IN RE: Kylie P. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Mother appeared at Court on September 23, 2009, and consented to the termination of her parental rights to her daughter (hereinafter referred to as Child).   After full canvass the Court accepted her consent and proceeded to hear the petition to terminate Father's parental rights.

The Court heard Father's trial over two days and considered both Father's termination petition and two Motions to approve Permanency Plans that had not been heard at the regional court by agreement of that court and the parties.   The Court admitted one exhibit offered by Father-a summary of reports appearing in DCF's narratives evaluating Father's eight visits with Child while incarcerated beginning on December 11, 2008, and continuing until August 18, 2009, and fourteen exhibits offered by the Department of Children and Families (hereinafter DCF or The Department).   The Court also accepted into the record a letter from the intervening Maternal Grandparents who supported the termination petition and DCF's plan to secure permanency for Child through adoption by the current foster parent.

The Department's Petition to Terminate Father's Parental Rights alleges that Father has abandoned Child (Ground A-CGS Sec. 17a-112(j)(3)(A)) 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 Child, he could assume a responsible position in the life of the Child.”  (Ground B-CGS Sec 179-1(j)(3)).

DCF first offered the testimony of Jessica Clayborne, the DCF Social Worker responsible for the Kylie P. case beginning in November of 2008.   DCF had assigned Social Worker Michael A. Jones to work with the family prior to Social Worker Clayborne's assignment to the case.   Mr. Jones is the author of Exhibit 1, a Case Status Report summarizing the parties' status leading up to and including the date of the report, December 11, 2007.   SW Jones did not appear to testify.

The Department's first involvement with the family was at Child's birth on April 11, 2005, because Child tested positive for cocaine at birth.   More than two years later, on October 12, 2007, Mother decided to move to New Hampshire to join her parents and left Child with a paternal relative without sufficient support or information.

In his report Social Worker Jones stated that Father was in a substance abuse facility at the time and not available to Child.   He also had “several warrants out for his arrest for charges involving narcotics and weapons,” and he had not acted to protect his daughter during his absence from her life.   Father attended two extended visits with Child in November 2007.   His behavior was reported to be “hyper and inappropriate” at the last visit that month.

Mr. Jones reported in the third full paragraph of Exhibit 1 that “ ․ father had been charged with criminal possession of a firearm, carrying and concealing a dangerous weapon, and interfering and resisting arrest.”   He had also been served with “ ․ several re-arrest warrants to include, interfering with an officer and resisting arrest, breach of the peace 2nd, reckless driving, engaging police in a pursuit, possession of a controlled substance, use of drug paraphernalia, failure to obey stop sign, evading responsibility/property damage, conspiracy to commit assault, assault 1st degree, intimidation by bigotry/bias, failure to appear, and violation of probation.”   His bond was set at $1,545,000.

Exhibit 4 is a Social Study in Support of Termination of Parental Rights, also prepared by Mr. Jones.   He reports the following relevant facts about Father:

1.  He attended Bristol Central High School, but dropped out in the ninth grade.   He earned his GED in prison.   He was first incarcerated at sixteen years of age for a charge related to sexual assault and Father has reported that he cannot emotionally handle being incarcerated;

2.  As of the date of the Study, he was in excellent physical health and he had no history of hospitalization.   He claims not to have used or abused illegal substances since his discharge from drug treatment at Stonington Institute in October 2007.   He refused to release information about his treatment at Stonington;

3.  Father has four children and claims to have paid Child support for all of them; 1  and

4. Father reports that he was raped while incarcerated in Manson.

The termination social study reports that Father started a used car business in 2003, based on his earlier work experience in Waterbury.

Child has been in three placements, one of them her paternal aunt.   The Child is currently placed with the mother of one of Father's other children;  this foster parent expresses interest in adopting Child should parental rights be terminated.   Based on experience to date her current foster parent will allow Child contact with both the maternal and paternal sides of her family.   SW Jones reported that Child was thriving in her current placement and was very fond of her older half sister.   As of August 8, 2008, Child enjoyed visiting Father and;  Child “had a strong bond with [ ․ her Mother].”

