial support for Joshua;
Pedro has never sent cards, gifts or letters to Joshua;
Pedro has never acknowledged Joshua’s birthday or other special days;
Pedro has never participated in Joshua’s education or shown an interest in Joshua’s health or welfare;
Pedro has not inquired about Joshua or requested visitation in a lengthy period of time.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, although Pedro had not visited Joshua much prior to Liza’s incarceration, his visitation did increase once she was sent to jail.
The clear and convincing evidence of Pedro’s conduct prior to the date on which the TPR petition was amended proves that this respondent abandoned Joshua as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(3)(A). Pedro has seldom visited his son, or displayed any love and affection for him, and seldom interacted with him. He attended few court proceedings and has demonstrated little sustained concern for Joshua’s welfare. See In re Lukas K., 120 Conn.App. 465, 487, 992 A.2d 1142 (2010), aff’d, 300 Conn. 463, 14 A.3d 990 (2011). Pedro’s lack of interest in the child, critical to the subject of statutory abandonment, is clearly and convincingly evident from the fact that he has avoided involvement with DCF and has made no efforts to seek official access to Joshua. Pedro failed to contact DCF at any time during much of these proceedings.
Pedro’s conduct in making himself inaccessible to DCF and failing to maintain contact with his son’s legal guardian fulfils the elements of § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).
Pedro has not recently inquired about the child’s status or his circumstances; he has not sought information related to the child’s specialized needs; he has never contributed to the child’s financial support, medical care, emotional security or housing; he has evaded DCF’s reunification efforts; and he has never sent cards, gifts, or letters to Joshua. This conduct, on the part of Pedro, " do[es] not constitute the type of interest, concern or responsibility expected of a father who has maintained a reasonable degree of interest and concern in his child." In re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 733, 994 A.2d 233 (2010), appeal dismissed, 300 Conn. 294, 12 A.3d 566 (2011); see In re Lukas K., supra, 120 Conn.App. 487-88. Rather, during the adjudicatory period and thereafter, the clear and convincing evidence establishes both that Pedro has little concern for Joshua’s welfare and that he has not minimum attributes of " [t]he commonly understood general obligations of parenthood" with regard to this child, but instead has abandoned Joshua within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(A). In re Lukas K., supra, 487.
B. Parental Failure to Rehabilitate- General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
DCF alleges that Pedro’s parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Joshua has been adjudicated neglected and Pedro was provided with specific steps, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent father has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for his son. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Pedro has yet to achieve a sufficient " level of rehabilitation ... which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he] can assume a responsible position in [his] child’s life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448; see In re Alejandro L., supra, 91 Conn.App. 259; In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 665.
First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent father has not achieved § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports, the exhibits, and the testimony, which showed that Pedro has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro’s issues are those of substance abuse, parenting deficits, and a failure to attempt and benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Pedro has been placed on notice to address his issues in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that in SCJM on March 17, 2016, the court, (Burgdorff, J.), ordered specific steps for Pedro. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Pedro failed to fully comply with the majority of those steps, which, as enumerated below, were intended to facilitate the return of Joshua to Pedro’s care.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to comply with this step.
In February 2016, Pedro declined to cooperate with DCF following a report by Joshua who indicated that Pedro was using marijuana and was also verbally abusive to him. He has not responded to DCF efforts to engage him since.
Keep child’s whereabouts and your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to comply with this step.
Pedro refused to provide DCF with his address.
Take part in parenting, and family counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to fully comply with this step.
On September 4, 2015, DCF referred Pedro to Wheeler Clinic for a substance abuse evaluation and any recommended treatment.
Pedro attended the evaluation and Wheeler Clinic did not recommend any further treatment.
In February 2016, Pedro declined to cooperate with DCF and has not been available for evaluations and referrals.
Accept in-home support services and cooperate with them .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to fully comply with this step.
On September 4, 2015, DCF referred Pedro to Wheeler Clinic for a substance abuse evaluation and any recommended treatment.
