IN RE: Jasmine G.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On May 6, 2009, the petitioner, the commissioner of the department of children and families (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Lorelle M., the biological mother, and David G., the biological father, to the child, Jasmine G., born July 4, 2008.   The respondent mother, Lorelle M., has appeared and is represented by counsel.   David G. has been defaulted for failure to appear.   On August 25, 2009, the court found proper service on the respondent father.   At the commencement of trial on December 11, 2009, the court found that the respondent father, David G., was not on active duty in any branch of the military or naval services of the United States.   The respondent mother claims Indian tribal affiliation with an unknown tribe.   DCF has provided notice to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.²  The court finds that Jasmine G. is not an Indian Child.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction.

The statutory grounds alleged against the respondent mother, Lorelle M., are as follows:  1) the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for, and 2) the parent 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, the parent could assume a responsible position within the life of the child.  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).

The statutory grounds alleged against the respondent father, David G., are as follows:  1) the child has been abandoned 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, General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A), and 2) there is no ongoing parent-child relationship with respect to the parent that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral or educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D).

I. FACTS & FINDINGS

At the trial, commenced on December 11, 2009, the court received or heard evidence in the form of testimony from the following:  Louise Marble, nurse clinician from Western Connecticut Mental Health Network;  Cliff Knight, clinical social worker from Western Connecticut Mental Health Network;  Marisa Longo Cruz, DCF case worker;  Cindy Arsenault, DCF social worker;  Rodolfo Rosado, Ph.D., clinical and child psychologist;  Jennifer Bringman, DCF social worker;  Donna Pellerin, M.D., psychiatrist from Danbury Hospital;  Officer Mark Wochek from the Danbury Police Department;  Jean Norvig, DCF social work supervisor;  Diana Badillo Martinez, Ph.D., psychologist;  and Lorelle, the respondent mother.

The court also received documentary evidence, including:  social study in support of the petition for termination of parental rights dated July 28, 2009;  Danbury Hospital discharge summaries for inpatient admissions of Lorelle on September 26, 2008 and September 30, 2009;  treatment and recovery plans, risk assessments and discharge summaries from Western Connecticut Mental Health Network;  individual and parent/child interactional psychological evaluations of the respondents and child prepared by Rodolfo Rosado, Ph.D.;   individual psychological evaluation of Lorelle prepared by Diana Badillo Martinez, Ph.D.;   Danbury Police Department incident report dated November 10, 2009;  decree for appointment of Attorney Tracey C. Hammer as conservator of the person and of the estate of Lorelle dated February 18, 2008;  certificate of participation for parenting classes presented to Lorelle by the Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center;  letter on behalf of Lorelle from the Harambee Center for Youth and Community Services;  and three certificates of completion for various degrees from Lee's School of Judo and Karate, Inc. for Lorelle.

The court takes judicial notice of the following proceedings and orders entered in this matter.   The court granted an order of temporary custody vesting custody of the infant, Jasmine, in the commissioner of DCF on July 11, 2008, Winslow, J. On July 21, 2008, the respondent mother appeared before the court with her conservator, Attorney Tracey C. Hammer.   On that date, the order of temporary custody was sustained, a guardian ad litem was appointed and a competency evaluation was ordered, Maronich, J. On September 2, 2008, the court found Lorelle competent to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist her counsel, and discharged the guardian ad litem, Maronich, J. Jasmine G. was adjudicated uncared for on February 6, 2009 after a plea of nolo contendere, was committed to the care and custody of DCF and final specific steps were ordered for both respondent parents, Maronich, J.

As To Respondent Mother, Lorelle M.:

DCF involvement began the day after the birth of Jasmine when Danbury Hospital staff contacted DCF with concerns over Lorelle's ability to safely parent her infant daughter because of her extensive history of mental illness and numerous hospitalizations.   Prior to the birth of Jasmine, Lorelle had been resistant to maintaining consistent pre-natal care.   After the birth of Jasmine, Danbury Hospital had a one to one sitter watching Lorelle at all times when the infant was with her.   Although an evaluation by a psychiatric nurse indicated that Lorelle was not psychotic at that time, there were grave concerns because Lorelle had stopped taking her medications because of her pregnancy.   Of most immediate concern to hospital staff was Lorelle's difficulty feeding the infant, her inability to stay focused and follow directions, her discomfort in applying cream to sooth the baby's diaper rash and her interpretation of the infant's vaginal bleeding from pseudo-menstruation to be the result of sexual abuse by hospital staff.   Additionally, the nursing staff was also concerned with Lorelle's mood swings, inappropriate comments and talking to herself.   Jasmine's father, David, was unable to provide a permanent home address and both David and Lorelle reported that their plan upon discharge was to reside with Lorelle's mother, Anita.   Although David had been involved with Lorelle for two years, he claimed to be unaware of her mental health problems.   Lorelle and her mother, Anita, had a history of at least two separate incidents of domestic violence up to that point.   After consultation with Lorelle's conservator, Attorney Tracey C. Hammer, and Danbury Hospital physicians and staff, and because of Lorelle's inability to care for herself creating doubt about her ability to care for an infant, DCF exercised a ninety-six-hour hold and obtained an ex parte order of temporary custody.

