2005 Ct. Sup. 14064-d
No. F04-CP01-004958-AConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield Child Protection Session at Middletown
November 2, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
CARL E. TAYLOR, JUDGE.
This memorandum of decision addresses a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition brought to terminate the parental rights of Deborah B. (Deborah), born 11/29/69, the biological mother, and Theodore W. Sr. (Ted), born 6/5/6, the biological father, of Theodore W. Jr. (Theo), born 2/8/99.[2]
The court finds the following by clear and convicting evidence:
The history of the file reflects that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and its predecessor, Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS),[3] have been involved with this family since 1990 for issues including medical neglect, educational neglect, unemployment, chronic domestic violence, failure to rehabilitate, mental health, parenting deficits and Deborah’s failure to protect her children from physical and sexual abuse from her significant other, Ted.
On 2/21/91, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 4th District, located in Bridgeport (SCJM), DCYS sought and obtained an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) for Tanisha B. (Tanisha), DOB: 8/19/88, the daughter of Antonio R. and Deborah. DCYS alleged that Tanisha had suffered both physical abuse and physical neglect. The OTC cited a report from Bridgeport Hospital (BH) which indicated that Tanisha exhibited circular scars consistent with cigarette burns, excematoid diaper rash consistent with prolonged poor hygiene, at least 1 bruise, a lacerated lip and oral ulcers consistent with viral gingivostomatis.
On or about 2/21/91, in SCJM, DCYS also filed a co-terminus petition CT Page 14064-e concerning Tanisha. As to the TPR aspect of the petition, DCYS alleged failure to rehabilitate, acts of comission/omission and no ongoing relationship as to both parents.
On 5/2/91, in SCJM (Dean, J.), custody of Tanisha was transferred to her aunt, Verna B. (Verna).
On 5/1/92, Verna placed Tanisha in foster care, indicating that she could no longer care for the child.
On 7/1/92 in SCJM, DCYS filed another co-terminus petition concerning Tanisha. As to the TPR aspect of the petition, DCYS alleged abandonment, acts of comission/omission and no ongoing relationship as to both parents.
DCYS alleged that Deborah had little contact with her daughter while Verna had guardianship of her. They also alleged that Deborah’s problems included housing difficulties, financial mismanagement, a refusal to engage in counseling and a failure to provide basic necessities for her son, Jachim B. (Jachim), DOB: 4/12/90.
On 7/29/92, in SCJM (Brenneman, J.), Tanisha was adjudicated neglected and uncared for and was committed to the custody of the DCYS for a period not to exceed 18 months. The court found that DCYS had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home, and to make it possible for the child to return home.
On 2/23/93, in SCJM, DCYS filed a TPR petition concerning Tanisha alleging abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, acts of commission/omission and no ongoing relationship as to both parents.
On 5/19/93, in SCJM (Levin, J.), the court terminated Antonio and Deborah’s parental rights as to Tanisha on all of the aforementioned grounds.
On 7/25/97, in SCJM (Arnold, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Jachim, the son of Martin H. and Deborah. DCF alleged that, as a result of Deborah’s arrest, Jachim was homeless. The court also found that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home were not possible.
On the same date in SCJM, DCF filed a Neglect/Uncared for petition on behalf of Jachim.
On 1/27/98, in SCJM (Arnold, J.), the court adjudicated Jachim uncared CT Page 14064-f for and returned him to the care and custody of his mother under an order of Protective Supervision (PS) for 6 months.
On 9/1/98, in SCJM (Rogers, J.), the court extended the PS until 11/10/98.
On 11/4/98, in SCJM (Rogers, J.), the court extended the PS until 2/4/99.
On or about 4/16/99, in SCJM (Rogers, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Jachim. DCF alleged that Jachim was emotionally disturbed, violent and suicidal, and, as a result, had been admitted under a Physician’s Emergency Certificate to Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNH) from the Elmcrest-Housatonic Partial Hospitalization Program. They further alleged that Deborah refused to cooperate with any examinations or treatment of Jachim, including administering him psychotropic medication. They further alleged that Jachim made statements indicating that Ted physically abused both him and Deborah, and that Ted used marijuana in the home. Additionally, DCF alleged that Deborah had a past history of non-compliance with Jachim’s service providers, including but not limited to, refusing to give Jachim his prescription of Ritalin, which went against medical advice.
YNH indicated that Jachim’s symptoms were consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
On the same date, in SCJM, DCF filed a Neglect/Uncared for petition on behalf of Jachim. On 4/22/99, in SCJM, the OTC was sustained.
On 5/27/99, in SCJM (Rogers, J.), Jachim was adjudicated uncared for and was committed to the custody of DCF for a period not to exceed 12 months. The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
On 12/13/99, in SCJM (Brenneman, J.), the court denied Deborah’s Motion to Revoke Commitment concerning Jachim.
On 3/1/00, in SCJM (Frankel, J.), DCF filed a Motion For An OTC for Daymond W. (Daymond), DOB: 1/6/00. DCF alleged that Daymond, the child of Deborah and John Doe, was admitted to BH on 2/23/00 for Failure to Thrive. DCF alleged that Deborah had failed to bring Daymond, a medically fragile child who had been born prematurely, to his required medical appointments, that she had refused to cooperate with BH and DCF services, and that she demonstrated difficulties in managing Daymond’s care, including feeding. CT Page 14064-g
On the same date, in SCJM, DCF filed a Neglect/Uncared for petitions on behalf of both Daymond and Theo.
On 3/2/00, in SCJM (Frankel, J.), the court issued the OTC for Daymond and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
On 3/9/00, in SCJM (Frankel, J.), the OTC was sustained.
On 4/26/00, in SCJM (Frankel, J.), the court extended Jachim’s commitment until 5/27/01.
On 5/25/00, in SCJM (Rogers, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Theo. DCF alleged that Theo’s home had no electricity, that Deborah was uncooperative with DCF services and home visits, and that she presented as angry, hostile and volatile. The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home. On the same date, in SCJM, DCF filed a Neglect/Uncared for petitions on behalf of Theo.
On 6/6/00, in SCJM (Frankel, J.), the court vacated the OTC as to Theo.
On 6/27/00, in SCJM (Frankel, J.), DCF withdrew the neglect/uncared for petition that had been filed on 3/1/00, as to Theo only.
On 3/29/01, in SCJM (Owens, J.), the court extended the commitment of Jachim until 5/27/02 and found that further efforts to reunify the child with Deborah were not appropriate. The court also approved of the permanency plan (PP), which called for DCF to the file a TPR petition by 4/30/01.
On 5/25/01, in SCJM, DCF filed a TPR petition concerning Jachim alleging abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, acts of comission/omission and no ongoing relationship as to Deborah.
On 6/19/01, in SCJM, DCF filed a neglect/uncared for petition on behalf of Theo.
On 7/17/01, in SCJM (Owens, J.), Deborah appeared with counsel and entered denials as to the neglect/uncared for petition concerning Theo. Ted did not appear, but the court found that he was not properly served, and ordered new service. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child CT Page 14064-h from the home.
On 7/21/01, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters-Child Protection Session, located in Middletown (CPS), the court (Lopez, J.), issued its decision terminating the parental rights of John DCF and Deborah as to Daymond.
On 6/6/02, in SCJM (Owens, J.), the court ordered Deborah to sign releases for Theo’s medical services records. The court also ordered Deborah to allow Theo’s attorney to visit him in her home.
On 8/16/02, in SCJM (Jones, J.), trial was scheduled to commence on the neglect/uncared for petition concerning Theo. Deborah was to represent herself at this trial with the assistance of standby counsel. However, Deborah did not appear, claiming that Theo was ill and that she did not have funds for transportation.
Consequently, the trial was continued until 8/26/02. The court ordered the DCF social worker and the DCF nurse to conduct a home visit that day.
On 8/26/02, in SCJM (Jones, J.), after trial, the court adjudicated Theo a neglected child and placed him under 6 months protective supervision with Deborah. The court issued certain orders to Deborah:
1. Theo was to have a psychological evaluation.
2. Deborah was to attend parenting class.
3. Deborah was to attend domestic violence counseling.
4. All medical releases were to remain in effect during the period of protective supervision.
5. Deborah was to continue to allow DCF reasonable access to her home.
6. Deborah was to sign releases for the School Readiness Program.
7. Deborah was not to go to Probate Court and attempt to transfer guardianship to Theo to any person.
The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent CT Page 14064-i or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
On 10/31/02, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court ordered Deborah to allow Theo to be evaluated by the psychologist without her being present.
On 1/16/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court ordered Deborah to comply with the psychological evaluation for Theo. The court also extended the period of PS to 4/9/03 and assigned DCF’s Motion to Modify Disposition for trial on that date.
On 1/30/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Theo. DCF alleged that Deborah failed to comply with the psychological evaluation, that she refused to provide DCF with the necessary information for the school readiness programs, that she was still residing with Ted and that Ted had sexually and physically abused Jachim and had physically abused Deborah. DCF also alleged that Deborah continued to defy court orders, as well as failed to attend parenting class. The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
On 2/6/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), Deborah appeared and was appointed counsel. Ted did not appear. The court ordered DCF to perform a diligent search for him. The court granted DCF’s motion to consolidate the OTC and the Motion to Modify.
On 2/11/03, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), after trial, the court sustained the OTC and granted DCF’s Motion to Modify Disposition. The court committed Theo to the custody of DCF until further order of the court.
On 2/28/03, in CPS, the court (Trombley, J.), issued its decision terminating the parental rights of Deborah as to Jachim.
On 9/10/03, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), the court, after a hearing, granted DCF’s Motion For Evaluation, and ordered that Deborah undergo a psychiatric and neurological examination. The court also ordered that Deborah undergo a competency examination by a psychiatrist.
On 10/15/03, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Maintain Commitment (MMC) and its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Theo. The permanency plan (PP) called for TPR as to both parents and for a finding of no further efforts towards reunification with either biological parent.
On 10/1 6/03, in SCJM, counsel for Deborah filed an objection to the PP. CT Page 14064-j
On 12/2/03, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), the court commenced a hearing on Deborah’s Motion To Revoke Commitment. The court also ordered a psychological evaluation of Deborah and an interactional evaluation.
On 12/4/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court granted the MMC. The court took no action as to the PP, but found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to return home.
On 2/26/04, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), the court continued the hearing on Deborah’s Motion To Revoke Commitment. The court also entered a order concerning visitation, and ordered DCF to contact the Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) and the Alhbin Center.
On 3/4/04, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), the court denied Deborah’s Motion To Revoke Commitment. The court ordered that Deborah undergo screening by DMR.
On 4/6/04, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), the court denied Deborah’s counsel’s oral motion to replace her DCF social worker.