The Department filed an “Addendum to Social Study in Support of Termination of Parental Rights” shortly before the trial.   The current Social Worker and primary witness prepared the addendum (Exhibit 5).   During the period that SW Clayborne was assigned to Child's case, DCF noted that Father's attitude in dealing with the Department was more aggressive.   Without offering cooperation, he complained about DCF's lack of attention to his efforts to retain parental rights while he was incarcerated.   While his efforts may have been well meaning in his view, they persuaded DCF that he was more concerned about what he saw as his “rights” than he was about Child's future.   SW Clayborne's report concludes, “She has been in her current placement for 16 months and has been in the Department's care for 23 months.”   According to the Social Study, Child is well settled in a pre-adoptive foster home in which the foster mother maintains a close relationship with both birth families and Father continues to ignore his long history of failure to maintain a close relationship with his other children.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE

Dr. Stephen Humphrey, PhD. is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist who has maintained a private practice serving families, adolescents and children since July 1995.   Exhibit 6, his Curriculum Vitae, describes the breadth of his continuing and comprehensive practice in his chosen field.   He has been a reliable resource to the Court over many years.

Dr. Humphrey's report presents a chronology of the significant events that occurred between the date of Child's birth (4/11/05) and the date of Father's evaluation (Exhibit 7, pages 3-6).   The history relevant to Child's relationship with her Father, Father's availability to care for Child and DCF's efforts to provide services to Father are as follows:

1.  The Department filed a Petition for Order of Temporary Custody of Child on October 12, 2007, and it was granted on October 17, 2007 (Gleeson, J);

2.  Father had two visits with Child in November 2007.  “One ․ was hosted by [ ․ Child's] paternal grandmother ․ and went quite well, and one ․ was at a library that DCF depicted as problematic because both parents were emotional, called friends on cell phones and appeared ‘hyper and inappropriate’ “;

3.  Father agreed to sign and signed a release on November 30, 2007, to be scheduled for a substance abuse assessment at Advanced Behavioral Health.   He had previously refused to sign a release enabling DCF to review his treatment record at Stonington Institute;

4.  Father was arrested on the next day and held on a bond in excess of a million dollars.   He was not able to attend his scheduled evaluation;

5.  On May 28, 2008, Child was adjudicated to have been neglected and was committed to DCF, and two months later DCF filed its Petition to terminate Father's parental rights;

6.  DCF records reflect that Father has three other children-an adult son, a teenage daughter and another daughter in Virginia and

7.  Father has an extensive criminal record involving thirteen separate arrests beginning on April 7, 1987 and continuing over twenty years to December 1, 2007.  (See Exhibit 13.)

Dr. Humphrey interviewed Father at his incarceration facility in a small, private visiting room.   The interview lasted three hours.   Father said he had not slept the previous night, but he did not seem to tire over the course of the interview.   Father denied using medications or illicit drugs during the sixteen months of his incarceration.²  Dr. Humphrey found Father to be “gregarious and personable.”   Father is thirty-nine years old and younger than his nine siblings.   He reported that his father was “stern” and an alcoholic.   Father reported that he was “․ not in jail because of his childhood, but rather his choices.”

Dr. Humphrey reported that Father denied that any adults physically abused him when he was a child, but reported “I got my good old-fashioned ass-whipping.”   His father used a hand or a stick.

As to alcohol and drugs, Father reported that “we were basically all drinking when we were kids.   We drank here and there, on weekends.   Basically, that was it, smoke a little weed here and there, but nothing that clicked.”   He acknowledged sniffing cocaine and using prescription pills to deal with injuries that he had received over the years.

Dr. Humphrey's brief summary of his personality testing of Father noted that his profile was valid and showed that the “drug problems scale was significantly elevated ․ [to a range] that typically meets criteria for drug abuse.”   He also was above the norm on a subscale of the “antisocial behavior scale.”   An elevated subscale suggesting aggressive attitudes indicated that Father is “prone to anger, often losing his temper without provocation.   He may use anger to intimidate or control others and become furious when others criticize or obstruct him.”