Thirty-eight-year old Lorelle was born, and has lived all of her life, in Danbury.   Lorelle's mother, Anita, claims that Lorelle was sexually abused by her father when she was thirteen years old.   They were divorced shortly thereafter and Lorelle's father resides in California.   Lorelle maintains telephone contact with him.   Lorelle is bonded with her mother who resides in Danbury, although the relationship is turbulent and there has been a history of strife and domestic violence between them.   Lorelle did not graduate from high school but has earned her GED. She has held various short-term jobs including day care assistant, karate instructor and nursing home aide.   There was no testimony as to whether she is currently employed.   Lorelle relies upon social security disability benefits for support and resides alone in a one-bedroom apartment.   Lorelle's most recent successor conservator of the person and of the estate, Attorney Tracey C. Hammer, was appointed on February 15, 2008 by the Danbury Probate Court.   There was no evidence as to when a conservator was first appointed.

Lorelle's history of psychiatric instability began when she was hospitalized at age nineteen for depression and suicidal ideation.   At the time she was involved in a long-term, abusive relationship.   Lorelle has suffered from pseudocyesis or “false pregnancy” for at least fifteen years.   Sufferers of pseudocyesis falsely believe they are pregnant and manifest many of the physical symptoms of pregnancy.   At the trial, the court received testimony from Donna Pellerin, M.D., a psychiatrist who has known and treated Lorelle on an inpatient basis at Danbury Hospital since July 2004.   Since that time, Lorelle has had at least seven inpatient hospitalizations for her mental health issues.   Dr. Pellerin treated Lorelle on each of those occasions and has provided psychiatric consultations when Lorelle presented at Danbury Hospital on other occasions.   Dr. Pellerin confirmed a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder bipolar type with paranoid delusions.   She has treated Lorelle with ativan, an anti-psychotic medication, and abilify, an anti-anxiety medication.   Dr. Pellerin testified that on each of her admissions Lorelle presented as labile with paranoid delusions.   The admissions usually occur in the context of lack of sleep and non-compliance with medications.   On each occasion, Lorelle is so focused on her delusions and agitated that her delusions become all consuming, rendering her disabled.

Two psychiatric admissions have occurred since the birth of Jasmine.   The first of these occurred on September 26, 2008, with inpatient admission and a discharge date of October 9, 2008.   The second inpatient admission occurred on September 30, 2009, with a discharge date of October 12, 2009.   The discharge summary on the first admission noted the following:

The patient ․ is extremely paranoid about her neighbor upstairs.   She also believes that this neighbor is stalking her and the patient is very disorganized, tangential, not sleeping, and thoughts are racing.   She is paranoid, accusatory and pressured.   The patient is fearful that she will hurt her neighbor.   She also feels unsafe to go home.   She has been calling the police repeatedly with complaints and the patient has been showing up at her mother's house despite a protective order in place against the patient.   The patient spent a night in jail last week before admission due to violating a protective order and driving with a suspended license.   The patient's car was impounded.   The patient is walking alone at night.   She is not sleeping.   She has been losing weight and is unable to function appropriately and care for herself appropriately ․ The patient continued to state that she is pregnant, however, her pregnancy test was negative in the emergency room.

(Exhibit 2A).  In the context of her entire history, these last two admissions were characterized by Dr. Pellerin as “mild.”   On prior admissions, Lorelle had to be placed in restraints and it was necessary for Dr. Pellerin to obtain court orders to administer medications.   Dr. Pellerin believes that in the context of the most extreme manifestations of Lorelle's illness, she has seen some improvement in Lorelle's symptoms.   She has also seen some improvement in Lorelle's baseline, that is the best level of mental health functioning which the patient is able to maintain.   However Dr. Pellerin notes that even at baseline, Lorelle remains delusional and her judgment is impaired.   The discharge summary of her 2009 admission notes that Lorelle denied “auditory or visual hallucinations.   Occasionally still experiencing some paranoid thoughts and baseline still with poor insight and judgment at time of discharge ․” (Exhibit 2B).  Dr. Pellerin confirmed that Lorelle's condition is chronic.

