IN RE: Jonathan L. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In a petition dated July 10, 2008, and filed with the Court of Probate for the district of Ellington, the paternal grandparents of Jonathan L. sought to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother, Amber Rose, (hereinafter “respondent mother”), pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Sections 45a-715, et seq.   On July 24, 2008, the Court of Probate granted temporary custody to the paternal grandparents, Richard and Barbara L. (hereinafter “paternal grandparents”).   The father of Jonathan is deceased.

The petition alleges that the child has been abandoned by the mother in the sense that she failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child;  the child has been denied the care, guidance, or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral, or emotional well-being, by reason of parental commission or omission;  and that the mother has no ongoing parent/child relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, 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 the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.

On July 17, 2008, the Court of Probate ordered that a study be conducted by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in accordance with Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-619.   On November 18, 2008, the Court of Probate granted the paternal grandparents' petition and terminated the parental rights of Amber Rose as to Jonathan L. On January 6, 2009, the respondent mother filed a motion to reopen and set aside the November 18, 2008 order terminating her parental rights.   The Court of Probate granted the respondent mother's request, set aside the judgment, and appointed an attorney to represent the mother.   On February 16, 2009, the respondent mother, through counsel, filed a motion seeking to transfer the matter pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-715(g) to the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Rockville.   On February 24, 2009, the Court of Probate granted the respondent mother's motion and transferred the petition to the Superior Court.

On March 1, 2009, notice of the termination of parental rights transfer to the Superior Court was made through counsel to the respondent mother.   On March 19, 2009, subsequent counsel filed an appearance on behalf of the respondent mother.

The case was tried to the court on January 8, 2010 and March 22, 2010.   The paternal grandparents were present with counsel.   The child's attorney was present.   The respondent mother's attorney was present.   The respondent mother participated by telephone connection from the State of Washington.   The respondent mother had actual notice.   There is no other proceeding in court regarding the custody of Jonathan.   The court has jurisdiction.   The court heard testimony from the paternal grandfather, the paternal grandmother and Jessica Fitzgerald, DCF social worker.   Exhibits were introduced.

Finding of Facts:

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence the following:

The father of Jonathan, Christopher Michael L., is deceased.   The father was an over-the-road truck driver and met the respondent mother at a bar while on the road.   On August 10, 2005, two weeks after they met, they married.   The respondent mother traveled throughout the country with the father in his truck.   The father is originally from Connecticut and the paternal grandparents are from Connecticut.   Less than one week before Jonathan was born, the respondent mother and the father moved into an apartment in Connecticut.

On February 13, 2008, Jonathan was born by way of a caesarean section six weeks premature.   At birth, his lungs were not fully developed and Jonathan had difficulties breathing.   Jonathan also had difficulties eating.   He would often not get enough food and would at times reject the food.   He had to be fed often.   The respondent mother addressed Jonathan's eating difficulties by using a “fast flow” nipple to feed him.   Jonathan was not able to take that much formula at one time.   Eventually, the respondent mother changed the nipple to a “slow flow” and Jonathan was then able to handle the feeding better.

As a result of being born prematurely, Jonathan had weekly doctor's appointments.   The respondent mother and father would take Jonathan to his doctor's appointments.   When the father was away working, the paternal grandparents would help the respondent mother with Jonathan's needs.   The paternal grandparents provided financial help, transportation to doctor's appointments, food and clothing.   The respondent mother felt strongly that since the father was on the road often, the paternal grandparents should be around to help out.

On April 13, 2008, the respondent mother and the father executed a document drafted by them, granting temporary guardianship and custody of Jonathan to the paternal grandparents.   The April 13, 2008, document, granted the grandparents “authority and permission to provide medical care, and provide for other needs as deemed necessary for the health, safety, and well being of Jonathan ․” The document further stated the purpose of the document was “intended solely to provide for the health, welfare and safety of Jonathan ․, and shall not be interpreted, or construed as a statement of abandonment by either parent.”   On April 13, 2008, the respondent mother left the State of Connecticut and left Jonathan with the paternal grandparents.   On June 18, 2008, the respondent mother signed another self-drafted document stating that she will, for the price of $1,300.00 abstain from contacting the father or Jonathan for no less than 18 years providing that she does not have to pay child support.   On June 30, 2008, Jonathan's father took his own life.

