2008 Ct. Sup. 3713
No. U06 CP06 005959-AConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Middlesex, Child Protection Session at Middletown
March 3, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
FRANCIS J. FOLEY, Senior Judge.
This is an action for termination of parental rights filed by the mother of Sarah H., born October 2, 2002. The petition seeks to terminate the parental rights of the respondent Keith H., the father of Sarah. The petition was properly commenced in the Waterbury Probate court, transferred to the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters and thence to this court. The respondent Keith H. has appeared through counsel and has participated in the defense of the case. He has filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was overruled by the court. (Winslow, J.)
The petition was filed in January of 2006, the grounds listed in the petition are:
1) that the child has been abandoned by the respondent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child; and
2) there is no on-going parent/child relationship as defined by C.G.S. § 45a-717(g) and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of the parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.
The contested case was assigned for trial in January 2008 with a trial scheduled for March 3, 2008. Counsel for the respondent notified Keith of the trial date. On the week-end before the trial was to commence, the respondent called his lawyer and said he needed more time to prepare a defense and that he could not be in court for the commencement of the proceedings. Counsel requested a continuance. This court denied the motion for a continuance, finding that he had actual notice of the pendency of this proceeding that he failed to appear. The court defaulted the respondent for failure to appear for trial.
An Assessment of Child and Family for termination of parental rights is required per statute. The first assessment was completed on July 27, CT Page 3714 2006. It was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. The social worker was available for testimony but was not called as a witness. The department recommended that the petition be granted.
A second assessment was conducted on February 6, 2008. That was received into evidence as Exhibit 2. Two other exhibits were offered. The child’s mother, the petitioner testified. The court finds from the testimony and documentary evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, the following.
The petitioner and the respondent were married on July 11, 1998. The child was born on April 15, 1999. Twenty-six months later the parents divorced. The respondent was granted the right to visit the child. According to the testimony, the visitations became problematic through the lack of regularity and the missing of visits by the father which came to disappoint and discourage the child.
After the divorce, the respondent was arrested on November 22, 2002, and convicted of tampering with evidence for which he received a 3-year jail sentence suspended after 9 months to serve. He served concurrent time for an operation of a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission. He was arrested for breach of peace, assault 3, and two failure to appears for which he was sentenced to 6 months in jail. The respondent later told DCF that he failed to appear because he was using drugs.
In May 2003, the petitioner moved the court in the dissolution of marriage case, to reduce or suspend the respondent’s visitation rights due to his unreliable appearances and the child’s disappointments. The court, upon hearing of the problems and the respondent’s possible drug use, (Cutsumpas, J.) suspended the visitation rights on May 19, 2003 (Exhibit 3).
It is interesting to note that when this case first began in January 2006, DCF made an effort to contact the respondent. When they did contact him, he declined to be interviewed until he had a lawyer. He had a lawyer for most of the time the case was pending in court. It was two years later, in February 2008, that DCF was able to talk to him and to obtain his social history. In the recent study, Keith self-reports a history of substance abuse (cocaine). He reports to treatments as recently as 2007, and admits to drug use even after his most recent Danbury treatment. He has been under a child support order since the time of the divorce and has been chronically in arrears. The testimony indicated that there is presently a capias outstanding for his arrest.
In the past nearly five years, the respondent has made no meaningful CT Page 3715 effort to contact the child. The respondent’s mother, the paternal grand mother, occasionally has had visitation with the child. The address and phone number of the child are known to her. Neither she nor her son, Keith, has made any effort to write, call or contact the child. There have been no cards, gifts or letters. The child lives in a town adjacent to the town in which the respondent resides. Keith has not seen his daughter since she was three years old. She will be nine years old on April 15, 2008. He has not inquired of her school or attended a parent teacher function. He has manifested no meaningful interest in the child.[1]
Sarah has minimally defined memories of her father and she does not have a bond with him. She has stated her step father is her father and she wishes for him to adopt her. She does not look to the respondent for guidance, affection or nurturance. She has a close and loving relationship with her mother’s husband. She naturally wishes to be fully integrated in her present family and to share their last name.
Keith has not acted as a concerned father as that term is commonly understood. He has not provided the daily emotional support and guidance the child needs, nor has he provided the child with the interest, concern or responsibility necessary for the child’s welfare.
Based upon the foregoing the court finds that that
1) the child has been abandoned by the respondent in the sense that Keith has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child, Sarah, and,
2) there is no on-going parent/child relationship as defined by C.G.S. § 45a-717(g) and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of the parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.
The court concludes that the best interest of the child would be served by freeing her for adoption by the person who has served as her father and who has undertaken to provide her with life’s necessities. The petition for termination of parental rights of Keith H. is granted. By operation of law, the mother becomes the sole guardian of the child.
The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at 71 Main Street, Danbury, CT 06810 of the date, if and when said adoption occurs.
CT Page 3716
Judgment may enter accordingly,
CT Page 3717