Court-ordered psychological evaluations of Lorelle and David individually and parent child interactional with Jasmine were performed by Dr. Rodolfo Rosado, a clinical psychologist.   Dr. Rosado conducted his evaluation while Lorelle was inpatient at Danbury Hospital during September and October 2008.   Dr. Rosado noted Lorelle's extreme manifestations of psychotic delusions evident in her preoccupation with a neighbor named Stephanie.   During the course of the clinical interview, Lorelle took every opportunity to bring the conversation around to Stephanie.   Dr. Rosado described Lorelle's preoccupation with Stephanie.

Ms. M. was worried and felt unsafe, believing that she was being watched and persecuted by an upstairs neighbor, Stephanie.   This had been going on since 2006.   Ms. M. explained that Stephanie lived upstairs and would sneak into a laundry room (next to Ms. M's condo) to eavesdrop on Ms. M.'s conversations and discern what Ms. M. was cooking for dinner.

Ms. M. had a broken window and a broken closet door, which she attributed to her neighbor Stephanie.

Ms. M. believed that Stephanie would spy on her conversations with Mr. G.

Ms. M. believed that Stephanie was trying to sabotage her relationship with Mr. G., in order to steal him.

Stephanie had an organized group of people stalking Ms. M. It was speculated that one of Ms. M.'s jealous ex-boyfriends (Frank) was helping Stephanie.   Ms. M. was certain that Frank was following her the night before Jasmine's birth.

Ms. M. was certain that Stephanie had made a hole in the bedroom to spy on Ms. M. and Mr. G. Unfortunately Ms. M. was unable to discern where the hole was located.

Ms. M. believed that Stephanie broke into her apartment to rip holes in her clothes.   She was also apt to move Jasmine's clothes that were hanging on the rack.

Stephanie was provocative, running water all of the time and banging on the floor.

Stephanie allegedly made threats against Ms. M. They never spoke directly and Ms. M. was not aware of the specific threats.   But Ms. M. believed that Stephanie hired someone to kill Ms. M. while she was pregnant.

Stephanie allegedly vandalized two of Ms. M.'s expensive cars.

Ms. M. stated that Stephanie made false reports to DCF. Stephanie allegedly saw Ms. M. leave the house when she was on her way to give birth to Jasmine.   She used this opportunity to call DCF. Ms. M. stated that her DCF Social Worker could substantiate that Stephanie made reports to DCF.

(Exhibit 4A, p. 5).   Dr. Rosado confirmed the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder with paranoid delusions.   Although Lorelle initially denied any significant childhood trauma, when completing the standardized childhood trauma questionnaire for Dr. Rosado, she cited significant problems associated with emotional and sexual abuse.   Based on that abuse, Dr. Rosado also diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from sexual abuse as an adolescent.   Dr. Rosado specifically pointed to the manifestation of this disorder in Lorelle's irrational reaction to having to apply cream to soothe her newborn's diaper rash and her accusations of sexual abuse of the newborn by hospital staff.

During the parent child interactional portion of the evaluation, Dr. Rosado observed Lorelle's greatest strengths to be in her affection and commitment to her daughter, Jasmine.   He noted that she loves her daughter and is “clearly invested in doing whatever was necessary to gain custody.  [Lorelle] was entirely confident about her capabilities, expressing certainty that she would have no problems maintaining rules at home and insuring her daughter's compliance.   When observed in a mother-daughter session, Ms. M. was an attentive and affectionate parent.”  (Exhibit 2A, p. 14.)   Those observations are not, however, dispositive on his conclusions on Lorelle's ability to parent Jasmine.   Dr. Rosado stated that schizoaffective disorder is a thought disorder involving impairment of logic and sensory experience.   It involves hallucinations and emotional responses that are inappropriate.   Lorelle's paranoid delusions compel her to act in an irrational way, and the experience of trauma evident in posttraumatic stress disorder impacts her present functions since memories are multi-sensual.   Sights, sounds and sensations associated with past trauma provoke responses which are not rational or appropriate.   With regard to her ability to parent, the risk for Lorelle arises from the combination of her posttraumatic stress disorder and her schizoaffective disorder.   Dr. Rosado concluded in his report, “There is no doubt that Ms. M. completely loves her daughter.   There is profound concern that Ms. M. may pose a risk to Jasmine if she were to act on irrational or paranoid thoughts, which are symptoms of her schizoaffective disorder.”   (Exhibit 4A, p. 14.)   With regard to Lorelle's prognosis, Dr. Rosado noted that cases of early onset of schizoaffective disorder such as Lorelle's are especially difficult to treat.   He concluded that reunification with Jasmine could only be considered if Lorelle makes significant progress based on recommendations by her mental health service providers and therapists.