Pedro attended the evaluation and Wheeler Clinic did not recommend any further treatment.
In February 2016, Pedro declined to cooperate with DCF and has not been available for evaluations and referrals.
Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of [which] will be up to DCF to decide .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has partially complied with this step.
The court will incorporate its comments in the previous section, " Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, " by reference.
Not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to comply with this step.
Joshua reported to DCF that Pedro was using marijuana.
Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to fully comply with this step.
The court will incorporate its comments in the previous section, " Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, " by reference.
Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the court did not specifically order any evaluations.
Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check on your attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings with this court. Sign the release within 30 days .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to fully comply with this step.
In February 2016, Pedro declined to cooperate with DCF and has not been available for evaluations and referrals.
Sign releases allowing your child’s attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child’s medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to fully comply with this step.
Pedro has been employed.
Due to Pedro’s refusal to cooperate with DCF, it has been impossible to assess Pedro’s home.
Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the child(ren) .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to fully comply with this step.
In February 2016, Pedro declined to cooperate with DCF and has not been available for evaluations and referrals.
Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
Cooperate with the child(ren)’s therapy .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated that DCF ever referred Pedro to any family therapy programs.
Make all necessary child-care arrangements to make sure the child(ren) is/are properly supervised and cared for by appropriate caretaker(s) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
Keep the child(ren) in the State of Connecticut while this case is going on unless you get permission from the DCF or the court to take them out of state. You must get permission first .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF permits .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has failed to fully comply with this step.
In February 2016, Pedro declined to cooperate with DCF and has not been available for evaluations and referrals. He also indicated that he did not want to visit Joshua.
Within thirty (30) days of this order, and at any time after that, tell DCF in writing the name, address, family relationship and birth date of any person(s) who you would like DCF to investigate and consider as a placement resource for the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Pedro failed to comply with this step.
This court concludes that Pedro has been unable to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of his child, insofar as he is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from the date of commitment through the date of the filing of the TPR petition and continuing through the time of trial, Pedro has not been available to take part in his son’s life in a safe, nurturing, and positive manner, and, based on his issues of substance abuse, parenting deficits, and a failure to undertake and benefit from counseling and services, he will never be consistently available to Joshua.
The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Pedro has consistently failed to be available for his son by virtue of his failure to address his issues appropriately and in a timely manner.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in February 2016, Pedro refused to cooperate with DCF efforts to reunify him with Joshua. This clear and convincing evidence indicates that he has failed to improve his parenting ability to acceptable standards as far as his child’s safety and emotional needs are concerned.
DCF has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Pedro cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Joshua safe and healthy and to maximize his abilities to achieve.
When one also considers the high level of care, patience, and discipline that Joshua’s needs will require from his caregiver, it is patently clear that Pedro is not in a better position to parent his child than he was at the time of Joshua’s commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent him. Effectively, Pedro is no better able " to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than he had been at the time of the child’s commitment." In re Hector L., supra, 53 Conn.App. 367; see In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. 670 (" [i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by [DCF]"); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 124-25; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.
Even if Pedro was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his son at any time in the near future, if ever.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Joshua’s needs for permanence and stability do not allow for the time necessary for Pedro to attempt rehabilitation. Given this respondent’s referral to cooperate with DCF, it is reasonable to infer that he will remain besieged by those issues for some extensive time, and that he will not be physically available to serve as a custodial resource for Joshua during the time frame for rehabilitation contemplated in § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). See In re Katia M., supra, 124 Conn.App. 670-72. Thus, the evidence related to the effectiveness of his treatment supports the conclusion that DCF has met the burden of proof on this TPR element. See In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 515; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
Given the age, sensibilities, needs, and special needs of the child involved, and given Pedro’s failure and/or inability to correct his issues, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he would be able to achieve rehabilitation from his various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for Joshua within a reasonable time.
