IN RE: Glen Richard D.1
U06CP08006599A
????Decided: January 12, 2012
I
PROCEDURAL HISTORYA Present Proceedings
Before this court is a termination of parental rights petition (?TPR?) filed by the department of children and families (hereafter ?DCF? or ?the department?) concerning Glen Richard D. (hereafter ?Glen?) born on September 5, 2008 to Jessica Marie Oliver (hereafter ?mother?) and Franklin D. (hereafter ?father?).
The Court will also address a Motion for Transfer of Guardianship filed by father on September 13, 2011 requesting that guardianship of Glen be transferred to Maria Lora, Glen’s paternal grandmother, together with a Request for an Interstate Study since Mrs. Lora resides in Massachusetts.
There is no claim of Indian Tribal affiliation by either parent.
There are no other proceedings of which this court is aware relating to this child.
This court has jurisdiction.
B?Prior Procedural History
An Order of Temporary Custody was obtained by the department on October 7, 2008 and sustained by agreement on October 17, 2008. ? Specific Steps for both parents were confirmed and made final on that date.2
A neglect petition was filed by the department on October 7, 2008.
Father’s paternity of Glen was found by the court (Randolph J.) on December 17, 2008 following DNA testing.
Glen was adjudicated as neglected and committed to the department following pleas of nolo contendere entered by both parents on April 30, 2009 to allegations that Glen was denied proper care (Randolph J.).
On June 4, 2010, the department filed a Termination of Parental Rights Petition (?TPR?) against mother and father. ? The grounds alleged against father were abandonment and failure to rehabilitate.3
A review of the court’s file suggests that father did not keep the department advised of his current address since, after several attempts to serve him with the TPR Petition by certified mail were unsuccessful, service of the TPR Petition on father was eventually accomplished by way of publication in The Boston Globe on November 6, 2010.4
Father was defaulted for non-appearance on December 13, 2010, the date given in the summons and the publication.5??A Motion to reopen the default was denied on February 28, 2011 since father again did not appear in court on that date, but was granted on March 17, 2011.
Although father’s first language is Portuguese, he communicated in English with the department and declined the services of a court interpreter. ? He has not indicated any difficulties with the English language. ? The court finds that father’s comprehension of the English language or ability to communicate in it is not an issue in this case.
Mother consented to the termination of her parental rights on March 17, 2011, which consent was accepted by this court.
Father entered a denial to the TPR Petition and the case was heard on July 1, July 28, September 12, September 13 and September 26, 2011. ? On September 12, the case had to be adjourned in the afternoon because of a power failure in the court and was continued to the following afternoon. ? Father was unable to take time off from work on September 13 but all parties agreed that testimony would proceed and that a transcript of the testimony taken would be obtained and supplied to the respondent father in time for him to consult with counsel. ? This was done and when the court reconvened on September 26, 2011, no further testimony was requested or presented and only final arguments were heard.
The department called DCF social workers Juanita Conyers and Eileen Geary and Glen’s foster mother.6??Father called his mother, Mrs. Lora. Father did not testify.7??Nine exhibits offered by the department, four exhibits offered by father and three exhibits offered on behalf of the child were admitted as full exhibits and have been considered by the court.
These proceedings are governed by General Statutes ??17a?112 et seq. ? In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must first prove, by clear and convincing evidence, in the adjudicatory phase, a ground for termination alleged in the petition, as of the date of filing the petition or the last amendment. ?In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63 (1991); ?Conn. Practice Book ??32a?3(b); ?35a?7.
The court can consider a parent’s rehabilitative efforts subsequent to the filing of the TPR Petition, in determining whether the parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child within a foreseeable period of time. ? Practice Book 35a?7(a). ?In re Luciano B., 129 Conn.App. 449, 469 (2011).
The parties agreed that the court could take judicial notice of father’s record of attendance at court and other court-generated information.
As is permitted under our law, the evidence as to both adjudicatory and dispositional phases was heard at the same trial. ?In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 688?89 (1999).
The court finds that the petitioner has met her burden of proving the grounds alleged against the respondent father by clear and convincing evidence.
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Father exercised his constitutional right to remain silent and declined the opportunity to testify in the case. ? Pursuant to Section 35a?7A Practice Book he was advised (on more than one occasion) that the court was permitted to draw an adverse inference from that decision and that adverse inference could lead to a negative outcome.
While father carries no burden of proof, in the absence of his testimony the court was left with little alternative but to draw inferences from and/or accept as factual much of the evidence offered by the testimony of the department’s witnesses. ? The court has endeavored to indicate where that has been the case.
Having heard testimony and considered documents admitted as full exhibits, this court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence unless the contrary is expressly stated.
Glen Richard D. (hereafter ?Glen?) was born on September 5, 2008 to Jessica Marie Oliver (hereafter ?mother?) and Franklin D. (hereafter ?father?). ? Father’s name did not appear on Glen’s birth certificate?8?and his paternity was established, following the results of court ordered DNA testing,9?on December 17, 2008.
Mother and father lived in Waterbury, Connecticut at the time of Glen’s birth. ? A paternal grandfather lives in the Waterbury area. ? Paternal grandmother lives in Massachusetts.
Father currently resides in Massachusetts and has done so since at least April 2009.
The department became involved with this family following a report made to the department by a social worker at St. Mary’s Hospital Waterbury when Glen was born. ? The primary concern expressed was that mother had reported domestic violence and substance abuse issues with father with whom she claimed to be living. ? Mother also admitted to drinking beer while taking medication.10
On September 29, 2008, twenty-four days after Glen’s birth, mother disclosed that a domestic violence incident had occurred the night before endangering her and Glen.11?On the same day, mother was threatened with eviction by her landlord.12??The court has no evidence that father lived with mother in the period between Glen’s birth and September 29, 2008. ? In fact, it is unclear to the court whether father ever resided with mother and Glen in the sense of maintaining a home with them exclusively. ? The court can infer that father did not provide a home for his son after mother left her apartment?other than, perhaps, suggesting his father, since mother and Glen went to live with Glen’s paternal grandfather and his wife.
A parent aide was provided through the department to assist mother. ? The parent aide soon reported her concern that she found mother to be so cognitively limited that she felt it inadvisable to leave mother alone with the baby. ? That assessment was later confirmed during a psychological evaluation of mother conducted by Dr. Badillo?Martinez, PhD, who stated that, in her opinion, mother should not be left with the baby without adult supervision.13??There is no indication that father was available as a supervisor for mother or that he offered to become Glen’s caregiver.
Although father also stayed with the paternal grandfather from time to time, he was reported to be otherwise transient and living with friends.
As the result of the parent aide’s concerns and the fact that Glen was only a month old and entirely dependent on a reliable and competent caretaker, the department took a 96?hour ?Administrative Hold? on the baby on October 6, 2008 and filed a Motion for an order of temporary custody (OTC)?14?on October 7, 2008. ? The department was unable to license paternal grandfather as a resource for Glen because of his immigration status.
Due to his lack of settled accommodation, father was determined not to be a placement resource for Glen.15
Social worker Juanita Conyers testified that she gave father a list of homeless Shelters. ? He declined to use any of the Shelters.16??Father was also referred to the Waterbury Housing Authority to try to get on to a housing list, but, other than providing the referral, the department took no further steps to obtain housing for father.17?The court heard no testimony concerning father’s own endeavors to obtain permanent accommodation in Waterbury where he could accommodate Glen, nor did it hear that father had proposed that he should care for Glen. Since there was evidence before the court father suggested his father as a placement resource,18?the court may infer that father had no suitable accommodation of his own at the time.
On October 17, 2008, both parents agreed to sustain the OTC. On that same date the court (Baldwin, J.) ordered paternity testing for father. ? Paternity was confirmed after the test results were received?19?and a finding of paternity was made on December 17, 2008. ?(Randolph, J.).