This risk to Jasmine to which Dr. Rosado referred can be best illustrated by an episode which occurred on April 22, 2009, when DCF social work supervisor Jean Norvig invited Lorelle to be present at a routine visit of Jasmine with her pediatrician.   Lorelle arrived late but in time for the start of the physical examination.   Lorelle was allowed to hold her daughter as the pediatrician conducted her examination.   Lorelle quickly became uncomfortable and was not able to hold the baby still.   Lorelle became alarmed when the doctor attempted to look down the infant's throat and threatened to “deck” her.   Lorelle began to mutter to herself when the doctor attempted to flex the baby's joints and rotate her hips.   When Lorelle began taunting the doctor, the doctor left the exam room.   While waiting for the nurse to return to the exam room, Lorelle noticed the Mongolian spots, purplish birthmarks, on Jasmine's back.   Although Lorelle had seen these birthmarks before she seemed to become visibly agitated at their appearance and commented that they had changed.   At that point, the nurse appeared and requested that the DCF worker step out into the hall.   Ms. Norvig exited the room leaving Lorelle alone with Jasmine.   The nurse explained to Ms. Norvig that the doctor was terminating the exam because of her discomfort with Lorelle's behavior and that it would be necessary to make another appointment to complete the exam.   When Ms. Norvig returned to the exam room Lorelle was now clearly agitated and accused Ms. Norvig of talking about the birthmarks with the nurse.   Ms. Norvig asked Lorelle to get the baby dressed.   Lorelle was rapidly becoming more agitated and was having great difficulty handling the baby.   Lorelle, struggling to dress the baby, began talking to her saying, “come on, give Mommy a break.”   When Ms. Norvig saw that Lorelle had incorrectly strapped Jasmine into her car seat she intervened.   Lorelle began yelling and cursing at Ms. Norvig.   Lorelle positioned herself in front of the door in an attempt to prevent Ms. Norvig from leaving the exam room with Jasmine.   When Ms. Norvig indicated that she was going to call for assistance if Lorelle did not move from the door, Lorelle snatched Ms. Norvig's cell phone and threw it to the floor.   Fortunately, nursing staff entered the room at that point allowing Ms. Norvig to exit the office.

Up to that point Lorelle had been receiving regular supervised visits with her daughter Jasmine which she attended faithfully and visits at Lorelle's had recently started.   That day was to include a third home visit with Jasmine at Lorelle's residence.   Ms. Norvig decided that prudence directed that the visit should not occur given Lorelle's agitated state.   After placing the baby in her car she so advised Lorelle.   As Lorelle began to advance toward her in the parking lot Ms. Norvig entered her vehicle, locking the doors.   Lorelle pounded her fists on the car and in a rage chased it through the parking lot, throwing anything she could after it, including her car keys and pocketbook.

As a result of that incident DCF decided to obtain yet another evaluation of Lorelle prior to attempting any home visitation sessions.   To that end Lorelle was referred to Diana Badillo Martinez, a clinical psychologist.   Dr. Martinez conducted her evaluation on April 27, 2009.   Dr. Martinez testified that she was only able to complete the clinical interview portion of the evaluation due to Lorelle's lack of cooperation with the psychometric portion of the exam.   Nonetheless she was able to make the appropriate observations, diagnoses and recommendations.   Dr. Martinez observed that Lorelle was late for the evaluation, appeared confused and her choice of dress and makeup was inappropriate for the time of day and the occasion.   The interview deteriorated as it progressed.   Dr. Martinez noted that Lorelle was not oriented as to time, her affect was incongruent with the situation, her thought process was illogical, her choice of words inappropriate, she had no ability to follow directions, her insight was weak and she exhibited symptoms of psychosis.   The symptomotology which Lorelle presented with was consistent with past diagnosis.   Relevant portions of Dr. Martinez's summary follows.

Ms. M. is a 38-year-old female, single mother of a ten month old and pregnant with her second child.   Her thought processes are highly disorganized and she reveals clear thought disorder, grandiose presentation and extremely impaired logic.   Disordered thinking will greatly affect her perceptions as well as judgment.   She describes a history of poor decision making, low impulse control, leading to conflicts with the police, her mother and relationships.   This is particularly concerning because she does not have insight or awareness of her behaviors.   Recently she became threatening and misperceived the behaviors of a physician.   Given the extent of her thought disorder, flawed logic, grandiose views and weak impulse control, it is not advisable that the child remain alone with her at any time.   Her manner of presentation, statements and poor impulse control while in the presence of a young and emotionally vulnerable child may induce anxiety and pose risks.   However, as total separation from the child is a significant stressor, which will likely trigger an intense reaction, Ms. M. should be advised of the expected behaviors while with her child.   All visits with Ms. M. should be well supervised.   Inappropriate conversations or behaviors should lead to prompt discontinuation of the visit.   At this time, Ms. M. is unable to care for any child for any prolonged period and requires supervision.

