Opinion
Nos. T11-CP07-012746-A, T11-CP07-012747-A, T11-CP07-012748-A
April 22, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is a contested action brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to terminate the parental rights of Melinda H. and Michael B. Jr. to their children, Michael B., III, born January 9, 1998, Leighonna B., born June 19, 2000 and Destiny B., born August 21, 2004. The parents have appeared and are represented by counsel. The children are represented by counsel. They have a guardian ad litem. Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation. The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child. This court has jurisdiction.
The petition, filed on December 4, 2009, alleges that as to both respondents, that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the children, either of them could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).
The court heard the testimony of six witnesses including two DCF social workers, an evaluating psychologist, the child's therapist, father's therapist and the foster mother. A host of documents were entered into evidence including social studies, psychologists reports, and clinical evaluations. Since neither the father nor the mother testified, the representations in the social studies and evaluations were virtually uncontested. A motion in limine filed to prevent the introduction of testimony and documents over ten years old and to prevent the testimony offered by the petitioner, of a 16-year-old child, a daughter of the respondent mother, whose parental rights had been terminated, was granted in part and denied in part. The court declined to hear the testimony of the 16-year-old daughter, but denied the motion as to family history dating back more than ten years. As will be noted, DCF involvement with the respondents actually goes back for thirty years. The DCF involvement with these children goes back twelve years to the birth of Michael, III.
With respect to all findings regarding the termination of parental rights, these findings are made by clear and convincing evidence. Testimony commenced on April 12, 2010, and continued for three days. The court granted a motion for judicial notice directed to prior court findings related to these children. That document supports a finding from court records that DCF has been directly involved with the mother since 1997, with over six removals of children from Melinda. Her parental rights to her oldest daughters have been terminated on April 11, 2001 as to Kimberly, and on August 23, 2001 as to Asia. Children in the care of Melinda and Michael Jr. have been adjudicated neglected six times in ten years; on September 28, 1998, June 7, 2001, December 13, 2001, April 7, 2005, November 1, 2005, and most recently, October 25, 2007. The children have been under orders of protective supervision for a substantial portion of the past ten years.
Melinda H.
Both parents were involved with Connecticut child protective services when they were children. Melinda's own mother left her at age two to be raised by her father. He had as many as five different partners as Melinda grew up. Melinda indicates she was sexually abused as a child and physically abused by one of her father's partners. She reports to DCF that she never had therapy for the sexual abuse and was able to suppress the issue by not talking about it.
Melinda became pregnant in her senior year of high school. Her first child, Kimberly, was born July 3, 1991. The father of that child had an extensive criminal and substance abuse history. After that relationship ended, Melinda had a second child, Asia by another man with an extensive criminal and substance abuse history. Her third choice of a mate was the respondent Michael B. Jr. As will be seen, he has a lengthy history of mental health problems, anti-social behavior and multiple arrests, convictions and incarcerations. Melinda has had three children by Michael. Throughout their active relationship, both were engaged in sexual relations with other people. Michael B. Jr. fathered other children by another woman during his relationship with Melinda.
Shortly after the removal of the three children in March 2008, Melinda and Michael separated. Since that time, Melinda has had at least three sexual partners. Gene Tyshawn C. a man with 18 arrests and convictions for possession and sale of drugs, robbery assault and other offenses for which he has served sentences up to five years in prison. He is currently awaiting trial on murder charges. (Exhibit X.) Melinda separated from him when Gene Tyshawn C. went to jail, although she continued to visit Gene in jail and had continuing sexual relations with Michael B. Jr. Before Gene Tyshawn went to jail, on April 3, 2008, Melinda and Gene were each arrested and charged with sale of controlled substances and possession of drugs. Melinda's charges remain pending as of the date of trial.
Melinda quickly began a relationship with Wayne H. another male figure with a history of dysfunction and arrests. After a short courtship they married in December 2008. Melinda remains married to Wayne, although they are now separated. Wayne, in keeping with Melinda's penchant for substance abusing criminals, has a record of 12 arrests, for various anti-social activities including a five-year sentence for risk of injury to a minor girl, two years for violations of probation, and twenty-four months for possession of narcotics. (Exhibit K.) It is noteworthy that the evaluating psychologist testified that at the time of her evaluation of the father, Michael B., Gene Tyshawn C., and Wayne H., all of mother's most recent relationships, they were all in jail at the same time of the evaluation last August 2009.
