Opinion
No. H14-CP07-009149-A
April 7, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The Department of Children and Families (hereinafter referred to as DCF) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Sarina S. (hereinafter Mother) to her daughter Renee (hereinafter Child) alleging Ground B(i) and Ground E. Mother and Father were present and represented by legal counsel at trial. The court finds that it has jurisdiction and that there is no other known action pending in any court affecting the custody of this child. There is no claim of Native American affiliation of the child.
To prevail on its Ground B(i) allegation, DCF must prove by clear and convincing evidence that: "The child has been found . . . in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and that parent of such child has been provided specific steps . . . to facilitate the return of the child . . . and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the child's life." Connecticut General Statute § 17a-112(j)(B)(i).
To prevail on its Ground E claim, DCF must prove by clear and convincing evidence all of the facts alleged in Ground B, and the additional facts that Child is "under the age of seven" and that Mother's rights to an older Child "were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families." Connecticut General Statute § 17a-112(j)(E).
DCF withdrew its allegations advanced for termination of Father's parental rights in light of his decision to consent to such termination. The Court received the written consent, canvassed Father and accepted his consent.
In support of its position with respect to the termination of Mother's rights, DCF offered the Court thirty-six exhibits and the testimony of seven witnesses. Mother neither testified nor offered testimony of other witnesses. On the State's motion the Court agreed to take judicial notice of certain "court orders, court findings and other matters" as specified in the motion without objection.
DCF has also requested pursuant to General Statute § 46b-129(k) that the Court approve the Permanency Plan filed on April 17, 2009, calling for termination of Mother's and Father's Parental Rights.
Termination of parental rights proceedings are governed by Connecticut General Statute § 17a-112 et seq. "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 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 Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008); In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 360, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995).
Procedural History
On June 30, 2007, DCF filed a neglect petition alleging a single count: "a child is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to the well-being of the child." Connecticut General Statute § 46b-120(9)(C). On April 1, 2008, Mother entered a plea of nolo contendre to the neglect petition. On April 17, 2008, Father entered the same plea. The Child was adjudicated as a neglected child and a disposition of protective supervision entered. Under this disposition the child remained at home with Mother. On July 9, 2008 DCF removed the Child from Mother pursuant to a 96-hour administrative hold and placed the Child in the temporary care of DCF. DCF filed an ex parte OTC on July 9, 2008, which was later sustained by agreement of all parties on July 18, 2008. In conjunction with the filing of the OTC, DCF also filed a motion to reopen and modify disposition seeking to commit the Child. That motion as granted on April 27, 2009, thereby committing the child to DCF. In accordance with Connecticut General Statute § 46b-129 and Practice Book Section 33a-6, specific steps were ordered for Mother on April 1, 2008, July 9, 2008, July 18, 2008 and April 27, 2009.
Mother
DCF exhibits numbered 1 and 3 are social studies that outline the history of its relationship with Mother, the services offered by DCF in its efforts to reunite the family, and report on Mother's progress or lack of progress in meeting the requirements of reunification.
Maternal Grandfather was an active drug user and dealer who was deported to Jamaica when Mother was an infant. Maternal Grandmother (MGM) was an addict; she and Mother did not have a good relationship. Mother was removed from her home by DCF at the age of four because she and her sister had been sexually assaulted by MGM's boy friend. Mother was eventually adopted by her grandmother under whose care she enjoyed strong family bonds. However, when she turned thirteen she left home. She had started using marijuana when she was twelve and lived an itinerant lifestyle. Mother denies the use of any drug other than marijuana, but does acknowledge the early use of alcohol. DCF notes that, "There is a significant history of substance abuse in mother's family." Mother began to work at the age of fifteen, but never experienced steady employment for more than two months.
On September 17, 2007, Mother consented to the termination of her parental rights to her first child Laiyhanna, who has been adopted by a paternal relative.