On 8/25/04, in SCJM, DCF filed its MMC and its MRP. The PP called for TPR as to both parents and for a finding of no further efforts towards reunification with either biological parent.
On 9/7/04, in SCJM, counsel for Deborah filed an objection to the PP.
On 10/12/04, in SCJM (Brenneman, J.), the court granted the MMC. The court took no action as to the PP, but found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
On 11/2/04, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion To Reduce Visits.
On 11/9/04, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), the court ordered that PP and the objection to the PP would be consolidated with the upcoming TPR trial.
On 11/10/04, in SCJM, DCF filed a TPR petition as to Theo. As to Ted, DCF alleged abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, failure to rehabilitate with a prior termination and no ongoing relationship. As to Deborah, DCF alleged failure to rehabilitate and failure to rehabilitate with a prior termination.
On 12/9/04, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), Deborah appeared and entered a denial as to the TPR. counsel was appointed to represent her. Ted failed to CT Page 14064-k appear and was defaulted.
Thereafter, this case was referred to CPS for trial.
On 2/3/05, in CPS, counsel for Deborah filed a Motion For Interactional Evaluation.
On 2/18/05, in CPS, DCF filed its Motion to Disclose Confidential Records and its Motion For Technical Correction of the TPR petition.
On 2/23/05, in CPS, counsel for Deborah filed a Motion For Interactional Evaluation.
On 2/23/05, in CPS, this court granted Deborah’s Motion For Interactional Evaluation and allocated Judicial Department funds to pay an evaluator of her choice.
On 2/23/05, in CPS, the court (Baldwin, J.), heard argument in reference to DCF’s Motion to Disclose Confidential Records and allowed counsel for Deborah additional time to review records and file any objections.
On 3/8/05, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Judicial Notice.
On 4/8/05, in CPS, the court (Baldwin, J.), granted DCF’s Motion to Disclose Confidential Records in part and denied it in part.
On 4/20/05, in CPS, this court commenced trial in this case as to the TPR and PPs. Prior to the commencement of evidence, the court granted DCF’s Motion For Technical Correction as to parts 1 and 2. DCF withdrew part 3.
On 4/21/05, 5/5/05, and on 5/6/05, in CPS, this court continued trial in this case.
On 9/8/05, in CPS, this court concluded trial in this case as to the TPR and PPs.
For the reasons stated below, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the TPR issues against the respondent parents and in favor of the petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF.
This court has jurisdiction over the pending case. Notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book. No action is pending in any other court affecting CT Page 14064-l custody of this child.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
The court has reviewed the neglect and TPR petitions and the exhibits, which included the TPR social study. The court has also reviewed the various motions which are the subject of this trial and has taken judicial notice of the record.[4] The court has utilized the applicable legal standards[5] in considering the evidence and the testimony of trial witnesses. Upon deliberation, the court finds that the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence at trial.
On 12/9/04, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court found Ted in default for failing to appear and enter a plea as to the TPR petition. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that service had been made upon Ted. Pursuant to Practice Book § 32a-2, establishing that juvenile hearings are essentially civil proceedings, the default against Ted effectively admits the truth of the petitioner’s material allegations Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723, 732-33, 830 A.2d 228 (2003) (respondent in child support proceeding who fails to respond to pleadings “is deemed to have judicially admitted the underlying facts of the support petition”); see also Bank of America, FSB v. Franco, 57 Conn.App. 688, 693, 751 A.2d 394 (2000). This admission satisfies tie petitioner’s obligations; however, the court will review the evidence submitted by the petitioner concerning Ted.
DEBORAH (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)
Deborah was born on 11/29/69 in Bridgeport, the youngest of 5 children. One of her 2 brothers is deceased. Her mother was killed by a boyfriend when Deborah was 10 years old. Deborah was raised by her grandmother, who died in 1997.
Deborah dropped out of high school in the 10th grade as a result of pregnancy. This child, Darrell B. (DOB: 1/16/87), has lived with his paternal aunt since birth. His custody and guardianship was eventually transferred to his paternal aunt through probate court proceedings.
After Darrell’s birth, Deborah was transient, lived on the streets, went from house to house, and lived with one of her sisters for a period.
Currently, Deborah has limited family support. CT Page 14064-m
Deborah became pregnant with Tanisha and was asked to leave her sister’s home. Tanisha was born on 8/19/88. On 2/21/91, DCYS sought and obtained an OTC for Tanisha, alleging physical neglect. On 5/19/93, in SCJM (Levin, J.), the court terminated Deborah’s parental rights and Tanisha was subsequently adopted.
Deborah gave birth to Jachim on 4/12/90. On 7/25/97, in SCJM, DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Jachim. DCF alleged that, as a result of Deborah’s arrest, Jachim was homeless. Subsequent proceedings indicated that Jachim suffered from mental illness and that he was institutionalized. On 2/28/03, in CPS (Trombley, J.), the court terminated Deborah’s parental rights as to Jachim.
Deborah gave birth to Theo on 2/7/99. On 5/25/00, in SCJM, DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Theo. Subsequently, on 1/30/03, in SCJM, DCF sought and obtained another OTC for Theo.
Deborah gave birth to Daymond on 1/6/00.
On 3/2/00, in SCJM, DCF obtained an OTC for Daymond. DCF alleged that Daymond was admitted to BH on 2/23/00 for Failure to Thrive. DCF alleged that Deborah had failed to bring Daymond, a medically fragile child who had been born prematurely, to his required medical appointments, that she had refused to cooperate with BH and DCF services, and that she demonstrated difficulties in managing Daymond’s care, including feeding.
On 7/21/01, in CPS (Lopez, J.), the court terminated Deborah’s parental rights as to Daymond, and he was subsequently adopted.
Deborah has a criminal history dating back to 1996. She has been convictions for Assault 3rd Degree (2 cts.), Issuing A Bad check, Failure to Appear 2nd Degree, Criminal Mischief in the 3rd Degree, Breach of Peace 2nd Degree, and Interfering With A Police Officer.
Deborah also has an extensive history with DCF and DCYS dating back to 1990, as a result of educational neglect, chronic domestic violence, failure to rehabilitate, and failure to protect her children from physical and sexual abuse from her significant other, Ted.
Deborah has been involved in a relationship with Ted since 1994. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that this relationship, in which the parties have periodically cohabited, has been marked by domestic violence, substance abuse, physical child abuse and sexual child abuse.
Deborah has been sporadically employed in the past. She indicated to CT Page 14064-n Dr. Edward Rabe, M.D., Ph.D, a court-appointed evaluator, that she worked for “Duchess” for 2-3 years. She has also worked as a packer with Park City Packing, and in a gift shop.
Presently, Deborah is unemployed. She receives Section 8 benefits, SSI and food stamps. She has moved frequently at least 3 times since 2004. Her past financial history is replete with evictions and unpaid bills. Deborah admitted to Child Guidance that she would throw her bills in a closet and ignore them. At one point, Deborah owed the following utility bills:
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Deborah has an extensive history of refusing to cooperate with DCF and her service providers. She also has a past history of having failed to cooperate with her children’s service providers.
TED (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)
Ted has contacted DCF only once, on 11/6/03. DCF Social Worker Morris testified that Ted called him and left a telephone number. Morris indicated that he was unable to contact Ted using that number. He also testified that he sent letters to Ted at Ted’s mother’s address, and asked Deborah to rely messages to him. Ted has not remained in contact with DCF concerning this case, nor has he supplied any personal information to DCF.
DCF has obtained conflicting information from various agencies.
The evidence shows 4 different DOBs for Ted:
Bridgeport Police Department (BPD): 5/9/56 and 9/5/56
DCF: 6/5/56
Department of Corrections (DOC): 8/5/56 CT Page 14064-o
The evidence shows 2 different POBs for Ted:
DOC: Bridgeport
Connecticut State Police Bureau of Identification (CSPBI): Mobile, Alabama
Ted has an extensive criminal record, with past convictions for Criminal Mischief in the 3rd Degree, Use of a Motor Vehicle without the Owner’s Permission (2 cts.), Robbery in the 3rd Degree, Drinking While Driving, Larceny in the 3rd Degree, Criminal Trespass in the 3rd Degree, Criminal Trespass in the 1st Degree, Failure to Appear 2nd Degree (4 cts.), Escape in the 1st Degree (2 cts.), Operating Under Suspension, Disorderly Conduct, Larceny in the 6th Degree, Forgery in the 2nd Degree, Threatening in the 2nd Degree, Assault 3rd Degree, Reckless Endangerment in the 1st Degree and Interfering With A Police Officer.
Ted is the son of Bernice W. (PGM).
DOC records indicate that Ted has 12 years of education, 3 dependents and has never served in the military.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Ted has been involved in a relationship with Deborah since 1994. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that this relationship, in which the parties have periodically cohabited, has been marked by domestic violence, substance abuse, physical child abuse and sexual child abuse.
Theo’s older brother Jachim has disclosed to DCF that Ted physically abused him and Deborah. He also disclosed that Ted sexually abused him, and that Ted abused marijuana in the home.
In addition to failing to communicate with DCF concerning his personal history, Ted has failed to attend court dates, administrative case reviews (ACR)s, and treatment planning conferences (TPO)s concerning his son.
Aside from an indication that Ted spends some time at PGM’s residence in Bridgeport, no current personal information concerning Ted was produced at the TPR trial.
THEO (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)
CT Page 14064-p
Theo was born on 2/7/99 in Bridgeport, the child of Ted and Deborah. He currently resides in a pre-adoptive foster home with Tracey DCF (FM), and has been in this placement since 1/05. Prior to this placement, he had resided in a DCF medically fragile foster home from 1/30/03 through 1/21/05.
Theo has substantial, long-term medical concerns which require monitoring and an extensive regimen of medications. These concerns include, but are not limited to, a life threatening illness, anemia, eczema, asthma and upper respiratory infections. He requires multiple daily medications. Theo is seen on a regular basis at the Bridgeport Hospital Pediatric Clinic (BHPC). A representative of BHPC, Sandra Shipowitz, an APRN and Theo’s clinician, testified that Theo received appropriate care and medications while in Deborah’s care.
At the time of his removal, Theo had delays in his gross and fine motor skills.
Theo has a history of displaying problematic behavior in the classroom and in his placements.
As a kindergartner, Theo was, at times, defiant of classroom rules. On one occasion, Theo pulled down his pants and displayed his buttocks to a female student. On another occasion, he left the room without permission, went into the bathroom and proceeded to urinate on a classmate. He also threw food on a child and was generally not on task.
Theo is presently in the 1st grade, in a special education class. In 2005, he attended summer school. He receives additional services in school. Theo showed major delays in his learning, as he was unable to recite any of the alphabet or recognize colors. Theo also had difficulty with his speech and a limited vocabulary. In her testimony, FM indicated that Theo was academically behind.