Melinda is currently involved with yet another man, the fourth man in two years. Little is known of Jesus N. except that he is only nineteen years old. Neither DCF nor the court can verify his suitability to have children in his presence or ascertain the safety of the home as a placement resource. This failure to cooperate and candidly disclose critical information to DCF is true even after the programs the mother has completed and the counseling she has attended. Given mother's extensive history and propensity to establish relationships with abusive, drug involved, criminally active men, her failure to disclose all details of her current male acquaintance, is one of several disqualifying events for Melinda as a placement for the children.
Michael B. Jr.
Michael is thirty-five years old. He told the social worker that he entered DCF care as a child when he was aged eight. The circumstances of his placement are not disclosed, nor is the relationship he had with his parents and, most importantly, his mother. He remained in various placements, including the Children's Home, the Founder's School, Newington Children's Hospital and Elmcrest for eight years, until he was sixteen when he "signed himself out" of DCF's care. (Exhibit B.)
Psychologically, Michael reported he has attention-deficit hyper-activity disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anxiety disorder. In addition to his self-reported diagnoses, Dr. Chiarmella added post-traumatic stress disorder chronic, severe, alcohol abuse, cannabis abuse in remission, cocaine abuse, in remission, learning disorder, anti-social personality disorder with schizoid and borderline personality disorder traits. Additionally, Dr David Mantel reported in 1991, during a court ordered evaluation when Michael was sixteen years old, that both Michael and his brother were . . ." presenting with features of explosive personality disorder, impulsivity, under socialized and aggressive histories, and generally with conduct disorder . . . Both are violently inclined." (Exhibit B p. 9.)
Michael admits to avoiding friendships, stating he does not trust people, he blames others for negative outcomes in his life even when the outcomes are clearly his fault. He is prone to get mad, react, lose control and end up in trouble according to Dr. Chiarmella. His social history is significant for domestic violence. He was regularly the subject of protective orders from women. Dr. Chiarmella testified that she herself was intimidated by Michael. She said he had a history of violent tendencies toward women, he can be very animated and use very abusive language. "His language was rude and inappropriate; a lot of swearing." He is very blunt and direct, he said "women didn't know how strong he was."
Michael has fathered five other children in addition to the three children the subject of this petition; a total of eight children. None of his eight children are in his care. His oldest child, Sage was born in September 1993. A second child by another woman, Ashley, was born in December 1993. That child is presently in residential care of DCF. Then he had two other children Michael, III, born January 9, 1998, to Melinda, and a daughter Samantha, born on October 14, 1999, to Ms. Billie P. According to Michael, he and Billie decided to keep Samantha's paternity by Michael a secret from her. So Michael was not actively involved with her until after his release from prison in August 2009, when he disclosed his paternity to her. She was eleven years old. His relationship with Samantha's mother was characterized "by an extensive amount of domestic violence for which he was arrested on various occasions." (Ex. B p. 8.)
Michael impregnated another woman on two occasions while he was still involved with Melinda. These two children were the product of his relationship with Carrie J. She had two children fathered by Michael, Masen, born October 19, 2006, and Jordan, born October 14, 2008. If Michael is to be believed, he has a job working for Carrie J. owner of C J Enterprises. Michael has never been able to verify his employment by producing a pay slip requested by the DCF social worker. He has indicated to the psychologist that he is in fact unemployed and without a residence.
Father has used numerous drugs, mostly alcohol, but also marijuana for self medication, LSD, and mushrooms. He denied using cocaine, crack or heroin but reports also being hospitalized as an inpatient for a week as a result of cocaine use. He has been in a dual diagnosis program. While in DCF care he had significant hospitalizations and residential care on account of his mental health and behavioral issues. He was hospitalized for depression and suicidal ideation. His certified criminal history (Exhibit I) shows twenty arrests.
Dual diagnosis, usually refers to mental health and substance abuse issues together.
Curiously, a clinical supervisor from Hockanum Valley Community Council testified in court for Michael. She was filled with praise for Michael. She said she has "inordinate amount of respect for him." In a letter to DCF she was glowing in her support for Michael. She never found him to be rude or impolite. She considered his swearing to be a healthy expression of emotion. "Mr. [B] is experiencing profound stress due to current and past stressors. He has displayed a great deal of resilience and good judgment during this extremely tumultuous time in his life. He has done everything to keep his mood stable and has made appropriate request for help. He clearly wants stability and happiness for himself and his children, and has done all that he can to keep himself and his children safe." (Exhibit 1A ltr dtd 4/23/08.)