After DCF obtained custody of Child, DCF referred Mother to a series of service agencies (Catholic Family Charities, YWCA Parent Education Program, Casey Family Services, ABH Project Safe, Wheeler Clinic, and Today's Youth Visitation Program) to assist her to successfully fulfill the requirements of her Court ordered Specific Steps. Mother participated in all of the six agencies to which she was referred, but did not complete any of them successfully. She had previously worked through similar programs with her older Child without success. Mother did attend and complete an interactional psychological evaluation with Child, but left her personal evaluation prematurely with significant hostility to the process.
DCF acknowledges, that Mother and Child are strongly bonded and the reports of visitations under the supervision of Casey Family Services confirms that strong bond. (See Exhibits 22, 23, and 24.) The Court also notes that the Casey visitations confirm Mother's concern that Child is well cared for and her capacity to provide that care if she were to achieve stability in her day to day life.
Exhibit 3, "Addendum to Social Study in Support of Termination of Parental Rights Petition" brings the status of this case up to the day before the scheduled trial. As of that date, Mother was pregnant and living with her sister, but looking into mother/child programs. Her financial issues were slightly alleviated, but only because she is pregnant again and, therefore, eligible for food stamps and cash assistance. Mother had completed the Certified Nurse Assistant program, but had not yet found employment.
Mother reported to DCF that she had stopped her use of marijuana "a couple of days before" November 2, 2009, but tested positive for use on November 19, 2009.
Mother and Child had thirty-six visiting opportunities between May 5th and December 9th, 2009, of which Mother was able to attend twenty-four. DCF also offered Mother the opportunity to incorporate the required parenting services in the visitation process in the community rather than at the facility. Mother agreed to try the process, but after four visits decided that she did not want to continue to have her visits with Child encumbered by her parenting education obligation.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
The Court ordered a psychological evaluation of Mother and an interactional evaluation with Mother and Child. (See Exhibit 8.) Ines Schroeder, a licensed Doctor of Psychology, conducted the evaluation. Mother failed to appear at the first two scheduled appointments and was forty-five minutes late for the third. Mother reported that she was not informed of the date and time of the last appointment. The evaluation began with the interactional phase and Mother complained that it was conducted in a confined space, limiting the comfort and range of the visitation. Dr. Schroeder conducted the evaluation at the DCF offices in New Britain. Mother also requested to be allowed to leave the room without Child to demonstrate the strength of the bond between Mother and Child, a request that Dr. Schroeder strongly discouraged. Mother complied and returned to the interaction. Dr. Schroeder acknowledged a strong bond between Mother and Child.
The record shows that Mother had very positive visitation experiences with Child in the community under the supervision of Casey Family Services.
The evaluation of Mother did not go well. Dr. Schroeder was not able to complete the evaluation because Mother engaged in a series of outbursts that escalated and concluded with her refusal to participate further in the evaluation process. Dr. Schroeder concluded that Mother "was oriented to person, place, time, situation and object. She had some difficulty recounting the details of her life in chronological order. She was able to estimate. She appeared able to attend to topics presented." (See Exhibit 8.)
The Court's experience has been that psychological evaluators often subject clients to a battery of psychological tests before engaging them in discussions of their life history. In this instance Dr. Schroeder was not able to administer any testing that might have informed the Court as to Mother's psychological profile because the evaluator began with the interactional evaluation and continued with an interview about Mother's life history before administering the appropriate psychological tests. The information gathered in the personal interview was available in the documentation provided Dr. Schroeder by the Court Services Officer. (See Exhibits 2, 3 and 4.) Mother answered Dr. Schroeder's questions about her life history for the equivalent of six single-spaced pages in the evaluator's report. By that time Mother had participated in the evaluation process for more than three hours and her frustration exploded in the following tirade:
Mother f*****rs don't care. I am done. This is f***ing s**t. If I had a lawyer, we would not be going through this s**t. How is it that weed is a problem, but they can make me take f***ing pills that give all sorts of side effects. I tell you all these things and you are white and the judge is white and no one f***ing cares.
