2007 Ct. Sup. 1369
No. CP02-008681-AConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London, Juvenile Matters at Waterford
January 23, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
JOHN C. DRISCOLL, Judge.
THE COURT: I’m going to write in the matters of two siblings, Brittany P., docket number K09-CP02-008681-A, and Brittany’s sibling, Nicole P., docket number K09-CP02-008682-A. The Court will read the following decision into the record.
The Department of Children and Families as petitioner is seeking to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother, Lindsy S.-P., to her children Brittany P. and Nicole P. The termination petition is dated October 17, 2005. Respondent mother appeared and was appointed an attorney. Father had been named as well and appeared with counsel. However, father died during the pendency of the action. The children ware appointed an attorney who also served as their guardian ad litem.
The matter was scheduled for trial, and mother had actual notice of the trial date. Mother failed to appear for the trial. Her attorney did appear for the trial. The Court heard from two witnesses, a police officer and the assigned Department of Children and Families Social Worker. Five exhibits were entered into evidence. The Court finds the following by clear and convincing evidence.
The respondent is the mother of Brittany P., born in October 1997, and Nicole P., born in August of 2000. The father of the girls is deceased. The Department of Children and Families filed neglect petitions on behalf of both girls on October 31st, 2002. On March 13th, 2003, the girls were adjudicated neglected and placed under nine months of protective supervision. The Department of Children and Families invoked a 96-hour administrative hold on the girls on May 4, 2003. And on May 7, 2003, an order of temporary custody to the department was granted by the Court, after an altercation between the parents, during which, mother stabbed father in the abdomen. The older child was present, not quite five years old, and had to call 911 for assistance.
On July 29, 2003, the petitioner’s motion to open and modify CT Page 1370 disposition was granted. The girls were committed to the department. That commitment has never been revoked. Initially, reunification was the plan. On May 17, 2006, the Court determined that reunification with the respondent mother was no longer appropriate.
The department’s termination of parental rights petition is dated October 17, 2005. The sole ground alleged is a failure to rehabilitate on the part of mother. The adjudication date is October 17th, 2005, and the disposition date is the date of trial.
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 Court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child. The General Statutes allow for the involuntary termination of parental rights, when the parent of a child, who has been found by the Superior Court to have been neglected and uncared for in a prior proceeding, has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.
Personal rehabilitation refers to the reasonable foreseeability of the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent, not merely the ability to manage his or her own life. The statute does not require the parent to be able to assume full responsibility for a child without the use of available support programs.
Our Supreme Court has held that the statute requires the trial court to analyze the respondent’s rehabilitative status, as it relates to the needs of the particular child; and, further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time.
Mother’s major issues were to address her mental health needs, treat her propensity to domestic violence, obtain stable housing, maintain her bond with her children and strengthen her bond through parenting classes. She failed on all of these, though she was compliant for periods of time.
Mother was in therapy at Catholic Charities from January 2004, until CT Page 1371 July 2004, when her therapist left the agency. Mother kept an intake appointment with a new therapist on August 26th, 2004, and then attended two sessions in September 2004. She missed both October 2004, sessions and was discharged by the provider. In November 2004, mother asked the provider to reestablish therapy. Mother attended one session on November 29, 2004. Mother then had no contact with Catholic Charities until she scheduled an appointment for August 2005, which appointment she failed to attend.
Mother has not sought, nor attended parenting class. Delta-T provided visitation services for mother and children, in home, until March 2005. The program was discontinued because mother missed three consecutive sessions. Mother was referred to SCADD for a hair toxicology drug screen, due to a prior history, including residential placement for drug treatment. Mother did not attend.
Mother began domestic violence counseling with the Child and Family Agency in September 2003. The agency reported that mother would attend for sporadic but concentrated periods of time. Finally, mother was discharged unsuccessfully from the program for non-attendance in March 2005.
Mother did not maintain any stable housing. She lived with friends for brief time periods. She did not cooperate with DCF’s attempts to secure subsidized housing or shelter placement. Ultimately, she moved into a home, over DCF objection, with a man with a long history of criminal activity, domestic violence, and substance abuse.
In August 2003, and November 2004, mother was provided a forensic psychological evaluation, which recommended that mother be held to a rigorous standard of compliance for any prospect of positive change. Clearly, mother did not meet the necessary goals for rehabilitation by the adjudication date.
The Court may consider evidence after the date of the petition to assist it in deciding if there is a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation. Mother’s actions prevent any such finding.
Mother lived from December 2004, until February 2006, with a convicted felon, whose history included two convictions of sexual assault in the second degree. Mother moved out of their home in February 2006, following a domestic violence incident, during which mother was stabbed in the left leg. Both were arrested.
This followed their mutual arrest in August 2005, after an incident of CT Page 1372 domestic violence on Interstate 95 in Madison, as the result of which, mother was left alone on the highway.
Mother was incarcerated in September of 2006, after an incident of domestic violence with her own mother.
Finally, and most importantly, mother has had no contact with the children since March 13, 2006. She has provided no cards, gifts, financial supports, phone calls or letters.
The petitioner’s proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Department of Children and Families made reasonable efforts, prior to the Court’s determination they were no longer necessary; and that mother has failed to rehabilitate as per the statute.
Dispositionally, the Court has considered the seven statutory factors and has made written findings of the same.
The children both have specialized needs related to the traumas of their childhood. They are in a stable pre-adoptive placement, where their needs are being met. They call their foster parents, Mom and Dad. They call their mother Lindsy. Neither child inquires for or about mother.
The children are entitled to the permanency and nurture which all children need to grow and develop. Mother will not, or cannot, provide any of this. She has given up any rehabilitative efforts. She has ceased all contact with her children. The children’s best interest require that they be freed for adoption.
The Court has considered, and the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence, those facts found in the adjudicatory phase, which apply to disposition.
Accordingly, considering the age and needs of the children, and their best interest, including their need for permanency and nurture, and the seven statutory factors, and the totality of the circumstances, and having determined by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist to terminate mother’s parental rights, and that it is in the children’s best interest that mother’s parental rights be terminated, the Court terminates the parental rights of Lindsy S.-P. in and to her daughter Brittany P., born August 15, 1997, and Nicole P., born August 25, 2000. The Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for purposes of securing the adoption of the girls. First consideration is to be given to their current pre-adoptive foster CT Page 1373 parents. The department will submit a report confirming this permanency plan within 30 days of the receipt of this decision. A hearing will be scheduled six months following the decision for a report on the adoption process. Such other dates will be set as required by law. A copy of this decision is to be prepared at Judicial Department expense and disseminated to all counsel as per Practice Book.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing pages contain a true and accurate copy of the disk transcribed in the above-entitled case, heard before the Honorable John C. Driscoll, Judge of the Superior Court on January 12, 2007, in Waterford, Connecticut. CT Page 1374