IN RE: Jeznaidy G. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed a Petition to Terminate the Parental Rights of both Katherine G. (Mother) and Raul R. (Father) to their daughter Jeznaidy G. (Child) on December 22, 2008.   This Court (Baldwin, J.) heard the Petition on February 3rd and 4th, 2010.   In its Petition, DCF alleged Grounds B1 and D with respect to Mother and Grounds A, B1 and D with respect to Father.   In order to prevail in its Petition DCF must prove at least one of the grounds alleged with respect to each Parent by clear and convincing evidence.   (C.G.S 17a-112(j).)  On July 23, 2009, Mother filed a Motion to Revoke Commitment that requires her to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that no cause for commitment remains and that revocation would be in Child's best interest.

Ground A (Father) requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that “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.”   Ground B1 (Mother and Father) requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that “the child has been found ․ to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ․ [and 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 Child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.”   Ground D (Mother and Father) requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that “there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child, and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.”

DCF initiated its involvement with this family on August 10, 2007, with its Petition for an Order of Temporary Custody and a supporting Neglect Petition.   Child was born on April 29, 2007.   The Court (Pittman, J.) sustained the requested petition and DCF assumed custody of Child.   On January 10, 2008, Mother entered a plea of nolo contendere to the Neglect Petition;  and Father was defaulted;  the Court (Gleeson, J.) adjudicated Child to have been neglected and committed her to DCF, vacating the prior OTC. The Court approved the initial permanency plan of reunification on June 17, 2008.   On August 18, 2009, the Court confirmed Father's paternity based on a Court ordered laboratory report.   DCF filed its Petition to Terminate Parents' Rights on the day after Christmas 2008 and the Court approved a Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights approved four months later.  (Gleeson, J.) At the time of trial, Child had been in parental custody for four months and foster care for two years and six months.

DCF placed Child in a licensed foster home.   DCF reported that a “maternal aunt has offered to be a resource for [ ․ Child] although she is not an appropriate resource at this time.”  (Exhibit 1, par.   4 B.) DCF offered no further explanation of the reasons for declining the offered relative placement.

At Child's fifteen-month well child check, the pediatrician raised concerns about her developmental milestones.   As of the December 2008 Social Study (Exhibit 1), Child had been seen by a geneticist, a developmentalist, and an orthopedist.   She had not yet seen a recommended neurologist.  “No recommendations were made and no follow up was deemed necessary.”

Mother and two of her brothers were removed from their mother's (MGM) care in July 2007 due to MGM's inability to manage their behaviors and keep them safe.   A month later DCF reunited the boys with MGM, but Mother remained in DCF custody.   Mother was in DCF care when Child was conceived and born.

The first witness offered to the Court was Father's probation officer who testified that Father was on special restrictions, specifically electronic monitoring and curfew.   He did not cooperate with his treatment at Community Mental Health Affiliates until approximately two weeks before trial.   He had been using marijuana and cocaine as of his last drug test early in January 2010.   His probation officer believes that he needs a higher level of parenting training and that Child's safety has been compromised by the fact that Father is apparently living with his brother who is an identified sex offender.

DCF next offered the testimony of Loisa T., a fourteen-year DCF social worker who is fluent in Spanish and English and who has been the social worker assigned to achieve Permanency for Child since May 2009.   She is the author of the Social Study in support of Termination of Parental Rights filed on January 27, 2010.  (Exhibit 2.) At the time of trial Child was just three months short of her third birthday and had been placed in the care of her great, great-aunt twenty days earlier.

Social Worker T. characterized Father as “homeless, unemployed and not in the stable financial condition needed to support his daughter ․ [lacking ․ ] motivation and the skills necessary to improve his current living situation.”   She reported that he failed to comply with recommended services that were required by the Court ordered Specific Steps;  that he failed to follow through when asked to provide information about services sought and completed;  and that he failed to provide names of providers of such services.  (Exhibit 2, p. 6, first full paragraph.)   Four days before the scheduled trial, Father denied use of cocaine and marijuana, claiming that his positive tests were caused not by use, but by exposure in the act of selling drugs to others.  (Id., para. 3.) Six days before the termination hearing he agreed to participate in programs that, upon successful completion, would allow reunification with Child.

As of January 26, 2010, Mother was homeless as she had been since July 2008.   She relied on friends and family for shelter.   DCF recommended that she seek a rehabilitative shelter, but she was not motivated to persist in the need to call daily until she secured an available vacancy.   Social Worker T. reported that Mother was “ ․ not in the stable financial condition needed to support her daughter ․ unable to benefit from reunification services ․ [and without] motivation and skills necessary to improve her current living situation.”  (Exhibit 2, pp. 3 & 4.) Mother had made no reasonable efforts to address her specific steps or to agree to cooperate with DCF until a matter of days before the scheduled hearing on the termination petition.   She reported to Social Worker T. that she “․ strongly believes she does not need services toward reunification. [ ․ and that she] ‘gave birth to her daughter not DCF’ and DCF should return ․ Child] to her care.”

