2008 Ct. Sup. 7210
No. W10-CP06-015070Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Windham, Juvenile Matters at Willimantic
April 8, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
FRANCIS J. FOLEY, SENIOR JUDGE.
Abuse and neglect in the first years of life have a particularly pervasive impact. Prenatal development and the first two years are the time when the genetic, organic and neurochemical foundations for impulse control are being created. It is also the time when the capacities for rational thinking and sensitivity to other people are being rooted — or not — in the child’s personality.
Ghosts from the Nursery-Tracing the Roots of Violence, Robin Karr-Morse and Meredith S. Wiley, the Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 1997, p. 45.
This is an action for termination of the parental rights of Jennifer D., the mother, and Victor R., the male biological parent of Zion born August 30, 2006. The petitioner is the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Both parents have been served with process, have appeared, have had counsel appointed to represent them.
The court further finds that the court has jurisdiction and that there is no known action pending in any other court affecting custody of the child. There is no claim of American Indian affiliation of the child.
At the commencement of the trial on April 1, 2008, the father, who has been incarcerated since prior to the birth of Zion, a child with whom he has no relationship, has conditionally consented to the termination of his parental rights. The condition is that he may withdraw his consent if the court does not terminate the parental rights of the mother. He maintained the child should stay with the foster family.[1] The respondent father was canvassed by the court and the consent was determined to be made freely and voluntarily with a full understanding of the legal rights being terminated. He was assisted by competent counsel.
FACTS
CT Page 7211
The court, having read the verified petition, having judicially noticed certain findings and documents, including most notably, a 41-paragraph affidavit attached to the initial order of temporary custody documenting mother’s extensive child protection history, having heard testimony from the social workers, the respondent mother, a psychologist and other witnesses, and considered the documentary evidence makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.
The case was commenced by an order of temporary custody issued on September 1, 2006, almost immediately after Zion’s birth.[2] The order was served on the respondents with Specific Steps (JD-JM-106) necessary to regain the custody of the children. The Order of Temporary Custody identified four areas of concern: 1) an extensive child protection history of the mother with DCF since 1999 “that includes removal of her four children Aurora, Luis, Angel, and Heaven.” Jennifer’s parental rights have subsequently been terminated as to Luis and Angel. 2) Jennifer’s failure to ensure the well-being of Zion by failing to attend pre-natal visits, to attend medically directed ultra-sounds, and failing to follow medical recommendations. 3) Jennifer was transient with all her children; she was continuously offered assistance by DCF and services were offered and arranged for housing, safety and shelter, individual counseling as Jennifer was frequently distressed by her disordered and dysfunctional existence, domestic violence relief and assistance, and mental health issues regarding depression. Jennifer would not fully engage in the offered assistance, thus submitting her children to household violence by Zion’s father, poor parenting skills by Jennifer, chaotic life-style and complete instability in housing. 4) The respondent father, Victor, on May 13, 2006 severely beat his 15-and 17-year old sons, using a socket wrench and a broom (Petitioner’s Exhibit A), causing swelling, bleeding and bruising. He was subsequently arrested and remains incarcerated following his conviction for these assaults.
The early reports and later social study indicate that Victor was the fourth man to father the six children born to Jennifer. Her selection of mates reflected catastrophically poor judgment and low self-esteem. All of her six children are in alternative care.[3]
On March 19, 2007, the court entered an adjudication of neglect (Boland, J.) and ordered that the Specific Steps previously ordered were to remain in effect.
Father
CT Page 7212 The testimony and evidence support a finding that Victor, aged 40, has been criminally involved most of his life. He has fourteen arrests since 1984, some arrests contain many counts including multiple counts of possession and sale of narcotics, risk of injury to minors, numerous serious assaults, gun charges, and violation of probation (petitioner’s exhibit B).