(Exhibit 5, p. 3-4.)   Dr. Martinez's recommendations included well supervised visits in a “contained setting” and further, “if any incident of loss of control in the presence of the child occurs, terminating visits altogether is advised.”  (Exhibit 5, p. 4.)

Since the time of her involvement with DCF Lorelle has been offered the following services toward her rehabilitation:  1) supervised visitation with her daughter, Jasmine, 2) intensive family preservation services through Catholic Charities of Fairfield County, 3) parenting education classes through Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center, 4) anger management through Catholic Charities Behavioral Health Services Program, 5) mental health case management services and monitoring through Western Connecticut Mental Health Network, 6) outpatient therapy through Greater Danbury Mental Health Association, 7) mental health treatment through Danbury Hospital's Community Center for Behavioral Health, and 8) crisis intervention and inpatient treatment through Danbury Hospital.

Lorelle has been compliant and diligent in the exercise of her rights of visitation with her daughter, Jasmine.   She has also been compliant for the most part with intensive family preservation services.   She does exhibit difficulty arriving on time for her visits.   This is a problem which seems to permeate every activity and service in which she has been engaged.   At Lorelle's suggestion her mother, Anita, has attended several visitation sessions, although Lorelle acknowledges an increased level of stress when her mother is present.   DCF attempted to progress to visitation sessions at Lorelle's home commencing in April 2009, but the efforts were derailed after the incident in the pediatrician's office later that month and after Dr. Martinez's evaluation of and recommendations regarding Lorelle.

DCF reported that Lorelle was not compliant with parenting classes, that she arrived late, was disruptive in class and engaged other participants in inappropriate discussion of her personal life.   Lorelle was twice discharged from parenting education programs before finally successfully completing sixteen hours of parenting classes at Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center in March 2009.   Lorelle did not successfully complete anger management.   She was discharged from the program as the result of her hostility and disruptive behavior.

Lorelle had been engaged in treatment for her mental health issues at Western Connecticut Mental Health Network (formerly known as Greater Danbury Mental Health Association) since April 2005, even prior to the birth of Jasmine and her involvement with DCF. Treatment records indicate that historically her attendance and compliance was only moderate.   Attendance and compliance deteriorated markedly just prior to her withdrawing from services in January 2009.  (Exhibit 3D.) Upon her withdrawal from services from Western Connecticut Lorelle next attempted treatment at Danbury Hospital's Community Center for Behavioral Health in February 2009.   After an excessive number of missed appointments she was refused further services and next attempted treatment with Anton Fry, M.D., a psychiatrist.   She was discharged from Dr. Fry's care because of missed appointments and Dr. Fry's belief that Lorelle required a higher level of care than he was able to provide.   Prior to the birth of her second child (the exact date was not clear from the evidence) Lorelle had once again engaged with Western Connecticut Mental Health Network which provided at a minimum monitoring services.   She could not keep an appointment and was not consistently engaged in other treatment or services at that time and medical professionals at the center were only able to provide care when Lorelle arrived on sporadic and random occasions.   Lorelle began withdrawing from services again after the birth of her second child and she was hospitalized again on September 30, 2009, when she was overwhelmed by extreme manifestations of her illness.   She was finally discharged from care with Western Connecticut Mental Health Network on October 16, 2009.  (Exhibit 3D.) A risk of dangerousness assessment was completed around the time of her hospitalization in September 2009 indicating a moderate risk level, i.e. considered “at risk” only in the presence of known triggers, with behavioral evidence of assaultive thoughts/threats or behavior, treatment noncompliance and psychosis.  (Exhibit 3B.) A high risk of dangerousness plan was completed at the time out of a heightened sense of caution on the part of a clinical director.  (Exhibit 3C.) It was not clear from the evidence with whom Lorelle is currently, if at all, engaged in and compliant with services for her mental health issues.

Aside from her mental health issues Lorelle has been diagnosed with gestational diabetes.   She is non-compliant with medical recommendations for monitoring her blood sugar levels and, against medical advice, refuses to take insulin.   Oral medication has been prescribed but her compliance with these medications is unknown.   She was reported to be non-compliant with prenatal care during her pregnancy with her second child.

Since the birth of Jasmine, Lorelle has had at least two arrests for domestic violence offenses involving her mother, Anita.   The first occurred just prior to her hospitalization in September 2008, at which time she was arrested for assaulting Anita and for violation of a protective order in favor of her.   The second and most recent occurred on November 10, 2009.   On that night, Lorelle appeared at her Anita's apartment.   Lorelle became agitated and accused Anita of having an affair with Jasmine's father, David.   When Lorelle began throwing items and breaking furniture Anita fled the apartment.   Lorelle was later located by Danbury police and charged with criminal mischief and disorderly conduct.