Joshua needs a parent who is able to effectively care for him now. He cannot wait for the remote possibility that his biological father might overcome his refusal to cooperate with DCF, address his issues and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for him one day in the future. Joshua is unable to wait for Pedro to show that he has rehabilitated himself and is ready to assume his parental role. It is fundamental that " in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [his] ability to manage [his] own life, but rather whether [he] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384. Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that DCF has proved that Pedro failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the child at issue, assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, and reached its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361-63.
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Pedro and his son.
Continued foster care is detrimental to the child’s development; Joshua requires a permanent home that is safe and nurturing, along with a caregiver that is capable and up to the task of raising him.
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Pedro is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. See In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent father’s parenting deficits as they relate to his son’s need for a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent who can meet his requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Pedro further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of his son, would not be in the best interests of Joshua. In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 507-08; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
C. No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship- General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)
The evidence unequivocally establishes that between Pedro and Joshua, " 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 ..." Section 17a-112(j)(3)(D). Accordingly, DCF has also prevailed on this TPR ground. See In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459, 468, 586 A.2d 597 (1991); In re Lukas K., supra, 120 Conn.App. 485-86; In re Christian P., 98 Conn.App. 264, 269, 907 A.2d 1261 (2006).
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no parental relationship ever existed between this respondent and Joshua. Pedro has never extended paternal support to the child and has never provided or shown interest in providing necessities to meet his daily needs. Pedro has never sought custody of Joshua, despite Joshua’s issues with his custodial parent Liza.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Pedro had little to do with his son prior to this litigation. Although Joshua knows who his father is, he has no positive parental memories of his biological father. It is clear that Joshua has " no positive emotional aspects of the relationship" and no ongoing parent-child relationship exists for § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) purposes. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Christian P., supra, 98 Conn.App. 269; see In re Jessica M., supra, 217 Conn. 468-70; In re Lukas K., supra, 120 Conn.App. 485-86; In re Alexander C., 67 Conn.App. 417, 422, 787 A.2d 608 (2001), aff’d, 262 Conn. 308, 813 A.2d 87 (2003).
Looking into the future to fulfill the second prong of the § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) analysis, considering Pedro’s lack of interest in this child, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that it would be detrimental to permit further time to be invested in developing the relationship contemplated by the statute. " The factors to be considered in deciding whether it would be in [the child’s] best interest to permit further time for a relationship with [his parent] to develop include (1) the length of stay with [his] foster parents, (2) the nature of [his] relationship with [his] foster parents, (3) the degree of contact maintained with the natural parent and (4) the nature of [his] relationship to the natural parent." In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).
Although Pedro has had adequate time to manifest some interest in Joshua, he has made no progress. Pedro’s election to remain remote and disengaged from the reunification and rehabilitation process establishes that he has not yet acquired minimal parental attributes, and that he cannot and will not, within a reasonable time, develop the ability or willingness to provide Joshua with the structured home environment and resources that he requires. See In re Lukas K., supra, 120 Conn.App. 487-88.
Despite genetic ties, there is no reasonable basis upon which the court could find that allowing additional time would result in any measurable improvement in Pedro’s capacity or desire to serve as an appropriate parenting resource for his son. To allow further time would be detrimental to Joshua’s personal stability. See In re Savanna M., supra, 55 Conn.App. 816. Accordingly, DCF has met the burden of proving the § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) element as alleged.
DISPOSITION
As the court has concluded that statutory grounds for termination exist, it next must determine " whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 827, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005); see also In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511 n.15, 613 A.2d 748 (1992). In this dispositional phase the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events through the close of evidence. Practice Book § 35a-9.
The best interest element of § 17a-112(j)(2) has been defined as follows: " The best interests of the child include the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of [his or her] environment ... In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent’s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child ... In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 340, 16 A.3d 1250, [cert. denied, 301 Conn. 298, 22 A.3d 1275] (2011)." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 766 n.15, 23 A.3d 18 (2011), aff’d, 306 Conn. 438, 51 A.3d 334 (2012). " In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k) ] ... The seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ... There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence ... In re Alison M., [supra, 127 Conn.App. 211]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Etta H., 146 Conn.App. 751, 762, 78 A.3d 295 (2013); see In re Jaime S., supra, 120 Conn.App. 734.
I. SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS
The court has made each of the seven written factual findings required by § 17a-112(k) based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented at trial, and has considered the evidence relevant to each of these findings in deciding whether to terminate the respondent parents’ individual parental rights. See In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 835.
1. 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- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(1)
DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Liza or that the following services were provided to her:
Catholic Charities: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
Community Health Services: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
CRT: substance abuse testing and treatment.
DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, funding for housing deposit and housing assistance, transportation assistance, and visitation.
APO: supervision, referrals for substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment and placement in the Technical Violation Unit.
Hartford Behavioral Health: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
Institute for Hispanic Families: substance abuse testing and treatment.
InterCommunity Recovery Centers: substance abuse testing and treatment.
KFC: intensive family preservation program, family therapy and parenting education and support group.
Village for Families and Children: TAFT for parenting education and supervised visitation.
Wheeler Clinic: mental health treatment, and substance abuse testing and treatment.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate, and comprehensive services to the respondent mother Liza to facilitate her reunification with her child and made reasonable efforts to reunite her with Joshua. See In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Liza did utilize these services as indicated herein but failed to gain appropriate benefits from these services.
Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Liza is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as Joshua is concerned. Section 17a-112(j)(1). Her serious issues clearly and convincingly made her unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with Joshua in a timely manner, if at all. See In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that Liza was aware of her issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite having knowledge of the nature of her issues, Liza remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with Joshua.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for Liza with regard to Joshua.
DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Pedro or that the following services were provided to him:
DCF: casework services, considered removal meeting, and visitation.
Wheeler Clinic: mental health and substance abuse evaluation.
Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Pedro is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as Joshua is concerned. Section 17a-112(j)(1). Pedro’s serious issues clearly and convincingly made him unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with Joshua in a timely manner, if at all. See In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535-36.
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that Pedro was aware of his issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite having knowledge of the nature of her issues, Pedro remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with Joshua.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for Pedro with regard to Joshua.
2. Reunification Efforts Pursuant to Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997-General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(2)
This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that Liza and Pedro are each presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as are contemplated by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as amended.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify both Liza and Pedro with Joshua. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 540; see also In re Sheila J., supra, 62 Conn.App. 478-79.
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that each respondent parent was aware of her or his individual issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that despite this notification, both Liza and Pedro remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for Liza or for Pedro with regard to Joshua.
3. Compliance with Court Orders- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(3)
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on March 17, 2016, the court, (Burgdorff, J.), ordered specific steps for both Liza and Pedro. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that neither Liza nor Pedro complied in a timely manner with the majority of those steps, which as enumerated above, were intended to facilitate the return of Joshua to the respondent parents’ care.
The court incorporates by reference its previous findings made in this decision concerning the respondent parents’ compliance with the specific steps, as well as each respondent parents’ failure to benefit from services.
4. The Child’s Feeling and Emotional Ties- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(4)
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Joshua has a strong relationship and a bond with his maternal aunt Lissette and with other children in the foster home.
Joshua has a relationship and a bond with Liza. However, this relationship is fraught with turmoil and tension.
Joshua’s relationship with Pedro is minimal at best.
5. Age of the Child- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(5)
Joshua was born on July 11, 2003, and is fourteen years old.
6. Parents’ Efforts to Adjust Their Circumstances, Conduct, or Conditions to Make It In the Best Interest of the Child to Return Such Child Home in the Foreseeable Future- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(6)
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Liza and Pedro have been unable and/or unwilling to make realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to acceptable parental standards.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Liza has been unable and/or unwilling to address her issues, especially her mental health issues, substance abuse issues, parenting deficits, and failure to fully benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Liza has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.