The Court's Evaluation Order asked Dr. Humphrey to respond to certain questions that would inform its consideration of The Department's efforts to terminate Father's parental rights.   Dr. Humphrey responded as follows:

1. What is the present emotional and psychological status of the biological Father?

Dr. Humphrey discussed Father's pathology from childhood.   Father reported that his childhood was “largely positive.”   However, the substance of his reports indicated the contrary.   His father was an alcoholic, resulting in “fights here and there” and “ass whippings” which Father characterized as not “physically abusive.”   At one point his family was homeless and camped out for the summer.   Father did not acknowledge that the trauma of his childhood affected his adult decision making.

Father began to act out in Middle School.   Because he was transferred from school to school, he resorted to truancy and fighting.   Drug use started as an adolescent and continued through his thirties.   His record reflects criminal history beginning in tenth grade with thirteen arrests since that time up to the last one on December 1, 2007.

His working life has been in automobile sales and service.   He described significant conflict in his relationship with Mother.

Dr. Humphrey found that, “[ ․ Father] meets some criteria for the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (e.g., repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;  a history of several arrests for assault, disregard for others' safety) but not enough, or to a sufficient degree, to confidently ascribe the diagnosis.   Regardless, there is clearly a history of pervasive antisocial behavior and there are reasons for concern this pattern will not change significantly.”   Dr. Humphrey believes that Father's “primary psychological problems related to his history of substance abuse and antisocial behavior.”   He has a history of alcoholism, use of cocaine, and addiction to opiate pain medications.   As a result, Dr. Humphrey concluded that Father “qualifies for diagnoses of Opioid Dependence and Alcohol Abuse.”

That diagnosis appears in his DSM-IV-TR Multiaxial Diagnosis along with a recommendation that future treatment rule out the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.   Dr. Humphrey gives father a GAF of 45 at the time of his evaluation.

2. What is the nature of the present relationship between Father and the child?

Dr. Humphrey was not able to observe the ongoing relationship of Father and Child.   The Court relies on the DCF narratives based on the supervised visitations that appear in Respondent's Exhibit A to conclude that the Father and Daughter appear to be bonded and mutually and appropriately affectionate.

3. Is Father a psychological parent of Child?

Dr. Humphrey did not observe the Father/Daughter relationship and therefore could not render an opinion on this question, but acknowledged that Child relied on her prospective adoptive foster parent for all of her basic needs.

4. Does Father see any need for supportive services to address issues that pertain to the abuse/neglect/custodial situation or the consequences of such, for the Child?

Dr. Humphrey's answer to this question was based upon Mother and Father's view of Mother's capacity to care for Child.   Because Mother has consented to the termination of her parental rights, his answer is not responsive.

5. Does Father have any intellectual, emotional, or physical characteristics which impair his ability to develop appropriate relationships or to discharge childcare responsibilities?

Father does not have intellectual or physical difficulties related to the care of Child, but he does have psychological, substance abuse and other disorders as described in the answer to question 1.

6. Would placement with Father or foster mother [ ․ Cox] be most consistent with Child's best interest?

Dr. Humphrey recommended continued placement with the foster mother unless there are child protection concerns arguing against such placement.

7. If Child should not be allowed to live with Father at this time, under what circumstance might that occur?

Father should engage in intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment and participate in individual therapy to address his longstanding history of antisocial behavior.

8. Is substance abuse or use of any kind a problem for Father?

Father qualifies for substance abuse diagnosis.

9. Considering the age and needs of the child, provide an opinion as to whether Father can achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, he could resume a responsible position in the life of the child.

To entrust [ ․ Child] to the care of [ ․ Father] in the near future, even if [ ․ he] were to be released from prison and exhibit initial stability upon release would be a significant risk.  [ ․ Father] has an extensive history of problems related to substance abuse, criminal involvement, problematic relationships, and psychological difficulties that suggest [ ․ he] should demonstrate involvement in treatment, maintenance of sobriety, avoidance of problematic associations/relationships, and cessation of criminal involvement prior to considering his [ ․ fitness] as a primary caretaker.

