IN RE: Baby Boy B. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In accordance with General Statute § 46b-124 and Practice Book § 32a-7, the names of the parties involved in this case are not to be disclosed, and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.

This case presents a petition for the termination of the parental rights of the mother, Nicole B., and the putative father, John Doe, of the minor child, Baby Boy B., born September 28, 2009.

The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the General Statutes and the Practice Book. The court finds that it has jurisdiction in this matter.   There is no other action pending in any other court affecting the custody of Baby Boy B. known to this court.

A history of the file reveals that on October 8, 2009, DCF filed a petition of neglect and an order of temporary custody on behalf of the child.   The order of temporary custody was granted on October 8, 2009.   The temporary custody of the child was vested in DCF. On January 27, 2010, the child was adjudicated neglected and was committed on February 24, 2010 to the care and custody of the department of children and families.

On March 2, 2010, a petition for the termination of the parental rights of the child was filed by DCF.

The court found on March 16, 2010, that the putative father, John Doe, was noticed of the pendency of the termination of the parental rights petition by publication in the Willimantic Chronicle on March 6, 2010, a newspaper in Willimantic, Connecticut with a publisher's certificate of publication being presented to the Court.

The putative father, John Doe, was defaulted on May 28, 2010 for his failure to appear on the petition for the termination of parental rights.   A military affidavit was on file with the court attesting that the putative father, John Doe, is not known to be in the U.S. military.

The putative father, John Doe, has not appeared for any court hearing on the termination of parental rights petition.

On May 26, 2010, the mother consented to the termination of her parental rights in open court.   She was represented by counsel.   The mother filed a written consent.   The court found that the mother voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of her parental rights, having received the advice and assistance of competent legal counsel and having understood the consequences of her action.   The consent was accepted by the court on May 26, 2010.   As to the mother, the termination of parental rights petition alleged as a ground for the termination of her parental rights her consent to the termination.

The termination of parental rights case was continued to May 28, 2010.   At the hearing of May 28, 2010, a social study was presented as an exhibit.   In addition, the court heard testimony from a social worker for the department of children and families.

The court having read the verified petition and exhibit and having weighed the testimony presented, makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

The mother has an extensive criminal history in the state of Connecticut.   She reported that she dropped out of school when she was in the eighth grade.   She has a sporadic employment history.   Her parental rights were terminated with her five other children.   It was also reported by the mother that she has extensively used crack cocaine, marijuana and cocaine in the past.   She has acknowledged that she used cocaine and heroin throughout her pregnancy with her son.   The mother has significant substance abuse issues, untreated mental health issues, exhibits poor parenting skills and lacks appropriate housing, as well as a stable income.   She also failed to follow through with appropriate services offered by DCF and has not maintained contact with her son.   She has only visited with her child twice since he was born.   She recognized her inability to care for him and consented to the termination of her parental rights on May 26, 2010.

The putative father's, John Doe's, whereabouts are currently unknown despite a diligent search and investigation by DCF. The mother had reported that four men may have been the father of this child.   A paternity test was given to all four men, and all of the tests have eliminated the potential fathers as being the child's father.   He has never contacted DCF nor has he had any contact with the child.   The putative father has never seen the child.

The child was born on September 28, 2009 and is eight months old.   The mother had admitted to using illegal substances including cocaine and heroin while pregnant with her son.   The child was born premature and required intensive medical care and remained in the hospital for two and one-half months.   While under the care of DCF, the child was ultimately placed with a relative foster family on January 27, 2010 where the child currently remains.   The child is bonded with his relative foster family who have also adopted a half sibling of the child.   The foster family has expressed their desire to adopt the child should he be available for adoption.

The mother has voluntarily and knowing consented to the termination of her parental rights with respect to the child, Baby Boy B., which consent was accepted by the court.   No findings are necessary to be made pursuant to General Statute § 17a-112 as to the mother due to her consent.

With respect to whether one of the statutory grounds for the termination of the parental rights of the putative father, John Doe, exists, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been abandoned by the putative father, John Doe, in the sense that the father has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.