Mother is on probation due to an domestic incident with MGM, and has not completed her anger management program.  (Exhibit 2, pp. 4 & 5.)

DCF originally offered Parents visitation with Child twice a week for two hours with the requirement that they call to confirm attendance and arrive one-half hour before the scheduled visit.   DCF's records reflect that it offered Mother and Father ninety-three visits:  Mother missed forty-one and Father missed forty-five.   Because parents failed to faithfully attend the Friday visit, the parties agreed to reduce visitation to one visit per week.  (Exhibit 2, p. 8.)

DCF offered parents extensive services to assist their efforts to complete programs designed to improve their parenting skills including case management services, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, self-help groups, anger management counseling, and individual and parenting counseling.   Both parents failed to take advantage of the offered services.  (Exhibit 2, pg. 8.)

Parents' current status as described above demonstrates that Mother and Father have not achieved a significant degree of personal rehabilitation since Child was committed to DCF. (See Exhibit 1.) The Court has great sympathy for these struggling parents.   Both have had significant histories of commitment to DCF and both have struggled to make their way in what appears to be a hostile environment.   However, they have not been able to see that their anger with the system has seriously compromised their ability to work together and with DCF in the interest of Child.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

In considering whether parental rights to any Child should be terminated, the Court gives significant weight to the psychological evaluations ordered by the Court.   In this case the evaluations were conducted by Dr. Inez Schroeder on April 6, 2009, at DCF's New Britain office.   Her written evaluation is a thorough analysis of the family, creating an informative picture of the family members and their interaction.   The Court asked Dr. Schroeder to comment on the marital relationship with respect to access to Child and the exercise of parental responsibilities.   She concluded:

[ ․ Parents] have had a number of disruptions to their relationship in the past [ ․ Father] has had relationships with another when he has promised fidelity to [ ․ Mother].   Given their past history, without intervention, it is likely that they will continue to struggle with consistency and trust in their relationship.   This instability can impact any child living in their care.

The court also asked Dr. Schroeder to comment as to whom Child's psychological parents are.   She responded that due to the limited time parents have spent with Child, her biological parents are not likely to be her psychological parents.

In response to her inquiry with respect to the parental need for supportive services to be reunited, Mother and Father both believed that reunification with home based supervision, training and support is all that is required.

In response to the Court's inquiry as to whether Parents have intellectual, psychological or physical characteristics that would impair their ability to discharge childcare responsibilities, Dr. Schroeder concluded that:

[ ․ Mother] struggles from significant difficulties regulating her moods and managing her actions ․ She has been hospitalized and arrested ․ may struggle to manage ․ moods when ․ Child challenges her and refuses to follow limits ․ Struggles with issues of trust and intimacy ․ is suspicious of others and their motives ․ may struggle to become close to her daughter ․ struggles with trust along all relationships ․ [which] could impede her ability to set appropriate boundaries with her daughter.

[ ․ Father] has cognitive limitations and difficulties managing new and complex problems ․ would likely struggle to make sound interpretations of what is happening as well as make good determinations about how to address his daughter's needs ․ struggles with connecting to others ․ has difficulty with intimacy and maintaining long term relationships. [ ․ which] would make it difficult for him to establish and maintain a nurturing and supportive environment for his daughter ․ if he is again incarcerated [ ․ Mother] may find herself homeless.

In response the inquiry as to whether, bearing in mind all of the existing circumstances, Parents could within a reasonable period of time assume a responsible position in the life of Child, Dr. Schroeder concluded that, “Due to the stressors of so many issues, there is concern that [ ․ Parents] will continue to struggle to meet these demands and would be unable to offer sound, consistent parenting to [ ․ Child].”

Approximately a month after the Court ordered the evaluation, Mother's Attorney asked the Court to authorize a psychological evaluation of his client for the purpose of assessing Mother's “language deficits and intellectual impairments” and to “insure that she understands the legal case and to determine if [ ․ Mother] can effectively assist her counsel in representing her in Court.”   Counsel noted that concerns had arisen that she “appears to be defiant or otherwise refuses to participate.”   He questioned whether her behavior might be influenced by cognitive limitations and /or language barriers.

Dr. Derek Franklin conducted his evaluation on May 2, 2009, and the Court accepted his report as Mother's Exhibit D at trial.   He administered a series of tests, reviewed collateral sources (most of which are provider reports and exhibits in this case), developed a brief history, and offered his opinions with respect to behavioral observations, intellectual findings, neurological screening, and her personality functioning.

Based on that work, he found that Mother is capable of assisting her attorney in her current legal case.   However, he also expressed a concern that her limited insight might limit her necessary full cooperation.   He noted that Mother senses that “others are out to undermine her parental competencies and ultimately conspire to remove her children.”   He asserts that the fear may extend to those who are assisting her to achieve reunification.   Dr. Franklin makes the following recommendations:

1.  Encourage providers to identify a specific plan of action focusing on Mother's working collaboratively with her attorney.   Solicit her assistance to develop the legal action plan that includes her ideas and plans.   Prepare an outline of the goals and plan that will assist her understanding of the process.