As To Respondent Father, David G.:

David G. is thirty years old and was born in Oaxaca, Districto Federal, Mexico.   He immigrated to the United States at age twenty-three and has held a variety of short-term jobs, mainly in construction and landscaping.   David met Lorelle sometime in 2004 and the two began seeing each other intermittently.   David indicated that he frequently travelled for work and would see Lorelle when he was in the area.   Although David was never serious about the relationship, Lorelle believed that they would build a life together and raise their two daughters.   During his individual evaluation, David related to Dr. Rosado how he had witnessed violent confrontations between Lorelle and her mother and how he was never told of Lorelle's pregnancy with Jasmine until Lorelle had been pregnant for over three months.   David was disheartened by the news of the pregnancy because he did not want a relationship with Lorelle and he did not want the responsibility that came with parenthood.   David related to Dr. Rosado the events of the evening before the birth of Jasmine when he accompanied Lorelle to Anita's home, how the two women became embroiled in a heated argument, how Lorelle's water broke and she went into labor during the argument and how Anita refused to call for medical help despite her daughter's evident distress.

David related to Dr. Rosado that he had seen Lorelle when she was agitated and that she could not control herself.   David feared for the safety of Jasmine if left with Lorelle, believing that Jasmine would certainly die if left in Lorelle's care.   David was equally adamant that Jasmine should not be left in the care of her grandmother, Anita.   David had witnessed Lorelle and Anita fighting with each other and believed Anita to be as mentally unstable as Lorelle.

David initially exercised his opportunities for visitation with Jasmine and was offered services by DCF in the nature of counseling, English classes and general assistance through the Hispanic Center and parenting education through Reconnecting Families.   David stopped regular visitation by early November 2008 and advised DCF that it was his intention to return to Mexico because he was having difficulty finding steady work in the United States.   David had his final visitation session on December 1, 2008, and he is believed to have returned to Mexico by the end of December.   David has provided no forwarding address to DCF. Since returning to Mexico, he has never contacted DCF to request visitation or information about his daughter, Jasmine, or to inquire as to her health or welfare.

As To The Child, Jasmine G.:

Jasmine G., now approximately seventeen months old, was born without complications and was discharged directly into foster care.   Her medical history is noteworthy for delays of her fine motor skills and speech, for which she receives occupational therapy and assistance with her speech delays from a teacher.   Services are provided through Birth To Three.   She had also shown some delays in walking, but any early concerns have now resolved.   She is otherwise medically up to date and eats and sleeps well.   Jasmine appears to have adjusted well to her foster parents and appears bonded to them.   They are not, however, an adoptive resource for the child.   Jasmine reacts well to her mother, Lorelle, during visitation sessions.   She smiles and appears to be positive.

Relative Resources:

The following family relatives have been offered for consideration for placement of the minor child, Jasmine:

1. Maternal grandmother, Anita, has offered herself as a resource but is not being considered because of ongoing domestic violence issues between her and her daughter, Lorelle.

2. Paternal uncle, Sidronio G., is not available as a resource.

3. Maternal aunt, Cheryl M., is not available as a resource.

4. Sergio Javier G.C., brother of David, has come forward to offer himself as a resource.   DCF has requested a study of his home in Mexico and has received a favorable report indicating that his home would be an appropriate placement for an infant.   In addition, the family also indicated that they would be willing to care for a sibling if necessary.

II. ADJUDICATION

In order to terminate parental rights the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that DCF “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and reunify the child with the parent unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from the reunification efforts ․ providing that such finding is not necessary if the court has determined at a hearing that such efforts are not appropriate.”  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1).   As noted above, the following has been provided to the respondent mother, Lorelle, to enable her reunification with her daughter:  visitation, parenting education, anger management, reunification services and family preservation, mental health case management and monitoring services.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the respondent mother.

As to the respondent father, David G., the court notes that he has been provided with visitation, counseling and parenting classes.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with David G.

As To Respondent Mother, Lorelle M.:

In considering rehabilitation under the provisions of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), “the critical issue is whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”  In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 261, 763 A.2d 71 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934, 767 A.2d 104 (2001).   Further, before the trial court can terminate parental rights it must find “that the level of rehabilitation [that the parents have] achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.”  In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 354, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).

No witness has ever said that Lorelle has acted inappropriately toward her daughter, Jasmine, or that she does not love her dearly.   Dr. Rosado noted that Lorelle's love and devotion to Jasmine was her greatest asset.   The presence of a strong loving bond in and of itself is not sufficient to prevent termination of parental rights.  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 762-63 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920, 943 A.2d 1100 (2008).   The court found most persuasive Dr. Rosado's evaluation and conclusions that reunification was only viable if Lorelle were to make significant progress.   The court therefore looks to events which occurred between the time of Dr. Rosado's evaluation in September/October 2008 and the present.