The evaluator cautioned Mother that ". . . her comments for the judge were being recorded." Mother packed up her belongings and left with the result that the Court has no psychological profile upon which to base its decision on termination.
RESPONSES TO THE RELEVANT COURT INQUIRIES
1. What is the present emotional and psychological status of the biological parent?
Dr. Schroeder was not able to respond to this question because Mother left the evaluation before she could engage in psychological testing. She did list seven issues that mother is facing in her attempts at reunification.
2. What is the nature of the present relationship between the parent and the child?
Mother and Child have had weekly supervised visitation with which Mother has been reasonably compliant and all observers of the visitation have noted the strong bond between them.
3. What is the nature of the marital relationship between the biological parents or biological parent and co-habitant who would have access to the children and may be required to exercise parenting responsibilities?
Instead of answering this question directly, Dr. Schroeder reported Mother's decision to avoid any relationship with Father. The Court concludes that no marital or other relationship existed between Mother and Father at the time of trial.
5. Who are Child's psychological parents?
Dr. Schroeder had no contact with either past or present foster parents and concluded that Child "was accustomed to seeing [. . . Mother] and had some relationship to her."
6. Does Mother need supportive services to address issues pertaining to the alleged neglect?
Mother and DCF have conflicting views: Mother believes that she needs services that provide more help with housing and schooling issues to which DCF does not respond. She does not believe that she needs help with parenting or substance abuse which are the main rehabilitative objectives of DCF.
10. If Child should not be allowed to live with the Mother at the present time, when might this be possible? What must occur first in the way of visitation? What kind of counseling is appropriate if any?
Dr. Schroeder notes Mother's reported issues of depression, anxiety and insomnia and that she might benefit from psycho-educational counseling regarding domestic violence, establishing safety plans and health care insurance. Finally she suggests that without progress in the next few months, work on permanency should begin. (Note: The Report on the psychological consultation was filed on March 2, 2009, providing Mother a full nine months of additional rehabilitation before trial.)
12. Is substance abuse or use of any kind of problem for any Party?
The answer to this question is obvious. Mother's use of marijuana has and will inhibit the reunification process. Dr. Schroeder believes, and the testing demonstrates, that Mother was a consistent user of marijuana at the time of the evaluation and concedes that people who are prescribed psycho-tropic medications often suffer worse side effects than those who smoke marijuana. Dr. Schroeder was not sanguine about Mother's abstention from marijuana use and her position is supported by the record.
In the three months leading up to the trial Mother had made more effort to reduce or eliminate her use of marijuana, but tests that might reveal the extent of her success were not available to the Court.
CASEY FAMILY SERVICES
Casey Family Services (hereinafter CFS) initiated services to reunite Mother and Child on November 26, 2008, and provided services through early February 2009. CFS issued reports on the intake date noted above, January 31, 2009, and a closing summary on March 24, 2009. (See Exhibits 22, 23 and 24.) These exhibits are informative about the relationship of Mother and Child from September 30, 2008, through February 5, 2009. Over this period CFS supervised a total of fourteen visits between Mother and Child in the Community. The strong bond between Mother and Child was observed by all visitation supervisors.
The last visit supervised by CFS occurred on February 5, 2009. CFS reported that, "The visit went very well; [. . . Mother] has a strong bond with her daughter and the bond is reciprocal for [. . . Child] as has been evident to the Casey team since the initial referral and first parent/child visit." CFS also reported that, "[. . . Mother] stated during the visit that she was confident she would be able to be reunified with her daughter in part because she states her attorney feels a case can be made for [. . . Mother] to gain custody of [. . . Child] without . . . participating in reunification services.