The court was stunned by her analysis. During the period of his counseling with the clinician, Michael was arrested four times for violating restraining orders, assault and racial ridicule. She said he was regular in his attendance "barring breaks for incarceration." She said he walks away from dysfunctional situations. Thus, in June 2009, Michael stopped visiting his children. She was asked if she, the therapist, encouraged him to reconnect with his children. She said his response (to visitation) was irrational, he recognizes the effects of not seeing his children, but ultimately he decided not to see them "rather than have a drawn out termination determination." "It was too painful for him to see a child he might lose" she testified. She was aware that his son did not want to be like his father and did not want to see him. She said Michael has had multiple sexual partners and was concerned that he does not want his children to repeat his patterns. So his conduct becomes part of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Yet the therapist believes he has made great progress in mood management. She said she did not address parenting issues. Michael did complete a family violence education course at Hockanum Valley Community Council.
There is no indication whatsoever about what was the level of instruction, how long it was, who taught the course, the qualifications of the instructor, the level of his participation and the benefit, if any, to Michael B. Jr.
Child Protection History
Dr. Chiarmella, the court appointed evaluator of this family, has conducted evaluations in 2007 and 2009. She has submitted three reports that have been admitted as full exhibits. The thoroughness and comprehensiveness of Dr. Ciaramella's reports is quite remarkable. No review of this memorandum of decision can properly be made without reading the seventy-page report of Dr. Ciaramella. (Exhibit H.) As between the reports and testimony of Dr. Ciaramella and the testimony of Michael's HVCC clinician, the court places great reliance upon the psychological findings of Dr. Ciaramella. The HVCC clinician seemed to be charmed by Michael and thus less than completely objective. Dr. Ciaramella's summary of family history, which the court adopts as accurate, is included in her latest report of October 2, 2009 as follows:
For the prior evaluation DCF became re-involved with the family after calls to the DCF hotline were made in regards to the children. According to DCF documentation, an anonymous report was received on 1/9/07 from Leighonna's school. The report indicated that Leighonna was dirty, smelling and unkempt. Prior to the report, one was made on 11/21/06, which noted that Leighonna had bruises on her arms, from her wrist to her elbows. The report indicated that the school psychologist reportedly asked Leighonna about the bruises and she stated her baby sister, Destiny, caused them. Apparently, the psychologist then asked Michael about his sister's bruises and he stated that his baby sister did not do it and that he did not do it, but he was uncertain of who did. The report also stated that Leighonna was urinating on herself in school and had active head lice since 11/06. Additionally, the report indicated that Michael twirled his hair often, causing a bald spot on his head. The school also reported that Michael had been prescribed medication and was behaving well at school, but that his parents were concerned about his behavior at home. His medication was thus changed and Michael began to have outbursts, yelling, screaming and acting bizarre at school.
CT Page 9376
The [B/C] family reportedly has an extensive history with DCF reportedly dating back to 1991 which includes prior substantiations, unsubstantiated referrals, prior removals of children, previous termination of parental rights of mother's two oldest children (Asia and Kimberly) in 1997 for mother's failure to rehabilitate, removal of father as guardian for at least one of his other children, unsafe living conditions, past domestic violence/threatening by father, substantiated physical abuse by father towards Michael, past sexual abuse of Michael by a male friend who was knowingly allowed to reside in the home despite being a sexual offender, inappropriate caretakers providing inadequate supervision of the children, ongoing parenting concerns, head lice, enuresis/encopresis for Leighonna, medication/hygiene issues regarding Leighonna and Michael, school concerns of Leighonna and Michael as well as inadequate home conditions, substance abuse by father, domestic violence, criminal activity, physical abuse/inappropriate discipline, mental health concerns with the children, past unsafe pets in the home including an alligator and exposing the children to drug involved adults. Michael and Leighonna both have psychiatric histories and a diagnosis of ADHD (possibly among others). They both reportedly take medication.
B/C family is that of the respondents, B for Michael's surname and C for Melinda's maiden name.