Without in any way attempting to determine the amount of time Victor has collectively spent incarcerated, it is important to note that he is presently serving a very long sentence for severely beating two of his children, Victor and Daniel, and has been in prison all of Zion’s life. He has never been a parental figure to this child. As the nature of the charges might suggest, he was a controlling, manipulative and domestically abusive man. This is the man that Jennifer selected as the father of her sixth child.
Mother
Jennifer is now thirty years old. She comes from a very dysfunctional family and reports a history of significant childhood trauma. Her father was an alcoholic. At aged seven she was sexually assaulted by her father resulting in a parental divorce. Her mother regretted the divorce blaming Jennifer. The mother married another man who was controlling and abusive to her mother. Her mother had episodes of depression and at least three suicidal attempts. Jennifer attended six elementary schools and 3 middle schools. She dropped out of high school. She reports her first use of cocaine at aged 12. At age 13 she was in a mental health facility with suicidal ideation. She says she was involved in numerous destructive relationships. Due to behavioral issues Jennifer lived much of her teenage years in group homes. She was eventually placed in juvenile detention for threatening to kill her mother. She spent a year in detention, escaping when she and other youths assaulted a staff member with a baseball bat, (Exhibit E. P. 30) “. . . this history is notable and should be considered.”
Not surprisingly, she has raised her own children in a remarkably similar dysfunctional manner as her own mother. She has involved herself with abusive men who fathered her six children. They were domestically violent. The impact of that violence on the children, not to mention, her, was devastating. She moved, frequently uprooting the children from home and school. She remained with Victor even after he inappropriately made sexual overtures and displayed pornography to Jennifer’s older daughter, Aurora.
She was raised in an hellatious environment, never experiencing a CT Page 7213 secure, loving supportive home life or adequate parenting. She had no role models. As a consequence, she, herself, was unable to provide adequate parenting to her 6 children. She brought to parenting the unresolved issues of her own childhood.
The facts of the case are, in matters of most importance, quite uncontested. Jennifer testified that in December 2006, four months after Zion’s birth, her life was in shambles. Her testimony was cohesive, composed, articulate and credible. She testified she knew, given her history with DCF, that she could not have her children. “It was hard for me, regardless of what DCF said (about reunification), I knew I wasn’t in any condition to raise my children. I needed to take time for myself; I needed to get myself right.” She said at that point in her life she was miserable, she had lost all her children, she was by herself, she had no support, no family, no real friends, she was alone, she hated herself, she wanted to die.
There was no real dispute during the trial about the reasonableness and appropriateness of the efforts by DCF to help Jennifer. The social worker offered her a number of residential in-patient programs, which if Jennifer engaged in services and made progress, she could live with one or more of her children, while still in treatment. Jennifer was offered programs through United Services, Reliance House, Katy Blair House, Emerge, Inc. and a Thames Valley Community Action program. She was offered individual mental health counseling. Some of these programs were offered to Jennifer while she was pregnant with Zion, in the summer of 2006. She was offered three possible providers for individual counseling, a domestic violence counseling program, she was referred to a domestic violence shelter. She was offered parenting education contemporaneously with visitation at Eastconn, a parenting education and supervised visitation center. And, most importantly she was offered the four different inpatient residential programs which featured the ability to have children with her while completing the program. Jennifer testified that when these services were offered to her, she was not ready for them.
When Jennifer was at the ultimate low point in her life in December 2006, she learned from the woman who had adopted two of her six children, that a faith-based program for substance abusing women was the best place for Jennifer to turn her life around. The program was called Youth Challenge.
Youth Challenge in Hartford is a faith-based twelve-to eighteen-month residential program for substance abusing women. It is an intensely strict program to personally rehabilitate women through discipline, CT Page 7214 bible study and church. The participants are supervised, regulated and chaperoned twenty-four hours a day for the first twelve months of the program. From the description by Jennifer, it is symbolically, a return to the womb. Children are not permitted and cannot live there. Jennifer wanted to be reborn.