The Casey documentation of its services to Mother is extraordinary. All of Mother's strengths and weaknesses are clearly and fairly reported. The brief closing summary is as follows:
The . . . case will be closed effective the end of February 2009 [. . . Mother's] behavior appeared to become more ambivalent with regards to reunification as time progressed. This ambivalence was evidenced in her lack of progress in accomplishing some important goals, employment, establishing stable housing, etc. She also began missing appointments in January with Casey Family Services and made some comments to the Casey team that indicated she might have conflicted herself about being reunified with her daughter. The reader of this report is encouraged to read the January 2009 quarterly report for . . . more specific information about the issues referenced.
At the end of January, [. . . Mother] shared with the Casey team that she wanted to pursue reunification with her daughter solely through legal means and does not feel the services Casey Family Services are providing are needed. [. . . Mother] does not feel parenting, counseling or any other services Casey Family Services are providing are needed. She believes her daughter should not have been removed from her care. This belief . . . that [. . . Child] was removed without a valid reason by DCF, has been the biggest obstacle for [. . . Mother] in fully committing to reunification services.
WHEELER CLINIC
Subsequently Mother sought support services from Wheeler Clinic and participated in an intake process on May 5, 2009. Her experience with Wheeler Clinic is memorialized in Exhibits 17-20, 39 and 40. Exhibit 17 is the documentation of the intake process issued eight days later. The Court notes the mental status assessment administered on May 6, 2009. Mother's score on the drug screening instrument was 2 because of her agreement to two drug use questions: "Have people annoyed you by criticizing your drug use?" and "Have you ever used drugs first thing in the morning to steady your nerves?" Mother's ten positive answers to questions purported to be about the number of days since her last use of either drugs or alcohol. She acknowledged that she had the following experiences:
6. "Have you ever been so irritable, grouchy or annoyed for several days, that you had arguments, verbal or physical fights, or shouted at people outside your family? Have you or others noticed that you have been more irritable or overreacted, compared to other people, even when you thought you were right to act this way?"
8. "Do you feel anxious, frightened, uncomfortable or uneasy in situations where help might not be available or escape might be difficult?"
9. "Have you worried excessively or been anxious about several things over the past 6months?"
14. "Have you ever experienced or witnessed or had to deal with an extremely traumatic event that included actual or threatened death or serious injury to you or someone else." (Note: The document suggests sexual or physical assault, being held hostage or sudden death of a person close to her — all of which she has experienced.)
15. "Have you re-experienced the awful event in a distressing way in the last month?" (Note: The document suggests dreams, intense recollections, flashbacks and physical reactions.)
16. "Have you ever believed that people were spying on you, or that someone was plotting against you, or trying to hurt you?"
19. "Have you ever believed that you were being sent special messages through the TV, radio or newspaper? Did you believe that someone you did not personally know was particularly interested in you?"
20. "Have your relatives or friends ever considered any of your beliefs strange or unusual?"
21. "Have you ever heard things other people couldn't hear, such as voices?"
22. "Have you ever had a vision when you were awake or have you ever seen things other people couldn't see?"
Her diagnosis as result of this evaluation is as follows:
AXIS I: Primary — Cannabis Dependence; Secondary — Panic Disorder W/O Agoraphobia; Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depression.
AXIS II: Personality Disorders/Mental Retardation.
AXIS III: Asthma
AXIS IV: Psycho-social and Environmental Problems, e.g. economic, health care access, education, housing, work, social environmental, and primary support group.
AXIS V: GAF — current 42, highest 43.
Mother did not engage in services offered to her, but Wheeler remained available for her participation at a time of her election. She re-engaged with Wheeler on September 24, 2009, in connection with another pregnancy and desired support services.
TESTIMONY
Dr. Ines Schroeder testified in support of the evaluation that is Exhibit 8, and which has been discussed fully above. Her testimony reiterated the text of the evaluation. The Court concludes that the evaluation and the testimony accurately reflected Dr. Schroeder's opinion that Mother had not made the progress required to address identified issues, inhibiting her reunification with Child.