Michael, III's history involving DCF dates back to this birthday when DCF filed a petition of neglect on his behalf on this date. On 9/28/98 he was adjudicated neglected and protective supervision was granted for 12 months. On 3/11/99, about 6 months after protective supervision was put in place, Michael was removed from his parents via an OTC due to reported deplorable living conditions in the home and parents' failure to comply with the Specific Steps outlined by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. On 5/18/99 the OTC was vacated and Michael was returned home. On 3/15/01, Neglect petitions for Michael and his sister, Leighonna, were filed and they were adjudicated as such. The children were placed under protective supervision for 6 months which expired on 9/8/01 and the case was closed. On 3/5/05, Michael, III, disclosed sexual abuse by a family friend who was reportedly a known convicted sexual offender and as of the document dated 3/19/07 the family still had not sought treatment services for him. On 8/1/05, Michael, III, injured his eye while moving his head to avoid being hit by his father. On this same date a police officer removed an illegal alligator from the family house.
In the DCF document date 3/19/07, a referral was made on behalf of Leighonna on 1/9/07 from her school reporting that she arrived in dirty clothes, smelling badly and appearing unkempt. She also reportedly had head lice which had been a problem since 11/06. Father had reported that Leighonna picks out her own clothes for school. Leighonna's pediatrician was also reportedly unaware (back in 3/6/07) that she was suffering from encopresis and enuresis on a regular basis. Previous history indicates that on 9/14/05, petitions of alleged Neglect were filed by DCF on behalf of Leighonna and Michael, III, and on 11/1/05 protective supervision was ordered for a period of 6 months ending 5/1/06. As of 11/1/05, this appeared to be the third time the [B] children were placed under protective supervision for a period of 6 months.
As of 3/19/07, the family reportedly had the following services: Intensive Family Preservation, parent aide, parenting classes, family therapy, anger management treatment, individual and family counseling, substance abuse treatment and court involvement. DCF reported that despite these interventions the conditions of the family remained unchanged and mother and father continued to lack insight and good judgment. In fact, in a document dated 4/25/07, Melinda had reportedly been in a relationship with Michael B., Jr., for approximately 10 years and denied any history of domestic violence with the father despite in a court ordered evaluation with Dr. Krulee dated 8/3/99 (8 years earlier) referring to him as "always kind of an abuser "In a DCF authored document dated 8/20/07, it is reported that on 8/6/07 DCF received an anonymous Hotline referral. During the weekend of 8/3/07, Leighonna gave a neighbor's child a photograph of Michael, Jr. (father) wearing a bra and masturbating. Leighonna did not know she was not to have this picture and when her father found out he allegedly hit Leighonna with his hands and called her a "moronic fucking bitch." The caller also reported that on 8/5/07, father left a 3 year old child (which was presumed to be then 2 year old Destiny) in a dog pen for up to 2 hours while her parents were not home. This allegedly occurred on more than one occasion and Melinda (mother) was aware of this. As of the date of the document the investigation was still pending. A Case Status Conference took place on 8/6/07, which was reportedly unproductive as both parents obstinately refused to cooperate and comply with DCF's Specific Steps. They also reportedly continued to blame DCF for household issues as well as DCF's involvement. Michael, Jr. was reportedly displaying erratic and disturbing behaviors. He agreed to leave the home but at an unannounced home visit 9 days later he answered the door. The conditions of the home were noted to be poor and Michael, Jr. minimized this. Pornographic DVD cases were also noted on the DVD rack and father apologized and immediately removed the cases. Given the ongoing concerns and parents' refusal to comply and acknowledge their problems DCF recommended that the children be committed to the care and custody of the department.
In the court ordered evaluation conducted by Dr. Zelman on 10/12/07, he also reported that the [B/C] family has been involved with DCF for approximately 10 years because of ongoing issues with neglect and abuse. Michael, Jr. reported that he did not feel that most of the complaints were legitimate. His report was similar to when this writer interviewed him back in 4/07 stating that he felt that complaints were made by parties who were vindictive and wanting to get him in trouble based on ill-founded issues. Dr. Zelman stated that Mr. [B] had little insight into possible ways that others might find his behavior concerning or offensive.
SERVICES OFFERED
DCF has offered services to assist this family as follows: (Exhibit B.)