2. Suggest that Mother might consult a psychiatrist to discuss drug therapy that might control her anxiety and support her full cooperation with the process.

3. Recognize that Mother's strong bonding with Child will be a very significant fact in the Court's decision making process and Mother should engage in additional services available in the community that might enhance her capacity to form a strong bond with Child.

The Court has considered DCF's exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10, consisting of reports from service providers engaged to enhance Mother's emotional stability and capacity to care for Child.   Two reports (Exhibits 7 and 8) from the Stepping Stone Program in April and May 2008 informed DCF of incidents when Mother attempted to do serious harm to herself.   Exhibits 9 and 10 are comprised of six letters from Wheeler Clinic to Mother between November 11, 2008 and March 3, 2009.   The letters inform the Court that Mother was referred to Wheeler for two programs-a nurture and balance group design to “develop strategies/skills for emotion regulation, with focus to self change for improved and effective responses to family challenges,” and an anger management group designed to help [ ․ her] explore alternative methods for dealing with anger, frustration, depression, and anxiety while looking at the resulting consequences of behavior in the past.”   Subsequently, the Wheeler Clinic discharged Mother from both programs for non-compliance with the programs.

Mother offered an exhibit entitled “Wheeler Clinic, Inc. Group Note” that is a summary of Mother's participation in an anger management group in which she would work on “feelings-recognizing my emotions.”   Her goals were to manage her anger better and get off probation.   She started the group passively and quickly “stated that she does not want to stay” and left.   Exhibit 23 relates to Child's needs while she was in the care of foster parents.   Her pediatrician referred her to early intervention services of the Easter Seal Rehabilitation Center of Greater Waterbury, Inc. at ten months due to her delay in development of her motor skills.   She was not able to sit or bear standing weight.   The Exhibit is the exit/transition summary of Child's treatment and was conducted days before the instant hearing.

The evaluation reports that the following areas of development continue to be of concern:  personal/social interaction, adaptive capacity (self help), gross motor skills, and cognition/learning style.   The evaluation found Child's motor skills to be age appropriate, her receptive language skills to be significantly delayed and her expressive language to be moderately delayed.   Together the tests indicated that her communication skills remain a source of concern.

Mother's Exhibit E, admitted as a full exhibit without objection, is a letter dated January 28, 2010 written by Jamie R., MSW, a YES! Clinician associated with Wheeler Clinic.   Ms. R. reports that Mother has been involved with the program since October 2009.   She did not appear for her scheduled intake appointment until the third opportunity on December 18, 2009.   However, after the intake appointment she attended three of the five scheduled case management sessions and had valid excuses for the two that she missed.

DCF's Exhibits 11 through 21 and 24 relate to Mother and Father's criminal histories.   Exhibit 21 is Father's Conviction Record.   The record shows Father was arrested four times in Connecticut between April 26, 2005 and November 13, 2008, resulting in:  1. conviction on the charge of criminal trespass and a sentence of one year in jail;  2. a nolle of the charge of driving under suspension;  3. two nolles on the charges of running from the police and driving under suspension;  4. two nolles on charges of possession of marijuana and risk of injury to a minor;  and 5. conviction for interfering with a police officer and resisting arrest for which he was sentenced to one year in jail, suspended with one year probation.   Mother and MGM were arrested and processed at the police station, but neither were charged with any offense.   The only other police event involving Mother was an incident in August 2007.   Mother had been living at St. Agnes Home and Child was an infant.   Mother had a breakdown and created a serious disturbance at the home.   Child was not hurt and no injuries or damage resulted from the ruckus.   Mother was transported to St. Francis Hospital and DCF assumed responsibility for Child over the course of Mother's treatment.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Mother argues that the Court is faced with four issues: ¹

1. Has she proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that no cause for commitment exists and that reunification is in the best interest of Child, and if the answer to both questions is yes, should her pending Motion to Revoke Commitment be granted?

2. Has the Attorney General proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mother has failed to rehabilitate (Ground B1) and/or that Mother has no ongoing relationship with Child (Ground D), and if not, should DCF's Petition to Terminate her Parental Rights be denied?

3. Does the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence as heretofore defined under Connecticut law meet the requirements of Federal Constitutional Due Process as it applies to termination of parental rights.? ²

Counsel for Mother argues that she has complied with her specific steps and therefor Child's commitment to DCF should be revoked.   Mother became pregnant at the age of fifteen and gave birth to her first Child four months after her sixteenth birthday.   She signed her final specific steps eight months later after the Court adjudicated Child to have been neglected and committed her to DCF. A summary of Mother's compliance follows:

1. The parties agree that Mother and Father kept all appointments set by or with DCF, but were not as faithful in their compliance with visitation opportunities.