The trial court may, in the adjudicatory phase, properly consider facts and events that occur after the filing date of the petition in determining whether a respondent has achieved a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of the statute.  In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748-49, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002).   Since the date of Dr. Rosado's evaluation, Lorelle's compliance with mental health treatment has faltered.   Over the early months of 2009, she had a number of false starts and stops with several mental health service providers.   The results of her noncompliance and her deteriorating condition are evident in such occurrences as the incident at the pediatrician's office in April 2009, her hospitalization in September 2009 and her recent arrest after yet another domestic violence incident involving her mother in November 2009.   A further evaluation by Dr. Martinez in April 2009 further confirmed her condition and is especially valuable because Lorelle was at that point living within the community and was presumably not in as acute a state as when Dr. Rosado saw her some seven months earlier.   Lorelle has come no closer to being able to safely parent her daughter than she was when Dr. Rosado evaluated her when she was an inpatient in September 2008.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child, Jasmine G., has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the respondent parent, Lorelle M., 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, the parent could assume a responsible position within the life of the child.  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).

As To Purported Respondent Father, David G.:

David G. was involved in the life of his daughter, Jasmine, for scarcely three months.   During that period of time after her birth, David exercised visitation with Jasmine twice per week.   He announced his intention of returning to Mexico to DCF and left without providing a forwarding address.   He has never since contacted DCF to inquire as to the safety or wellbeing of his daughter.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child, Jasmine G., has been abandoned by the respondent father, David G., in the sense that he has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).

III. DISPOSITION

With respect to the mandatory factual findings required by General Statutes § 17a-112(k) the court finds the following:

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 the respondents, the court finds the following:

(A) As to Lorelle M., the respondent has been offered weekly supervised visitation with Jasmine in conjunction with parenting skills training, anger management, mental health treatment and monitoring all in a timely and appropriate fashion.

(B) As to David G., the respondent has been offered counseling, visitation and parenting education, all in a timely and appropriate fashion.   His present whereabouts are unknown.

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 the following:

(A) As to Lorelle M., the court finds that efforts to reunite the respondent with the child, Jasmine, have been reasonable and appropriate.

(B) As to David G., the court finds that efforts to reunite the respondent with the child, Jasmine, have been reasonable and appropriate.   His present whereabouts are unknown.

3. As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled the 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 the following:

(A) As to Lorelle M., the court finds that the respondent has failed to avail herself to all services offered and ordered as both preliminary steps and as final steps in the prior neglect proceeding.   In particular, the respondent has failed to fully cooperate and take advantage of services offered for treatment and monitoring of her mental health.   In fact, the only services with which the respondent has cooperated completely have been weekly visitation and parenting skills training.   She has, however, made little or no progress in her ability to safely parent her child.

(B) As to David G., the respondent has failed to take advantage of services offered since he has removed himself from the jurisdiction.   His present whereabouts are unknown.   Specific steps, both preliminary and final, had been ordered for him in the prior neglect proceeding.

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 the following.   Jasmine is approximately seventeen months old and has been in DCF care since she was one day old when the department invoked a 96-hour hold.   She has been in the care of her current foster family since that time.   She and her foster family have developed a familial bond.   Jasmine interacts well with her biological mother, Lorelle.   Jasmine had only limited contact with her biological father, David, within the first months of her life and in all probability has no present memory of him.

5. As to the age of the children, the court finds that the child, Jasmine G., was born on July 4, 2008 and is currently almost seventeen months old.

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 child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including but not limited to, (1) 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 (2) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child, the court finds the following:

(A) As to Lorelle M., as noted above, she consistently exercised her rights of visitation and she has participated in and completed parenting education.   She has however failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation with respect to her mental health issues as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position within the life of the child.

(B) As to David G., the respondent has left the jurisdiction and removed himself from the child's life.   His present whereabouts are unknown.

7. As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children 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 the following:

(A) As to Lorelle M., there has been nothing to prevent the respondent from maintaining a meaningful relationship with her daughter.   There has been no unreasonable conduct on the part of the co-respondent or DCF. DCF, through its various service providers have offered extensively support to Lorelle.

(B) As to David G., there has been nothing to prevent the respondent from maintaining a meaningful relationship with his daughter.   There has been no unreasonable conduct on the part of the co-respondent or DCF.

Best Interests of the Child:

The court at this phase in the dispositional stage of these proceedings must now address the issue of whether the termination of the parental rights of the respondent is in the best interests of the child.  In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992).   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the respondent parents' parental rights is in the best interests of the child, Jasmine G. In making this determination, the court has considered the child's age, growth, development, need for stability, length of stay in the foster home, nature of her relationship with the foster family and with her biological family, the degree of contact maintained by the biological parents and the genetic bond to the respondent.  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).   The court also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the remote potential benefit of maintaining a connection with her biological mother.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998).