FM testified that Theo attempted to inveigle one of her biological sons into inappropriate sexual contact with him. Upon further inquiry, Theo disclosed that an older child in his previous foster placement had used threats to involve him in inappropriate sexual contact. This claim was not substantiated by a DCF investigation.
Theo has a history of hyperactive and out of control behaviors. Bryan Morris, the DCF social worker currently assigned to the case, testified that, prior to removal, Theo displayed out of control behaviors at BHPC and had hit personnel there, specifically Shipowitz. CT Page 14064-q
Morris indicated that there were minimal behavioral problems when Theo first came into DCF care, but that the problems escalated shortly thereafter.
On 2/27/03, Dr. Diana Badillo Martinez, Ph.D, evaluated Theo. In her report, dated 3/4/03, Dr. Martinez described Theo’s oppositionality and defiance. She indicated that he was impulsive and reluctant to follow instructions. She also stated that Theo had difficulty focusing on tasks and lost interest quickly. She wrote:
Theo will require a placement with parents that will provide ongoing care of his medical condition, that understand the long-term consequences of the medical condition, and are able to provide consistent care. In addition, given the behavior component, the caretakers must be able to implement a well structured environment to facilitate improvements in attention and impulse control. Long term plans should aim to assist him improve behavior controls. In addition, Theo will benefit from interventions to stimulate his social and intellectual development.
Theo’s intellectual development is severely below expectations for his age. Capacity to regulate his activities through language, comprehend language and visual-spatial reasoning are areas of limitation. Theo will require ongoing monitoring to stimulate further language development and to continue to evaluate the presence of an underlying Attention Deficit Disorder that may merit treatment with medication. As he enters school and greater demands for structure and self-control are imposed, he may experience greater difficulties. A school based assessment will be necessary.
Emotionally, Theo is in need of physical contact, closeness and nurturing. Continue to monitor and assess anxiety, which may also be a factor contributing to restlessness and difficulties of attention.
In her report, Dr. Martinez made the following recommendations: CT Page 14064-r
1. Theo will benefit from continuing in the foster home until the parents are able to provide safety, structure, supervision and collaboration with service providers. Encourage caretakers to stimulate his social and verbal problem solving skills. Encourage to moderate and guide behaviors through verbal cues. Theo will benefit from clear verbal explanations to anticipate his actions.
2. Theo will require special assistance within the school. He will perform best in small groups in which he may receive more attention and be less stimulated. Assist Theo to develop awareness of new learning skills and organizational skills.
3. Speech Therapy: improve articulation, vocabulary and language comprehension. Theo’s ability to succeed in school will be severely limited by low comprehension and poor language skills.
4. Occupational Therapy Evaluation and treatment: Improve fine motor control and evaluate visual-motor integration skills. Assess wide base gait.
5. Visual Examination to R/O visual problems.
Aiesha Turpin, a facilitator with the Kennedy Center Fast and Adoptive Support Team (FAST), testified that DCF referred Theo to their program, and that he started there on 9/28/04. Turpin testified that she observed Theo in school and received reports from his teacher as to his behavior. Consequently, she created a program that combined academic tutorial services with activities. The FAST program also provides a behavior specialist for Theo.
Both Morris and Turpin reported that Theo has attachment and boundary difficulties.
Renda Woods, LCSW, has been Theo’s therapist since 2/04. She testified that Theo suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder/Hyperactivity Disorder CT Page 14064-s (ADDHD), PTSD and Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD). She indicated that the ADDHD and the PTSD are manifesting themselves more strongly in Theo than the RAD. Woods testified that Theo’s PTSD and RAD developed in response to environmental stressors that he experienced prior to entering foster care.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Theo views Deborah as his biological parent, and has a substantial attachment and bond to her. The evidence also shows that Theo has a substantial attachment to his previous foster home and to one of the previous foster parents, whom he refers to as “daddy.” Although he apparently enjoys his present placement, Theo has told FM that he wants to go back and live with those foster parents. However, Woods also testified that Theo views FM as his caretaker.
Currently, Deborah visits Theo at DCF and in the community. Theo has not visited with Ted since Deborah was allowed unsupervised visits with him in the community. However, Theo has asked to speak with Ted on Deborah’s cellphone during her visits and Deborah has obliged him.
Deborah brought Theo toys for Christmas 2003 and Christmas 2004. However, she did not allow Theo to bring the toys to the foster home, as she took them back with her.
Despite guidance from DCF, Deborah has told Theo that he is coming home with her to live and that his room is all set and that he has many toys at home. She also allows Theo to talk to Ted, in contravention of DCF instructions.
Renda Woods testified that Theo has affection for Deborah and enjoys his visits with her.
RELATIVE RESOURCES
The clear and convincing evidence shows that there are no relative resources for placement of the child. Neither respondent parent has brought forth any viable placement options for their child.
SIBLINGS
The court will incorporate, by reference, its previous comments concerning Darrell, Tanisha, Jachim and Daymond.
DOC records indicate that Ted has 3 dependents. CT Page 14064-t
No information was supplied as to the nature of the relationship between Theo and his siblings or whether he has any relationship or knowledge of them.
ADJUDICATION
On 8/26/02, in SCJM (Jones, J.), the court, after trial, found by a fair preponderance of the evidence that Theo was a neglected child and placed him under 6 months protective supervision.
On 2/11/03, in SCJM (Hudock, J.), the court, after trial, granted DCF’s Motion to Modify Disposition. The court committed Theo to the custody of DCF until further order of the court.
The court is next called upon to determine whether the petitioner has met its burden of proving the allegations presented by the pending TPR petitions. Practice Book § 35a-3.
“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 Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 827, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005).
In the adjudicatory phase of these proceedings,[6] the court has considered the evidence related to circumstances and events prior to 4/23/04, the date upon which the TPR petitions were filed in SCJM.[7]
With regard to the allegations of failure to achieve rehabilitation and no ongoing relationship brought against the respondent parents, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances occurring through the close of trial.[8] Upon review, the court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist as to both respondent parents.
LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION EFFORTS
In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to CT Page 14064-u benefit from reunification efforts provided such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing that such efforts are not appropriate.”[9] CGS § 17a-112(j)(1). In this context, “[r]easonableness is an objective standard . . . and whether reasonable efforts have been proven depends on the careful consideration of the circumstances of each individual case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 547, 744 A.2d 915 (2000); see also In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 362, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).
In this case, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the respondent parents and to maintain contact with them.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to actively participate in this case since Theo was taken into DCF care and custody. He has failed to visit his son since Deborah was allowed unsupervised visitation during the summer of 2004. He has not made contact with DCF, nor has he undertaken any services or referrals. He has shown little sustained interest in Theo.
The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Deborah, or that the following services were provided to her:
DCF: Case management services, including visitation and transportation and financial assistance for utilities
Center for Women’s and Families Domestic Violence Groups (CWFDVG)
Empowering Children At Risk (ECAR) for parenting and domestic violence classes
DMR
Alhbin Center for services for cognitive retraining
Child Guidance Center Reunification Program
Family Services Woodfield (FSW) for domestic violence counseling
Psychological and psychiatric evaluations CT Page 14064-v
Referral for vocational training
In the past, DCF has offered Deborah a variety of services, including counseling, intensive family preservation, parenting classes, psychological evaluations, DCF Regional Resource Group services, transportation, visitation, and casework services. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah refused services, or did not follow through with services, or was non-compliant with services then, as she is presently.
The clear and convincing evidence does indicate that Deborah was referred to the ECAR program for parenting and domestic violence programs. Deborah did complete this program.
However, she did not actively participate in the discussions because, as she indicated to DCF, she does not trust anyone.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent mother Deborah with Theo. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Brendan C., 89 Conn.App. 511, 524, 874 A.2d 826, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 917 275 Conn. 910 (2005).
The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF was unable to provide services to Ted due to his failure to make contact with DCF, his failure to make himself available for services and his failure to engage in the services.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to reunite Ted with the child. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 478-79, 771 A.2d 244 (2001).
Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that neither respondent parent is able and/or willing to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. CGS §17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Amelia W., 62 Conn.App. 500, 504-05, 772 A.2d 619 (2001); see In re Ebony H., 68 Conn.App. 342, 350, 789 A.2d 1158 (2002).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that both Ted and Deborah were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, CT Page 14064-w despite this notification, both parents remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.
On 7/17/01, in SCJM (Owens, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
On 8/26/02, in SCJM (Jones, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
At the time of the issuance of the OTC on 1/30/03 in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from their home.
On 12/4/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to return home.
On 10/12/04, in SCJM (Brenneman, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for either respondent parent with regard to their child.
STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO DEBORAH PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Deborah’s parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).[10] As the child has been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether this respondent has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render her able to care for Theo. Applying the requisite legal standards[11] and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q),[12] the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion Deborah has yet to achieve a sufficient “level of rehabilitation . . . which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her child’s life].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See In re Alejandro L.,
CT Page 14064-x 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).; In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001). First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that Deborah has not achieved CGS §17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which show that Deborah has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah’s issues are those of mental health, domestic violence, parenting deficits and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling. Her parenting deficits include issues of emotional abuse, and physical neglect of her child. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Deborah has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 1/30/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court ordered specific steps for Deborah.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the Child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
In 9/04, DCF referred Deborah to FSW for domestic violence therapy. According to Dr. Elba Crespo, Deborah attended only 1 therapy session with the agency. Dr. Crespo stated that on one occasion, Deborah’s counselor called to cancel a scheduled appointment, but rescheduled a new appointment with Deborah. Deborah failed to appear for that appointment. In 2/05, FSW told DCF that they set up another appointment with Deborah in order to start therapy sessions again. Deborah appeared an hour late and missed the session. She then became upset and left, and she did not call to schedule any further appointments.
Keep your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the child.
There is no evidence that Deborah did not comply with CT Page 14064-y this specific step.
Participate in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence does indicate that Deborah was referred to the ECAR program for parenting and domestic violence programs. Deborah did complete this program. However, she did not actively participate in the discussions because, as she indicated to DCF, she does not trust anyone.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF referred Deborah to CWFDVG for domestic violence counseling. While there for intake, on 2/5/03, Deborah denied that any domestic violence had occurred between her and Ted. Based upon this intake, CWFDVG deemed her inappropriate for their services.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah’s denials to CWFDVG were false.
A BPD incident report, dated 01/27/01, was entered into evidence by DCF. It indicates that Deborah called DCF in response to a domestic occurrence where Ted threw objects over the home. Deborah, who was distraught and crying, indicated that Ted lived with her. Ted was subsequently arrested for this incident.
On 7/23/01, Deborah complained to BPD that Ted scratched her face and pulled her hair. The officers observed the scratches and saw that she had some hair pulled out. Deborah reported that abuse was an ongoing problem.