2. DCF referred Mother to mental health providers at Natchaug Journey House, NAFI Stepping Stone and Wheeler Clinic's FST Program.   She was compliant with individual therapy at Stepping Stone and worked on parenting skills there;  however, she was not compliant with therapeutic and psychiatric services offered by Wheeler.

3. Mother's housing has been unstable throughout her period of DCF involvement.   She refused to work with in-home services provided to her.

4. Mother was arrested for Disorderly Conduct and Assault on a Public Safety Officer and incarcerated for seven days.   She was ordered to follow the instructions of her service agencies and avoid any new arrests.

Based on the facts known at the time the Motion was filed, the Court finds that, as of the date Mother filed her motion, she had failed to meet the requirements of her Specific Steps and, therefore, denies her the Motion to Revoke Child's Commitment.

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Counsel to Mother and Father argue that DCF failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and Child and, having failed to do so, the Court cannot act to terminate Mother's parental rights to Child.   Specifically, counsel assert that DCF “failed to identify the needs of an adolescent mother;  failed to provide its own ward of the State permanency, support and guidance;  and failed to assign a social worker that was sufficiently trained to deal with the needs of a teenage mother who has been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Mood Disorder, NOS, a Global Learning Disorder, and placement in multiple residential and school settings.”

Further, Parents' counsel argue that the standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence articulated by the United States Supreme Court, not the State of Connecticut, should be applied by state courts in termination of parental rights cases because such cases implicate specific rights protected by the United States Constitution.   Without adopting the federal standard, this Court elects to apply it in this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Father impregnated Mother when he was twenty years old and she was fifteen years old in July 2006.

2. Conception of Child presents a clear case of statutory rape that has not been prosecuted.

3. Child was born in April 2007 and remained in Mother's custody in MGM's home and later at St. Agnes Group Home until August 2007.   Mother and Child received treatment, medication and parenting skills training through My People Services.   Mother later suffered a breakdown at St. Agnes Group Home that resulted in her commitment to mental health care and Child's commitment to DCF.

4. DCF made reasonable efforts to provide visitation to Mother after Child was committed.

5. Child has remained committed to DCF in foster care up to and including the dates of the hearing on the termination of Parents' rights (February 3 and 4, 2010).

6. DCF placed Child in the care of her original foster parent from October 2007 through December 2009 (two years and three months).   During this time Child received Birth to Three service from Easter Seal Rehabilitation Center of Greater Waterbury.  (See Exhibit 23.)

7. Since January 2010 Child has been placed with a maternal relative together with her infant sister born to Mother and Father in November 2009.

8. Throughout the period of commitment both Mother and Father have missed almost half of their opportunities to visit with Child.   Visitation with Child has been supervised by DCF at DCF offices and for most of the commitment period DCF reports that Child and Parents failed to form a meaningful bonding relationship during the visitation that parents attended.

9. Visits between Mother and Child improved over the two months preceding trial.  (See Exhibit 22, NB. 12/08/09-1/19/10 visits.)

10. DCF named Father as the putative father on the original Petition for an Order of Temporary Custody, but he did not respond to the Petition.   Mother later identified a Mr. Santiago as Child's father, an apparent attempt to avoid prosecution of Father.   Father did not acknowledge paternity or submit to a paternity test until August 18, 2008, sixteen months after Child's birth because of his exposure to a statutory rape charge.   The test confirmed that he is Child's Father.

11. From and after the birth of Child's sister in November 2009 Father has been more attentive to Child's infant sister than to Child.

12. Father acknowledges that he maintains a double relationship with the two women that have borne his Children and asserts that he can and will maintain his responsibility to his three children and their mothers.

13. Father continues to seek the right to care and provide for Child, but he has not engaged in services necessary to enhance his parenting capacity and has not demonstrated his ability to learn and apply skills necessary to care for Children.

14. Mother experienced a difficult childhood, endured an early pregnancy and birth of Child, resented her early experiences with juvenile authorities and DCF, and attempted to care for Child without the necessary acquired knowledge and skill.

15. Mother's adolescent history undermined her confidence in and ability to take advantage of services provided by DCF.

16. Mother did not identify Father and Father did not present himself as Child's potential biological parent until the summer of 2008.  (See Court Record-LabCorp report filed March 23, 2009.)

17. Mother requested and was granted new counsel on January 23, 2009.  (See Memorandum of Hearing on said date.)

18. Mother's new counsel undertook a more aggressive strategy to identify Mother's disabling characteristics through psychological evaluation and sought services designed to enhance her self-control and childcare skills necessary to achieve reunification.

19. Mother suffered from depressive disorder (rule out), dysthymic disorder, parent-child relational problems by history, borderline intellectual functioning, and lead poisoning-post static age two.  (See Exhibit D.)