DCF did not approve of this program. DCF was not familiar with the nature and quality of programming. They found the program to be initially uncooperative about treatment goals and meeting the specific personal and parenting deficits of Jennifer. The social worker told Jennifer that avoiding reunification with her children for eighteen more months was not appropriate and DCF did not approve. Again, they offered her programs which would have enabled her to be with her children. They confirmed this disapproval of the program in a letter to Jennifer.
Jennifer realized on some level that she was releasing her children by entering this program where she was not permitted to reside with the children. She realized that this election to defy DCF and remove herself from being a parental resource for eighteen months came at a significant and painful price. There is no doubt that she loved all her children. She said entering the program was the most unselfish thing she ever did besides consenting to the termination of her parental rights to Luis and Angel. “I needed to take time for myself, I needed to get myself right.” It is likely that she did do the right thing for herself personally.
The program has transformed her. The person who testified in court was not the person from whom DCF had removed six children. She was poised, focused, sober, and appears to be on a track for self-sufficiency. She has learned Christian living skills, endurance and responsibility. The program has provided a safe nurturing spiritual environment. She has completed the twelve-month program and is presently in a six-month intern program where she has greater freedom. She is learning skills to write resumes, interview techniques, as well as, the inner workings of housing and employment applications. She still remains in the total security of the missionary house and “family.” All her daily living needs are provided to her. She has not, to this date, demonstrated the ability to live in a community with the stresses of daily independent living. She is not self-sufficient twenty months after Zion’s removal.
The Child
It is clear from the social study (Petitioner’s Exhibit D) and from Jennifer’s own testimony that she was in no position to appropriately parent Zion when the child was born. Neither could the incarcerated father provide care for this infant. No relatives came forward to raise CT Page 7215 this child. At the same time that Jennifer was rebuilding her life, Zion’s every need was being met by another woman and man.
Raising a human child from infancy requires singular, unselfish devotion and round the clock care to meet needs required for sustained life. The parental skills required seem to come naturally to parents who themselves were appropriately parented. They seem like common sense. Those skills do not come naturally to a child who was not properly parented.
Physical care is, of course, essential. Holding and cuddling, feeding on demand, changing many diapers each day, bathing the child, teaching the child to eat solid food, toilet training, dressing the child in seasonally appropriate out fits, assisting the infant to sit up, to crawl and then to walk are some of those activities. There are probably a hundred other physical activities that most parents do naturally. If a parent is unsure of parenting techniques, parents frequently turn to pediatricians, their parents or to other young mothers and fathers.
Equally important to the infant are the emotional aspects of child development learned through the sounds, sights, smells, touch and taste of daily care. Hearing soothing, encouraging and comforting familiar human voices provides serenity and security, as well as the whole basis for speech and language. Constant daily interaction and stimulation provide for bonding, intellectual growth and muscle development. It is from the caretaker that the child learns to regulate emotions, as well as logic, planning and cognition.
The psychologist testified that the psychological needs of a child are met through consistent and sensitive care taking; changing, and feeding creates an affectionate bond. A child is communicating needs and those needs are being met. As the child gets older they have verbal communications and an appreciation of a special relationship forms through this interaction which forms the basis of a safe haven in times of stress or need.
Zion, as a newborn infant, was placed with the present foster family. The social worker testified and the attorney for the child argued that Zion is firmly entrenched in the present family and views the foster parents as her parents. This family is providing the physical and emotional care that Zion needs each hour and each day for the past twenty months. The foster parents wish to adopt the child. The child’s attorney and DCF urge the court to terminate the parent’s rights and to permit adoption by the foster parents who have raised her since birth.
CT Page 7216 This cannot occur unless the court finds first that grounds exist for a termination of the parent’s rights and thereafter determine whether termination and adoption are in the child’s best interest.
Grounds
The petition was filed on September 19, 2007. That is the date at which a determination of whether grounds exist to terminate is to be made. On that date, Jennifer was eight months into an eighteen-month program, with, as shall be explained, another six months or more period of independent living. Therefore, at the date of the petition, Jennifer was more than a year away from possible reunification with Zion, in a best case scenario.