Since mother's involvement with the Department, the following reasonable efforts have been offered: Intensive Family Preservation (1998, 1999, 2007); parent aide/coaching services (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2008, 2009); an infant care coordinator (1998); Birth to Three services (1999); Health Start (2001); Head Start (2005, 2008); parent support group (1998); multiple individual and group parenting classes through Hockanum Valley and KidSafe (1998, 1999, 2007, 2008); individual counseling through Outpatient Behavioral Health and/or Hockanum Valley Community Council (1998, 1999, 2007); the Counseling Cooperative (2008, 2009); family counseling (1998, 2005); couples' counseling (1998, 1999); early intervention program for substance abuse through the Genesis Center (1999); urine and hair toxicology screens through Genesis (1998, 1999, 2009); domestic violence services through Interval House (1998, 1999, 2008); NADA (2008); supervised visitation through AMPS (1999); Delta-T (2005); Advanced Independence (2007, 2008); Family Connections (2008, 2009); and DCF; psychological evaluations and treatment recommendations (1998, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2009); Extended Day Treatment through Community Child Guidance for Michael III (2007, 2008); psychosexual evaluation and recommendations for Michael III (2008, 2009); mental health treatment for Leighonna (2008, 2009); Section 8 (1998); Women's Infants and children program WIC (1998); transportation assistance (1999, 2008, 2009); case management through DCF (1998 thru 2001, 2003, 2005 thru 2009).
Since father's involvement with the Department, the following reasonable efforts have been offered: Intensive Family Preservation (1998, 1999, 2007); parent aide/coaching services (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2008, 2009); Health Start (2001); Head Start (2005, 2008); infant coordinator (1998); Birth to Three services (1999); multiple individual and group parenting classes through Hockanum Valley (1998, 1999, 2001, 2007, 2008); individual counseling through Hockanum Valley Community Council (2007 thru 2009); couples' counseling (1998, 1999); family counseling (1998, 2005); dual diagnosis treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues (1999, 2008); urine and hair toxicology screens through Genesis (1998, 1999); medication management services (1999, 2007 thru 2009); DBT treatment through the Institute of Living and/or Intercommunity Mental Health (2008, 2009); multiple substance abuse programs through Genesis Center (1998, 1999); supervised visitation through AMPS (1999); Delta-T (2005); Advanced Independence (2007, 2008); Family Connections (2008, 2009) and DCF; anger management/domestic violence treatment through Interface Counseling (1998, 1999, 2005, 2008, 2009) and the Department of Corrections (2008, 2009); psychological evaluations and treatment recommendations (1998, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2009); psychosexual evaluation and recommendations for Michael III (2008, 2009); treatment through Community Child Guidance for Michael III (2007, 2008); mental health treatment for Leighonna (2008, 2009); employment support through the WISE program (2009); transportation assistance (1999, 2008, 2009); Section 8 (1998); WIC (1998); and case management services through DCF (1998 thru 2001, 2003, 2005 thru 2009).
THE CHILDREN Michael B. III 01/09/98
Within this section all references to the child will be simply "Michael." The father will be specifically noted as "Michael Jr."
The first motion for temporary custody and neglect petition regarding Michael occurred on the date of his birth, twelve years ago. He was removed from the home at age fifteen months. Michael has been under protective supervision of the court for most of his life. He has been adjudicated neglected five times. He has lived with dysfunctional parents, domestically violent, lacked proper supervision, lived in unsanitary conditions, and been sexually abused by a friend of his parents in September 2005. His parents did not provide him with any counseling to deal with sexual abuse. Both the mother and father have consistently stated they do not support Michael getting mental health treatment for being a victim of sexual abuse, especially if treatment involves coaching Michael to talk about the experience. Given the facts that both his mother and father were sexually active with multiple partners, the domestic violence, his father's sexualized language, and pornographic materials in the house, it is understandable why the parents might not want Michael sharing his sexual knowledge and experiences with a therapist. He was removed from his home in March 2008, and has been in DCF care since that time. He was profoundly damaged at the time of his removal.
Shortly after his removal he was found to have attention deficit hyper-activity disorder, bipolar disorder and other stress related issues possibly related to sexual abuse and neglect. Dr. Ciaramella further diagnosed Michael as having post traumatic stress disorder, fetishism and depression, not otherwise specified.