On October 17, 2008, the court issued final Specific Steps to father.20??Those steps included requirements that father keep all appointments set by or with DCF, that he keep his whereabouts known to DCF, that he cooperate with recommended service providers for ?parent aid services to teach how to appropriately respond to child’s physical and emotional needs, individual counseling to address mental health, substance abuse needs and Domestic counseling services as a Perpetrator? and participate in family counseling, that he have no further involvement with the criminal justice system and that he visit Glen as often as DCF permitted.
Glen has been in the custody of DCF since October 7, 2008. ? He was two days over one month old at the time of his removal. ? He has resided with the same foster mother since his removal or very shortly thereafter. ? He is now a three-year-old child with no significant medical issues other than seasonal allergies,21?and with no significant developmental issues. ? He is bonded to his foster mother and his foster siblings, whom he regards as his family and to whom he looks for his physical and emotional well-being.
On April 30, 2009 mother and father entered pleas of nolo contendere to the allegation that Glen was neglected in that he was denied proper care and Glen was adjudicated as a neglected child.
Social Worker Juanita Conyers was assigned to the case as the treatment worker between July 2008 (before Glen’s birth) and June 2010 and Social Worker Eileen Geary handled the case between June 2010 and the date of the hearing. ? Both testified and were subjected to cross examination.
The history of this case has been significant for the fact that father has been chronically unwilling or unable to keep in contact with either his son or the department of children and families on a consistent basis. ? The court cannot find that he ever had a close relationship with Glen.
Statements made by mother to a hospital social worker?22?suggest that she and father cohabited prior to the birth. ? Curiously, given that mother reported that they were cohabiting, father was not named on Glen’s birth certificate. ? That suggests to the court that either father did not attend the hospital or, if he did so, was unsure about his paternity of the baby or was simply unwilling to acknowledge the child.23
As indicated earlier, it was unclear to the court whether, or for how long, father had lived with mother and their child Glen in mother’s apartment before she was asked to leave on September 29, 2008. ? Glen was less than a month old. ? The only basis for the court to assume that father lived with mother after Glen’s birth is that mother reported on October 6, 2008 that domestic violence ?still exists? between her and father and that ?father continues to abuse drugs and alcohol.??24
Father may have suggested his father as a resource at the time mother had to leave the apartment she was living in since mother and child went to live with paternal grandfather and his wife in Waterbury. ? He had presumably nowhere of his own to offer them. ? Social Worker Conyers described father as ?transient? and referred him both to a Shelter and to supportive housing, suggesting he was not living with mother at his father’s house.
Father did not accept or follow up on the referrals to the housing resources.
Given the age of the child at the time of his removal and the probability that father was not living with mother on a consistent basis, the court finds that there was no established relationship between father and Glen at the time of the removal in October 2008. ? The court will also find that father was not an emotional or placement resource for Glen at that time.
Notwithstanding the initial lack of a finding as to paternity the department offered visits to father twice a week in 2008 after Glen’s removal. ? Those visits coincided with mother’s visits and at first took place on a regular basis, despite some concerns about the interactions between mother and father during the visits. ? Juanita Conyers, the social worker who supervised the early visits noted that father didn’t seem really connected, that it was her impression that he was ?there just to be there.? ? Father attended regularly?25?at first but then, in early 2009, the visits became more sporadic. ? He attended only two visits between April 2009 and the end of that year. ? He did not attend any scheduled Administrative Case Review (ACR) meetings.
Between January and June 2010 (when Ms. Conyers transferred the case) father attended only one visit. ? He often did not call to cancel if he was unable to attend.26??Since the visits scheduled for Glen were also with mother (and sometimes the paternal grandfather), visits with the child went ahead under DCF supervision, regardless of father’s attendance.
At some point in late 2008 or early 2009 father moved out of state to Massachusetts. ? Although the court’s file indicates that his then attorney asked for an Interstate Study in January 2009 (suggesting that father had relocated by then), the court credits Ms. Conyers’ testimony that she was not sure whether father was living in Waterbury or Massachusetts until about April 2009 when he informed her that he was living in Massachusetts with his mother. ? Ms. Conyers accepted that he might have been traveling back and forth for a time before he told her officially that he had moved.27??He did not attend the domestic violence or parenting classes to which he was referred in Waterbury. ? He attended a substance abuse evaluation but not the recommended follow-up. ? He did not obtain housing in Waterbury and did not obtain individual counseling.
The court has no information as to why father decided to relocate to Massachusetts. ? Certainly, his mother lives there?but his father (paternal grandfather) continues to reside in Waterbury. ? Since father exercised his right not to testify the court will not speculate as to his reasons other than to note that it is aware of father’s immigration issues (though it has not taken them into consideration in reaching its decision), and accepts employment opportunities may have been more available in Massachusetts than in Connecticut.
The court finds that father’s move away from Waterbury and his son and his relocation to Massachusetts was voluntary.28
Whatever the reason for father’s decision to relocate, his contact with Glen became much less frequent. ? This result was entirely foreseeable. ? The court was told that it takes about three hours to drive between Danvers Massachusetts and Waterbury.
The court will accept that it became more difficult for father to attend the programs in Connecticut to which he had been referred pursuant to the Specific Steps but finds that his efforts to find alternative equivalent programs closer to his abode were lacking in enthusiasm.
Once advised of father’s relocation to Massachusetts the department referred father to an agency in Massachusetts; ??the Massachusetts Alliance for Portuguese Speakers? (MAPS) for assistance in immigration issues, and parenting and domestic violence classes but father did not follow through with the referral.
Father did participate in a substance abuse evaluation as the result of a referral to the Center for Addictive Behavior in Massachusetts which determined that he did not need treatment. ? It was suggested during the course of questioning by father’s attorney?29?that the substance abuse evaluation may have been required under father’s conditions of probation. ? If so, the court will note that father’s motivation in obtaining the evaluation may not have been exclusively his desire to be a resource for his son.
The court heard evidence that father was on probation in Massachusetts following an incident of domestic violence with his girlfriend. ? While the court will give father credit for participating in some form of domestic violence treatment (since the DCF worker indicated that she was aware he had successfully completed the probation), no proof of such participation was tendered by either DCF or father and the court takes the view that any such participation was the result of his probation requirements rather than the Specific Steps. ? The court has no additional information as to the content of any domestic violence program or whether it was acceptable to the department.
In light of his arrest and probationary period,30?the court finds father to have been in violation of the court’s order not to be involved with the criminal justice system.
Father knew the whereabouts of the foster home as the foster mother had invited him to visit Glen there on June 18, 2009 when Glen was running a fever?31?and she testified that she had not moved since. ? Despite knowing both the identity of Glen’s foster mother and where she lived, father did not attempt to see Glen in his foster home other than that one time. ? Nor did he call him there or call the foster mother to find out how the child was doing. ? The foster mother testified that she had never received gifts, cards or other communications from father for Glen at her home. ? She testified that Glen does not talk about father.
The court heard testimony from Glen’s foster mother and found her credible.32??She clearly cares deeply for Glen who has been living with her since he was one month old. ? Her insights into interactions she had observed between father and Glen were valuable to the court.
In particular the court heard of an occasion?33?when the foster mother had been asked to be at court to testify. ? She said that she brought a neighbor for support and decided to bring Glen as well ?so that people would know who we were talking about.? ? She described sharing a large waiting room with Glen and her neighbor, social worker Juanita Conyers and father and his girlfriend. ? The only other person present in the waiting room was a ?sheriff.? ? They had all been sitting and waiting for about forty minutes when Glen went up to father and a brief exchange took place. ? The foster mother recalled that Glen had asked his father his name and father responded with his first name ?Franklin? and asked Glen his name. ? Glen replied ?Big Boy.? The two ?high-fived? and then father turned to talk to his girlfriend.34??There was no other interaction between Glen and his father and no further effort by father to engage Glen or, apparently, even to introduce him to his girlfriend. ? He did not, it seems, speak to the foster mother either.
The foster mother contrasted her observations of the few interactions she had seen between Glen and his father with the more emotional bond she had observed between Glen and his paternal grandfather whom she occasionally met by chance in the community. ? She noted that the paternal grandfather was very affectionate towards Glen. In contrast, she felt that father did not interact with Glen ?as a father should? or show affection towards him.