10. Is there an ongoing parent/child relationship?  Does the Child have present positive memories or positive feelings for [ ․ Father]?

This examiner did not interview [ ․ Child] ․ Child has been visiting her father.   She did not spontaneously mention him during her fifty minute visit with her mother, and did not say much in response to her mother's questions about him.

11. If there is no indication of a parent/child relationship, would it be detrimental to the best interests of the child to allow further time for the establishment (or re-establishment) of a parent/child relationship?

[ ․ Father] contends [ ․ Child] has a very positive relationship with him.   Although his psychological functioning and criminal history argue against placing a child in his care, this examiner would be willing to conduct a interactional study if the court orders it.

12. Provide an opinion regarding placement of the child with permanency in mind.

In this examiner's opinion, [ ․ Father is not] likely to demonstrate the kind of rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that he can rehabilitate in a time frame conducive to [ ․ Child's best interest, and exploration of the possibility of long-term placement with [ ․ foster mother should be conducted.   If that is not feasible for any reason (including her unwillingness or inability to assure she can protect [ ․ Child] from unsupervised involvement with her parents), this examiner would support exploration of possible pre-adoptive placement.

Dr. Humphrey also appeared at trial and, simply put, his testimony was consistent with his written evaluation and presented a compelling case that Child's adoption by her current foster mother presents the best opportunity for her health, safety and security.

Father chose not to testify, but his Attorney maintained that The Department had neglected to provide reasonable services to support Father's efforts to rehabilitate.   Specifically, he argued that Father had been denied the opportunity to visit Child often enough or under appropriate circumstances to develop and sustain a strong bond with her.   Counsel sought to prove that SW Jones was not competent and had been discharged by The Department for incompetency specifically with respect to this case.   DCF's response was that Mr. Jones had been terminated for unsatisfactory performance, but that the dismissal was not related to this case.   Father's Attorney argued that Father claimed that he had carried out his paternal responsibilities with respect to all of the children that he had fathered and intended to meet his responsibilities to Child as well.   Furthermore, Counsel for Father asserted that DCF failed to offer specific rehabilitative services to him while incarcerated.   DCF does acknowledge that Father attended Administrative Case Reviews by telephone from prison and did call The Department from time to time to object to DCF practices and decisions.

Based on the testimony and exhibits presented to it in this case, the Court makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following facts are found based on clear and convincing evidence:

1. Child was born on April 11, 2005 to Mother and Father, and Child tested positive for cocaine at birth.

2. DCF supported parents and provided necessary services in the support of Child from birth until October 17, 2007, when The Department filed a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) in New Britain Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.   The OTC was sustained at the scheduled hearing on October 26, 2007.

3. At the time Father was unable to care for Child because he was involved in inpatient substance abuse treatment and had warrants pending for his arrest on charges that appear on Exhibit 13.

4. On December 1, 2007, shortly after Father was discharged from substance abuse inpatient treatment, he was arrested and incarcerated and was not available to care for Child or participate in services.   He refused to sign a release of information concerning his substance abuse treatment at Stonington Institute in 2007.

5. Father remained incarcerated through the dates of the trial, September 23 and 24, 2009.

6. Father offered the Court no documentary evidence of services requested or provided for substance abuse, domestic violence or mental health treatment sought or completed during his incarceration.

7. Father attended and participated appropriately in all visits with Child while incarcerated.

8. Father completed the following Ordered Specific Steps:

a. Kept all appointments set by or with DCF.

b. Visit Child as often as DCF permits.

c. Notify DCF of family and of any persons who might be appropriate placements for Child.

d. Notify DCF of names and addresses of the grandparents of Child.   He was not able to complete his other steps because of his incarceration.