A BPD incident report, dated 8/19/01, was entered into evidence by DCF. It indicates that Deborah called BPD in response to a domestic occurrence where Ted smashed the windows in Deborah’s car. At the time of this incident, Ted was on probation for Forgery in the 2nd Degree. One of the conditions of his probation was that he was not to threaten, harass or be violent CT Page 14064-z towards Deborah.
On 2/1/02, BPD was dispatched on an assault complaint. They met Deborah, who was described as visibly upset, shaking, crying and bleeding from several fresh facial lacerations. Deborah indicated that Ted menaced her with a kitchen knife, then punched her in the face.
On 3/5/02, BPD was dispatched on a criminal mischief complaint. They met Deborah, who indicated that Ted had smashed the windows in her residence. She indicated that she did not witness it. However, Deborah did tell BPD that she had many domestic violence problems with Ted, and that they had lived together previously.
On 11/13/02, BPD was dispatched on a criminal trespass/violation of protective order complaint. They met Deborah, who indicated that Ted had come to her residence and pushed her. Deborah also indicated that she had a restraining order against Ted.
Delia Morrison testified that she lived in the same building with Deborah, from 7/03 to 8/04. She also testified that, on a night in 5/04, she witnessed an altercation where Ted attempted to drag Deborah off the porch of the residence. The altercation escalated to the point where Ted and Morrison’s boyfriend became embroiled in a physical fight, and Deborah and one of Morrison’s cousins fought each other.
Morrison also indicated that she was aware that Ted was Deborah’s boyfriend, and that he was there frequently. She testified that she knew Ted previously, and that she saw Ted in Deborah’s apartment 5 times from 3/04 through 5/04.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF referred Deborah to the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC) on 1/28/04 for reunification services. On 7/30/04, Deborah was discharged unsuccessfully from this program, after having been arrested in a domestic violence situation with Ted on 7/26/04. The clear and convincing evidence showed that Deborah had continued CT Page 14064-aa to see Ted, despite the obvious danger that he posed to Theo and her. Theo indicated that Ted was at the home during at least 1 unsupervised visit, while Deborah denied contact with Ted.
Wayne Lowry, the CGC’s Family Reunification Center’s director, testified that Deborah missed some appointments at CGC towards the end of the referral period. He further testified that, although Deborah and Theo had improved during the referral period, by 6/04 through 7/04, both Theo and Deborah had started to regress. Lowry indicated that, by the time of Deborah’s unsuccessful discharge, Deborah’s situation was high risk, due to the domestic violence.
Lowry had also engaged Deborah in individual therapy. He testified that she was defensive and in denial concerning her domestic violence situation, and that he felt that Deborah was not honest.
In 9/04, DCF referred Deborah to FSW for domestic violence therapy. According to Dr. Elba Crespo, Deborah attended only 1 therapy session with the agency. Dr. Crespo stated that on one occasion, Deborah’s counselor called to cancel a scheduled appointment, but rescheduled a new appointment with Deborah. Deborah failed to appear for that appointment. In 2/05, FSW told DCF that they set up another appointment with Deborah in order to start therapy sessions again. Deborah appeared an hour late and missed the session. She then became upset and left and did not call to schedule any further appointments.
The subsequent history shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that Deborah failed to gain any benefit or rehabilitate herself through her attendance at ECAR.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.
There is no evidence that Deborah was referred to any substance abuse assessment.
CT Page 14064-ab
Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF:
There is no evidence that Deborah was referred to any in-home support services for Theo.
Submit to recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
Deborah failed to successfully enter the CWFDVG, as a result of her failing to disclose accurate and truthful information as to the extent of the domestic violence problem between herself and Ted.
Deborah failed to successfully complete the CGC Family Reunification Program, and domestic violence counseling at FSW.
Deborah failed to successfully complete the FSW domestic violence therapy program.
Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
In 2/03, in Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, Deborah filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Ted. In her attached, sworn statement, Deborah indicated that Ted had not hit her.
On 2/8/03, the application for the TRO against Ted was denied (Dewey, J.).
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, by 7/26/04, there were active restraining and protective CT Page 14064-ac orders issued against Ted, forbidding him from abusing Deborah, from remaining at her residence and from having any contact with her whatsoever. On that date, BPD was dispatched to her residence on a citizen’s complaint of a man assaulting a woman in front of the residence.
Upon arrival, BPD attempted to gain entry, but Deborah refused to open the door, or to come outside and speak to the officers. The officers forcibly entered the residence and discovered Deborah in the kitchen, unclothed. As the officers attempted to secure the residence, Deborah attempted to stop them and was arrested for Interfering With A Police Officer. While the officers attempted to clothe her, she still straggled and had to be physically restrained.
Other officers found Ted hiding in a rear bedroom closet and arrested him for Interfering With A Police Officer and Violation of a Protective Order.
Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this court.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step. At the TPR trial, DCF Social Worker Morris testified that, when he was first assigned this case in 9/03, Deborah had refused to sign releases for DCF, preventing him from being able to fully discuss the case with his predecessor.
The evidence does indicate that Deborah did sign subsequent releases.
Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Deborah has not had stable housing during the pendency of this case. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has moved at least 3 times since 7/04.
CT Page 14064-ad
Deborah has a past history of unstable and sporadic employment. She has worked at “Dutchess,” as a packer with Park City Packing, and in a gift shop.
At the time of the TPR trial, Deborah was unemployed, and subsisted on Section 8, food stamps and SSI benefits.
No substance abuse.
There is no evidence that Deborah did not comply with this specific step.
No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has not complied with this step.
On 7/26/04, Deborah was arrested by BPD and charged with Interfering With A Police Officer.
On 7/27/04 in Superior Court, Geographical Area Two, Bridgeport, Deborah was convicted of Interfering With A Police Officer.
Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child.
There is no evidence that Deborah did not comply with this specific step.
Cooperate with child’s therapy.
There is no evidence that Deborah was asked to cooperate with Theo’s therapy.
Visit the child as often as DCF permits.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah CT Page 14064-ae has complied with this step.
This court concludes that Deborah has not corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment of her child. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, from the adjudication of neglect on 8/26/02, through the commitment on 2/11/03, and continuing through the time of trial, Deborah has not been effectively available to take part in Theo’s life, and, based on her mental health issues, domestic violence issues, gross parenting deficits and her refusal to participate in counseling and her failure to benefit from it, she will never be consistently available for him.
Although Deborah has attended various referrals and programs for counseling, she has failed to complete most of them and has not been able to benefit from any of these referrals. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has failed to improve her parenting ability to acceptable standards. The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that, despite DCF’s efforts on her behalf and her own efforts, Deborah remains incapable of providing a safe and nurturing environment for her child. When one considers the level of care, patience and discipline that children require from their caregivers, it is patently clear that Deborah is not in a better position to parent Theo now than she was at any other time during these proceedings, and that she remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent him. Effectively, she was no better able “to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than [she] had been at the time of the [child]’s commitment.” In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 367, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). See In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658, 670, 783 A.2d 534 (2001) (“[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by the department”); see also In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 125, 614 A.2d 832
(1992); In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 206, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah was referred to various programs for services during the pendency of this case. In reference to the referrals to CWFDVG, CGC and FSW, the clear and convicting evidence shows that she failed to complete CGC and FSW through her own fault. The clear and convicting evidence also shows that she gave CWFDVG grossly false information concerning her domestic violence history; consequently, she was found ineligible for their services.[13]
CT Page 14064-af
In addition to her failure to comply with referrals, Deborah’s relationship with Ted remains a highly troubling and problematic aspect of this case. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has been involved in numerous domestic violence incidents with Ted. Many of these incidents occurred when she had care and custody of Theo. These incidences were a major reason why Theo was removed from her care, and why CGC discharged her from the reunification program. Yet, Deborah continued her relationship with him, and denied domestic violence despite the wealth of clear and convincing evidence showing that domestic violence continued.
The clear and convincing evidence also shows that the domestic violence problems between Ted and Deborah predated Theo’s birth. This court, having taken judicial notice of the decisions by Judges Lopez and Trombley terminating Deborah’s parental rights to Daymond and Jachim respectively, finds many common elements in Judge Trombley’s findings concerning the domestic violence issues involving Ted and Deborah. Judge Trombley wrote:
After the child left, mother showed up for the evaluation which was then rescheduled for October 18, 1997 . . . she told Grant that the department was interfering with her relationship with “her man”. . .
(In re Jachim B., Docket No. F04-CP00-004389-A, p. 7)
The evidence shows that as of March 2002, Teddy was still very prominently in mother’s life despite past assaults, arrest[s] and convictions for crimes committed against her. According to Egan, mother’s safety plan to deal with any future domestic violence was to call 911. There was no evidence offered at trial that mother ever completed any domestic violence program or engaged in any counseling or parenting classes in order to deal with her parental deficiencies. Jachim told Rogers that if his mother said that Teddy was out of her life the therapist should not believe her.
(In re Jachim B., p. 29)
The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the issue of Deborah’s abusive relationship with Ted is one which has existed for years, and which shows no signs of any positive changes. CT Page 14064-ag
Another factor indicative of Deborah’s failure to rehabilitate is her extreme oppositionality and refusal to cooperate in reference to DCF, referrals, specific steps and service providers.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has had extreme difficulty in dealing with DCF and service providers. DCF social worker Morris testified as to his difficulties in working with Deborah. Lowry testified that he believed her to be untruthful to his agency. Dr. Rabe, the court-appointed evaluator, opined that Deborah had a high level of resistance to approaching any of her issues and that she would likely exhibit the same parental behavior in the future that she had exhibited in the past.
In their TPR decisions, both Judge Lopez and Judge Trombley commented upon Deborah’s oppositionality and her refusal to accept services. Judge Trombley wrote:
From the time of the department’s initial involvement concerning Jachim in July 1997, up until the commencement of this trial, a period in excess of five and one-half years, mother has presented as oppositional, rude, defiant, uncooperative and totally disinterested in Jachim’s welfare. Her failure to initiate contact with Jachim for over two years speaks volumes as to her lack of concern for this child. Jachim has long since gotten the message from mother’s abandonment: he has strongly expressed to his treaters, his attorney, Dr. Edgar and his caseworker that he no longer wishes to see his mother. Mother, by her words and her behavior, could not have done anything more to alienate this child. She refuses to accept any responsibility for his current psychological health, she continues to deny the obvious violent relationship she has with a man who has severely traumatized this troubled child, and she has refused to access any court-ordered services made available to her by the department, purposed to address her many parental deficiencies.
