IN RE: Kayden L.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On May 20, 2009, the petitioner, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112 et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Amanda L., and Harry W. as to Kayden.   The mother has appeared and is represented by counsel.   The father has been served with process and has failed to appear for the contested hearing although he has been represented by counsel who has appeared.   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children.   This court has jurisdiction.

At the commencement of this contested action, the mother presented to the court properly executed forms consenting to the termination of her parental rights to Kayden.   Having canvassed the mother, this court finds that she has been represented by competent counsel who was present with her when she executed the consent form.   The court further finds that the consent has been knowingly and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of the legal consequences of her action.   Her consent is accepted.

The Department of Child and Families (DCF) through counsel has moved to amend the petition to withdraw the non-consensual grounds and to change the grounds to consent § 17a-112(I) of the mother as to both children.

The statutory grounds alleged against respondent father are he has abandoned his child, and that he has no on-going relationship with the child.

While the respondent Harry, has failed to appear, his attorney remains in the case and has had contact with him.   The respondent was aware that he could participate in the proceedings.   He has told his lawyer that he does not wish to contest the case and further that he has executed a consent to the termination of his rights.   He has not come to court to be canvassed on the consent as required by C.G.S.A. § 17a-112.   The consent has been filed with the court, although it has not been accepted.

I. FACTS

The credible evidence admitted in this case support the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.   Kayden is eighteen months old.   Issues regarding his paternity were not resolved until March 3, 2009, when the court (Graziani, J.), following paternity testing, confirmed that sixty-year-old Harry W. is the father of the child.   Amanda, the mother, is twenty-seven.   Harry has told DCF he does not wish to participate in any services, does not wish visitation and has consistently represented his willingness to consent to the termination of his rights.

Harry is well known to the child protection system.   He has had quite a few children whom have had their parental relationship with Harry terminated.   The court has taken judicial notice of its own decision in the matter of Jesse James W., W10-CP04-014604-A.   The following quote is taken from the prior case and adopted here:

Father (Harry) reports he is the fourth youngest of 20 children raised on a farm in Eastern Connecticut by a strict disciplinarian father and home schooled through the 8th grade by a Christian woman, his mother.   He reports he has been married six times and has a total of seven children, although he will not provide information on them.   Harry has a criminal history of sociopathic criminal activity from 1965 including drug possession, larceny, assaults, failures to appear in court, and disorderly conducts.   He has been in jail for his domestic violence offenses.

DCF knows that two of Harry's previously born children, born prior to Jesse, were removed from their home because of domestic violence and substance abuse and the father's parental rights were terminated on May 22, 1998, on the grounds that Harry abandoned those two children.

Since that report, Harry is now older, he has had at least one other child by a much younger woman, Kayden, and has had his rights terminated to at least one more child, Jessie James W. on October 30, 2006.

He has taken no interest in Kayden.   He does not support the child nor has he taken any interest in the general obligations of parenthood.   He is not married to the child's mother and thus is not accorded the protections afforded by marriage.   He is non-custodial and has never served in the role of a custodial parent.

“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.  In re Adoption of Webb, 14 Wash.App. 651, 653, 544 P.2d 130 (1975), In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 244, 255 (2000).

Respondent-Father.

II. ADJUDICATION

“[A]bandonment focuses on the parent's conduct ․ A lack of interest in the child is not the sole criterion in determining abandonment ․ General Statutes [§ 17a-112(c)(3)(A) ] defines abandonment as the [failure] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child ․ 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 ․” In re Adoption of Webb, Id. 657, In re Juvenile Appeal, (No. 9489), 183 Conn. 11, 15 (1981).

No ongoing parent-child relationship contemplates a situation in which, regardless of fault, a child either has never known his or her parent, or no relationship has ever developed between them, or that the child has lost that relationship so that despite its former existence it has now been completely displaced.  In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 181 Conn. 638, 645-46, 436 A.2d 290 (1980);  In re John C., 56 Conn.App. 12, 22, 740 A.2d 496 (1999).   In any case, “the ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent.”  In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).

Thus, the court finds that the petitioner has proven both statutory grounds as to the respondent by clear and convincing evidence.

III. DISPOSITION

As to the dispositional phase of this hearing on the petition for termination of parental rights, the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events up to and including the date upon which the evidence in this matter was completed.   During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the children.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689 (1999).

The court makes the following seven written findings: ²

(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 has been unable to offer services to the respondent as he had no interest in receiving them.

(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 was unable to make such efforts by virtue of the respondent father's intransigence.

(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 Harry did not engage in appropriate services.

(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 finds that the child does not have a parental emotional bond with the biological father.   The child is in foster care and adjusted very well to his foster home and the foster parents are providing the day-to-day physical, emotional, moral and educational support the child needs.   The foster parents are committed to the child and would like to adopt Kayden.

(5) As to the age of the child, Kayden was born on June 1, 2008.

(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 that father has no interest in visitation.

(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 parents or third parties.

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 Amanda L ․, by her consent, and Harry W. to the child is in the best interest of the child.   Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for the child.   The child is now in a foster home where he is very well cared for by foster parents who are fully committed to him.   Harry has been consistently unable to execute a responsible parental role.   This male parent is not in a position to provide day-to-day care for the child at this tine or in the near future.

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 his environment;  the length of stay in foster care;  the nature of the relationship with foster parents and biological parents;  the degree of contact maintained with the biological parents;  and the genetic bond to respondents.  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000).

IV. ORDER

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Amanda L., upon her consent, and Harry W. are hereby terminated as to the minor child Kayden.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child.

With regard to the permanency plan for the child, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption and finds that such plans are in the best interest of the child.   The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans.   A case report shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, 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 the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Willimantic, 81 Columbia Avenue, Willimantic, CT 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

Foley, Sr., J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. These findings are not required as to the consenting parent, Amanda..  FN2. These findings are not required as to the consenting parent, Amanda.

Foley, Francis J., S.J.