Diane Mixon was the facilitator of an Intensive Out Patient Group that Mother joined on November 2, 2009. At the time Mother was expecting her third child and was anxious to make the progress needed for reunification with Child and to retain custody of her expected Child. The witness informed the Court that Mother had reached the fourth of the five identified steps in her drug rehabilitation. (She identified the steps as "pre-contemplation, contemplation, relapse prevention, preparation and maintenance.") She reported that disposing of the substance abuse issue was her task in the group and was the necessary initial step to achieve reunification.
DCF worker Pearl Napoleon testified as to the wide range of services DCF provided to Mother prior to filing the TPR Petition. Exhibits and earlier discussion establish that relevant and substantial services were offered to Mother in the spring and summer of 2008 through March 9, 2009. DCF concluded that her efforts fell short of those required to be reunited with her daughter. In addition to the substance abuse issues, Mother's Specific steps required her to complete programs dealing with family violence, unstable housing, employment and parenting. Mother participated in the provided services in a limited way with respect to all of these areas with the result of Mother's unsuccessful discharge from the program.
This issue has been made less important in this matter because Father has consented to termination of his parental rights and he was the major source of the domestic violence in the relationship
At the time of trial, Mother had stable housing.
The Court next heard the testimony of Brent Hands, an employee of Casey Family Services, the gist of which has been discussed previously.
DCF then offered the testimony of Jennie O. Parker, a clinician at Catholic Charities who worked with Mother on her substance abuse issues. The agency records of Mother's treatment there were introduced as Exhibits 13 — 16 and report Mother's substance abuse history and status as of October 8, 2008; the Assessment and Treatment Plan; Mother's drug testing results from November 19, 2008, through July 15, 2009; and "Notification of Action" dated April 15, 2009. The Exhibits informed the Court with respect to the extent of Mother's use of Marijuana.
Eileen Wilson of Wheeler Clinic testified for the limited purpose of identifying and validating Exhibit 20, the content of which has been discussed herein.
The State's final witness was the current DCF worker Flavinia Hunter who assumed the direct responsibility of working with Mother, Child and the foster parents to bring this matter to a conclusion that is in the best interest of Child and recognizes the constitutional rights of the parent seeking custody. Mother and Child sustained a strong bond in the thirteen months that they were together. The Court was impressed that DCF worked with Mother both in the provision of services and in its sensitivity to the Child. Mother and Child were clearly able to maintain a loving relationship throughout the eighteen months that Child has been in the care of Foster Parents.
The Court notes that Father consented to the termination of his parental rights in Court on December 10, 2009 and, the Court (Baldwin, J.) accepted his consent as knowing and voluntary. The Court also notes that Father is due to be released from his incarceration later this month, and Child is placed in a pre-adoptive foster home of a paternal relative. Father's criminal record, some of which involves domestic violence, and his record as Father to other children who have not had the benefit of his support and attention concerns the Court.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the Child with Mother and has provided Mother with appropriate services.
2. Father has voluntarily consented to the termination of his parental rights to Child.
3. Mother has been willing to participate in and benefit from efforts to rehabilitate from DCF services offered in the reunification process, but not to the extent that reunification is appropriate.
4. A strong bond continues to exist between Mother and Child.
5. Child is two years and nine months old, has lived in Mother's care for thirteen months and has retained a bonded relationship with Mother for the last eighteen months.
6. The Order of Temporary Custody and commitment of Child to DCF was necessary because Mother entrusted the care of Child to an unreliable caretaker. Mother was negligent in her choice and caretaker who was negligent in his provision of care with the result that Child was subjected to a substantial risk of harm.
7. Mother's parental rights to another child were previously terminated.
8. DCF has proven, by clear and convincing evidence that Child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, considering the needs of Child, she could assume a responsible position in the life of Child. (See Grounds B(i) and E.)
9. DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Child is under the age of seven and Mother's parental rights to another Child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families. (See Ground E.)
