Opinion
W10CP12016304A
02-05-2016
In re Nilah S. [1]
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Steven Spellman, J.
On January 30, 2015, Joette Katz, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families filed petitions pursuant to C.G.S. sections 17a-112 et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Chrimson S. and Daniel K. to the minor child Mariah K. (d.o.b. 8/22/12) and the parental rights of Chrimson S. and Omar S. to the minor child Nilah S. (d.o.b. 8/13/08). None of the parents has claimed to be a member of any American Indian Tribal Nation. The court is not aware of any other proceedings pending in any court regarding the custody of the two children. This court has jurisdiction.
The case came before this court on December 14, 2015 and the court heard testimony over three days, including the initial day of trial and December 17 and 18, 2015. Each of the parents and both children were represented by competent counsel.
The court was presented with a properly executed form consenting to termination of parental rights from Daniel K., father of the minor child Mariah K. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) through counsel moved to amend the petition in regard to Daniel K. to withdraw the non-consensual grounds as to the father and change the grounds to consent. See C.G.S. sec. 17a-112(i). Without objection, the motion was granted. The court canvassed Daniel K. and made a finding that his consent was made knowingly, voluntarily and with advice of competent counsel and knowledge of the full consequences of the consent, which was accepted by the court.
Omar S., although represented by competent counsel, did not appear for any of the three days of trial. His attorney reported that his client intended to appear and consent to termination. Counsel for DCF requested that a default enter and counsel for Omar S. indicated that he had no objection. Omar S. was similarly absent from the life of his minor child, as will be more fully discussed in context of required statutory findings. Omar S. was defaulted.
The mother of both children, Chrimson S. contested the termination petitions. The grounds alleged in the petition are that the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives. The court heard testimony over the three days of trial. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the court accepted into evidence as full exhibits petitioner's exhibits " B" and " D" through " W"; counsel for DCF requested that medical records be unsealed and, without objection, the court allowed them to be unsealed. On the second day of trial petitioner's exhibits " X", " Y" " Z" and " AA" were admitted as full exhibits by agreement. Also pursuant to agreement, the court admitted respondent's exhibits 2, 3 and 5 as full exhibits.
The court heard testimony from four witnesses called by the petitioner including Eric M., a detective with the Willimantic Police Department, Christine K., paternal grandmother of Mariah S., a DCF social worker, and a DCF supervisor.
Counsel for Chrimson S. called two witnesses. Dr. Stephanie L. a forensic psychologist was called as a witness for Chrimson S. and a request was made that she be found to be an expert. After hearing her credentials and experience and without objection the court found her to be an expert in forensic psychology.
Chrimson S. testified on her own behalf.
After considering the testimony of all witnesses and examining the documents in evidence, the court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:
On December 19, 2012, Nilah S. and Mariah K. were adjudicated neglected in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Willimantic, CT. (Dyer, J.) At the time of the adjudication the presenting problems were parental substance abuse and lack of insight into safety planning for the children.
The referrals which led to the initial adjudication of neglect were made on August 22, 2012, at the birth of Mariah S. and a second referral was made on September 5, 2012. Chrimson S. tested positive for cocaine and amphetamines during her pregnancy with Mariah S. which led to the first referral. The September 2012 referral was made in regard to her striking Nilah S., and using improper physical force and profanity towards her.
Both children were placed in the custody of the Commissioner of DCF and specific steps were ordered for Chrimson S. and both fathers.
Chrimson S., prior to events leading to this TPR petition, was largely compliant with court ordered specific steps following removal of her children in September 2012 due to mother's substance abuse and other behavior. She allowed the DCF to conduct home visits, participated in meetings in the community and was actively engaged in planning for the children. She attended a substance abuse and mental health evaluation at United Services. Chrimson S. was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS, Opioid Dependence, cocaine abuse and amphetamine abuse. She was referred for individual and group counseling and medication management. She participated in random drug and alcohol screens from September of 2012 through May of 2013 which were all negative. She participated in, and continues to receive suboxone treatment for her opioid dependency. She did have a one-day relapse on cocaine. Regrettably, she did not inform her therapist of this relapse.
In January 2013, Chrimson S. began work with Reconnecting Families. Part of this work included her struggles with appropriate discipline for Nilah, a child with difficult behavior issues. Nilah was reunited with Chrimson S. on August 5, 2013.
Nilah S. has experienced significant trauma in her life and has exhibited troubling and aggressive behavior. This behavior has included violence towards small animals and putting small objects in her infant sister's mouth. Her behavior at school has included barricading herself within a classroom, and running away from a classroom. Outpatient counseling for Nilah during this time period took place through InLight Professional Counseling and later through Child First.
Due to Nilah's special needs, it was essential for efforts to reunify the children with their mother to first give Chrimson S. an opportunity to adjust and focus on care of Nilah alone. Commitment of Nilah was revoked on November 20, 2013 and protective supervision was ordered for one year.