(In re Jachim B., p. 40)
The court would also note that the decisions by Judges Levin, Lopez and Trombley terminating her parental rights also served notice upon Deborah of the issues that she needed to address in order to maintain custody of CT Page 14064-ah Theo. This court finds that Judge Trombley’s decision, which was filed in CPS on 2/28/03, approximately 1 month after Theo was taken into the care and custody of DCF pursuant to an OTC, was especially clear and detailed as to many of Deborah’s parenting deviancies and issues and would place any reasonable person on adequate notice of the factors that needed correcting in order to maintain care and custody of Theo, or to have him returned from DCF care and custody.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah continued a relationship with Ted despite his physical abuse of her. This relationship continued despite Jachim’s allegations that Ted physically and sexually abused him. Deborah continued to minimize the domestic violence and Ted’s issues.
The credible evidence establishes that Deborah has continually exhibited poor judgment in the upbringing of her child.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has not benefitted from the referrals and counseling that she has attended and still remains unable and/or unwilling to provide a safe, responsive and nurturing environment for her child. She still lacks the ability to exercise sound and responsible judgment on behalf of her child, and she has not shown that she has acquired the ability to implement decisions based in reasoned judgments learned from the techniques demonstrated and recommended to her in her various referrals.
Despite the services that were made available to Deborah and the services that she utilized, the clear and convincing evidence shows that she has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering her child’s age, needs and special needs, she could assume a responsible position in his life.
Deborah’s chaotic lifestyle has proved detrimental to Theo’s development and well being. The damage done to him and his diagnosis of PTSD bear this out in a clear and convincing manner.
Continued foster care is detrimental to this child’s development; he requires a permanent home that is safe and nurturing.
Sadly, the clear and convincing evidence shows that there is no amount of time that Deborah could be given that would allow her to realize and correct her problems, much less that she could accomplish this in a reasonable period of time. The testimony of Dr. Rabe indicated that after his 10/24/03 evaluation, he diagnosed Deborah as suffering from Anti-social Personality Disorder (ASPD). His testimony indicated that CT Page 14064-ai many of Deborah’s traits are characteristic of this disorder, such as impulsivity, a failure to plan ahead, irritability, aggressiveness, and deceitfulness. He further testified that persons with ASPD had limited insight into their own behavior and were generally not interested in examining or changing their behavior.
Dr. Rabe further opined that the prognosis of treating personality disorders was generally poor. He indicated that Deborah’s likelihood of successful parenting were not good, and that she will exhibit the same parenting behavior in the future that she exhibited in the past.
Based upon the above, it would be exceedingly rash to expect Deborah to be able to parent her child at any time in the near future, if at all. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Theo’s need for permanence and stability would not allow for him to spend more time in foster care on the slim hope that Deborah might overcome her issues.
Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the child involved, and given Deborah’s failure to correct her deviancies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that she will be able to achieve rehabilitation from her various issues and her failure to engage in and benefit from counseling so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent within a reasonable time.
Despite the services that were offered to her, Deborah has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering Theo’s age, needs and special needs, she could assume a responsible position in the child’s life so as to make reunification in Theo’s best interests.
Theo needs parents who are able to effectively care for him now. He cannot wait for the exceedingly remote possibility that Deborah might address her mental health issues, her domestic violence issues, eliminate her parenting deficits, rectify her failure to consistently attend and benefit from counseling, and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for him one day. He cannot wait for his mother to show that she has rehabilitated herself and is ready to assume her parental role. It is fundamental that “in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent 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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384, 784 A.2d 457 (2000).
In making this assessment the court must review the past and present status of the child at issue and assess the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective. In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, CT Page 14064-aj 361, 664 (1995).
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Theo and Deborah.
Theo has significant special needs based on his various physical and emotional diagnoses. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Deborah did kept current with Theo’s medical appointments and needs. However, it is clear that she failed to address his emotional needs and his need to be safe in his own home. He was allowed, by his mother, to dwell in a house of disorder, danger and chaos.
Deborah did not remedy these problems. Instead of protecting her son, she sought to protect the perpetrator, Ted, from the legal process.
The historical perspective of Deborah’s parenting does substantiate Deborah’s counsel’s claims at trial that her parenting skills had improved. Deborah did address Theo’s medical needs appropriately, something which the clear and convincing evidence shows was not done in the past with her other children. Yet, this improvement is insufficient to qualify as adequate rehabilitation under In re Amneris P. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah did not gain the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue. Theo suffers from PTSD, and his placement in a home racked with domestic violence does him ill. Even if he did not suffer from PTSD, the chaos and violence of such a home is clearly inappropriate and clearly does not meet the needs of any child. Deborah’s refusal to eschew her relationship with Ted and her refusal to cooperate with services are but 2 factors that show that she has failed to gain the ability to care for the particular needs of Theo.
The court would note that Deborah even failed to show that she improved her ability to manage her own life, much less Theo’s.
Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has proved that Deborah has failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable whether Deborah is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed Deborah’s past failures at personal rehabilitation and her parenting deficits and deviancies as they relate to her child’s need for a safe, responsible and nurturing parent who can meet his requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency. The court has also considered the testimony CT Page 14064-ak and evidence of Dr. Rabe concerning Deborah’s diagnosis and her poor prospects for improvement of both her condition, and her ability to parent.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow Deborah further time to rehabilitate herself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of the child would not be in the best interests of Theo.
PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE By A PARENT WITH A PREVIOUS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS § 17a-112(j)(3)(E)
The petitioner next alleges that Deborah’s parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(E), the child in question is under 7 years of age and Deborah has had her parental rights previously terminated as to at least one other child.[14] Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in accordance with § 17a-112(g), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.
The court incorporates by reference its comments and findings previously made in its rulings concerning Deborah’s failure to rehabilitate, above. As Theo has been adjudicated neglected and the respondent mother has been found to have failed to rehabilitate herself within the meaning of the statute, the critical issues for this court is whether Deborah has had her parental rights previously terminated in regards to at least one other child, and whether Theo is under 7 years of age.
A review of the clear and convincing evidence submitted indicates that Deborah’s parental rights were previously terminated as to 3 of her children.
On 5/19/93, in SCJM (Levin, J.), the court terminated Deborah’s parental rights as to Tanisha.[15]
On 7/21/01, in CPS, the court (Lopez, J.), issued its decision terminating the parental rights of Deborah as to Daymond.[16]
On 2/28/03, in CPS (Trombley, J.), the court terminated Deborah’s parental rights as to Jachim.[17]
Theo was born on 2/7/99, making him 6 and 3/4 years old.
Therefore, the court finds that the State and DCF have shown by clear CT Page 14064-al and convincing evidence that Deborah has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(E), the child in question is under 7 years of age and Deborah has had her parental rights previously terminated as to at least one other child.
STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO TED ABANDONMENT — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)
The petitioner first alleges that Ted abandoned Theo within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).[18] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, applying the requisite legal standards[19] and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the petitioner.
The clear and convincing evidence related to Ted’s conduct reveals that, from 11/5/02 through 11/10/04, the respondent father failed “to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child[ren] . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 839.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that from 11/5/02 through 11/10/04, Ted maintained minimal contact with his child. Aside from 1 attempt to contact DCF by telephone in 11/03, he maintained no contact with DCF. He has never contacted DCF in order to set up a visitation schedule. He has failed to maintain contact with DCF despite its best efforts.
There was evidence that Ted was at Deborah’s residence during 1 or more unsupervised visits between Deborah and Theo. There was also testimony that Ted attended Theo’s graduation from pre-school.
From 11/5/02 through 11/10/04, Ted failed to send any cards or gifts or other communications to Theo, and failed to maintain regular contact with DCF to inquire about the well being of his child.
From 11/5/02 through 11/10/04, Ted has failed to attend ACRs and TPCs.
Ted has failed to attend any court appearances concerning his son.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of his son as evidenced by his lack of involvement in visitation and by his failure to inquire and follow up on Theo’s situation.
Based upon all of the above, it is clear that Ted has failed to CT Page 14064-am maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of Theo.
When the adjudicatory date of 8/26/02 is applied, the evidence in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes that Ted has failed the test of meeting “[t]he commonly understood obligations of parenthood” identified by In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 840.
Accordingly, based on clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that Ted has abandoned Theo, within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).
PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Ted’s parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).[20] As Theo has been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent father has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for his child. Applying the requisite legal standards[21] and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112 (q),[22] the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Ted has yet to achieve a sufficient “level of rehabilitation . . . which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he] can assume a responsible position in [his child’s life].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448. See In re Alejandro L., supra, 91 Conn.App. 259; In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 668. First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent father has not achieved CGS §17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony, which showed that Ted has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted’s issues are those of domestic violence, substance abuse, gross parenting deficits, a failure to engage in and benefit from counseling, and a failure to involve himself in his son’s life.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 1/30/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court ordered specific steps for Ted. CT Page 14064-an
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. Ted has had no contact with DCF or with SCJM concerning his son.
Keep your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the child.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step.
Ted has contacted DCF only once, on 11/6/03. DCF Social Worker Morris testified that Ted called him and left a telephone number. Morris indicated that he was unable to contact Ted using that number. He also testified that he send letters to Ted at PGM’s address, and asked Deborah to rely messages to Ted. Ted has not remained in contact with DCF concerning this case
Ted has never appeared in SCJM or CPS concerning his son.
Participate in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF.
There is no evidence that Ted was referred to any in-home support services for Theo.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.
CT Page 14064-ao
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted did not comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
Submit to random drug testing: time and method of the testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted did not comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
Submit to recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment:
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to remain in contact with DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
There is no evidence that DCF referred Ted to a parent aide program.
Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to remain in contact with DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, by 7/26/04, there were active restraining and protective orders issued against Ted, forbidding him from abusing Deborah, from remaining at her residence and from having any contact with her whatsoever. On that date, BPD was dispatched to her residence on a CT Page 14064-ap citizen’s complaint of a man assaulting a woman in front of the residence.
Officers found Ted hiding in a rear bedroom closet of Deborah’s residence and arrested him for Interfering With A Police Officer and Violation of a Protective Order. Deborah was found in the kitchen, unclothed.
Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this court.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to remain in contact with DCF and communicate with its personnel.
Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.
DCF was unable to determine whether Ted complied with this step due to his failure to become involved with DCF and communicate with its personnel.
No substance abuse.
DCF was unable to determine whether Ted complied with this step due to his failure to become involved with DCF and communicate with them.
No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has not complied with this step. He has engaged in criminal conduct since the 01/30/03 issuance of the specific steps, and while on probation.
On 6/10/04, Ted was arrested by BPD and charged with Interfering With A Police Officer and another count.
On 8/18/04 in Superior Court, Geographical Area Two, CT Page 14064-aq Bridgeport, Ted was convicted of Interfering With A Police Officer.
Consistently and timely meet and address the child’s physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including, but not limited to, keeping the child’s appointments with her medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers.
This step is not applicable as Theo has remained in DCF care since 01/30/03.