Despite being offered opportunities to address her issues, Liza has failed to do so with any degree of finality.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Liza has failed to complete her mental health and substance abuse treatment. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Liza has failed to gain sufficient benefit in order to serve as a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Joshua.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Liza did complete the Village’s TAFT program. However, this program failed to effect any change in Liza’s inability to appropriately parent Joshua.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite DCF’s best efforts, Liza is unable and/or unwilling to take the steps necessary in order to attempt to become a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Joshua. The evidence at the TPR trial clearly and convincingly shows that she is incapable of being a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for her son. Liza is obviously unable to care for Joshua appropriately and to provide him with the safety, care, permanence, and stability that her child needs and deserves.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has made absolutely no realistic and sustained efforts to conform his individual conduct to acceptable parental standards. Pedro has made no effort to undertake any necessary rehabilitative steps in order to be an effective and productive part of Joshua’s life and upbringing.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite DCF’s best efforts, the respondent parents are individually unable and/or unwilling to take the steps necessary in order to attempt to become safe, nurturing, and responsible parents for their child. They have each demonstrated that they are unable to care for Joshua appropriately and to provide him with the safety, care, permanence, and stability that he needs and deserves.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent parents have not made the changes necessary in their individual lifestyles in a timely manner that would indicate that either one would be a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for Joshua.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow the respondent parents further time to rehabilitate themselves, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the child’s life would not be in the best interests of Joshua.
7. Extent to Which the Parents Were Prevented from Maintaining a Relationship with the Child- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(7)
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, the foster parent, or third parties prevented Liza or Pedro from maintaining a relationship with Joshua, nor did their individual economic circumstances prevent such relationships, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.
II. BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD
The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of the parental rights of Liza or Pedro would be in Joshua’s best interests. Applying the appropriate legal standards to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
In determining whether termination of Liza or Pedro’s parental rights would be in the child’s best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability, and continuity of his environment; his length of stay in foster care; the nature of his relationships with his foster parent and his biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with his biological parents. See In re Mia M., 127 Conn.App. 363, 374-75, 14 A.3d 1024 (2011); In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., supra, 55 Conn.App. 816. In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance the child’s intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with his biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 313-14, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child’s physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against interest in preserving family integrity).
Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that it is not in Joshua’s best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with the respondent parents.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza and Pedro have numerous issues that are clearly antithetical to safe, responsible, and nurturing parenting, and are also antagonistic to Joshua’s best interests.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has demonstrated mental health issues, substance abuse issues, parenting deficits, and a failure to fully benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Liza was unable to appropriately address these issues by the time of the filing of the TPR petition.
Liza’s parenting skills are, sadly, abysmal.
This child protection litigation commenced after Liza, enraged over some perceived fault, assaulted Joshua on a public street.
During the pendency of this matter, she has failed to maintain sobriety or even stay out of jail. She has refused to cooperate with DCF or with most of the services that she was referred to.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Liza has failed to derive any lasting benefit from any services that she did receive. Her ability to care for his son remained as poor at the time of the TPR trial as it was at the inception of the case.
She has been proven incapable of being able to even maintain appropriate behavior during supervised visitation.
Liza miserably failed at cooperating with DCF, when it was obvious that such cooperation was key to having Joshua to her custody.
The clear and convincing evidence showed that Liza remained incapable of being a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Joshua.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite her referrals and services, Liza has failed to rehabilitate herself sufficiently to be a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Joshua.
The court also finds that too much time has already elapsed to justify giving Liza further time to show her rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Pedro has had minimal contact with Joshua. Despite the best intents and efforts of DCF to involve him with the child, he has been unwilling to come forward and be accountable. He has failed to offer his son a home.