In January of 2014, Behavioral Health Consultant Services was contracted to provide additional in-home services, at that time including Daniel K. (testimony indicated that he was the " psychological father" of Nilah) to address goals of establishing a safe home environment. Mariah S. was reunified home on February 25, 2014.
In early March 2014, DCF became aware that Daniel K. had relapsed on heroin and entered into a safety agreement with Chrimson S. From the date of Daniel K.'s March 2014 relapse until June 2014, he was not allowed to have unsupervised contact with the children. Chrimson S. received training for signs to look for to recognize any subsequent relapse by Daniel K. and in June 2014, DCF agreed that Chrimson S. would be allowed to judge and determine his level of contact with the children. The plan at that time was for protective supervision to end sometime during the summer of 2014.
Chrimson S. resides in a HUD approved apartment in Willimantic, CT. The apartment is small. Under the terms of her lease agreement she is not supposed to have long-term guests in excess of 14 days without advance written consent of the Housing Authority of the City of Willimantic. While it is not clear from the record if technical compliance with the 14-day limit was ever kept, Daniel K.'s de facto living status at the premises was such that Chrimson " kicked him out" in August 2014 for cheating on her. While her housing is adequate, DCF has concerns that she may lose it due to the confirmed drug sale activity which led to these proceedings and Daniel K's conviction and incarceration.
On August 19, 2014 DCF conducted an unannounced home visit to Chrimson S. Significant foot traffic was observed and illegal activity was suspected. This was substantiated by two undercover controlled purchases which were made on August 7, 2014 and August 18, 2014. The sales were made by Daniel K. of crack cocaine. On the August 7, 2014 sale date, Chrimson S. answered the door. A child's voice was audible during one of the controlled purchases.
On September 16, 2014, Daniel K. was arrested by Connecticut State Police during a traffic stop and found to be in possession of heroin, crack cocaine, cocaine, and marijuana. A search warrant was subsequently issued for Chrimson S.'s home where police located in her bedroom hypodermic needles, a digital scale and, a spoon with heroin residue. At trial, Chrimson S. presented argument that the location of all of this drug paraphernalia in her bedroom was unknown to her. While some of the explanation of location of the items might suggest this was somewhat feasible, the larger and more important question is whether she was aware that Daniel K. was dealing drugs out of her and her daughters' home. The petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that she had to be aware of this illegal and dangerous activity. Chrimson S. own history of drug use and bad relationships include a murder committed by a previous boyfriend in the home she lived in. In 2011, Chrimson S. was convicted of criminal charges arising from that incident of hindering prosecution. While she was compliant with the exception of a one-day relapse in with remaining drug-free herself, the evidence of drug sales in her apartment were obvious.
To begin with, the apartment itself is very small duplex. It would be difficult to keep activity involving visiting individuals secret. As a previous drug user herself who received training in recognizing relapse behavior by Daniel K., it is inconceivable that she did not realize that the frequent foot traffic and large wads of cash possessed by Daniel K. involved drug sales. During one of the controlled purchases, Chrimson S. opened the door. The social worker during her unannounced visit observed a large wad of cash and testified as to Daniel K. speaking of buying an expensive American girl doll for one of the girls. During an unannounced visit in a private vehicle, the social worker observed individuals arriving that made Chrimson very nervous and an attempt to claim that the visitors were for the duplex neighbors. The various explanations as to why she may have been unaware of the materials left behind by Daniel K. and seized in the September 2014 search are perhaps feasible but relate to the materials left behind and not to the ongoing activity while he was living there.
These explanations included the syringe being high up in a closet and under winter wear and the scale being in a drawer where Daniel K. was allowed to keep his stuff.
Part of the record in this case includes numerous recorded conversations from prison between Daniel K. and Chrimson S. She has been on the telephone contact list for Daniel K. during his incarceration and has had frequent and ongoing telephone contact with him
In a December 5, 2014 conversation she indicates suggesting a possible explanation for the frequent foot traffic, that being that Daniel K. sold auto parts out of the garage. In another conversation, she and Daniel K. share negative remarks about the " snitch" that provided information leading to his arrest and conviction.
During all of the recorded conversations it is clear that Chrimson S. would welcome Daniel K. back into her life. She states that she does not want to be with anyone else, that she is trying and giving him lots of chances and wants to start fresh and start new and is waiting for him. While she frequently complains about his cheating on her and is very emotional about it, she does not complain about him selling drugs out of her children's home nor express the emotional outrage that she does about the cheating on her.
During one of the conversations between Daniel K. and his mother, the paternal grandmother observes that Daniel K. is paying the price for his drug dealing, and that Chrimson S. has failed to take ownership of the fact that she was well aware of what was going on. Daniel K. does not dispute this.
The court does not find credible the claim of Chrimson S. that the first time she became aware Daniel K. was dealing drugs out of her home was September 2014.