During his time in DCF care Michael's behavior has been carefully monitored and his sexualized conduct has been noted by his caretakers and his therapist. Dr. Ciaramella notes as follows:
According to documentation and report, Michael has been caught in previous precarious situations involving sexual behavior with his sisters. As noted above, on 3/7/09, Michael was observed to have his hand on his 8 year old sister's (Leighonna) inner thigh during a family visit. On 3/24/09 en route back to the Safe Home, Michael was noted to have his hand underneath Leighonna's bottom and the two had to be separated. Back in 2/4/09, Michael was reportedly found masturbating in the vehicle while sitting in the back seat while in transit. On this date he was also reportedly upset that he was not riding in the same vehicle as his sisters. Another incident reportedly was noted that upon coming back from a visit with his sisters, Michael was wearing mesh shorts and it was obvious that he was sexually aroused. Seemingly, as a consequence of these issues, Michael's visits with his sisters were altered from visiting weekly to now having two supervisors at each visit; one a contracted provider for mother and one for Michael. Visits were also taking place at the DCF office. It was also reported that during visits, Michael would pull Destiny on his lap and that Leighonna appeared non-verbally scared of him.
A review of the psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Mantell revealed that Michael had reportedly been drawing pornographic pictures while at the Safe Home, had been writing love letters to a 5 year old girl on 2 occasions and on 2/28/09, Michael had told DCF that he would think of these things, meaning the pornographic images, very often a lot of times per week.
Dr. Mantell's report referenced above concluded that Michael's sexualized and acting out behaviors could not only be anxiety related issues because of several factors including their forced sexual nature involving fantasy (Michael's drawings), curiosity (taking the underwear at the time it was only one pair), sexual arousal (masturbating and touching his 8 year old sister) and an invitation for a sexual liaison with age inappropriately far younger children (writing notes to a 5 year old girl). Together, Dr. Mantell indicated that these behaviors show strong sexual arousal in developmentally atypical forms and were being expressed in highly socially disapproved ways. He stated that collectively they raised concern for sexually reactive behaviors of a potentially abusive nature and required professional intervention.
This writer then began asking Michael about his father and he reported that his father was back in prison because he was "still doing bad things." Michael then reported that his father came back in 2/09 meaning from being incarcerated and was ". . . back again." He stated that on 6/30/09 his father had to ". . . go back to jail first. Jail always comes first before prison. That's your chance to pay to get out. Dad's gone to prison 1000's times. `Cause he be harming mom like twist her arm, try to throw things at her. And my uncles . . . and yeah but one, dad's brother and one's mother's brother. Uncle Cliff and Uncle Jeremiah (these are the names that it sounded like Michael said as he seemed unsure himself.) They always try to help keep us safe. Once he tried to hit her (father) and doing many things. They did everything-held him back."
Michael was asked how he feels about his father and he said that he does not really like being around him, "No. Not really." Michael then reported that his paternal grandfather is in prison for ". . . thirty something years. He's like 60 years old. He spazed out on the grandmother. Father like son. I'm already like him (meaning his father). I act just as bad as him." This writer asked Michael if he thought he could change and he said "Sort of. I'm in treatment." Michael then spoke of his clinician at The Village Safe Home placement and said that his goal while there was to stop having tantrums, "I have night tantrums." This writer asked if his father still has tantrums and Michael responded, "Yeah!" Michael then agreed that anger management was another goal he was working on and then spontaneously said "I like to talk" contradicting his earlier comment that he is not that kind of child. In fact, by this time this writer was trying to redirect Michael to do some testing to move away from the emotionality of the discussion but he declined and that is when he reported that he like talking. His third goal that he then identified for treatment was trying not to get stressed too much. Michael then reported that his parents have not been living together for about a year and a couple of months.
Michael Jr. told Dr. Ciaramella that his father (young Michael's grandfather) is in prison for murdering his 19-year-old girlfriend.
Michael currently resides in a therapeutic group home with four other pre-teen boys. He is receiving individual and group counseling. He is taking numerous pharmaceuticals including Concerta, Lithium, and Tenex. Prior to his removal from his last residence when he was having his clothes packed for the transition, he was found to have 12 pair of little girls panties in his drawers. He told Dr. Ciaramella how he secretly entered girls rooms over time to remove the panties. This was a planned activity and not an impulsive, spontaneous activity.
Michael says he wants to return to his mother. He attributes his removal from his home to his father's violent behavior. His relationship with his mother is more peer-to-peer, rather than parent child according to one assessment. His mother has never actively supported the notion of intense therapy for Michael to address his problems from the sexual abuse.