9. Child is placed with a foster parent who is the mother of one of Father's biological children.

10. Foster mother maintains a relationship with Child's maternal and paternal extended families, from which Child benefits.

11. Child had been living with foster mother for sixteen months at the time of the trial considering the Petition to Terminate Father's Parental Rights.

12. Child is in need of permanency and is bonded to her foster mother and half sister.

13. Child should enter kindergarten in 2010 from a stable and reliable home.

14. Father has never had direct care responsibility for any of his children.

15. Father has not been able to avoid drugs or anti-social behavior, resulting in repeated incarceration and was incarcerated and unavailable to care for Child at the time of trial.

16. Father was incarcerated at the time DCF filed its petition terminate his parental rights and thereafter he continually complained, threatened and harassed DCF, foster mother and his extended family about what will happen after he is released from incarceration.   Up to and including the trial, he has been more concerned about his own access to and control of Child than he has been for Child's welfare.  (Exhibit 5, p. 2, pars. 5 & 6;  pg 4, pars 5 & 6.)

17. Although Father has never threatened or harmed Child physically, he has not acknowledged either that he has continually abandoned Child to the kindness of others or the progress Child has made in the custody of DCF and under the care of her foster mother.

18. DCF's plan for foster mother to adopt Child is in Child's best interest.

19. DCF has made reasonable efforts to locate Father and to reunite Father and Child in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b.

20. The Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate parent and to reunite the parent and child in compliance with the requirements of CGS section 17a-111b(a).

ABANDONMENT

DCF has alleged Abandonment as one of the grounds upon which to base the termination of Father's rights to Child.   The allegation requires DCF to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father has “ ․ abandoned Child in the sense that he has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.”  (CGS sec. 17a-112(j)(3)(A) and sec. 45(a)-717(g)(2)(A)).

Father's “degree of interest in Child” and his “concern or responsibility as to the welfare of Child” are addressed in the December 11, 2007, Case Status Report (Exhibit 1);  the August 8, 2008, Social Study in support of Termination of Parental Rights Petition (Exhibit 4);  and the September 14, 2009, Addendum to Social Study in Support of Termination of Parental Rights (Exhibit 5)-all prepared by DCF.

The original (1) Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody, and (2) neglect petition identified DCF's issues with Father as the following:

1. “Father has substance abuse problems and is currently in a treatment facility.   Father cannot care for child at this time.

2. “Father failed to make an appropriate plan of care for child prior to his entering treatment as he was aware of Mother's inability to appropriately care for Child.

3. “Father has several warrants out for his arrest for charges involving narcotics and weapons.”

The Social Study in support of the Petition to Terminate Father's Parental Rights to Child identified the following concerns about Father:

1. “Father ․ dropped out of school in the ninth grade ․ became involved with the Criminal Justice System at the age of sixteen ․ was incarcerated at Manson Youth Correctional Institute.

2. “[ ․ Father] reported that he has not used or abused illegal substances since being discharged from Stonington Institute in October 2007 where he was treated for substance use and abuse.  [ ․ Father] refused to sign a release of information and refused to provide the details of his treatment at Stonington Institute.”

3. [ ․ Father's] criminal history has been previously discussed in this opinion.   His arrests, incarcerations and inpatient treatment for substance abuse prevented him from being a meaningful presence in Child's infant and toddler years.

4. “On October 1, 2007 [ ․ Mother] reported to a mandated reporter that [ ․ Father] was physically and emotionally abusive towards her and has threatened to kill her and abduct their child ․ that [ ․ Father had loaded guns and illegal drugs all over the home.”

5. “Physical Neglect was substantiated on [ ․ Father] for failure to provide for the child's basic needs.”

6. “[ ․ Father] has not supported the child either physically or emotionally;  has not recognized Child on special occasions through sending cards or gifts and has not provided financial support for Child.”