10. Child's bond with Mother is very strong and Child will suffer from her loss of contact with her Mother if Mother's rights are terminated.
11. Child is also bonded to her current paternal relative placement.
12. Mother made significant but unsuccessful efforts to meet the requirements of her specific steps.
13. The core basis for the Petition to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights was her persistent use of marijuana. The record strongly suggests that her use is largely medicinal and the record does not suggest addiction to any other drugs.
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
Having made findings that DCF has proven facts necessary under both Grounds B(i) and E to terminate Mother's Parental rights, the Court must make a finding whether such termination will be in Child's best interest to order termination of Mother's rights.
"It is [thus] possible for a court to find that a statutory ground for termination of parental rights exists but that it is not in the best interests of the child to terminate the parental relationship, although [continued] removal from the custody of the parent may be justified." See In re Deanna E., 61 Conn.App. 185, 189, 763 A.2d. 37 (2000); In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263, 279-80, 618 A.2d 1 (1992).
To begin the best interests of the child analysis, it is critical to note that in this phase of the case "the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interests of the child." In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 44, 907 A.2d 126 (2006), aff'd, 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (2008).
Determining the best interests of the child is a "task among the most sensitive and difficult with which a judge is charged. Although a judge is guided by legal principles, the ultimate decision . . . is intensely human." Id. at 42.
The summary of facts in support of the Petition to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights reports that termination is in Child's best interest because Mother is not willing or able to parent the Child; to take advantage of available services in order to improve her circumstances to the extent that she could care for Child; and that she has not been able to put Child's interest ahead of her persistent use of marijuana.
The Social Study in support of the Petition, filed on June 11, 2009, concluded that the requested termination of Mother's parental rights is in Child's best interest. In support of its conclusion, DCF found that "Mother has not completely followed through with . . . her mental health or substance abuse treatment"; that "she has unstable housing, needs parenting education; has not fully complied with her specific steps; and has not fully complied with services offered by DCF and other community providers."
The reason for the ninety-six-hour hold and Order of Temporary Custody in this case was the actions of another individual to whom Mother entrusted the Child. The dominant reason advanced for the proposed termination of Mother's Parental rights is her persistent use of marijuana.
In affirming In re Rachel J., 97 Conn.App. 748, 761, 905 A.2d 1271 (2006), our AppellateCourt, in reliance on its earlier decisions In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 536, 857 A.2d 963 (2004), and In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 667, 759 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001), stated "our courts have consistently held that even where there is a finding of a bond between a parent and child, it still may (emphasis mine) be in the child's best interests to terminate parental rights."
This is not such a case. "Whether a bond exists between parent and child is but one consideration that the trial court must contemplate." In re Rachel J., supra, 762. Consistent with the discussion throughout this decision, this Child experiences more than a mother and child bond, the Child experiences positive feelings and emotional ties to Mother, and stability and permanency in a relative placement.
"Conducting a best interest analysis . . . is purposefully broad to enable its discretion based on a host of considerations." See In re Heather L., 49 Conn.Super 287, 877 A.2d 27 (2004). Those considerations include "factors such as sustained growth, developmental well-being, continuity and stability." In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 764, 936 A.2d 638 (2007).
The court is further guided by the dual directive in Davonta V. that best interests "requires the court to weigh may different and sometimes competing interests" and "the interests of parent, child and state require a balancing of the factors involved in those interests." In re Davonta V., supra, 45.
All parties have observed that Mother and Child have a strong and loving bond. No party advised the Court that the anticipated termination of Mother's parental rights would allow any continuing contact between Mother and Child. The Court heard no compelling evidence that Mother's continuing contact with Child would be detrimental to her best interest.
While DCF anticipates a prompt adoption by the Paternal Aunt, the court is assured that the Child will continue to receive care by her Paternal Aunt regardless of the Child's legal status. Father has a history of domestic violence and is scheduled to be released from prison this month. He has consented to the termination of his rights to Child.