The ground alleged in the petition for termination of rights as to both respondents, are that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, (at the date of the petition) considering the age and the needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. C.G.S. §17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).[4]
The factual determination for this court is whether the parents have achieved rehabilitation as contemplated under the statute, that is, rehabilitation sufficient to render either of them able to care for Zion.
Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [The statute] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent’s] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time . . . [The statute] requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation (s)he has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in his child’s life. In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674
(1999) at 706.
CT Page 7217 Jennifer maintains that the transformation that has occurred through her participation and near-completion of the Youth Challenge program requires the court to find that she has achieved rehabilitation. She maintains she loves the child. That is not disputed. But the courts have determined that there is a difference between parental love and parental competence. In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575 (2005).
Neither Victor nor Jennifer has ever had a “former constructive and useful” parental role. Neither has a history of demonstrated parental competence. Their rehabilitation as parents and the foreseeablility of either of them being in a position to parent are to be assessed in relation to the age and needs of this particular child.
Here Jennifer has a documented history of parental failure over many years. The program she has completed is clearly directed at her personal, not necessarily parental, rehabilitation. It excludes children. Youth Challenge actually discourages child contact, limiting visitation to only once per month.[5] It does not have a documented program of parental education and hands-on child care training by a qualified professional as would have been provided in the DCF offered programs.[6] It does, however, provide persons who successfully complete the program with 24 college credits at a bible college known as Corinthians School of Urban Ministry. (Respondent’s Exhibit 4.) Jennifer has expressed a desire to participate in her ministry.
As indicated earlier, Jennifer has yet to demonstrate her own self-sufficiency at this time, twenty months after placement of the child, eight months after the termination petition was filed, Jennifer is still within the protective womb of the mission. She is not employed. She has not been able to demonstrate that she can live in an unstructured environment on her own, never mind to adequately cope with the burdens of child raising.
The psychologist indicated that in order to demonstrate enduring psychological change, Jennifer would have to successfully maintain herself for a minimum period of six months outside the confines of the present program. She is still in the program. Even then, the psychologist testified that self-defeating and self-destructive possibilities from relapse might occur. She would need to have continued psychological assistance. It would be necessary to re-evaluate the situation after six months of self-sufficiency to see if she had maintained treatment gains. Sobriety, involvement in extended support groups, employment, housing and the maintenance of a liveable environment would be required to minimize risks.[7]
CT Page 7218 Victor is still incarcerated. At one point he asked for visitation with Zion. DCF arranged a visit. The visit was a disaster. After ten minutes of total distress by the child, Victor appropriately decided that visitation was too stressful for the child and discontinued it. He has no relationship with the child. His history of parenting is not helpful and his release date is distant.
Adjudication
With these factual findings, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the lives of the child (C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I)). See, In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 354 (2001); In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665 (2001); In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448 (2000).
Neither parent is now able to care for the child. For Jennifer, who has made significant personal progress, she has not established her ability to maintain herself in the community. She has not completed a recognized program in domestic violence prevention and parenting education. She has not received any attention to her mental health issues by a qualified mental health professional. She has an Axis II diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. This is a matter of some consequence. Further, the psychologist noted in Jennifer’s Axis IV Multiaxial diagnosis:
Problematic attachment history related to parental substance abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, transience, neglect and other factors; Victim of childhood sexual abuse; early onset conduct problems; Early, perhaps non-consensual sexual experiences; Early onset substance abuse; History of suicidal ideation and gestures; History of self-injury; Minimal formal education; Minimal employment history; Significant problems with independent living unrelated to intellectual ability; Repeated involvement with child protection services; Subjection of children to significantly harmful circumstances; Difficulties with interpersonal boundaries; History of arrest and incarceration. (Exhibit E p. 31.)