From this history the Court concludes, that although Father established a bond with Child over the four years of her life, he has chosen life paths that have deprived her of the support, attention and love to which she was entitled from her Father.   The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Father's life choices taken as a whole constitute Abandonment under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

FAILURE TO REHABILITATE

Child tested positive for Cocaine (without addiction) at birth on April 11, 2005.   Her delivery was premature.   From and after her birth DCF monitored and worked with the family.   Father has had a continuing problem with use of illegal substances.   He has an extensive family living in the State of Connecticut.   His family has been active in the care of Child when parents were not available to care for her.   Mother has consented to the termination of her parental rights and is not currently in a position to care for Child due to her incarceration.   Father was also incarcerated and unavailable to care for Child at the time of the termination trial with an anticipated release date of December 2009.

Ground B for termination of parental rights requires that DCF prove by clear and convincing evidence 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 Child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of Child.”  (CGS 17a-112(j)(3)(B).  Father would not be able to begin the required rehabilitation before his release date.

The Court ordered Preliminary Specific Steps for Father on October 17, 2007 and approved those steps as the final steps on May 27, 2008.  (See Exhibit 15.)   At the time the final steps were ordered, Father had been incarcerated for six months and would remain incarcerated for another nineteen months.   Because of Father's inpatient substance abuse treatment, criminal behavior and consequent incarceration he was unable to meet the requirements of those steps other than his treatment at Stonington.   Father has refused to make the record of that treatment available to DCF or the Court, and his sister was arrested and lost custody of Child because she attempted to mail cocaine to Father in jail.   That incident persuades the Court that before Father might be reunited with Child, he would have to at least revisit and complete all of the previously ordered Specific Steps.

The Court observed at trial that Father had a resentful-even hostile-attitude toward the efforts of The Department to keep Child on track and in appropriate, nurturing care in his absence.   DCF's studies and testimony confirm the Court's impression of Father's aggressive and defensive demeanor.

For the last sixteen months DCF has entrusted Child to a foster parent who is the mother of Child's stepsister and who has the experience of a long-term relationship with Father.   Foster mother has expressed her desire to adopt Child and has worked closely with both Mother and Father's extended families.   Termination of his parental rights would achieve permanency for Child, and if foster mother adopted Child, and Father undertook a meaningful program of rehabilitation, he might have an opportunity to establish a long-term relationship with his youngest daughter.

In In re Halle T., 96 Conn.App. 815, 835, 902 A.2d 670 (2006), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 924 (2006), the Appellate Court explained the failure to rehabilitate requirements as follows:

Failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation is one of the seven statutory grounds on which parental rights may be terminated under § 17a-112(j)(3).   We have stated that [p]ersonal rehabilitation as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [Section 17a-112] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ Rehabilitate means to restore [a ․ delinquent person] to a useful and constructive place in society through social rehabilitation ․ The statute does not require [a parent] to prove precisely when ․ he] will be able to assume a responsible position in [ ․ his] child's life.   Nor does it require [ ․ him] to prove that ․ he] will be able to assume full responsibility for [ ․ his] child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [ ․ he] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [ ․ he] can assume a responsible position in [ ․ his] child's life ․ Citing In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248 at 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005) (Emphasis in original.)

See also In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 145-50 (2009).

In Halle T., the Appellate Court explained the foregoing finding requirement concerning a parent's level of rehabilitation to assume a responsible position in the child's life as follows:

[T]he adjudicatory determination to be made by the trial court is whether the parent of a child who has been found by the [S]uperior [C]ourt to have been neglected [or] uncared for in a prior proceeding 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 ․ In conducting this inquiry, the trial court must analyze the respondent's rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child ․

Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than any rehabilitation ․ Successful completion of the petitioner's expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation ․ [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved his ability to manage [ ․ his] own life, but rather whether he has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue ․ Thus, even if a parent has made successful strides in [ ․ his] ability to manage ․ his] life and may have achieved a level of stability within [ ․ His] limitations, such improvements, although commendable, are not dispositive on the issue of whether, within a reasonable period of time, ․ he] could assume a responsible position in the life of [ ․ His]DP1⌑As previously noted, Child will enter the first grade at the beginning of the 2010/11 school year.   She has been in three placements (a paternal family resource, an unrelated foster mother, and her extended family placement where she lived for the sixteen months prior to the beginning of trial).   The Court concludes that The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence at trial that Father has been found in a prior proceeding to have neglected child;  that Child was in the custody of the Commissioner for at least fifteen months prior to trial;  that DCF provided Father with specific steps to facilitate the return of the Child;  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, he could assume a responsible position in Child's life.