Pedro has failed to demonstrate any real initiative to rehabilitate himself so as to be a part in Joshua’s life, to successfully address his own issues, or to provide an appropriate home and suitable guidance for Joshua. The respondent father has failed to visit Joshua appropriately and has failed to maintain contact with DCF appropriately.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that neither Liza nor Pedro can keep Joshua safe or care for him properly. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that neither Liza nor Pedro has gained insight into the efforts that each needs to make in order to become a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Joshua. The clear and convincing evidence shows that each respondent parent’s individual judgment and conduct still remain questionable.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Joshua cannot afford to wait any longer for his parents to rehabilitate themselves. Each parent has been given more than ample time to accomplish this, without success.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time that the respondent parents need to attempt to rehabilitate themselves and establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing, and responsible parents, if that were possible, is time that the child cannot spare.
Liza and Pedro’s individual parental performances clearly and convincingly show that each one lacks the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill a valid parental role. Their individual failures to address their issues in a timely manner and to successfully address their individual parental deficits clearly and convincingly show that it is unlikely that they will ever be able to conform their individual behaviors to appropriate parental standards or be able to serve as safe, nurturing, and responsible parents for Joshua.
Based upon Liza and Pedro’s individual behaviors and performances so far, this court cannot foresee either respondent parent in this case ever having the ability or the patience to follow the regimen necessary for their child to maximize his abilities and achievements.
At the TPR trial, counsel for the child indicated that, per her client’s instructions, that the child was not taking a position on the TPR. Counsel indicated that Joshua would abide by the decision of this court.
The court would note that it received into evidence a sworn letter from Joshua, dated July 15, 2015.
The court notes that this exhibit was entered for dispositional purposes only and the court has considered it solely for that purpose.
This letter is an extremely insightful letter from a young man with high aspiration for himself, and, based upon the evidence received the abilities to achieve his goals. It is, unfortunately, a frank realization and appreciation of Liza’s shortcomings by a young man who has been forced, by his birth parents’ nonfeasance and malfeasance, to grow up and confront adult issues long before he should have to.
The court appreciates that Joshua has the capability to realize and discuss rationally and intelligently these issues that had caused so much upheaval in his young life, but is nevertheless troubled by the fact that he was forced to do so.
Counsel for Liza argued against the TPR. She indicated that Liza was willing to accept additional services, but needed more time to achieve rehabilitation. She pointed out that there was a bond between Liza and Joshua and that Liza had a residence and was receiving unemployment compensation.
Counsel for Liza claimed that reunification with Liza was in Joshua’s best interests.
Unfortunately, Liza’s love for Joshua cannot overcome the deleterious and detrimental effect that her outstanding issues have on her. Her love for Joshua cannot keep him safe. Her love cannot protect him, correct him appropriately, or nurture him. Liza’s various issues, especially her mental health issues, have made her ability to parent Joshua in a safe, responsible, and nurturing manner essentially null and void. Her woeful performance in services and supervised visitation speaks volumes of her lack of ability to parent her son.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Joshua can no longer wait for permanency, continuity, and stability in his life.
Our courts have recognized that " long-term stability is critical to a child’s future health and development ..." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). Furthermore, " [b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence" when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children. In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff’d, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The court is obliged to agree with DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Joshua is entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty he has lived with as to the unavailability of his biological parents as caretakers.
DCF recommended the TPR. There has been absolutely no evidence to establish the unreasonableness of this request.
Having balanced Joshua’s individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with the respondent parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the child’s best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to the respondent parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.
Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, including the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Liza and Pedro as to Joshua is in the best interests of the child in question.
ORDER OF TERMINATION
WHEREFORE, after due consideration of Joshua’s sense of time, his need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship he has with his foster parent, and the totality of circumstances; and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights; and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the child’s best interests, the court issues the following ORDERS:
That the parental rights of Liza R. are hereby terminated as to the child Joshua C.
That the parental rights of Pedro C. are hereby terminated as to the child Joshua C.
That the Commissioner of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Joshua for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for him.
That a permanency plan shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.