As stated, the department continued to offer father visits on a weekly basis but the frequency of father’s visits with Glen declined markedly in 2009 and 2010. ? The court credits the testimony of Ms. Conyers that, as of June 2, 2010 (approximately twenty months after Glen was removed) father had participated in a total of twenty visits with his son. ? However, the visits were not evenly spread out over that period. ? Twelve visits occurred in the first three months (October to the end of December 2008), eight between January 2009 and January 2010, (only two of which occurred between April and the end of the year) and one between January 2010 and June 2010.
Social worker Eileen Geary testified that she became the worker on the case in June of 2010. ? She left phone messages and wrote to father that month but did not hear from him until July 2010 when he unexpectedly attended a Friday visit with mother. ? Father was then offered the opportunity of recommencing his weekly visits on Fridays but requested that Ms. Geary schedule visits for him for Tuesdays as Friday was not convenient for his work schedule. ? She did so but father then failed to attend visits once they were changed to Tuesdays.
The next time Ms. Geary saw father was at a court date in September 2010 when there was discussion about visits and the possibility that they might take place on Saturdays Ms. Geary wrote to father in October 2010?35asking that he contact her to schedule visits. ? The correspondence indicates that she had offered to change them from Fridays, which were inconvenient for father to Tuesday mornings, which were apparently also inconvenient, there is no indication that father responded at that time.
Despite father’s previous failure to attend the visits offered, DCF continued to offer weekly visits. ? However, the first time that father actually attended a visit after September 2010?36?was in March 2011.
In March 2011 father asked that the visits be bi-weekly reportedly to accommodate his employment and thereafter the visits were scheduled bi-weekly.37
In March 2011 (after the visits became bi-weekly), father was accompanied to his visit by his mother and a five-year-old female child called Ashley. ? As far as the court is aware, this was the first time that the paternal grandmother had attended a visit.38??Ms. Geary, who supervised the visit, noted that Glen played with Ashley, who was relatively close to him in age, and that father did not interact much with Glen. She was not asked about grandmother’s interaction with Glen?possibly because at that time father had not filed his Motion to Transfer Guardianship to grandmother and so the interaction between the two was of little relevance.
Ms. Geary had invited Glen’s foster-mother to attend the visit in order to reassure Glen. Ms. Geary and the foster mother asked father whether he had any questions about Glen and his progress, but Ms. Geary reported that father had no questions of either of them.
After a couple of visits held during the week, father requested Saturday visits and the department made arrangements to accommodate him. ? Since the DCF office is closed on Saturdays the meeting took place in the community.
The first Saturday visit took place on April 30, 2011 in Washington Park in Waterbury. ? It did not go well. ? The court accepts the account of the visit given by Ms. Geary. ? She had anticipated that the visit would be attended only by father, his mother and her husband and the child Ashley but when she arrived at the meeting place with Glen an additional five or six people approached. ? Ms. Geary was concerned and asked who they were but was told that they were ?family? and that she should not even ask. ? She did not initially recognize anyone other than the visitors she had expected and became uncomfortable about the situation. ? She testified that the situation began to escalate and that father told her that she was interfering. ? Father and his mother began to shout. ? Ms. Geary told them that if the others continued to approach she would end the visit. ? Fortunately, the paternal step-grandfather remained calm and the other ?family members? backed off. ? Ms. Geary then recognized Glen’s paternal grandfather with whom she was familiar and the visit continued. ? She requested that in the future only father, his mother, her husband (paternal step-grandfather) and Ashley attend visits.
Another Saturday visit, supervised by a different worker, was reported to have gone well but then, in the first week of June 2011, father asked whether his sister could come to the visit since he needed her to provide transportation.39??The department denied the request because Glen was not familiar with father’s sister. ? When Ms. Geary brought Glen to the Park for the visit others, presumably including father’s sister, were present. ? Ms. Geary felt that the atmosphere was tense. ? Subsequently family members including father, his mother and his sister started to shout at her, apparently ignoring the potential or actual effect on Glen. Ms. Geary felt intimidated and left with Glen, canceling the visit. ? The cancellation upset Glen who had been looking forward to playing in the park. ? Since two out of the four community visits had been problematic, the department then withdrew its support for Saturday visits in the community for security reasons.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the foster mother testified that Glen has been distressed at leaving her for a visit with father and atypically ?clingy? following visits.
Weekday visits in the DCF office continued to be offered but father did not attend. ? It was not until the second week of July (after the commencement of the TPR Hearing) that father contacted the department to arrange further visits. ? A visit was offered that week but father was unable to get to it. ? The court understands that he neither requested nor attended another visit with Glen prior to the last day of the Hearing.
The following family resources were considered by the department
Paternal Grandfather
Father proposed his father, Jose D.,40?as a possible resource early in the case and Glen’s paternal grandfather?who lives in Waterbury?visited Glen on a regular basis for some time. ? Unfortunately, the department was advised that it could not place Glen with his grandfather because of grandfather’s lack of legal residence in this country.41??Paternal grandfather has not been visiting recently, although, according to the foster mother, he occasionally sees and greets Glen in the community.42??The paternal grandfather also reportedly attended at least one of the meetings in the community in the earlier part of 2011. ? As far as the court is aware his legal status still precludes the department considering him as a placement resource.
Paternal grandmother
The paternal grandmother, Maria Lora (?grandmother?) appeared and testified in the Hearing. ? The court heard from her and from DCF witnesses that she had offered herself as a resource for Glen, although it was unclear precisely when that offer was made.43
The department was originally unable to consider her as a placement resource because of her immigration status. ? At some time her then paramour, (now husband), offered himself as a resource. ? The department was considering him as a placement until it determined that he was still married to someone other than grandmother. ? He subsequently divorced his wife and married grandmother. ? The department advised her that it would consider her as a placement resource once her immigration status was resolved.44??Although it appears that her marriage took place on September 23, 2010 and that father advised the department that his mother had her residency paperwork in December 2010, the court is satisfied that it was not until March 2011 that DCF was actually supplied with (partial) paperwork indicating grandmother’s legal residency status. ? This unexplained delay between December 2010 and March 2011 in supplying the department with the paperwork confirming grandmother’s residency status is concerning since the department had made it abundantly clear that legal residence, at least, was essential for a relative to be considered as a placement resource for a child.
This delay was not explained by grandmother but is entirely consistent with the desultory way that father conducted his efforts to be a resource for Glen.
Mrs. Lora has never moved to be considered as an intervening party in the case.
III
Motion for Transfer of Guardianship
On September 13, 2011, on the fourth day of the Hearing and nearly three years after the Order of Temporary Custody, father filed a Motion to transfer guardianship to paternal grandmother together with a Motion for the court to order an interstate study. ? Since grandmother lives in Massachusetts, an interstate study would be required pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) and In re Yarisha F., 121 Conn.App. 150 (2010). ? Without such study and the agreement of the accepting state, transfer of guardianship to a relative residing out of state is not be possible.
The parties agreed that the court could consolidate its decision on these Motions with its Decision on the petitioner’s Termination of Parental Rights Petition. ? Unfortunately, although father offered grandmother as a witness her testimony took place before father’s motion to Transfer Guardianship was filed and so she was not asked questions relating to the Motion. ? She was not recalled after the Motion was filed.
Other witnesses who testified before the Motion was filed were also not asked to address grandmother’s involvement with Glen over the course of the case since that issue was not then before the court.
The court finds that Mrs. Lora has demonstrated little interest in establishing and developing a relationship with Glen. The only early indication of her interest in being a resource for Glen, so far as the court is aware, is that she (presumably) encouraged her then boyfriend, a citizen, to offer himself as a placement resource. ? He was deemed inappropriate when it was determined that he was still married to a woman other than grandmother. ? Grandmother was advised by the department that it could not consider licensing her while her status in this country was unsettled. ? Grandmother than married her boyfriend in September 2010. ? She again told the department that she would be interested in being a resource for Glen and was asked to provide proof of her legal status. ? The proof was not supplied until approximately March 2011. ? She gave no explanation for her delay in furnishing the department with proof of her legal resident status after her marriage.