20. At trial, Mother collaborated effectively with her attorney to seek reunification with Child.

21. The quality of Mother's visitation with Child improved in the three months before trial.

22. At the time of trial Father had secured reliable employment that has the potential of yielding adequate housing.

23. Father has an extensive criminal history.

24. Father believes that he will be able to maintain a close relationship with both of the mothers of his three children.

25. Neither Mother nor Father were ready to assume responsibility for the care and support of their respective Children at the time of trial of the Petition to Terminate their Parental Rights to care for Child.

26. Foster Mother was the primary caretaker of Child from four months after birth to one month prior to trial and they were fully bonded to one another.

27. Neither Mother nor Father had formed a close bond with Child at the time of trial.

28. During the period from Child's birth to the trial, DCF properly focused more on the obligation to Mother as their ward than reunification of Mother and Child and provided significant services to Mother in that context.

29. Although Father professes commitment to Child, his history with her is inconsistent attendance and interaction at visitation, inappropriate attention to their newborn during visits with Child.  (Exhibit 22.)

30. Child is currently placed with her infant sibling at a relative foster home.

31. Both Mother and Father are inexperienced parents who have not completed their Court ordered Specific Steps.   The Petition to Terminate Mother and Father's Parental rights dated December 12, 2008, identified the following Specific steps as incomplete:

a. Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the Court appointed and/ or guardian ad litem.

Mother participated in two of the three administrative case reviews.   She was not able to attend one because of her incarceration.

Father did not attend the ACRs.

b. Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals:  better bonding with child, basic parenting skills, stabilization through therapy and medication, and comply with probation.

Mother was “connected with mental health providers at Natchaug Journey House and NAFI Stepping Stone and Wheeler Clinic's FST Program.”   She complied with individual therapy at Stepping Stone and worked on developing parenting skills there.   She did not comply with psychiatric services at either Stepping Stone or Wheeler Clinic.

c. Accept and cooperate with in-home services referred by DCF, and make progress toward the identified goals.

Mother did not work on obtaining appropriate housing in which to care for Child.   DCF attempted to reunite Mother with MGM, but Mother moved out two weeks later.   Mother did not cooperate with in-home services in the various residences that she occupied.

d. No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system.  Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation and comply with its conditions.

In March 2008 Mother was arrested at Stepping Stone where she resided and charged with disorderly conduct and two counts of assault on a public safety officer.   She spent seven days at York Correctional Institute before presentation.   She returned to Court and was released on her promise to appear without conviction.   Mother was not arrested on any subsequent charges through the date of trial.

e. Visit Child as often as DCF permits.

Mother was not fully compliant with the visitation schedule which was two hours twice a week.   She was inconsistent on the Friday visits and missed forty of the more than ninety scheduled visitation opportunities.   The parties agreed to eliminate the Friday visits.   The record reflects that until late in November 2009, the visits were awkward as a result of parental bickering and inability to focus on Child's needs and abilities.

32. Father did not make himself available to DCF or the Court for paternity testing between Child's birth in April 2007 and August 2007.   He then appeared at and participated in a case status conference also attended by Mother, MGM, assigned counsel and Court staff.   The Order of Temporary Custody was sustained and the Court approved Specific Steps for Father which he did not sign because of his exposure to criminal prosecution.  (See Memorandum of Hearing dated August 17, 2007, Katz J.)

33. On January 10, 2008, counsel for putative Father Raul R. reported no recent contact with him and the Court (Katz, J.) defaulted him for failure to appear, without prejudice.   Putative Father, Pedro S. submitted to a paternity test on December 31, 2007, the results of which were not available.   DCF plans were to place Mother with Child in a therapeutic foster home in February.

34. On February 6, 2008, in response to the Motion of the guardian ad litem for Mother, the Court (Baldwin, J.) heard argument pertinent to his concern that Mother was deteriorating in her current placement and that the anticipated placement of Mother with Child in a foster home did not work out.   Mother's attorney requested placement of Child with Mother in the home of MGM. The Court urged that specific steps and appropriate services be in place by the next Court date.

35. The Court (Wollenberg, J.) met again on March 3, 2008, and Guardian and Attorney for Mother argued for a specific plan of reunification of Mother and Child.   Mother's counsel pressed for placement of Mother and Child with MGM.

36. Fifty days later on April 23, 2008, the parties participated in a Case Status Conference that reached no conclusion.

37. Fifty-seven days later on June 19, 2008, Attorney Lux, counsel for Child, reported that he had visited Child and that Child was well and that he continued to support reunification.   Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Labowski reported that Mother tended to leave visitation early and that putative Father continued to refuse the paternity test.   She offered that DCF would “look into the ‘PEAS program.’  “ Mother's counsel and guardian ad litem concurred and argued that DCF should place Mother on the waiting list for Casey services.   AAG Labowski favored first reuniting Mother with MGM and then working on reunification with Child.   Reunification of Child with Mother was approved as the ongoing Permanency Plan. Parties did not reach consensus on a reunification plan.