PERMANENCY PLANS

DCF filed Permanency Plans with the Court in July 2008 and April 2009.   Both plans recommended a plan of termination of parental rights and adoption of Child.   After objection the Court deferred action on the requested approvals and ordered that the plans be consolidated with the petition to terminate parents' parental rights for trial.   The parties agreed that the Court should review and rule on the Permanency Plans on the papers and without hearing.

The Court finds that the Plans are reasonable and appropriate and, therefore accepts, approves and adopts each and both of said plans.   Furthermore, the Court finds that The Department made reasonable efforts to achieve and have achieved the identified Plans.

REQUIRED FINDINGS

1. Because of the fact that Father was incarcerated at the time when DCF filed its petition to terminate his rights to Child, DCF was only able to provide Father with monthly visitation with Child and coordinate his participation in agency administrative case reviews.   Father's only other source of services were those offered by the corrections facility in which he resided.   Availability of those services is controlled by the institution.   The Court received no evidence of appropriate services which father may have requested or in which he may have participated.

2. The Department was unable to reunite Father and Child because Father was incarcerated on December 1, 2007, and remained incarcerated throughout the hearing on the Petition to Terminate on September 23 and 24, 2009.   The Petition to Terminate Father's rights was filed on July 18, 2008.

3. The Court entered an Order of Specific Steps for Father on May 27, 2008, which was identical to an earlier Order entered on the execution of an Order of Temporary Custody on October 27, 2007.   Father's inpatient treatment and subsequent incarceration prevented him from achieving the requirements of any of the Orders except visitation and maintaining contact with DCF.

4. Child and Father maintained feelings and emotional ties with each other through monthly visitation.   Child also has strong emotional ties with her foster mother and her daughter.   The daughter is Child's paternal half sister.   Child had been in the custody of the foster mother for sixteen months on the dates of trial.

5. Child was four years and five months old on the date of trial.

6. Father was not able to adjust his circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of Child to return to Father's home because Father's home is and was a penal institution for the entire time between the filing of the petition and the trial of the matter.

7. Father's inability to maintain a meaningful relationship with Child is accountable only to Father's anti-social and criminal activities, and the resulting incarceration.

ORDERS

1. The parental rights of Father and Mother to Kylie P. should be and hereby are TERMINATED.

2. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed to be the Statutory Parent of Child.   The Commissioner will file, within thirty days hereof, a report as to the status of Child as required by statute and will file subsequent reports as required by law.

3. Father should be and hereby is restrained from having contact with Child or foster parent or being within one hundred yards of foster mother's home without the consent and supervision of DCF.

4. The Permanency Plan for Child shall be adoption by current foster mother.

5. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the credible evidence and testimony presented, that it would be in the best interest of Child to terminate parental rights at this time.   This finding is made after considering the Child's sense of time, her need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship that Child has with the foster family and the totality of the circumstances that the termination of parental rights is in Child's best interest.

6. The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over subsequent adoption with respect to this Child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk for the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at New Britain of the date any such adoption is finalized.

Respectfully submitted,

Hon. Thayer Baldwin, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Throughout these reports prepared by Mr. Jones, many statements by Father are reported without any evidential support..  FN1. Throughout these reports prepared by Mr. Jones, many statements by Father are reported without any evidential support.

FN2. The record reflects that while Father was incarcerated, his sister mailed him an envelope containing crack cocaine that was intercepted and for which she was arrested..  FN2. The record reflects that while Father was incarcerated, his sister mailed him an envelope containing crack cocaine that was intercepted and for which she was arrested.

Baldwin, Thayer, J.