CT Page 7219
How many of these areas have been addressed at Youth Challenge is not clear. It is unlikely that all of her parental and personal deficits have been addressed and resolved permanently. Placement of a child with her could possible cause her to relapse. There is a significant risk attendant, assuming that the wait for six to nine months in the future is not insurmountable.
But the court finds that given the age and needs of the child, further delay is unacceptable. The past twenty months have been, in fact, a lifetime for this child. The child requires permanency now, not when she is nearly three years old. Zion should not be required to wait for nine more months on the chance her mother will survive in the community, and then absorb the possible horror of horrors caused by disruption from the people she knows as parents, displacement from the only home she has ever known, to be placed with a person whose demonstrated parenting has been historically very neglectful and whose mental health issues have not been appropriately addressed.
Jennifer knew what she was doing when she entered this program. For all her issues, she is not intellectually limited. She knew she was letting her children go. There is no question that Jennifer loves her children and that ultimately she has done the right thing for them. Accordingly, the court will not hold the child’s life in abeyance one day further upon the possibility of future reunification. That would likely meet the wishes of Jennifer but not the very immediate stability of placement and bonding needs of this child. In re Halle T., 96 Conn.App. 815, 839 (2006).
DISPOSITION
During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether “termination is in the best interests of the child.” In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000). “In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a-112(k)].” In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)). The seven factors “serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.” In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. at 104. The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights.
Since the father has been in confinement, DCF has been unable to provide services to him. It would serve no useful purpose to itemize the CT Page 7220 statutory considerations normally required by Section 17a-112(k) as they relate to Victor. There was no way services could have been offered, provided or measured. There was no parent-child relationship to assess, improve or repair. Victor has four other children with whom he must make amends and support.
The court makes the following seven written findings, principally to Jennifer:
(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with respondents, the court finds that DCF offered services including parenting education, individual counseling, visitation and substance abuse testing and counseling to the mother. Most notably, the agency offered inpatient residential programs with a maternity component to Jennifer which she declined in favor of her personal redemption.
(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts as to the mother. See supra. Reasonable efforts were not possible regarding the incarcerated father.
(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered as to respondent mother. As set forth above, mother did not comply with the wishes of DCF regarding appropriate treatment and services. Initially, Jennifer simply did not engage or comply with the programs and services offered.
(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child’s parents, any guardian of such child’s person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties, the court has previously addressed this issue. There is no relationship whatsoever with the father; there is a visitation relationship with the mother which the DCF social worker describes as a flat affect by the child at these visits. Sometimes the child cries at the visits. There is a warm, loving and caring relationship in the nature of a parent-child relationship with the foster parents.
(5) As to the age of the child: Zion was born August 30, 2006.
CT Page 7221 (6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent’s circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child; the court finds as follows: The mother has made substantial effort, as discussed above, to adjust her circumstances in this matter to address her personal deficiencies. This has been fully addressed. As to the father, this has been previously discussed.
(7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parent or third parties. Indeed, it was DCF that insisted upon weekly visitation and had previously provided twice weekly visitation prior to her admission into Youth Challenge.
With respect to the best interests of the child contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Jennifer and Victor to the child Zion, is in the best interest of the child.
In finding that termination of the respondents’ parental rights would be in the child’s best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment; her length of stay in foster care; the nature of her relationship with foster parents and biological parents; the degree of contact maintained with her biological parents; and her genetic bond to the parents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816
(1999). The court has also balanced the child’s intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of possibly maintaining a connection with her biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 313-14 (1998).
It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Jennifer D. and Victor R. to Zion are hereby terminated. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory CT Page 7222 parent for the child.
With regard to the permanency plans for the child, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as to Zion as being in the best interest of this child, the court’s clear preference to be given to his current foster family. To the extent not previously found, the court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans which call for termination of parental rights and adoption.
The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of this child as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.
The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 81 Columbia Avenue, Willimantic of the date when said adoption is finalized.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ordered this 8th day of April 2008.
CT Page 7223
CT Page 7224