There is no evidence that the department prevented grandmother from seeing the child at any time, notwithstanding the fact that DCF could not license her. ? The court notes that visits were afforded to the paternal grandfather even though he was also ineligible to have Glen placed with him by the department. ? There was no objection to grandmother accompanying father to visits that took place after the beginning of March 2011?or at any other time.
The court does not find grandmother’s claim to have visited Glen after he was in the custody of the department and prior to March 2011 credible. ? Each of father’s visits was supervised but DCF has no record of grandmother attending visits until March 2011.45
The court does not credit grandmother’s testimony that she had called DCF persistently prior to September 2010 but could never make contact with anyone. ? The court finds that grandmother did not demonstrate much, if any, interest in seeing the child until she spoke to a DCF worker at a court date in September 2010 despite her testimony that she met Glen after his birth and the paternity finding establishing a blood relationship nearly two years earlier.
While she could not initially be considered as a placement resource by the department the court feels that grandmother could have shown more interest and made more effort to establish a relationship with Glen if, as she claimed, she has ?always wanted to be a part of [Glen’s] life.?
There was no evidence that grandmother ever asked for visits?46?(or attended with father at the few visits he went to) before March 2011 when she and father indicated that they wanted bi-weekly visits instead of the once-a-week visits the department had offered consistently throughout the case.
Grandmother testified she had been to four visits (all after March 2011) which had been at the park and gone ?well.? ? Since the court credits Ms. Geary’s testimony that family members disrupted two of those visits?to such an extent that she removed Glen before the visit had taken place on one occasion?the court is left to wonder what grandmother considers to be appropriate behavior when meeting her two-and a half-year-old grandson.
Grandmother conceded that she has not sent her grandson gifts, explaining that she wanted to give them to him herself. ? The court finds that the result of that preference was that she had no actual contact with the child from at least the time of his removal?47?until March 2011, when Glen was already two and a half years old. ? Ms. Geary testified that she had invited paternal grandmother to send gifts to Glen through her. ? The court notes that Ms. Geary agreed that grandmother had given her items for Glen sometime after March 2011?48?but not before.
Even when Ms. Lora did accompany father to the visits in 2011, the court believes that they could not have improved her relationship with Glen. At the first visit in March 2011 Glen was described as spending his time playing with another child rather than interacting with father?or, by implication?grandmother. ? On two out of three subsequent visits the court credits Ms. Geary’s testimony that there were raised voices and tension and that on neither occasion did Mrs. Lora act as a calming influence (though her husband is credited with doing so). ? In fact the testimony supported the inference that Mrs. Lora was one of those whose behavior was most disruptive. ? In allowing herself to vent her frustration with the department in the presence of the child, she showed an indifference to Glen’s emotional state that the court finds disturbing.
Grandmother testified that she last saw Glen three months before the date of her testimony. ? Her explanation was that she couldn’t see him without an appointment and that (yet again) she had been unable to get through to DCF. The court notes that father did not see Glen during this period either. ? Neither father nor grandmother claim that the department denied visits to either during this period. ? The court does not accept the argument that the department’s decision to withdraw the arrangements for Saturday visits in the community as a result of the safety concerns denied visits to father (or grandmother), although it may have made them less convenient.49??The court finds the department’s reasons for withdrawing the accommodations it had made to allow weekend visits reasonable in light of the behaviors exhibited by father’s family.
The court does not believe, based on the minimal contact between Glen and his grandmother and Glen’s age, that he has any kind of emotional bond with her over and above that which he would have with a virtual stranger.
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the Motion for Transfer of Guardianship finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be placed with a person with whom he has no emotional bond, notwithstanding any blood ties.
Since the Motion is denied, the court finds the Motion for the ICPC study?50?on grandmother is moot.
IV
REASONABLE EFFORTS AT LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION
Section 17a?112 imposes on the department the duty, inter alia, to make reasonable efforts to reunite the child or children with the parents. ? The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department’s efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof. ? Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn ? [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible ? The trial court’s determination of this issue will not be overturned on appeal unless, in light of all of the evidence in the record, it is clearly erroneous. ?(Internal quotation marks omitted.) ? In re G.S., 117 Conn.App. 710, 716, 980 A.2d 935, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919, 984 A.2d 67 (2009). ?In re Luciano B., 129 Conn.App. 449, 459, 60 (2011).
Father did not keep the department notified of his changes of address but the department continued to send him letters and tried to call him on the telephone number he had given. ? The department continued to recommend services that would benefit father and enable him to comply with his specific steps.51
Father complained during the trial that the department had failed to make efforts to bring Glen to visit him in Massachusetts, making the point that it was difficult for him to make the three-hour trip?52?between Beverley, Massachusetts and Connecticut. ? In so doing, he ignored the fact that a six-hour round trip?53?for a child under three is a substantial endeavor and considerably more difficult than for an adult. ? The court does not find that it was reasonable to expect the department to take Glen to meet with father in Massachusetts.
No evidence was given that the journey back to Waterbury imposed an insurmountable financial hardship for father. ? The court finds that father never requested financial assistance to assist him to visit Glen or indicated prior to the Hearing that transportation was a problem. ? Ms. Geary testified that she had investigated the possibility of providing financial assistance or bus tickets to assist father but indicated that she did so to be proactive and not as the result of a request by father.54??He was seen by DCF social workers driving a vehicle (even though there was no evidence as to whether it was his or belonged to someone else).55
During the Hearing father suggested that it might have been possible to arrange visits at some half-way point between Waterbury and where he lived, but the court had no evidence that he had ever made that suggestion to DCF prior to the Hearing. ? While a three-hour round trip (excluding the actual visit) might have been easier for a child of Glen’s age to tolerate than a six-plus hour visit, the court does not find the department’s failure to suggest it unreasonable.
There was no evidence before the court that father would have visited more regularly if the accommodations he suggested for the first time at the Hearing had been made. ? Father’s given reasons for being unable to attend visits were that he was working or (once) visiting his probation officer. ? The court was told that he asked for different days of the weeks for visits?but the reason given was to accommodate his work schedule and not because of transportation difficulties. ? The court notes that the department accommodated his requests for different days for the visits but he still did not attend.
Father argued that the department’s failure to advocate for him to Massachusetts when submitting the request for the ICPC study showed lack of reasonable efforts to reunite him with Glen.
Although the department could have commenced a request for an interstate study with Massachusetts when first aware that father had moved, there was no court order to do so until March 2011, nor was any motion filed with the court requesting the department be ordered to file a request.56??The court issued the order sua sponte on March 17, 2011 when it became clear that father wished to contest the TPR petition and still resided in Massachusetts. ? The court takes judicial notice of the fact that the department’s permanency plans prior to that point had contemplated reunification with either parent and that mother continued to be based in Waterbury. ? The court also notes that father was not in regular contact with the department and, as noted above, may have moved within Massachusetts without notifying the department.
Once the department was ordered to request the State of Massachusetts to commence an interstate it did so. ? Massachusetts denied the request. ? Father argued at the Hearing that the department had not acted in good faith when submitting the request [Respondent’s Exhibit F?1].
The court has reviewed the paperwork submitted and finds that while the department certainly did not strongly advocate for the placement, the information provided was fundamentally accurate. ? The reasons given in the e-mail from David Butler (described as ICPC coordinator from Boston) for declining to assign the request for a study were that there had been little contact between father and son since the child was in DCF care, that he continued to be criminally involved in Massachusetts, that there was no evidence that he had done any work on his substance abuse or domestic violence issues, that he had not completed court ordered services or attended hearings?57?and that there was a current plan of TPR in place. ? Since Mr. Butler did not testify the court does not know what weight was given to each of the reasons or whether information that father had apparently completed a substance abuse evaluation and a domestic violence program (through probation or otherwise) would have changed Massachusetts’ decision to decline to conduct the study. ? Father did not request any reconsideration through the department or administratively through the ICPC process. ? This court is not an appropriate forum to contest Massachusetts’ decision. ? This court may only consider the issue in the context of determining the department’s reasonable efforts to reunify father with Glen. The court finds that when the Request was submitted on May 11, 2011, the information given to Massachusetts was consistent with the testimony given in court that father had not provided evidence of compliance with domestic violence counseling, had not complied with specific steps, was involved with the criminal justice system in Massachusetts, had missed court hearings and had visited Glen infrequently.