IV. CONCLUSION

Wherefore, having considered all of the evidence and statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for the termination of parental rights of the respondent mother, Lorelle M., and the respondent father, David G., and also having found, by clear and convincing evidence upon all of the facts and circumstances presented, the it is in the child's best interests to terminate the parental rights of the respondents, the court hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondents to the child, Jasmine G.

It is further ordered that the commissioner of the department of children and families is appointed statutory parent for the child, Jasmine G. The commissioner of the department of children and families is to file with the court such written reports toward a permanency plan for the child as are required by applicable state and federal laws.   The clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoptions of the child shall notify in writing the deputy chief clerk of the Superior Court for juvenile matters at Danbury of the date when said adoptions are finalized.

Michael G. Maronich, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN2. In In re Donavin C., 2008 Ct.Sup. 19634-35, No. H14-CP07-008948-A, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Child Protection Session at Middletown (Olear, J., December 10, 2008), Judge Olear determined that there was no evidence before the court that the child was of Native American descent or that the parent was a member of an Indian Tribe.  “The court finds that the court has jurisdiction and there is no known action pending in any other court affecting custody of this child.   Despite references in Exhibits, including, without limitation, Exhibits 1 and H, to Mother being of Cherokee and Native American descent, there is no evidence before the court that Mother claimed Donavin is an Indian Child or that Mother herself is a member of an Indian Tribe as those terms are defined in 25 U.S.C. § 1903.   Until the party asserting the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.  (“ICWA”), establishes on the record the child is an Indian Child, the ICWA does not apply.   The burden of proof is upon the party asserting the applicability of ICWA to produce evidence for the court to decide whether a child is an Indian child.  In re Adoption of C.D., 751 N.W.2d 236, 242 (N.D., 2008) citing In re A.L., 2001 ND 59, 623 N.W.2d 418;  In re H.D., 343 Ill.App.3d 483, 278 Ill.Dec. 194, 797 N.E.2d 1112, 1117-18 (2003);  In re J.D.B., 584 N.W.2d 577, 582 (Iowa Ct.App.1998);  In re J.L.M., 234 Neb. 381, 451 N.W.2d 377, 387 (1990);  Anderson, 31 P.3d at 512;  In re A.S., 2000 SD 94, 614 N.W.2d 383;  42 C.J.S. Indians § 156 (2007).   If there is insufficient reason to believe a child is an Indian Child, notice under the ICWA need not be given.   See In re O.K., 106 Cal.App.4th 152, 157 (2003), In re Aaron R., 130 Cal.App.4th 697, 707 (2005).   Accordingly, based on the paucity of information presented to the court, the court finds there is no evidence the child is an Indian Child.”  Id..  FN2. In In re Donavin C., 2008 Ct.Sup. 19634-35, No. H14-CP07-008948-A, Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Child Protection Session at Middletown (Olear, J., December 10, 2008), Judge Olear determined that there was no evidence before the court that the child was of Native American descent or that the parent was a member of an Indian Tribe.  “The court finds that the court has jurisdiction and there is no known action pending in any other court affecting custody of this child.   Despite references in Exhibits, including, without limitation, Exhibits 1 and H, to Mother being of Cherokee and Native American descent, there is no evidence before the court that Mother claimed Donavin is an Indian Child or that Mother herself is a member of an Indian Tribe as those terms are defined in 25 U.S.C. § 1903.   Until the party asserting the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.  (“ICWA”), establishes on the record the child is an Indian Child, the ICWA does not apply.   The burden of proof is upon the party asserting the applicability of ICWA to produce evidence for the court to decide whether a child is an Indian child.  In re Adoption of C.D., 751 N.W.2d 236, 242 (N.D., 2008) citing In re A.L., 2001 ND 59, 623 N.W.2d 418;  In re H.D., 343 Ill.App.3d 483, 278 Ill.Dec. 194, 797 N.E.2d 1112, 1117-18 (2003);  In re J.D.B., 584 N.W.2d 577, 582 (Iowa Ct.App.1998);  In re J.L.M., 234 Neb. 381, 451 N.W.2d 377, 387 (1990);  Anderson, 31 P.3d at 512;  In re A.S., 2000 SD 94, 614 N.W.2d 383;  42 C.J.S. Indians § 156 (2007).   If there is insufficient reason to believe a child is an Indian Child, notice under the ICWA need not be given.   See In re O.K., 106 Cal.App.4th 152, 157 (2003), In re Aaron R., 130 Cal.App.4th 697, 707 (2005).   Accordingly, based on the paucity of information presented to the court, the court finds there is no evidence the child is an Indian Child.”  Id.

Maronich, Michael G., J.