Make all necessary child-care arrangements insuring that the child is adequately supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers.
This step is not applicable as Theo has remained in DCF care since 01/30/03.
Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and give any information concerning his housing situation.
Cooperate with child’s therapy.
There is no evidence that Ted was asked to cooperate with Theo’s therapy.
Visit the child as often as DCF permits.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and set up a visitation schedule.
This court concludes that Ted failed to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of his son, in as far as he is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, from 11/5/02, and continuing through the time of trial, Ted has not been available to take part in his son’s life, and, based on his history of non-involvement, criminal CT Page 14064-ar recidivism, substance abuse and domestic violence, he will never be consistently available to Theo. The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Ted has not been a resource for his son since the adjudication or since the OTC was obtained on 01/30/03. He has utterly ignored DCF and the court, and has failed to respond to either.
Although there is evidence that Ted saw Theo during the summer of 2004, he has failed to participate in visitation through DCF. He has failed to express any interest in his son to DCF, or inquire about Theo’s well-being. There is no evidence that he has undertaken any counseling programs in order to rehabilitate himself and assume the responsibilities of safe, responsible and nurturing fatherhood. When one also considers the high level of care, patience and discipline that Theo’s needs and special needs will require from his caregiver, it is patently clear that Ted is not in a better position to parent his son than he was at the time of his commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, Ted is no better able “to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than [he] had been at the time of the child’s commitment.” In re Hector L., supra, 53 Conn.App. 367. See In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. 670 (“[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by the department”); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 125; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.
Even if Ted was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his son at any time in the near future, if ever. His past history for domestic violence is a foreboding factor. His history of physically abusing Theo’s brother, Jachim, is disturbing.
Even more concerning are Jachim’s claims of sexual abuse by Ted. Obviously, this issue would require further investigation and resolution before one could even contemplate any reunification.
Clearly, even if Ted expressed any desire to be a reunification resource for his son, he would have to successfully complete various referrals and programs designed to rehabilitate him. He would need to establish himself in the community and show, over a substantial period of time, that he has conquered the demons which have plagued him. He would have to obtain appropriate housing and an appreciation of safe, responsible and nurturing parenting skills before reunification could be CT Page 14064-as contemplated. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Theo’s needs for permanence and stability would not allow for the time necessary for Ted to attempt rehabilitation, even if he wished to do so.
Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the child involved, and given Ted’s failure and/or inability to correct his deviancies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he would be able to achieve rehabilitation from his various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent within a reasonable time.
Theo needs parents who are able to effectively care for him now. Theo cannot wait for the remote possibility that his biological father might overcome his parenting deficits and other issues and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for his son one day. Theo is unable to wait for Ted to show that he has rehabilitated himself and is ready to assume his parental role. It is fundamental that “in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent improved [his] ability to manage [his] own life, but rather whether [he] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384. Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has proved that Ted failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).
In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the child at issue and assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, in reaching its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361.
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Theo and Ted.
Continued foster care is detrimental to Theo’s development; he requires a permanent home that is safe and nurturing.
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable whether Ted is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent father’s parenting deficits as they relate to his son’s need for a safe, responsible and nurturing parent who can meet his requirements and needs for emotional stability, security and consistency.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Ted further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to CT Page 14064-at assume a responsible position in the life of his son would not be in the best interests of Theo.
LACK OF ONGOING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)
The State has alleged that there is no on-going parent/child relationship between Ted and his son. This means that, based on the evidence produced, the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met, on a day to day basis, the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child has not been established and to allow further time for the establishment of such parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D).[23] Applying the requisite legal standards,[24]
and complying with § 17a-112(p), the court finds this matter in favor of the respondent father as to Theo.
The clear and convincing evidence presented indicates the following.
The court incorporates, by reference, the abandonment findings as to Ted set forth in previous parts of this decision.
Ted has never provided care for his son.
Ted has played little, if any, role in his child’s life.
He has been unable and/or unwilling to adjust his circumstances to allow for his child to be returned to his care in that he failed to cooperate with DCF. Ted has been personally unavailable for Theo.
Theo last visited with Ted in the summer of 2004.
However, there was testimony elicited during the trial from DCF social worker Morris. Morris testified that Theo does ask Deborah, during visitation, if he can talk to his father, and he uses Deborah’s cellphone to talk to him.
In In re Megan M., 24 Conn.App. 338, 341-42, 588 A.2d 239 (1991), the Appellate Court set forth the test for no going relationship:
The statutory criteria set forth in [CGS] § 17-43a [now § 17a-112] must be satisfied before a termination of parental rights can be accomplished. In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 163, 554 A.2d 722 (1989). [CGS] § 17-43a(b)(4) [now § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)] provided for the CT Page 14064-au termination of parental rights if, upon clear and convincing evidence, it is proven that no ongoing parent-child relationship has existed in excess of one year, and requires the court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. “First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists; and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child’s best interests to allow time for such a relationship to develop.” In re Juvenile Appeal (84-3), 1 Conn.App. 463, 479, 473 A.2d 795, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 802, 474 A.2d 1259 (1984).
The statutory term “no ongoing parent-child relationship” has been interpreted “to contemplate a situation in which, regardless of fault, a child either has never known his or her parents, so that no relationship has ever developed between them, or has definitely lost that relationship, so that despite its former existence it has now been completely displaced.” In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous),
[177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979)]. In addition, the mere fact that there has been some minimal contact between the parent and the child does not require a determination that an ongoing parent-child relationship has existed in excess of one year. In re Juvenile Appeal, [181 Conn. 646, 436 A.2d 290
(1980)]. In determining whether there is an ongoing parent-child relationship, the court should consider the feelings of the child toward the parent, especially if those feelings are positive rather than negative. See In re Juvenile Appeal (84-6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101 (1984), cert. denied, 175 Conn. 801, 487 A.2d 564 (1985).
The court finds that DCF has failed to prove that Theo has no present and positive memories of his father.
Because the State has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no parent-child relationship exists between Ted and Theo, the court need not address the 2nd prong of the required analysis.
PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE By A PARENT WITH A PREVIOUS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS § 17a-112(j)(3)(E)
CT Page 14064-av
The petitioner next alleges that Ted’s parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(E), the child in question is under 7 years of age and Ted has had his parental rights previously terminated as to at least one other child.[25] Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in accordance with § 17a-112(p), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.
The court incorporates by reference its comments and findings previously made in its rulings concerning Ted’s failure to rehabilitate, above. As Theo has been adjudicated neglected and the respondent father has been found to have failed to rehabilitate himself within the meaning of the statute, the critical issues for this court is whether Ted has had his parental rights previously terminated in regards to at least one other child, and whether Theo is under 7 years of age.
A review of the clear and convincing evidence submitted indicates that Ted’s parental rights were previously terminated as to his son Daymond.
On 7/21/01, in CPS, the court (Lopez, J.) issued its decision terminating the parental rights of Ted as to Daymond.[26]
Theo was born on 2/7/99, making him 6 and 3/4 years old.
Therefore, the court finds that the State and DCF have shown by clear and convincing evidence that Ted has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(E), the child in question is under 7 years of age and Ted has had his parental rights previously terminated as to at least one other child.
DISPOSITION
As the court has concluded that statutory grounds for termination exist, it next “must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 827; see also In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511 and n. 15, 613 A.2d 478 (1992). In this dispositional phase the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events through the close of evidence. Practice Book §35a-9.
SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS
The court has made each of the seven written factual findings required by CGS § 17a-112(k) based upon the clear and convincing evidence CT Page 14064-aw presented at trial, and has considered the evidence relevant to each of these findings in deciding whether to terminate parental rights. See In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 835.
TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(1)
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has provided reasonable efforts in the past to reunify the child with the respondent mother. Those services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.
The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Deborah, or that the following services were provided to her:
DCF: Case management services, including visitation and transportation and financial assistance for utilities
Center for Women’s and Families Domestic Violence Groups (CWFDVG)
DMR
Alhbin Center for services for cognitive retraining
Child Guidance Center Reunification Program
Family Services Woodfield (FSW) for domestic violence counseling
Psychological and psychiatric evaluations
Referral for vocational training
In the past, DCF has offered Deborah a variety of services, including counseling, intensive family preservation, parenting classes, psychological evaluations, DCF Regional Resource Group services, transportation, visitation, and casework services. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah refused services, or did not follow through with services, or was non-compliant with services then, as she is presently.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent mother Deborah with CT Page 14064-ax Theo. In re Brendan C., supra, 89 Conn.App. 524.
The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF was unable to provide services to Ted due to his failure to make contact with DCF, his failure to make himself available for services and his failure to engage in the services.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to reunite Ted with the child. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., supra, 62 Conn.App. 478-79.
Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that neither respondent parent is able and/or willing to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Amelia W., 62 Conn.App. 500, 504-05, 772 A.2d 619 (2001); see In re Ebony H., 68 Conn.App. 342, 350, 789 A.2d 1158 (2002).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that both Ted and Deborah were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues, However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that despite this notification, both parents remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.
On 7/17/01, in SCJM (Owens, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
On 8/26/02, in SCJM (Jones, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home.
At the time of the issuance of the OTC on 1/30/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from their home.
On 12/4/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to return home.
On 10/12/04, in SCJM (Brenneman, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the home. CT Page 14064-ay
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for either respondent parent with regard to their child.
REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW — CGS § 17a-112(k)(2)
This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that Deborah and Ted are each presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as are contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with Deborah. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to reunite Ted with his son. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., supra, 62 Conn.App. 478-79 (2002).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that both Deborah and Ted were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite this notification, both parents remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.
The court will incorporate, by reference, the above listed reasonable efforts findings.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification remain not appropriate for each of the respondent parents with regard to Theo.
Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that neither respondent parent is able and/or willing to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. CGS §17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Amelia W., supra, 62 Conn.App. 504-05; see In re Ebony H., supra, 68 Conn.App. 350.
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS — CGS § 17a-112(k)(3)
CT Page 14064-bz
The clear and convincing evidence shows that on 1/30/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court ordered specific steps for Deborah.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
In 9/04, DCF referred Deborah to FSW for domestic violence therapy. According to Dr. Elba Crespo, Deborah attended only 1 therapy session with the agency. Dr. Crespo stated that on one occasion, Deborah’s counselor called to cancel a scheduled appointment, but rescheduled a new appointment with Deborah. Deborah failed to appear for that appointment. In 2/05, FSW told DCF that they set up another appointment with Deborah in order to start therapy sessions again. Deborah appeared an hour late and missed the session. She then became upset and left and did not call to schedule any further appointments.
Keep your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the child.
There is no evidence that Deborah did not comply with this specific step.
Participate in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF referred Deborah to CWFDVG for domestic violence counseling. While there for intake, on 2/5/03, Deborah denied that any domestic violence had occurred between her and Ted. Based upon this intake, CWFDVG deemed her inappropriate for their services.