DCF plans to place Michael in a therapeutic, pre-adoptive home as soon as he is no longer at legal risk. The agency believes that once the legal risk, i.e. these proceedings, is resolved and Michael understands he will not be returning to his mother's home, that he will be able to engage in and benefit from trauma based treatment, and the pool of families willing to take Michael into their homes and adopt him will increase.
Leighonna 06/19/00
"At the time of removal from her parents' care, Leighonna was an introverted, depressed, self-abusive, enuretic and encopretic, sometimes aggressive child, who presented as almost waif-like, with sunken dark eyes. Leighonna's emotional repertoire . . . was limited to anger and anxiety only. She did not discuss her feelings nor seem to connect to them. Since that time, with the majority of changes occurring after placement in [the present foster home], Leighonna has blossomed into a bright, caring, emotional, empathetic, lively child, who is able to self-advocate and is learning to verbalize her feelings. With the support of her foster mother, a dedicated treatment team, and a supportive educational team, Leighonna has successfully completed inpatient treatment at Natchaug Hospital, intensive outpatient program at the Institute of Living, and is preparing to transition from a therapeutic day school, Grace Webb, to her local community school."(addendum to the Social Study, Exhibit U p. 6)
The perspicacity and comprehensiveness of the Addendum by social worker Carla Cifarelli is impressive.
Leighonna is placed in a foster home with her sister, Destiny. They have adapted well, they are receiving all recommended psychological, medical and dental treatment. They are both very bonded to the foster mother.
CT Page 9384
Destiny 8/21/05
Destiny was removed from her parents' home at age two, and while exposed to fewer years of parental insufficiency, nonetheless she was damaged by her exposure to the family dysfunction. Destiny has exhibited challenging behaviors which require extra-ordinary parental competence and patience. "Destiny often uses maladaptive coping skills to have her needs met including, but not limited to, tantrumming beyond what is reasonable for her age; screaming; being manipulative toward the other children in the home; and lying. Consistently addressing Destiny's behaviors and holding her accountable for her actions is often an emotionally draining experience, and requires immense patience." (Exhibit U.)Assessment of Parental Status Mother: Positives:
She loves her children.
She has maintained employment at Burger King for six years.
She has maintained a residence for four years.
She has consistently visited her children.
She has attended many of the offered services.
Negatives:
She has recently acknowledged she cannot care for her three children and favors a return of only Michael to her care.
Melinda has never demonstrated the above average parental skills, patience and judgment necessary to parent special needs children, in particular a child with Michael's sexual abuse history. All of her children require superior parenting skills.
The principal issue of mother relates to her co-dependency and relationship with substance abusing, violent and /or abusive men, criminally involved, parentally and vocationally incompetent. This demonstrates a significant personal character flaw for Melinda, a danger to her children, and demonstrates an inability to exalt the needs of her children over all else. It appears to the court that Melinda favors parenting her paramours as part of her co-dependence.
While her therapist indicates she has gained insight into this behavior, Melinda's conduct betrays the statements of her therapist in that she continues her prior pattern of co-dependant behavior, limited judgment and poor male choices.
Melinda has had nearly twenty years of supportive services around parenting issues without any apparent improvement in function.
Melinda is presently romantically involved with Jesus Negron, who is nineteen years old, half her age and very unlikely to be a supportive parental partner or marital partner.
Father: Positives:
He has demonstrated an historic interest in his children.
He has recently completed an anger management class.
He is attending individual counseling at Hockanum Valley Community Council
Negatives:
He stopped visiting his children in June 2009.
He has been arrested multiple times since this case started for domestic violence related issues. He has been incarcerated twice in the past two years.
CT Page 9386
He has stopped cooperating with the child protection agency.
He has told the evaluator that he is unemployed and does not have his own residence.
His children do not wish to be with him. He is perceived by the children as the family villain and cause for the family disruption.
He has continued a pattern of multiple sexual engagements without commitment.
He has never demonstrated the above average parental skills, patience and judgment necessary to parent special needs children, in particular a child with Michael's sexual abuse history. All of the children require superior parenting skills.
He is presently unable to provide a consistent, stable, safe and supportive physical environment for any of these children.
Adjudication
This case is sad and tragic for the parents and the children, but reinforces the conclusion of Chief Justice Peters that "[T]he sad fact is that there is a difference between parental love and parental competence." In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575 (2005). However, based upon this evidence that the children were found in many prior proceedings to have been neglected or uncared for, the court finds that the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and the needs of the children, either of them could assume a responsible position in the lives of these children. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).