38. Sixty-three days later on August 21, 2008, Attorney Lux reported to the Court that Child continued to thrive in her foster placement.   Mother's Attorney and Guardian ad litem both repeated that no reunification plan had been offered or adopted and urged DCF to design and offer one to Mother.   Mother's counsel requested that DCF arrange for a “therapeutic parenting visitation center” in place of the current DCF supervised visitation services offered at DCF offices.

39. One hundred and fifty-five days later on January 23, 2009, the Court (Harrelston, J.) convened to receive Parents' plea to the Petition to Terminate their Parental Rights filed on December 26, 2008.

40. At Mother's request, Counsel asked to be relieved from her responsibility to represent Mother on the plea date and the Court granted the requested relief and appointed successor counsel to represent her.

41. Following a Case Status Conference on March 18, 2009, the Court met on March 26, 2009, to grant the Motion for the requested evaluation.   Mother and Father reported to the Court that they were living together in New Britain in a first floor apartment on Pleasant Street.

42. On May 7, 2010, the Court met to review the proposed permanency plan.   Parents were not present and notice of the hearing mailed to them had been returned.   No objections had been filed to the plan proposing a plan of termination of parental rights.   Father's attorney was present, but had not had any contact with his client.   Mother's attorney was not present.   Counsel for Child supported the proposed plan and the Court (Gleeson, J.) approved and adopted the plan.

43. All Counsel and Parties were present for a Case Status Conference at the Middletown Child Protection Session on May 27, 2009, to discuss trial dates and the transfer of Child to a relative preadoptive home.   Parents confirmed their previously identified residence.   The conference memorandum noted that Mother's GAL had been removed following Mother's 18th birthday.

44. At a pre-trial hearing on September 30, 2009, the parties agreed to add an additional trial day and continue the trial dates previously set for October 5 and October 8 to February 3 and 4, 2010.

45. Child's maternal great aunt (MGA) came forward as a placement resource for Child in the summer of 2009, but DCF did not approve her or license her home for placement until January 4, 2010.   DCF placed Child with MGA on January 7, 2010.  (Exhibit 2, p. 2.)

46. Beginning in November 2009, Child visited MGA three times a week for eight to ten hours a day.

47. MGA has expressed willingness to adopt Child.  (Id.)

48. The parties did not inform the Court as to whether Mother had any opportunity to visit Child at the home of MGA. (Id.)

49. For the first two years of Child's life DCF's primary obligation was to serve Mother's needs as Father was not available and Mother continued to be unstable and unwilling to cooperate with DCF services.

50. DCF made reasonable and successful efforts to meet the needs of Child through placement with foster mother and other necessary rehabilitative services provided.

51. DCF failed to offer Mother a specific and practical reunification plan as was requested by her original and successor counsel and her guardian ad litem up to and including the filing date of the Petition to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights.

52. DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that Father failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern and responsibility for Child through with his failure to acknowledge his paternity for two years, his abandonment of Mother in fathering another child with a different woman, and his stated preference for his infant daughter over Child.

53. DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that Father had no ongoing relationship with Child 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 Child and to allow further time to allow establishment of a parent/child relationship would be detrimental to Child's best interest.

54. DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that Child had been neglected and uncared for by Mother, but failed to meet its burden to prove that Mother had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering Child's age and needs, Mother could assume a responsible position in Child's life.³

55. DCF failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that to allow further time for the establishment of a parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of Child.   DCF has confidence in MGA to care for and act in Child's best interest and Mother's retention of her parental rights does not put Child at risk.

REQUIRED BEST INTEREST FINDINGS

1. With respect to Father:  Father did not acknowledge his paternity or make himself available for reunification services until August 18, 2008, sixteen months after Child's birth.   He was twenty years old when he and Mother (then 15 years old) conceived Child.   DCF offered visitation services with which he participated sporadically.   Paternity testing determined Father to be the parent of Child on August 18, 2008.   Father was non-compliant with services thereafter, but did attend visitation inconsistently.   He advised DCF that he did not seek reunification and wanted only Mother to be considered to be parent of Child.  (Exhibit 1, p. 7, par. 3.)

With respect to Mother:  Mother was committed to DCF prior to her relationship with Father, DCF and the juvenile court.   DCF offered her a series of placements prior to her pregnancy.   DCF had concerns about her intellectual and functional capacity.   She remained in placement throughout her pregnancy and after Child's birth.   DCF offered visitation services and services chosen to stabilize Mother rather than to achieve parental competence and permanency.   Although urged throughout by counsel to design a practical reunification plan to reunite Mother and Child, DCF focused unsuccessfully on stabilizing Mother as a committed child.   The decision was appropriate given Mother's needs, but limited access to the parenting and support services she needed to meet Child's needs.

2. With respect to Father:  Reasonable efforts to reunite Father with Child were not possible because Father did not acknowledge his paternity until August 18, 2008, and thereafter only participated in Mother's visitation and did not seek other reunification services.