The Court is concerned that Child will be traumatized by the loss of her Mother unnecessarily, and is unable to find that termination of Mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the Child. The court is persuaded that Mother's continued contact with Child will not put the Child at risk. To the contrary the Court believes that such continued contact is in Child's best interest.
Our Supreme Court, in In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 662-63, 847 A.2d 883 (2004), advises that "termination of parental rights proceedings are not designed to punish parents but to protect children." (Emphasis in original.)
Moreover the fluid concept of a family structure justifies a finding that if continuing contact is not detrimental to the child, a parent's rights need not be terminated. In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 207-08, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).
At this point in time, the Child gains nothing by the terminating her Mother's parental rights. The Child has permanency, stability and continuity of care with her paternal relative. Continued contact between Mother and Child enriches the child's experience of family.
In weighing all of the interests and in balancing all of the factors, for the reasons more fully discussed throughout this decision and as delineated in the seven findings, the court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence as is contemplated in General Statute § 17a-112(j)(2) that is in the best interests of this Child to terminate her Mother's parental rights.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Pursuant to In re Coby C., 105 Conn.App. 395, 407, 945 A.2d 529 (2008), the court is required to make written finding regarding the seven factors set out in General Statute § 17a-112(k).
1. DCF offered timely and appropriate services to Mother. Father was incarcerated and not available for services. Father has consented to termination of his parental rights.
2. DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family by providing appropriate services to enable Mother to meet the needs of Child, to obtain suitable housing and to deal with her use of marijuana. Father has consented to the termination of his parental rights.
3. Mother was not able to satisfy her requirement to abstain from marijuana and complete requirements of the many services offered by DCF related to domestic violence, housing, parenting and mental health. However, she did participate in services and has learned from those that she did attend. She failed to complete the requirements of her specific steps. Father has consented to the termination of his parental rights.
4. Child was in Mother's care for the first thirteen months of her life. Mother has enjoyed regular visitation with Child. The Child has positive feelings for Mother. The child has emotional ties to Mother. Child is bonded to her Mother and to her paternal relative caretaker. She has been in her caretaker's custody for eighteen months. Father has consented to the termination of his parental rights.
5. Child will be three years old in May 2010.
6. Mother has made significant, but not sustained, efforts to adjust her circumstances, conduct and conditions to make it in the best interest of Child to return to her care. Mother has made some progress in her efforts for reunification in many areas, but has not yet met the requirements of reunification. Mother's relationship to Child is through DCF; she does have contact with Child's caretaker. Father has consented to the termination of his parental rights.
7. Mother has maintained a meaningful relationship with Child through visitation arranged by DCF. She has not been prevented from maintaining that relationship by the unreasonable act of any party. Father has consented to the termination of his parental rights.
PERMANENCY PLAN
DCF filed a Motion for the court to Review its Permanency Plan dated and filed on April 17, 2009. The plan calls for termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights to Child. DCF also moves the Court to review and approve the plan and find that it has made reasonable efforts to achieve the identified plan.
The Court finds that the plan should be disapproved and that the appropriate plan could be a plan of reunification with Mother concurrent with a termination of parental rights or permanent placement with a relative (specifically Child's current relative caretaker). The Court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve its plan.
ORDERS
1. Father has consented to the termination of his parental rights to Child and they are hereby TERMINATED.
2. Having found that Termination of Mother's parental rights are not in the best interest of Child at this time, the Court DENIES DCF's petition to terminate her rights without prejudice to renewal of this Petition at the discretion of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families after a period of six months from this decision.
3. The Court ORDERS DCF to continue to provide the services to Mother that have been provided to date, including substance abuse cessation, housing, and parenting. AND
4. The Court ORDERS Mother to comply with all services and programs offered by DCF and ORDERED by the appropriate Regional Juvenile Court.
Respectfully submitted.