On June 30, 2015, Daniel K. was sentenced in Rockville Superior Court, to 64 months in prison. On July 14, 2015 Daniel K. was sentenced in Danielson Superior Court to 7 years, execution suspended after 4 years, probation for 5 years, concurrent to the Rockville sentence, for the August 18, 2014 sale of drugs.
Nilah continues to thrive in her DCF foster home. In September 2015 she was discharged from individual counseling based on stability in home and school with no concerns in either domain. In August 2015 she began her second grade year and no behavioral issues were present.
Mariah continues to flourish in relative foster home.
The foster parents demonstrate a commitment to caring for and meeting needs of the children and agreed to maintain contact so siblings can maintain contact.
The grounds alleged in the petition for termination of the parental rights of Chrimson S. are that the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for, and the mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives.
While Chrimson S. bias made admirable efforts to rehabilitate herself and has maintained with the exception of one relapse her personal sobriety, the fact that she allowed Daniel K. to deal drugs out of her tiny HUD approved duplex constitutes a failure of parental responsibility for the safety and well-being of her children. While there was testimony that her relationship with Daniel K. is the best of any relationship she has had, the fact remains that all of her relationships have been with men involved in drugs and in some cases violence. She continues to be interested in maintaining a relationship with Daniel K., and regrettably is more concerned that he cheated on her than that he exposed her children to his sordid lifestyle. In determining whether the respondent has achieved a level of rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time she can be a responsible parent, this is the applicable standard:
" Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than any rehabilitation . . . Successful completion of the petitioner's expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation . . . [I]n 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 . . . Thus, even if a parent has made successful strides in her ability to manage her life and may have achieved a level of stability within her limitations, such improvements, although commendable, are not dispositive on the issue of whether, within a reasonable period of time, she could assume a responsible position in the life of her children." (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259-60, 881 A.2d 450 (2005). In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 95, 961 A.2d 1036, 1054 (2009).
Both children are young and impressionable and Nilah S., although currently thriving in her foster home, has a history of special needs. It is not acceptable in any way to have them live in a drug dealing home. Their mother continues to want to take back Daniel K., the man she allowed to expose her children to drug dealing and all of its dangers. The petitioner has proven the statutory ground for termination that was alleged in regard to Chrimson S. by clear and convincing evidence.
As stated earlier, Daniel K. executed a written consent to termination of parental rights and Omar S. was defaulted. Additionally, the record of the case would support a finding in regard to Omar S. that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship.
" 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 [under § 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 788, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008).
" In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 46, 907 A.2d 126 (2006), aff'd, 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (2008).
" 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 arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k)]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Joseph L., 105 Conn.App. 515, 529, 939 A.2d 16, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 902, 947 A.2d 341; 287 Conn. 902, 947 A.2d 342 (2008). " 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." (Citation omitted.) In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 97-98, 961 A.2d 1036, 1055 (2009).
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 these services including United Services PPSP, Behavioral Health Consulting Services, United Services outpatient treatment, CUR outpatient treatment, Hartford Dispensary, adult probation, New Perceptions and Child First. 2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as amended, the court finds that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. 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 all parents. Omar S. made no efforts to comply with the expectations. Daniel K. and Chrimson S. engaged in services. Although Chrimson S. demonstrated some progress in maintaining sobriety, she failed to incorporate sustainable changes in the environment for the children as evidenced by their home being used for drug sales. 4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties, the court finds that both children rely solely on adults in their lives to meet every need. Both children love their mother and Nilah S. expresses a wish to be reunited. Both children are thriving in their foster homes. 5) As to the age of the children: Nilah S. was born on August 13, 2008 and is seven years old. Mariah K. was born on August 22, 2012 and is three years old. 6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parents' 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: Omar S. has made no effort to adjust his circumstances, conduct and conditions to make it in the best interest of his child to return to his care in the foreseeable future. Daniel K. has made little progress nor effort to adjust his circumstances, conduct and conditions to make it in the best interest of his child to return to his care in the foreseeable future. He has consented to termination of parental rights and is currently in prison. Although making good efforts towards maintaining her own sobriety, Chrimson S. has made minimal progress in her ability to improve her judgment, decision making and conduct to make it in the best interest of her children to return to her care in the foreseeable future. 7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable act of any 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, the court finds that no parent was prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable act of another or by economic circumstances.
With respect to the best interests of the child contemplated by C.G.S. sec. 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 Omar S. to the child Nilah S., to Daniel K. to the child Mariah K. and of Chrimson S. to Nilah S. and Mariah K. is in the best interest of each child.
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 interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment; their length of stay in foster care, the nature of their relationships with foster parents and biological mother and their genetic bond to parents. 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 (1999); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App., 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). The court has also balanced the children's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 313-14, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998).
It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental rights of Omar S., Daniel K. and Chrimson S. are hereby terminated. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed statutory parent for 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 any 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, 81 Columbia Avenue, Willimantic, of the date when said adoption is finalized.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is SO ORDERED