CT Page 14064-ba
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah’s denials to CWFDVG were false.
A BPD incident report, dated 01/27/01, was entered into evidence by DCF. It indicates that Deborah called BPD in response to a domestic occurrence where Ted threw objects over the home. Deborah, who was distraught and crying, indicated that Ted lived with her. Ted was subsequently arrested for this incident.
On 7/23/01, Deborah complained to BPD that Ted scratched her face and pulled her hair. The officers observed the scratches and saw that she had some hair pulled out. Deborah reported that abuse was an ongoing problem.
A BPD incident report, dated 8/19/01, was entered into evidence by DCF. It indicates that Deborah called BPD in response to a domestic occurrence where Ted smashed the windows in Deborah’s car. At the time of this incident, Ted was on probation for Forgery in the 2nd Degree. One of the conditions of his probation was that he was not to threaten, harass or be violent towards Deborah.
On 2/1/02, BPD was dispatched on an assault complaint. They met Deborah, who was described as visibly upset, shaking, crying and bleeding from several fresh facial lacerations. Deborah indicated that Ted menaced her with a kitchen knife, then punched her in the face.
On 3/5/02, BPD was dispatched on a criminal mischief complaint. They met Deborah, who indicated that Ted had smashed the windows in her residence. She indicated that she did not witness it. However, Deborah did tell BPD that she had many domestic violence problems with Ted, and that they had lived together previously.
On 11/13/02, BPD was dispatched on a criminal trespass/violation of protective order complaint. They met Deborah, who indicated that Ted had come to her residence and pushed her. Deborah also indicated that she had a restraining order against Ted.
CT Page 14064-bb
Delia Morrison testified that she lived in the same building with Deborah, from 7/03 to 8/04. She also testified that, on a night in 5/04, she witnessed an altercation where Ted attempted to drag Deborah off the porch of the residence. The altercation escalated to the point where Ted and Morrison’s boyfriend became embroiled in a physical fight, and Deborah and one of Morrison’s cousins fought.
Morrison also indicated that she was aware that Ted was Deborah’s boyfriend, and that he was there frequently. She testified that she knew Ted previously, and that she saw Ted in Deborah’s apartment 5 times from 3/04 through 5/04.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF referred Deborah to the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC) on 1/28/04 for reunification services. On 7/30/04, Deborah was discharged unsuccessfully from this program, after having been arrested in a domestic violence situation with Ted on 7/26/04. The clear and convincing evidence showed that Deborah had continued to see Ted, despite the obvious danger that he posed to Theo and her. Theo indicated that Ted was at the home during at least 1 unsupervised visit, while Deborah denied contact with Ted.
Wayne Lowry, the CGC’s Family Reunification Center’s director, testified that Deborah missed some appointments at CGC towards the end of the referral period. He further testified that, although Deborah and Theo had improved during the referral period, by 6/04 through 7/04, both Theo and Deborah had started to regress. Lowry indicated that, by the time of Deborah’s unsuccessful discharge, Deborah’s situation was high risk, due to the domestic violence.
Lowry had also engaged Deborah in individual therapy. He testified that she was defensive and in denial concerning her domestic violence situation, and that he felt that Deborah was not honest.
In 9/04, DCF referred Deborah to FSW for domestic violence therapy. According to Dr. Elba Crespo, CT Page 14064-bc Deborah attended only 1 therapy session with the agency. Dr. Crespo stated that on one occasion, Deborah’s counselor called to cancel a scheduled appointment, but rescheduled a new appointment with Deborah. Deborah failed to appear for that appointment. In 2/05, FSW told DCF that they set up another appointment with Deborah in order to start therapy sessions again. Deborah appeared an hour late and missed the session. She then became upset and left and did not call to schedule any further appointments.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.
There is no evidence that Deborah was referred to any substance abuse assessment.
Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF.
There is no evidence that Deborah was referred to any in-home support services for Theo.
Participate in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence does indicate that Deborah was referred to the ECAR program for parenting and domestic violence programs. Deborah did complete this program. However, she did not actively participate in the discussions because, as she indicated to DCF, she does not trust anyone.
Deborah failed to successfully enter the CWFDVG, as a result of her failing to disclose accurate and truthful information as to the extent of the domestic violence problem between herself and Ted.
Deborah failed to successfully complete the CGC CT Page 14064-bd Family Reunification Program, and domestic violence counseling at FSW.
Deborah failed to successfully complete the FSW domestic violence therapy program.
The subsequent history shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that Deborah failed to gain any benefit or rehabilitate herself through her attendance at ECAR.
Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step.
In 2/03, in Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, Deborah filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Ted. In her attached, sworn statement, Deborah indicated that Ted had not hit her.
On 2/8/03, the application for the TRO against Ted was denied (Dewey, J.).
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, by 7/26/04, there were active restraining and protective orders issued against Ted, forbidding him from abusing Deborah, from remaining at her residence and from having any contact with her whatsoever. On that date, BPD was dispatched to her residence on a citizen’s complaint of a man assaulting a woman in front of the residence.
Upon arrival, BPD attempted to gain entry, but Deborah refused to open the door, or to come outside and speak to the officers. The officers forcibly entered the residence and discovered Deborah in the kitchen, unclothed. As the officers attempted to secure the residence, Deborah attempted to stop them and was arrested for Interfering With A Police Officer. While the officers attempted to clothe her, she still struggled and had to be physically restrained.
CT Page 14064-be
Other officers found Ted hiding in a rear bedroom closet and arrested him for Interfering With A Police Officer and Violation of a Protective Order.
Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this court.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with this step. At the TPR trial, DCF Social Worker Morris testified that when he was first assigned this case in 9/03, Deborah had refused to sign releases for DCF, preventing him from being able to fully discuss the case with his predecessor.
The evidence does indicate that Deborah did sign subsequent releases.
Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Deborah has not had stable housing during the pendency of this case. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has moved at least 3 times since 7/04.
Deborah has a past history of unstable and sporadic employment. She has worked at “Dutchess,” as a packer with Park City Packing, and in a gift shop.
At the time of the TPR trial, Deborah was unemployed, and subsisted on Section 8, food stamps and SSI benefits.
No substance abuse.
There is no evidence that Deborah did not comply with this specific step.
No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions CT Page 14064-bf of probation or parole.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has not complied with this step.
On 7/26/04, Deborah was arrested by BPD and charged with Interfering With A Police Officer.
On 7/27/04 in Superior Court, Geographical Area Two, Bridgeport, Deborah was convicted of Interfering With A Police Officer.
Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child.
There is no evidence that Deborah did not comply with this specific step.
Cooperate with child’s therapy.
There is no evidence that Deborah was asked to cooperate with Theo’s therapy.
Visit the child as often as DCF permits.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has complied with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 1/30/03, in SCJM (Dennis, J.), the court ordered specific steps for Ted.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. Ted has had no contact with DCF or with SCJM concerning his son.
Keep your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the child.
CT Page 14064-bg
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step.
Ted has contacted DCF only once, on 11/6/03. DCF Social Worker Morris testified that Ted called him and left a telephone number. Morris indicated that he was unable to contact Ted using that number. He also testified that he send letters to Ted at PGM’s address, and asked Deborah to relay messages to Ted. Ted has not remained in contact with DCF concerning this case
Ted has never appeared in SCJM or CPS concerning his son.
Participate in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF.
There is no evidence that Ted was referred to any in-home support services for Theo.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted did not comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
Submit to random drug testing: time and method of the testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted did not comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
CT Page 14064-bh
Submit to recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment:
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to remain in contact with DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
There is no evidence that DCF referred Ted to a parent aide program.
Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to remain in contact with DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.
Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, by 7/26/04, there were active restraining and protective orders issued against Ted, forbidding him from abusing Deborah, from remaining at her residence and from having any contact with her whatsoever. On that date, BPD was dispatched to her residence on a citizen’s complaint of a man assaulting a woman in front of the residence.
Officers found Ted hiding in a rear bedroom closet of Deborah’s residence and arrested him for Interfering With A Police Officer and Violation of a Protective Order. Deborah was found in the kitchen, unclothed.
Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this court.
CT Page 14064-bi
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to remain in contact with DCF and communicate with its personnel.
Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.
DCF was unable to determine whether Ted complied with this step due to his failure to become involved with DCF and communicate with its personnel.
No substance abuse.
DCF was unable to determine whether Ted complied with this step due to his failure to become involved with DCF and communicate with them.
No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Ad ult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has not complied with this step. He has engaged in criminal conduct since the 01/30/03 issuance of the specific steps, and while on probation.
On 6/10/04, Ted was arrested by BPD and charged with Interfering With A Police Officer and another count.
On 8/18/04 in Superior Court, Geographical Area Two, Bridgeport, Ted was convicted of Interfering With A Police Officer.
Consistently and timely meet and address the child’s physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including, but not limited to, keeping the child’s appointments with her medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers.
This step is not applicable as Theo has remained in DCF care since 01/30/03.
CT Page 14064-bj
Make all necessary child-care arrangements insuring that the child is adequately supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers.
This step is not applicable as Theo has remained in DCF care since 01/30/03.
Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and give any information concerning his housing situation.
Cooperate with child’s therapy.
There is no evidence that Ted was asked to cooperate with Theo’s therapy.
Visit the child as often as DCF permits.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Ted has failed to comply with this step. He failed to contact DCF and set up a visitation schedule.
THE CHILD’S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES — CGS § 17A-112(K)(4)
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Theo recognizes Deborah as his biological mother and has a substantial attachment and bond with her. The testimony of Dr. Tina Schiappa, PhD., who did a parent-child interactional study at the request of Deborah’s counsel, indicated that Deborah was the psychological parent of Theo. She described the interaction as a warm parent-child relationship, with Deborah getting on the floor to play with Theo. Upon cross-examination, Dr. Schiappa conceded that a child may have more than 1 psychological parent, and that she had no information on Deborah’s performance during other visitations.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Theo views Deborah as his biological parent, and has a substantial attachment and bond to her. The evidence also shows that Theo has a substantial attachment to his previous foster home and to one of the previous foster parents, whom he CT Page 14064-bk refers to as “daddy.” Although he apparently enjoys his present placement, Theo has told FM that he wants to go back and live with those foster parents. However, Woods, Theo’s therapist since 2/04, also testified that Theo views FM as his caretaker.
DCF Social Worker Morris testified that there was a parent-child bond between Theo and Deborah.
The testimony of Woods indicates that Theo considers that FM to be his caretaker.
Deborah has weekly visitation with Theo. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the quality of the visitation is uneven. DCF social worker Morris testified that, at times, Deborah fails to engage with Theo and does other things during the visit, such as talk on her cellphone and read newspapers.