The court finds that the department acted reasonably in submitting the Request for an ICPC study and that the department was not required to take Massachusetts’ denial of the request any further.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify Glenn with his father.
V
ADJUDICATORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
The clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the petitioner has met her burden of proving the statutory grounds for terminating father’s parental rights as follows:
A.?ABANDONMENT
The first of two grounds alleged against father is abandonment (Connecticut General Statutes section 17a?112(j)(3)(A)).
Pursuant to ??45a?717?(g)(2)(A), the court may grant a petition terminating the parental rights of a respondent if it finds, on clear and convincing evidence, that the termination is in the best interest of the child and that ?the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.?
We have stated that ?[a]bandonment focuses on the parent’s conduct ? A lack of interest in the child is not the sole criterion in determining abandonment ? Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child ? Abandonment occurs where a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child’s welfare.?
Moreover, we have identified the minimal parental obligations for determination of whether abandonment has occurred. ??The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes: ?(1) express love and affection for the child; ?(2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child; ?(3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care; ?(4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; ?and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.? ?(Citations omitted; ?Internal quotation marks omitted.)
In re Angellica W., supra, 49 Conn.App. 541, 551 (1998).
Father has demonstrated very little interest in his child or in maintaining or developing a relationship with him. ? In reviewing the testimony of DCF social workers Conyers and Geary it seems that father has taken the opportunity to visit with Glen a total of twenty-five times in the three years since his removal. ? Twelve of those visits took place in the first three months between Glen’s birth and January 2009. ? Approximately five took place after March 2011, well after the Termination Petition was filed. ? The court understands that there were logistical difficulties in that father moved to Massachusetts at some point, but it was father’s decision to make that move and he did so knowing that it would put him some three hours’ drive from his son.
The court also notes the dearth of any evidence that father proactively sought information about Glen’s progress and well-being from either DCF or Glen’s foster-mother or sent him gifts or photographs that might be designed to remind this little boy that he had a father. ? The court found the testimony of the foster mother about the meeting at court particularly telling. ? Either father simply did not recognize either Glen or the foster mother, (and couldn’t be bothered to ask the only other people in the waiting room whether they were associated with the same case), or he missed an opportunity to engage with Glen and get to know his (now verbal) son.
The Specific Steps are designed as a guide to enable a parent to rehabilitate; ?to be the best parent they can be for their child. ? Instead of maintaining his contacts with Glen?essential to creating, developing or retaining a relationship with a child of any age, let alone one as young as Glen?father reduced the number of the visits, which should have been an integral part of making him someone who could play a role in his child’s life, to the point that they must have been almost meaningless to a one-to two-year-old. ? Furthermore, even when father did attend a series of visits in March through June 2011?58?the visits were unproductive. ? On the first occasion he was content to allow Glen to play with another child rather than engaging with him himself and on two of the four subsequent visits allowed the situation to deteriorate to a point that the DCF worker was concerned for her own and the child’s safety.
The court understands that father’s family wanted to see Glen (though no one had contacted the foster mother or the department). ? However, a moment of thought should have caused father to consider whether his young son would be either overwhelmed by the addition of strangers or so distracted by them that the purposes of the visits; ?to build a relationship between father and son and to educate him in parenting his child would be missed.
The court is left with the impression that in seeking visits, father was, at best, ?going through the motions? for reasons of his own and had no real interest in the child.
The court finds that there was no evidence of any relationship between father and Glen before Glen’s removal at one month of age and very little evidence that father made any effort to establish or maintain a relationship with his son thereafter.
Based on the facts set out above, this court finds that father did not fulfill his minimal parental obligations. ? The court further finds that father’s rare visits were insufficient to meet those obligations and finds that the petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that father abandoned Glen.
B.?Failure to Rehabilitate
The second of the two grounds alleged against father is that in a prior proceeding Glen was found to have been neglected and father has failed to achieve that degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. ? Connecticut General Statutes section 17a?112(j)(3)(B)(1).
It is a matter of record that Glen was adjudicated as neglected on April 30, 2009.
The court is satisfied that father has not made any sustained effort to rehabilitate himself so as to establish or maintain a relationship with Glen.
1?Father failed to comply with Specific Steps ordered by the court.
On October 1, 2008, the court (Baldwin J.) approved final Specific Steps as part of the disposition of the OTC Father signed the steps [Petitioner’s Exhibit D] acknowledging that he understood that failure to comply with the Steps would increase the chance that the department would file a TPR Petition. ? He has failed to comply with several of the Steps.
(a.)?Father has not visited Glen as often as DCF permitted or maintained any reasonable degree of contact with Glen.
Father was offered weekly visits with Glen in 2008 and 2009. ? As has already been set out in greater detail above, he attended twelve visits between the date of Glen’s removal in early October to the end of the 2008 year; ?visiting at least once a week. ? Many of those visits took place at the same time as mother’s visits and were reportedly occasionally marred by father criticizing mother. ? No other concerns were noted save that the social worker stated that she felt father was just there to be there and not because of interest in Glen. After January 2009 he attended approximately thirteen visits over the next two years and nine months (as previously described) even though the department continued to offer weekly visits and despite the day of that visit being changed at father’s request.
The court heard testimony from the petitioner’s Social Workers that father claimed to be working many hours. ? The court will accept claim that even though proof of that work was minimal and consisted only of the recent Earnings Statements offered as Respondent’s Exhibits F?3 and F?4. Certainly, father’s work schedule was his excuse for being unable to attend visits and had caused him to request different visitation days?even though he did not then take adequate advantage of the accommodations offered to him. ? Even if the court accepts that his work schedule was onerous, father could have made an effort to show some interest in Glen by remaining in contact with those who could tell him how his son was doing. ? He did not.
(b.)?Father did not take steps to keep in contact with DCF or with those caring for Glen.
Glen’s foster mother testified that father had visited Glen at her home on one occasion in 2009 when Glen had a fever and she had offered to allow the visit to take place at her home so the child did not need to leave. ? She said that had not moved since so father knew where she lived. ? She claimed, and the court accepts, that father had not called to ask how Glen was doing and had not sent photographs, clothing or gifts to her home for him. ? She also said she had only ever received one phone call from father.59
On the occasion when she attended a visit father did not take the opportunity to ask her about Glen. She had not been contacted by any other relative?despite giving paternal grandfather her phone number.
The court finds that father had the means of contacting DCF and knew the telephone number of the social workers involved in the case since he communicated occasionally with the DCF social workers by phone?60?and received correspondence from them. ? On the occasions he did call, the court was told that he did not use the calls to ask about Glen, though the social workers used the opportunity to give him information about his son.
Father did not attend Administrative Case Reviews (ACRs) scheduled by the department to discuss plans for Glen.
Father did not keep the department informed of his whereabouts at all times in accordance with the Specific Steps. ? At some time between June 2010 and December 2010 father appears either to have moved within Massachusetts without updating the department with his address as required or to have declined to pick up mail sent to the address on the department’s files.61
It was unclear to the court whether, as the result of his moves within Massachusetts, father received all the letters sent to him by DCF (offered by the child’s attorney and admitted as exhibits C?1, C?2 and C?3) but the court credits testimony that DCF social workers did try to keep in contact with him by mail and telephone at least monthly.
(c).?Father’s compliance with other requirements of the court’s Specific Steps was also either incomplete or undemonstrated.