In addition, the court also finds that there is no ongoing parent/child relationship with the putative father John Doe that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a 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 interest of the child.

The court further finds that no positive emotional aspects of the relationship between the putative father, John Doe, and the child survive.

With regard to whether the department has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and reunify the child with the parents, court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department of children and families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and reunify the child with the parents.

With regard to whether the termination is in the best interest of the child, the following findings are made by the court by clear and convincing evidence.

As to the mother, the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate her parental rights.

As to the putative father, John Doe, the court makes the following factual findings required by General Statute § 17a-112(k), which findings are made upon clear and convincing evidence.

1. Finding regarding the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.

The putative father, John Doe, has been unknown since the commencement of the department's involvement in this case.   It was not possible to offer services for reunification to the father as he has not made himself available to receive services.

2. Finding regarding whether the department of children and families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF has made reasonable efforts to obtain the identity of the father, but his identity is unknown.   As the putative father's, John Doe's, whereabouts are unknown, his unavailability has made him unwilling or unable to benefit from such efforts.

3. Finding regarding the terms of any applicable court orders entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such orders.

The father has not complied with any obligations he had regarding the child as his identity is unknown.   He has never appeared in court and has never come forward.

4. Finding regarding the feeling and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of the 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 child does not have an emotional bond with his unknown biological father.   The court finds that no positive emotional aspects of the relationship between the putative father, John Doe, and the child survive.   The putative father, John Doe, has not had any contact with the child during the child's entire life.   The child does have a strong emotional bond with the child's relative foster parents who have indicated their desire to adopt the child should he be available for adoption.

5. Finding regarding the age of the child.

The child, Baby Boy B., was born on September 28, 2009 and is eight months old.

6. Finding regarding the efforts the parent has 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;  (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 communications with the guardian or other custodian of the child.

The putative father, John Doe, has made no effort to adjust his circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to be returned to him.   The father's whereabouts are unknown.   He has failed to maintain any contact with the child and has not had any contact with DCF.

7. Finding regarding 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.

There was no evidence presented that the putative father, John Doe, was ever prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the petitioner or any other person or by his economic circumstances.

Accordingly, the court, by clear and convincing evidence presented finds that it would be in the best interest of the child to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the putative father, John Doe.

The court, in addition to considering the above referenced seven factors, has considered multiple relevant factors, including the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability, continuity of his environment, the length of stay in foster care, the nature of the relationship with the foster and biological parents and the degree of contact with his biological parents.

In addition, the court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with his biological parents.

The attorney and guardian ad litem for the minor child are also requesting that the court terminate the parental rights of the mother and the putative father.

The child has been in the care and custody of DCF since shortly after the child's birth and has spent his entire life in foster care.   The child has only seen his mother twice and has never seen his father.   The mother has long-standing issues that prevent her from providing a home for her son, including substance abuse problems, untreated mental health issues, lack of housing, lack of a stable income and domestic violence issues.   She has not maintained a relationship with her child.   She was offered services to facilitate her reunification with her son, including individual therapy, parenting education and substance abuse assistance but has failed to follow through with the services offered and has desired to terminate her parental rights which was accomplished on May 26, 2010.

ORDER

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented, it would be in the child's best interest to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the putative father, John Doe, at this time.

This finding is made after considering the child's sense of time, the child's need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship that the child has with his biological parents and the totality of circumstances that the termination of the parental rights is in the child's best interest.

It is accordingly ordered that the parental rights of the mother and the putative father, John Doe, are hereby terminated as to the child, Baby Boy B.

It is ordered that the commissioner of the department of children and families be appointed as the statutory parent of the child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or such other permanent placement of the child.

The commissioner shall file with this court a written status report to effect such permanent placement within thirty days following the date of this judgment and file such other reports as required by state and federal laws.

The clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over an subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the deputy chief clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Willimantic of the date when said adoption is finalized.

THE COURT,

E. Graziani, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.