With respect to Mother:  DCF made reasonable efforts to stabilize Mother under difficult circumstances, which efforts yielded some beneficial results as Mother matured;  however, DCF failed to design or implement a plan that would provide Mother support (as opposed to supervision) in her efforts to bond with and care for Child.

3. With respect to Father:  Father did not enter into or agree upon any court order related to any individual child placing agency and failed to endorse or meet the requirements of the Specific Steps signed and filed on August 10, 2007, by the Court (Pittman, J.).

With respect to Mother:  The record indicates that the first time Specific Steps were ordered and signed by Mother and the Court was on January 10, 2008.   Most of the steps ordered did not apply to the existing circumstances because Mother was committed to the care of DCF and wholly within its control.   Mother did cooperate with a court ordered evaluation and the required testing for the evaluation.   She signed necessary releases.   She had no further involvement with the criminal justice system.   She was unable to meet Child's needs because she was in DCF custody.   Child was also in DCF custody and the obligation belonged to it.   The only requirement of the steps within her control were to cooperate with individual counseling sessions related to mental health, anger management and verbal aggression issues.   From and after the time of her evaluation, she made significant progress in those areas.

4. With respect to Father:  Child did not have strong emotional ties to Father.   Nor did he have strong ties to her.   Father had another daughter with whom he spent time.   Father appeared uneasy with Child's inability to speak clearly and with her behavior within the limited visitation space.   Child's strong bond was with foster mother from the time of commitment until November 2009.   After the birth of their second Child, Father demonstrated a commitment to her and goaded Child about his love for her sister.

With respect to Mother:  In spite of her anger, verbal aggression and separation resentment issues, she steadily improved in her visitation with Child.   The anger that she displayed in visitation was directed at DCF and Father.   She tried to build a relationship with Child and urged Father to do so.   The supervisor of Mother's visitation with Child noted that Mother's interaction with Child during December and January visitation was warmer and more open than previous visitations.

5. At the time of trial the Child was two years and ten months old.

6. With respect to Father:  Father made no effort to adjust his circumstances to make it in Child's best interest to return to his care.   His only contact with Child was his visitation which was unreliable and distant.   He missed many of the visitations, often came late and frequently left early.   In his desire to protect himself he avoided acknowledgment of his paternity until Child was almost a year and a half old.

(A) Father avoided paternity testing and contact with Child as noted above.   His only continuing contact with Child was his inconsistent visitation beginning in the fall of 2008.

(B) DCF did not allow parental contact with foster mother.   The Court finds that it is not in the best interest of the Child to be in his care.

With Respect to Mother:  Mother was consistently angry and hostile to DCF and providers engaged in her support and rehabilitation.   She had been committed to DCF and had accumulated anger and resentment that had been obvious to all.   Over the three years of Child's commitment to DCF Mother has been caught between DCF and her dysfunctional family without finding support and security.   But she is committed to Child.

(A) Mother remained in DCF custody until her eighteenth birthday on January 16, 2009, when she aged out of her commitment and chose to leave DCF care.   DCF filed its petition to terminate her parental rights twenty-one days after her eighteenth birthday.   Early in 2009, she asked for a new Attorney because her relationship with her first appointed attorney had broken down.   DCF filed its petition to terminate her parental rights twenty-one days after her eighteenth birthday.   The Court granted Mother's request and she established a more constructive relationship with her successor attorney.   Mother's improvement demonstrated in her December and January visitation was reflected in her new attorney/client relationship.

(B) DCF did not allow direct contact with either the initial foster mother or the successor relative foster mother.

7. With respect to Father:  The Court finds that Father failed to take full advantage of his visitation opportunities.   After the birth of Mother and Father's second Child, he ignored Child in favor of the new born baby.

With respect to Mother:  The Court finds both DCF's obligation to serve Mother's needs as a committed child and the limited nature of other services offered to reunite Mother and Child denied Mother a reasonable opportunity to maintain a meaningful relationship with Child.

BEST INTEREST OF CHILD

As of the trial date, Child had been in MGA's full-time care for a short time.   At that time Mother had not completed her specific steps and DCF had not provided her with adequate services necessary to safely reunite the family.   Child has not had opportunity to successfully bond with Mother or MGA. Mother appears to be walking a different and better path.   Child is safe with MGA and is not old enough to be harmed a delayed opportunity to be adopted by a Maternal relative.   Adoption by MGA at this time might deny Child a meaningful relationship with her Mother in the future.   MGA is currently Child's foster mother and in the future the parties might conclude that subsidized guardianship or subsidized adoption will benefit Child.

Further, in November 2009, Mother gave birth to Child's sister who was committed to DCF on release from the hospital.   The common placement of the two girls raises the possibility that they might be separated in the future to the detriment of both of them.

The Court concludes by clear and convincing evidence that the children will be best served by the current status until Mother either succeeds or fails at her work on rehabilitation and reunification.