Initially, father was referred to parenting education classes held in Waterbury so that he could better understand Glen’s development, needs and abilities and to Safe Haven to address the concerns about domestic violence raised by mother’s disclosures. ? Social Worker Juanita Conyers testified that she had advised father of the referrals when she spoke to him. ? He did not attend those referrals.
Farther did attend a substance abuse evaluation conducted in Waterbury but did not attend the recommended follow-up treatment. ? It was unclear to the court whether he had in fact moved out of Waterbury when the referrals were made but, if so, he did not tell Ms. Conyers that he had moved when advised of the referrals or explain his difficulties in complying with them.
Once she was sure that father had moved to Massachusetts, Ms. Conyers referred father to Massachusetts Alliance for Portuguese Speakers (MAPS) for assistance with immigration issues as well as to a substance abuse program in Massachusetts. ? There was no evidence before the court that father had ever gone to MAPS or sought its assistance.
Father did attend a substance abuse evaluation in Massachusetts and provided a specimen which was negative. ? No further treatment was recommended.
Once father had moved to Massachusetts, the department decided that parenting instruction could take place during the visits with Glen instead of through an agency or service provider offering classes in a more formal setting. ? Parenting instruction could not take place because of father’s infrequent attendance at visits. ? Father did not attend any other parenting classes.
When Ms. Geary took over supervision of the case in June 2010 she again offered referrals to parenting classes, domestic violence classes, and for a substance abuse assessment. ? She also encouraged him to seek assistance for immigration issues with the Massachusetts Alliance for Portuguese Speakers (MAPS).
Father did obtain a substance abuse assessment which indicated that he did not need treatment. ? He did not attend parenting classes.
Father told the department that he was on probation for a domestic violence incident (with his current girlfriend) following an arrest on Christmas Day, 2010 and provided a Release so the department could speak to his probation officer. ? The department requested proof of compliance with domestic violence treatment from the Massachusetts probation officer but it had not been furnished at the time of the Hearing. ? The court will give father the benefit of the doubt and assume that father complied with domestic violence counseling as part of his probation. ? However, his involvement with the criminal justice system was a violation of his Steps.
The court finds that father was employed based on his representations to DCF that he needed to change visits to fit in with his work schedule?62?but notes that he only produced a couple of pay stubs [Exhibits F?3 and F?4] to substantiate his income. ? The court finds that the department had requested proof of employment during the history of this case but had not previously been given such proof.
Although the court accepts that father has been employed, Glen has not seen the benefit of that employment; ?indeed he has clearly been considered as being of less importance than father’s employment yet there is no evidence before the court that father’s employment has led to him being in any better position to care for his son.
In summary, the court will find that father’s compliance with the Specific Steps has been inconsistent. ? He complied with a substance abuse evaluation in Connecticut but did not follow through with the recommended treatment. ? He was later reevaluated in Massachusetts and there was no recommendation for treatment. ? He did not take parenting classes and was unable to obtain any benefit from parenting advice available from the visitation supervisors since he attended so infrequently.
Father did not keep the department informed of his address. ? He was involved with the criminal justice system?63?after an arrest for a domestic violence incident. ? He was given a period of probation.64??The court will credit the probability that domestic violence counseling was a part of the disposition of his case, but no evidence of a successful completion of any domestic violence program was produced.
The department has not been shown any indication that father approached the MAPS program in an attempt to get help with his immigration issues, which appear unresolved. ? While the court does not hold his status against father, the fact remains that his employment options and therefore his ability to care for Glen would be improved if he obtained a Green Card.
Although only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition; ?In re Juvenile Appeal (84?BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258 (1984); ?In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 234 (2000), the court finds that the petitioner has also sustained her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the Grounds set out in Connecticut General Statutes section 17a?112(j)(3)(B)(1) that Glen was adjudicated as neglected and that father has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in Glen’s life.
VI
Best interest of the Child
If a ground for termination is proven, the court must next consider the disposition stage. ? Therein, the court must consider whether the facts, as of the last day of trial, establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest.
Glen is a happy healthy three-year-old who has lived with his current foster family since he was approximately one month old. ? He is bonded to the family whom he regards as his family and who love and cherish him. ? He has little or no relationship with his father or, with the possible exception of his paternal grandfather, his father’s family. ? His current placement is an adoptive resource. ? It is the only family he has ever known. ? Mother has consented to the termination of her parental rights. ? Father has made very little effort to be a factor in his son’s life even ignoring the boy when presented with an unexpected opportunity to bond with him. ? Glen is distressed when he has to leave his foster mother for visits with father.
Glen needs a permanent stable loving home and a family that cares for him and makes him a priority in their lives. ? The court finds that his foster family does so.
The clear and convincing evidence is that it is in the best interests of Glen that his father’s parental rights be terminated
VII
Mandated Factual Findings
It is axiomatic that ? ?[i]n the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent’s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. ? In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make [the seven] written findings delineated in [??17a?112(k)?].? ?(Internal quotation marks omitted.) ?In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 794?95, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008).? ?In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 204 n.12, 962 A.2d 81 (2009) (Schaller, J., concurring). ? See also In re Joseph L., 105 Conn.App. 515, 529, 939 A.2d 16, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 902, 947 A.2d 341, 342 (2008). ? The Appellate court has consistently reaffirmed that ??17a?112(k)’ s ? ?seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ? There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence ?? ? In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 211, 15 A.3d 194 (2011), citing In re Jocquyce C., 124 Conn.App. 619, 628?29, 5 A.3d 575 (2010). ? See also In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).
Using this standard, the court finds has made each of the following seven required statutory findings based upon evidence.
1.?The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to facilitate the reunion of child with parent.
The department offered father the following supports and referrals:
The Morris Foundation for substance abuse treatment
SafeHaven for domestic violence counseling
Catholic Charities for parenting classes
DNA testing for paternity
Supportive Housing for assistance with obtaining housing in Waterbury.
Center for Addictive Behavior (CAB), Massachusetts
Massachusetts Alliance for Portuguese Speakers in Massachusetts for assistance in immigration issues and domestic violence and parenting classes.
Case management services including letters and phone calls to father.
Opportunities for supervised visitation.
2.?Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Child Welfare Act of 1980.
The court finds that the department made reasonable efforts to reunite the family consistent with its abilities given father’s decision to reside out of state.
3.?The terms of any applicable court order, and the extent to which the respondent father has fulfilled their obligation under the order.
The court finds that, as described previously, father has failed to comply with several of the Specific Steps ordered by the court. ? He has failed to keep in contact with the department, failed to visit with his son as often as possible and failed to comply with referrals to programs. ? He has been involved with the criminal justice system in Massachusetts for an incident of domestic violence.
4.?The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to parent(s) and guardian and any person who has exercised physical care, custody and control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.
The court heard no evidence to suggest that Glen has any feelings or emotional ties to father over and above those connections he might have with anyone whom he has seen infrequently.
He is emotionally bonded with his foster mother and family with whom he has lived for over three years and whom he regards as his psychological parent and family.
5.?Age of the child.
Glen was born on September 5, 2008 and is therefore three years and four months old.
6.?Parent’s efforts to adjust his circumstances to make it in the best interest of the child to return him to his home in the foreseeable future, including extent of parental contact with child.
The court finds that father has made little, if any effort to adjust his circumstances so as to make it in the best interest of Glen to establish a home with him. ? The adjustments he has made to his life (moving to another state and working long hours) have caused less contact with Glen rather than the reverse. ? He has not maintained contact with the department or Glen’s foster mother
7.?Extent to which the parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by unreasonable acts of child, other parent, or other person or by economic circumstances.
The court has heard no evidence to suggest that father has been prevented from establishing or maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable acts of any person or agency or by economic circumstances.
VIII
ORDER OF TERMINATION
WHEREFORE, the court issues the following ORDERS:
That the respondent father’s parental rights to Glen are hereby terminated.
That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Glen for the purpose of securing adoptive or other permanent placement for this child.
That 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, 6th District, at Waterbury, of the date when said adoption is finalized.
That DCF shall submit a permanency plan within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.