The nature of Theo’s relationship with Ted is unclear.
Theo has requested to speak to Ted during visitations with Deborah, and has done so, using Deborah’s cellphone.
There was no evidence as to the nature of the relationship, if any, between Theo and any of his siblings presently.
AGE OF THE CHILD — CGS § 17A-112(K)(5)
The court finds that Theo was born on 2/7/99, making him 6 and 3/4 years old.
He has been in foster care since 01/30/03.
PARENTS’ EFFORTS TO ADJUST THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES — CGS § 17A-112(K)(6)
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Deborah has not been able to make realistic and sustained efforts to conform her conduct to acceptable parental standards. Although DCF has referred her to rehabilitative services throughout the pendency of this case, and during the other children’s cases, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has essentially failed to complete any of them, with the exception of a previous parenting program.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah’s long standing oppositionality has caused her to actively refuse to cooperate with DCF. CT Page 14064-bl Every attempt to encourage her to engage in rehabilitative action has been met with an impetuous disregard of the realities of her situation and a entrenched defiance reminiscent of the defense of Iwo Jima, or Montfaucon.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has continued a relationship with Ted, despite the allegations that he sexually abused Jachim and despite the fact that he has physically abused both Jachim and her. Deborah has scorned good advice, therapeutic recommendations and court orders in order to maintain her relationship with Ted.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite DCF’s best efforts including referrals and services in the past, Deborah has been unable and/or unwilling to apply what she has been taught in order to become a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for her child. The evidence at the TPR trial clearly and convincingly shows that she fails to understand the effects that her parental shortcomings and deficiencies have had on her child throughout the years. She is obviously unable to care for her child appropriately and to provide him with the safety, care, permanence and stability that he needs and deserves.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent father Ted has not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform his conduct to acceptable parental standards. His son was last taken into DCF care and custody on 01/30/03. Since that date, Ted has refused to play any significant role in Theo’s life. He has not visited him since the summer of 2004. He has failed to initiate or maintain contact with DCF despite its best efforts. He has failed to send any cards or gifts or other communications to his child, and has failed to inquire with DCF concerning the well being of Theo.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Ted has failed to attend ACRs, TPCs, or court appearances. He failed to attend the TPR trial.
Ted has failed to undertake any evaluative or rehabilitative referrals. He has failed to come forward and involve himself in his child’s life. He has refused to come forward and be a resource for his son. He has failed to come forward and embark upon a program of rehabilitation so as to be a safe, nurturing and responsible parent.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that neither respondent parent has made the changes necessary in his or her lifestyle that would indicate that either respondent parent would be a safe, responsible and nurturing parent for Theo. CT Page 14064-bm
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow either of the respondent parents further time to rehabilitate themselves, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of the child would not be in the best interests of Theo.
EXTENT TO WHICH THE PARENTS WERE PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD — CGS § 17A-112(K)(7)
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, foster parents or third parties prevented Deborah or Ted from maintaining a relationship with their child, nor did the economic circumstances of the respondent parents prevent such relationships, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.
BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD — CGS § 17a-112(j)(2)
The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of the parental rights of Deborah or Ted would be in Theo’s best interests.[27]
Applying the appropriate legal standards[28] to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of the State of Connecticut and DCF.
In determining whether termination of Deborah or Ted’s parental rights would be in Theo’s best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environments; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of their relationship with their foster parents and their biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents.[29] 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 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance Theo’s intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with either biological parent. 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 it is not in Theo’s best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with either respondent parent.
Although DCF has referred Deborah to rehabilitative services throughout CT Page 14064-bn the pendency of this case, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has essentially failed to complete any of them, with the exception of the ECAR program in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah has failed to comply with the vast majority of DCF referrals concerning her mental health issues, domestic violence issues and parenting skills since her child was committed. Furthermore, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Deborah has been uncooperative with her service providers during previous DCF cases. This oppositionality has prevented her from making sufficient improvement to be able to parent her son in a safe, nurturing and responsible manner.
The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Deborah has failed to gain insight into the efforts that she needs to make in order to become a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for Theo. The clear and convincing evidence shows that her judgment and conduct still remain questionable, and have not improved since Theo was taken into DCF care and custody.
The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Deborah has failed to keep her child and herself safe. She continues to maintain her relationship with Ted, despite his issues, despite the brutal treatment she has received at Ted’s callous hands, and despite the fact that her relationship with Ted was a significant factor in her parental rights to Jachim being terminated. This relationship is clearly antipathetic to safe, nurturing and responsible parenting, yet Deborah has persisted in maintaining and supporting it. The practical effect of her conduct has been to prioritize her relationship with her paramour over her relationship with her son.
The respondent mother has effectively chosen her paramour over her child. This decision is but part of the reason why her parental rights are being terminated. Her poor judgment in failing to address her issues and her inability to protect herself and her child is another, more substantial, factor.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Ted has abrogated most of his parental responsibilities towards his son. He has not visited Theo since the summer of 2004. He has failed to initiate or maintain contact with DCF and he has failed to inquire with DCF as to his child’s wellbeing. He has failed to send Theo cards, gifts or letters. He has failed to attend court appearances, ACRs or TPCs. He has failed to submit himself for DCF assessments and referrals.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time needed for either CT Page 14064-bo Deborah or Ted to attempt to rehabilitate herself or himself and to attempt to establish herself or himself in the community as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent, if that were possible, is time that Theo can not spare.
Deborah and Ted’s parental performances clearly and convincingly show that each lacks the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill a valid parental role. Their inabilities to successfully address their issues in a timely manner and their failures to successfully address their individual parental deficits clearly and convincingly show that it is unlikely that either one will ever be able to conform their behaviors to appropriate norms or be able to serve as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for Theo.
Based upon Deborah and Ted’s behavior and performance so far, this court cannot foresee either parent ever having the ability or the patience to follow the regimen necessary for Theo to maximize the child’s abilities and achievements.
The child’s attorney indicated that the TPR would be in her client’s best interests.
Dr. Rabe, the court-appointed evaluator, diagnosed Deborah as suffering from an antisocial personality disorder. In his evaluation, he wrote:
Treatment of Antisocial Personality Disorder is made extremely difficult by the failure of the person with the disorder to acknowledge the major attributes of the disorder. Therefore, persons with this disorder are resistant to psychotherapeutic measures such as counseling and other interpersonal forms of therapy. Limit setting and interventions designed to protect the safety of those potentially placed at risk due to the Antisocial Personality Disorder are the primary interventions indicated. When motivation for change can be established, a referral for psychotherapeutic services is indicated, but the expectations for change should be kept modest and the time frame for change is likely to extend to several years at a minimum. The prognosis for positive outcome with this disorder is poor.
Rabe testified that Deborah’s disorder is not treatable with medication, nor with traditional psychotherapy. He further indicated that Deborah showed a pattern of minimization and denial concerning the CT Page 14064-bp domestic violence, and was desirous of protecting her abuser. He opined of the low possibility that Deborah will be able to successfully parent a child. He concluded that Deborah will exhibit the same type of parenting behavior in the future that she exhibited in the past.
Renda Woods, Theo’s therapist, testified that FM provides Theo with the motherly nurturing that he needs. She also indicated that Theo has attachment problems and, without stability, will undergo increasing difficulties. Woods testified that removing Theo from FM’s home would have a negative impact on him, and that he should remain there.
Woods indicated that stopping visitation with Deborah would have a negative effect on Theo. However, she also indicated that adoption would be preferable to long-term foster care (LTFC).
Counsel for Deborah argued that the TPR should not be granted. He indicated that Deborah has shown that she had improved her parenting with Theo, and that she had a strong bond with Theo. He advocated LTFC, so that Deborah could visit and maintain a connection with Theo. He argued that severing the connection between mother and child would not be in the best interest of Theo, and that Deborah might improve her parenting abilities in the future.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that DCF made all reasonable efforts to assist Deborah in her rehabilitation, but she has made little effort towards achieving her rehabilitative goals. The issues that she presented with when Theo was taken into DCF care remain virtually unchanged and unimproved. The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that allowing Deborah further time in which to rehabilitate herself will not result in Deborah utilizing the time or the services to effect positive changes so she can serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent to Theo. She has already been given that opportunity with 4 different children, and has little to show for it.
Theo has been in foster care for 33 months. He presents with challenging and problematic behaviors and special needs. His behavioral and emotional difficulties make his future uncertain.
What is certain is that any further delay in permanency and stability will only worsen an already parlous situation for Theo.
The court has considered the child’s bond and attachment to Deborah, in reaching its decision. The court does not doubt that there is a strong bond and attachment between Theo and Deborah. However, the Appellate Court has affirmed trial court decisions granting TPR in the face of a CT Page 14064-bq strong relationship between respondent parent and child, if TPR is in the best interests of the child. In Re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App 528, 536, 857 A.2d 963 (2004); In Re Quanitra M., supra, 60 Conn.App. 106.
There is no question that Theo has a strong bond and attachment to Deborah. However, this bond is insufficient to stay a TPR if a ground is proven and it is in the best interest of a child to terminate the parent’s rights. Like the mother in In Re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Deborah individually “has exercised, continues to exercise and will in the future exercise poor judgment in regard to [the child].”
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Theo can wait no longer for permanency and stability.
Our courts have recognized that “long-term stability is critical to a child’s future health and development.” In re Eden F., supra, 250 Conn. 709. Furthermore, “[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence . . .” when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children. In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff’d, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The court is obliged to agree with the child’s attorney and DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Theo is entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of their biological parents as caretakers.
The State and DCF have recommended the TPR of Theo. There has been absolutely no evidence to establish the unreasonableness of this request.
Having balanced Theo’s individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with Deborah or Ted, the clear and convincing evidence inthis case establishes that the child’s best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to either respondent parent. Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.
Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, including the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Deborah and Ted as to Theo is in the best interests of the child in CT Page 14064-br question.
ORDER OF TERMINATION
WHEREFORE, after due consideration of Theo’s sense of time, his need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship he has with his foster parent, and the totality of circumstances; and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights; and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the child’s best interests, the court issues the following ORDERS:
That the parental rights of Deborah B. are hereby terminated as to the child Theodore W., Jr., also known as Theo W.
That the parental rights of Theodore W., are hereby terminated as to the child Theodore W., Jr., also known as Theo W.
That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Theo for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for him.
That a permanency plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.
That DCF shall make available all services that it can reasonably muster in order to assist the child’s foster parent in maintaining him in his placement.
(1999).
(1999) . . . [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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001); In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).
(1999) [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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448. See also In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 665; In re Alejandro L., supra, 91 Conn.App. 259.
(1990).” (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000). “[T]he question . . . to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship. That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child. See Practice Book § 33-5.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999). “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).
CT Page 14064-bx