ORDERS

1. As to Father and Ground A, the Court finds that Father ignored his parental obligation to Child for more than a year and when he acknowledged his paternity, he missed more visitation opportunities than he met, did not participate actively when there, and abandoned Child when her younger sister joined the visitation sessions.   The Court concludes that Father has Abandoned Child, AND

NOW THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that his parental rights to Child should be, and hereby are TERMINATED;

2. As to Father and Ground B1, the Court finds that Child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been NEGLECTED and furthermore that he 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 the life of the Child.   NOW THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that his parental rights to Child should be and hereby are TERMINATED.

3. As to Father and Ground D, the Court finds that Father never formed an ongoing relationship with Child or met her needs on a day to day basis.   The Court also finds that to allow further time to develop such a relationship would not be in Child's best interest

NOW THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that his parental rights to Child should be and hereby are TERMINATED;

4. As to Mother and Ground B1, the Court finds that Child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been Neglected, but the services provided to her under all of the circumstance were not sufficient to achieve the required degree of personal rehabilitation, and additional time is needed, considering Child's and Mother's ages, for Mother and Child to be reunited.   NOW THEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Petition to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights to Child based on ground B1.

5. As to Mother and Ground D, the Court finds that there is no ongoing parent/child relationship between Mother and Child that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent meeting the day to day needs of her child;  however, the Court also finds that allowing further time for the establishment of the parent/child relationship in this instance would be in the best interest of Mother and Child.

NOW THEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Petition to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights to Child based on ground D.

6. Child shall remain in the custody of MGA (foster mother) and DCF shall design a comprehensive plan to address Mother's parenting skills, and establish suitable housing and income.   DCF and Mother shall agree on such plan within sixty days of the date of this decision and DCF shall allow Mother at least six months from the date of that agreement to make reasonable progress on the objectives of the Plan before it takes any adverse action.   The file shall be returned to the New Britain Court for Juvenile Matters to monitor all issues involving the implementation of these ORDERS.

Respectfully Submitted

Hon. Thayer Baldwin, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The fourth issue raised by Mother is one that should be argued at the appellate level of judicial review;  therefore, this court will not address it herein..  FN1. The fourth issue raised by Mother is one that should be argued at the appellate level of judicial review;  therefore, this court will not address it herein.

FN2. Father's brief is devoted almost entirely to the proposition that Connecticut has adopted a standard upon which to judge the finding of clear and convincing evidence, to wit.  “Clear and convincing proof ․ is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater that the probability that they are false or do not exist.”   Father claims that the United States Supreme Court standard in such a case is significantly more burdensome, to wit.  “Clear and convincing evidence is met when the evidence produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable ․ [the fact finder] to come to a clear conviction, without heritancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”  Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept of Health, 4977 U.S. 261, 285 n.11 (1990) quoting In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394, 419 (1987).   See also, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 787 (1982), and Sheehan v. Sullivan, 126 Cal. 189, 193 (1899)..  FN2. Father's brief is devoted almost entirely to the proposition that Connecticut has adopted a standard upon which to judge the finding of clear and convincing evidence, to wit.  “Clear and convincing proof ․ is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater that the probability that they are false or do not exist.”   Father claims that the United States Supreme Court standard in such a case is significantly more burdensome, to wit.  “Clear and convincing evidence is met when the evidence produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable ․ [the fact finder] to come to a clear conviction, without heritancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”  Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept of Health, 4977 U.S. 261, 285 n.11 (1990) quoting In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394, 419 (1987).   See also, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 787 (1982), and Sheehan v. Sullivan, 126 Cal. 189, 193 (1899).

FN3. An unrelated foster parent cared for Child for two years before DCF identified MGA as a resource for her.   MGA began intensive visits with Child three months before trial and took custody only weeks before trial.   At the time of transition Child's bond with her initial foster mother was terminated and Child had begun another period of adjustment and bonding.   In the meantime Mother matured.   Although she has much rehabilitation in front of her, the Court believes that a relative placement of Child creates the opportunity for Mother to continue to work toward reunification.   Providing Mother an opportunity to reunite with Child and/or opportunity to build a constructive relationship with MGA recognizes her parental rights to Child.   Further the Court is encouraged by Mother's recent ability to work with counsel and meet her obligations to the Court, Child and DCF seriously..  FN3. An unrelated foster parent cared for Child for two years before DCF identified MGA as a resource for her.   MGA began intensive visits with Child three months before trial and took custody only weeks before trial.   At the time of transition Child's bond with her initial foster mother was terminated and Child had begun another period of adjustment and bonding.   In the meantime Mother matured.   Although she has much rehabilitation in front of her, the Court believes that a relative placement of Child creates the opportunity for Mother to continue to work toward reunification.   Providing Mother an opportunity to reunite with Child and/or opportunity to build a constructive relationship with MGA recognizes her parental rights to Child.   Further the Court is encouraged by Mother's recent ability to work with counsel and meet her obligations to the Court, Child and DCF seriously.

Baldwin, Thayer, J.