That primary consideration for adoption of Glen shall be offered to the current foster parent(s).
BY THE COURT,
ESCHUK, J.
FOOTNOTES
FN2.?Petitioner’s Exhibit D..??FN2.?Petitioner’s Exhibit D.
FN3.?Connecticut General Statutes section 17a?112(j)(3)(A) the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child;Connecticut General Statutes section 17a?112(j)(3)(B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court ? to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, ? and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child;.??FN3.?Connecticut General Statutes section 17a?112(j)(3)(A) the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child;Connecticut General Statutes section 17a?112(j)(3)(B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court ? to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, ? and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child;
FN4.?Letters sent by certified mail to addresses supplied by the department were returned by the Post Office as uncollected. ? Father supplied a new address when at court in September 2010. ? In addition, a summons to appear was sent by certified mail to father for December 12, 2010 at a new address obtained for him. ? That certified mail was signed for by father..??FN4.?Letters sent by certified mail to addresses supplied by the department were returned by the Post Office as uncollected. ? Father supplied a new address when at court in September 2010. ? In addition, a summons to appear was sent by certified mail to father for December 12, 2010 at a new address obtained for him. ? That certified mail was signed for by father.
FN5.?Father appeared in court on September 29, 2010 and received a copy of the TPR petition but refused to waive formal service, though the court (Upson J.) found he had actual notice of the proceedings. ? DCF was ordered to make service on father at the new address he had put on his application for counsel for October 27, 2010. ? On that date DCF was unable to prove service. ? A certified letter sent to the address supplied on November 23, 2010 was returned unclaimed..??FN5.?Father appeared in court on September 29, 2010 and received a copy of the TPR petition but refused to waive formal service, though the court (Upson J.) found he had actual notice of the proceedings. ? DCF was ordered to make service on father at the new address he had put on his application for counsel for October 27, 2010. ? On that date DCF was unable to prove service. ? A certified letter sent to the address supplied on November 23, 2010 was returned unclaimed.
FN6.?The foster mother’s identity is known to the respondent father but her name will not appear in this Decision..??FN6.?The foster mother’s identity is known to the respondent father but her name will not appear in this Decision.
FN7.?Father was advised by the court sua sponte that, pursuant to Practice Book section 35a?7A, the court was permitted to draw an adverse inference from his decision not to testify..??FN7.?Father was advised by the court sua sponte that, pursuant to Practice Book section 35a?7A, the court was permitted to draw an adverse inference from his decision not to testify.
FN8.?State’s Exhibit A..??FN8.?State’s Exhibit A.
FN9.?State’s Exhibit B..??FN9.?State’s Exhibit B.
FN10.?State’s Exhibit C?1..??FN10.?State’s Exhibit C?1.
FN11.?The court was not told who mother claimed had endangered Glen and will not assume that it was father..??FN11.?The court was not told who mother claimed had endangered Glen and will not assume that it was father.
FN12.?State’s Exhibit C?1. The court was not told of the reason for the eviction threats..??FN12.?State’s Exhibit C?1. The court was not told of the reason for the eviction threats.
FN13.?State’s Exhibit C?1..??FN13.?State’s Exhibit C?1.
FN14.?This historical information is taken from an affidavit by S/W Conyers dated October 7, 2008 [Petitioner’s Exhibit C?1] and by taking judicial notice of the court’s file..??FN14.?This historical information is taken from an affidavit by S/W Conyers dated October 7, 2008 [Petitioner’s Exhibit C?1] and by taking judicial notice of the court’s file.
FN15.?It is not clear to the court whether it would have been possible for father to care for Glen in his father’s home. ? While father’s paternity was not settled the testimony of Ms. Conyers implied that the department would have considered father if he had been able to provide accommodation for Glen..??FN15.?It is not clear to the court whether it would have been possible for father to care for Glen in his father’s home. ? While father’s paternity was not settled the testimony of Ms. Conyers implied that the department would have considered father if he had been able to provide accommodation for Glen.
FN16.?There was no evidence as to whether father could have taken Glen to a Shelter with him..??FN16.?There was no evidence as to whether father could have taken Glen to a Shelter with him.
FN17.?Reportedly this was in accordance with DCF policy..??FN17.?Reportedly this was in accordance with DCF policy.
FN18.?Unfortunately the paternal grandfather’s status as an undocumented alien prevented the department from placing Glen with him and his wife..??FN18.?Unfortunately the paternal grandfather’s status as an undocumented alien prevented the department from placing Glen with him and his wife.
FN19.?State’s Exhibit B..??FN19.?State’s Exhibit B.
FN20.?State’s Exhibit D..??FN20.?State’s Exhibit D.
FN21.?An earlier diagnosis of asthma seems to have resolved..??FN21.?An earlier diagnosis of asthma seems to have resolved.
FN22.?Social Worker Affidavit [Petitioner’s Exhibit C?1]..??FN22.?Social Worker Affidavit [Petitioner’s Exhibit C?1].
FN23.?The early history is complicated by the fact that mother was extremely cognitively limited so may not have been a reliable reporter..??FN23.?The early history is complicated by the fact that mother was extremely cognitively limited so may not have been a reliable reporter.
FN24.?State’s Exhibit C?1..??FN24.?State’s Exhibit C?1.
FN25.?Although there was testimony that father had been offered visits twice a week he seems to have attended once a week during this time..??FN25.?Although there was testimony that father had been offered visits twice a week he seems to have attended once a week during this time.
FN26.?On March 17, 2009, the department advised the court that neither parent had visited Glen for two months..??FN26.?On March 17, 2009, the department advised the court that neither parent had visited Glen for two months.
FN27.?Ms. Conyers had apparently reported in a document not before the court that the department was aware that father had moved to Massachusetts in, or by, December 2008. ? She agreed with counsel for respondent father that information was accurate but stated that the information had not been confirmed by father until April 2009..??FN27.?Ms. Conyers had apparently reported in a document not before the court that the department was aware that father had moved to Massachusetts in, or by, December 2008. ? She agreed with counsel for respondent father that information was accurate but stated that the information had not been confirmed by father until April 2009.
FN28.?In contrast to the involuntary absence of someone held in a correctional facility or deported..??FN28.?In contrast to the involuntary absence of someone held in a correctional facility or deported.
FN29.?Transcript 9/13/11 46;25..??FN29.?Transcript 9/13/11 46;25.
FN30.?The ?probation? may have been a pre-trial probation leading to a dismissal of the charges without a conviction. ? It is the involvement with the system that triggers the non-compliance with Specific Steps. ? The court will not consider a motor vehicle ticket referred to in testimony as a violation..??FN30.?The ?probation? may have been a pre-trial probation leading to a dismissal of the charges without a conviction. ? It is the involvement with the system that triggers the non-compliance with Specific Steps. ? The court will not consider a motor vehicle ticket referred to in testimony as a violation.
FN31.?State’s Exhibit H1..??FN31.?State’s Exhibit H1.
FN32.?The foster mother testified that she had been willing to have an open adoption for Glen’s younger sibling but that the parents had decided to place the baby privately. ? The court considered her possible bias as the result of that decision and her interest in adopting Glen but found her testimony very credible..??FN32.?The foster mother testified that she had been willing to have an open adoption for Glen’s younger sibling but that the parents had decided to place the baby privately. ? The court considered her possible bias as the result of that decision and her interest in adopting Glen but found her testimony very credible.
FN33.?The witness was unsure of the date other than that it was in March?possibly March 25 or 28. ? The court speculates that it was March 17, 2011 when mother consented to the termination of her parental rights. ? Glen would have been 2 1/2..??FN33.?The witness was unsure of the date other than that it was in March?possibly March 25 or 28. ? The court speculates that it was March 17, 2011 when mother consented to the termination of her parental rights. ? Glen would have been 2 1/2.
FN34.?FTA 7/28/11?10:46:05.??FN34.?FTA 7/28/11?10:46:05
FN35.?Exhibit C?3..??FN35.?Exhibit C?3.