DISPOSITION
"During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child." In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000). "In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a-112(k)]." In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., CT Page 9387 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)). The seven factors "serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered." In re Quanitra M., supra, at 104. "There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009). The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section. The court makes the following seven written findings:
(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with respondents, the court finds that DCF offered very extensive services including parenting education, individual mental health counseling, visitation and in-home services. The court has previously recited the prodigious array of services offered over the past two decades. The court relies upon the findings above regarding the parent's cooperation with these offered services.
(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts. The agency was providing services over a period of more than ten years to no apparent benefit. The court finds the parents were unable or unwilling to benefit by the offered services.
(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered as to both parents. As set forth above, there was compliance by the parents with some steps, but failure to comply with many by the father. He did not benefit by the services he attended in any way that was meaningful for the children. He may have stabilized his moods.
Melinda's greatest failing involved poor judgment, an issue that is difficulty to address, and horrifically poor choices for male marital and parental figures. Melinda seems to have a disconnect between her choice of sexual partners and the impact on her children. She may have attended many of the services and complied with certain specific steps, but the proof is in the pudding. Did she benefit? The court concludes that she was unable or unwilling to benefit from the services. Both parents made efforts to attend visitation, mother throughout the case and father until June 2009, just prior to his second incarceration.
(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the children's parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of any child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties. It should be noted that the children are all troubled, according to Dr. Ciaramella. The children need a calm, well-structured, child-focused home with clear behavioral guidelines, high functioning parents, not impaired by mental health or substance abuse issues. The children need to be sheltered from domestic violence and corporal punishment. They need a strong degree of personal attention, strong inter-action by the caretakers with the children's schools because of their challenging behavioral and educational problems. DCF is questing for a therapeutic pre-adoptive foster home for Michael. Michael does say he wants to live with his mother, but this is not in his best interest. His mother has never supported therapy for Michael regarding his sexual abuse and sexualized behaviors. This is a major issue if Michael is ever to function in society. This is one of the many areas which concerns the court regarding the mother's poor judgment. She has never functioned on a high level of parental support. Michael should not be returned into what is likely a very unhealthy relationship with his mother.
The girls are safely situated in a pre-adoptive foster home that meets all of the children's needs. The girls want to remain within that foster home.
(5) As to the ages of the children: Previously noted; Michael is 12, Leighonna is 9 years and nine months old, and Destiny is four and a 1/2 years old.
(6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child; the court finds as follows: It is undisputed in the evidence that the children do have some bonds to their biological parents, especially the mother. The father tends to be punitive to the children and abusive to the mother and thus is more tenuous. Some children want continuing contact with their parents following a termination, especially in those cases where an adoptive home has not been located. In some cases, the release from contact could have a liberating effect on a child and allow them to form new attachments. In this case the issue of continuing contact between Michael and his mother might not be harmful. That is matter for further evaluation and determination by the statutory parent. With respect to the girls, where adoption is likely to occur quickly, visitation and contact should end.
(7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parent or third parties.
Best Interest Finding:
With respect to the best interests of the children contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Melinda H. and Michael B. Jr. is in the best interest of the children. Permanency, consistency, affection and stability are crucial for these children. The biological parents are incapable of providing the quotidian warmth, affection, consistency, stability and mature care that these special needs children will need throughout their life. See In re Jorden R., AC28128 (March 23, 2010.)
In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the children's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and stability; their length of stay in foster care; their need for a structured, stable, abuse-free, child-focused setting, the nature of their relationship with foster parents and biological parents; the degree and quality of contact maintained with his biological parents; and their genetic bond to the respondents.
The court has also balanced the children's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with the biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity). Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that termination of respondents' parental rights is in the children's best interest.
It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Melinda H. and Michael B. Jr. are hereby terminated as to Michael B. III, Leighonna, and Destiny. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the children.
With regard to the permanency plans for the children, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as being in the best interest of the children. Any outstanding objections to the plans are over-ruled.
To the extent not previously found, the court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans and to reunify the parents with the children.
The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of these children as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.
The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of these children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 25 School Street, Rockville, CT 06066 of the date when said adoption is finalized.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ordered this 22nd day of April 2010