FN36.?The court has no evidence that father saw Glen when he came to Waterbury to attend the court date in September 2010 or on other dates..??FN36.?The court has no evidence that father saw Glen when he came to Waterbury to attend the court date in September 2010 or on other dates.
FN37.?She was unsure whether they took place on Thursdays or some other day of the week but testified that father was able to attend once or twice..??FN37.?She was unsure whether they took place on Thursdays or some other day of the week but testified that father was able to attend once or twice.
FN38.?Paternal grandfather had attended visits previously, including the visit at the foster mother’s home..??FN38.?Paternal grandfather had attended visits previously, including the visit at the foster mother’s home.
FN39.?He had previously been seen to have driven himself to the visits..??FN39.?He had previously been seen to have driven himself to the visits.
FN40.?He shares the same last name as father and Glen..??FN40.?He shares the same last name as father and Glen.
FN41.?The court was advised that department is not legally permitted to license an undocumented alien as a placement resource..??FN41.?The court was advised that department is not legally permitted to license an undocumented alien as a placement resource.
FN42.?The foster mother indicated that the last time they had met was in Walmart ?last year.? ? Ms. Geary testified that he attended at least one of the Saturday visits in the park..??FN42.?The foster mother indicated that the last time they had met was in Walmart ?last year.? ? Ms. Geary testified that he attended at least one of the Saturday visits in the park.
FN43.?There was some testimony from Ms. Geary that it was at a court hearing in September 2010, but grandmother’s fiancee had offered himself as a resource earlier. ? Grandmother claimed it was early in the case..??FN43.?There was some testimony from Ms. Geary that it was at a court hearing in September 2010, but grandmother’s fiancee had offered himself as a resource earlier. ? Grandmother claimed it was early in the case.
FN44.?See Exhibit C?3..??FN44.?See Exhibit C?3.
FN45.?Ms. Geary testified that March 2011 was the first time that grandmother had attended a visit. ? However, as previously stated, grandmother’s involvement with Glen was not an issue prior to the filing of the Motion to Transfer Guardianship..??FN45.?Ms. Geary testified that March 2011 was the first time that grandmother had attended a visit. ? However, as previously stated, grandmother’s involvement with Glen was not an issue prior to the filing of the Motion to Transfer Guardianship.
FN46.?Grandmother did not testify that she thought a request for visits was implied by her offer to be a resource for Glen. The court finds that she did not formally request visits or in fact visit with Glen between the offer she made in September 2010 and March 2011..??FN46.?Grandmother did not testify that she thought a request for visits was implied by her offer to be a resource for Glen. The court finds that she did not formally request visits or in fact visit with Glen between the offer she made in September 2010 and March 2011.
FN47.?Grandmother testified that she had contact with Glen as soon as he was born..??FN47.?Grandmother testified that she had contact with Glen as soon as he was born.
FN48.?Tr. 9/13/11 42:12?23..??FN48.?Tr. 9/13/11 42:12?23.
FN49.?The court was not told that there was an administrative appeal from the decision and no Motion for Visitation was ever filed with the court. ? Since both father and grandmother were aware of the court proceedings and neither used that resource to seek visitation, the court assumes that neither were unduly aggrieved by the department’s decision..??FN49.?The court was not told that there was an administrative appeal from the decision and no Motion for Visitation was ever filed with the court. ? Since both father and grandmother were aware of the court proceedings and neither used that resource to seek visitation, the court assumes that neither were unduly aggrieved by the department’s decision.
FN50.?Since grandmother has never moved to intervene the court is not required to order an interstate (ICPC) study pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b?129 as amended by No. 09?185 section 3 (effective June 29, 2009)..??FN50.?Since grandmother has never moved to intervene the court is not required to order an interstate (ICPC) study pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b?129 as amended by No. 09?185 section 3 (effective June 29, 2009).
FN51.?Exhibits C?1, C?2 and C?3..??FN51.?Exhibits C?1, C?2 and C?3.
FN52.?There was some discussion about how long the trip took. ? The court’s suggestion of a stipulation of three hours each way was accepted by the parties..??FN52.?There was some discussion about how long the trip took. ? The court’s suggestion of a stipulation of three hours each way was accepted by the parties.
FN53.?The court accepted a stipulation that it takes about three hours to drive from Beverley, MA to Waterbury..??FN53.?The court accepted a stipulation that it takes about three hours to drive from Beverley, MA to Waterbury.
FN54.?Tr. 9/13/11 35:15?27, 36:1?6..??FN54.?Tr. 9/13/11 35:15?27, 36:1?6.
FN55.?There was testimony that on one occasion he asked if his sister could come to the visit since he needed her to drive him..??FN55.?There was testimony that on one occasion he asked if his sister could come to the visit since he needed her to drive him.
FN56.?The court’s file reflects a request for an ICPC study made by father’s then counsel in January 2009 during a conference. ? It is not clear why this was not acted upon..??FN56.?The court’s file reflects a request for an ICPC study made by father’s then counsel in January 2009 during a conference. ? It is not clear why this was not acted upon.
FN57.?Father had missed the two court dates immediately prior to March 17, 2011..??FN57.?Father had missed the two court dates immediately prior to March 17, 2011.
FN58.?Scheduled to take place on Saturday at his request..??FN58.?Scheduled to take place on Saturday at his request.
FN59.?She had received a voice mail from father on one occasion but had not responded to it..??FN59.?She had received a voice mail from father on one occasion but had not responded to it.
FN60.?One call from father in 2009 was to indicate he was running late for a visit, and one to ask about a court date..??FN60.?One call from father in 2009 was to indicate he was running late for a visit, and one to ask about a court date.
FN61.?The court notes that the TPR Petition was filed by the department on June 4, 2010. ? The court granted a motion for Notice by Certified Mail to father on that date on the basis of an affidavit filed by the department that gave the address the department had for father. ?(That address was the one to which a letter (Exhibit C?2) was sent, apparently successfully, in July 2010.) ? Subsequently the Marshal advised the court that the Petition was returned by the Post Office as unclaimed. ? Service was attempted at a slightly different address in August but was returned ?no such number.? ? Service was attempted twice more at the earlier address but the certified letter was again unclaimed. ? On September 29, 2010 father appeared in court and applied for counsel giving a new address. ? The department was ordered to serve the TPR petition on him at the new address and a date of October 27, 2010 was given in court for that purpose. ? Father did not appear on that date but for reasons unclear to the court the department failed to make service of the petition on him for that date. ? The court noted that a certified letter sent on November 23 to the address given by father in court was returned unclaimed..??FN61.?The court notes that the TPR Petition was filed by the department on June 4, 2010. ? The court granted a motion for Notice by Certified Mail to father on that date on the basis of an affidavit filed by the department that gave the address the department had for father. ?(That address was the one to which a letter (Exhibit C?2) was sent, apparently successfully, in July 2010.) ? Subsequently the Marshal advised the court that the Petition was returned by the Post Office as unclaimed. ? Service was attempted at a slightly different address in August but was returned ?no such number.? ? Service was attempted twice more at the earlier address but the certified letter was again unclaimed. ? On September 29, 2010 father appeared in court and applied for counsel giving a new address. ? The department was ordered to serve the TPR petition on him at the new address and a date of October 27, 2010 was given in court for that purpose. ? Father did not appear on that date but for reasons unclear to the court the department failed to make service of the petition on him for that date. ? The court noted that a certified letter sent on November 23 to the address given by father in court was returned unclaimed.
FN62.?According to Ms. Geary father indicated that he needed to change one visit from Tuesday because it conflicted with a probation appointment..??FN62.?According to Ms. Geary father indicated that he needed to change one visit from Tuesday because it conflicted with a probation appointment.
FN63.?The court is not considering any motor vehicle offences..??FN63.?The court is not considering any motor vehicle offences.
FN64.?The reason suggested for his difficulty in attending a visit or visits on a Tuesday..??FN64.?The reason suggested for his difficulty in attending a visit or visits on a Tuesday.
Eschuk, Cara F., J.