The respondent mother has not seen Jonathan since April 13, 2008.   The respondent mother has sent Jonathan cards.   She sent one birthday card on January 27, 2009, with a little stuffed bear as a gift, one Valentine's Day card in 2009, one card in May 2009, five cards in June 2009, five cards in July 2009, one card in August 2009, and one card in September 2009.   The respondent mother has not provided financial support for Jonathan.   The respondent mother has never called the paternal grandparents to inquire as to the health or well-being of Jonathan.   The respondent mother has called the DCF social worker assigned to Jonathan's case on three occasions.   However, she has not asked DCF how Jonathan is doing or for assistance on how to regain custody of Jonathan.   She has never called the paternal grandparents or the DCF social worker for a picture of Jonathan.

Jonathan has remained in the care and custody of his paternal grandparents since April 13, 2008.   They have provided for all of Jonathan's physical, emotional and medical needs.   Jonathan is thriving.   He is learning to count, he is singing and dancing.   He will be enrolled in pre-school this fall.   Jonathan is well cared for by his paternal grandparents.   He is bonded to his paternal grandparents.

Adjudication

Termination of parental rights proceedings that are initially filed in the Probate Court and then transferred to the Superior Court are governed by Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-706 et seq.   A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition.  In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006).   In the adjudicative phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence as of the time the petition is filed.   If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it then proceeds to the dispositional phase.   Id., at 207.   In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child.  Id.

The petitioners first claim that the respondent mother has abandoned Jonathan.   Pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-717(g)(2)(A), the court may approve a petition terminating parental rights if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that “the child has been abandoned by the parent 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;  ․” “Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child.”  In re Ashley F., 62 Conn.App. 307, 314, 771 A.2d 160, cert. denied 256 Conn. 910 (2001).  “Abandonment occurs where a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare.”   A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest and concern, not just a sporadic showing of interest, as “[m]aintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern.”  Id.

The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail the minimum attributes of “(1) express love and affection for the child;  (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child;  (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing, and medical care;  (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile;  and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.”  (Internal quotations omitted).  Id.

The respondent mother has not see Jonathan since he was eight weeks old.   The respondent mother did send cards on several occasions and did send two gifts to Jonathan.   However, the respondent mother has not expressed any love and affection for the child other than in the cards.   The first card and gifts the respondent mother sent were for Jonathan's first birthday.   She never called the grandparents to express any personal concern over or inquire about the health and general well-being of the child.   She has not supplied the necessary food, clothing or medical care that the child needs.   The respondent mother has made no efforts whatsoever to come to Connecticut to visit with her son or to have her son brought to the State of Washington where she resides.   The respondent mother has never provided any economic support for her child.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that, as of the time the petition was filed, the respondent mother abandoned her child within the meaning of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-717(g)(2)(A).

The petitioners next claim that Jonathan has been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission, the care, guidance or control necessary for his physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being.   In order to meet their burden of proving this ground by clear and convincing evidence, the petitioners must prove that specific acts of parental commission or omission have caused serious physical or emotional injury to Jonathan.   In re Sean H., 24 Conn.App. 135, 144, 586 A.2d 1171, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1978 (1991).   The statute does not limit the grounds to acts resulting in physical injury.  Id., at 144.   However, the statute does require a specific conduct that has caused serious physical or emotional injury to Jonathan.

The court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that Jonathan has been denied, by reason of acts of parental omission or commission, the care, guidance or control necessary for her physical, education, moral and emotional well-being as set forth in Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-717(g)(2)(B).  The respondent mother left Jonathan in the care of his paternal grandparents when he was eight weeks old.   There is no evidence at all that he has suffered any serious emotional or physical injury as a result of such actions.   Therefore, the court dismisses this ground.

Lastly, the petitioner claims that there is no ongoing parent child relationship between Jonathan and the respondent mother.   Pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-717(g)(2)(C), the court may approve a petition terminating the parental rights if it finds, on a clear and convincing evidence, that the termination is in the best interest of the child and that “there is no ongoing parent-child relationship which is defined as the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, 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 the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.”

In determining whether there is no parent-child relationship, the court is required to make a two-pronged analysis.   First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists, and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop.   In considering whether an ongoing parent-child relationship exists, the feelings of the child are of paramount importance.   The ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent.   Feelings for the natural parent connote feelings of a positive nature only.  In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 535, 77 A.2d 695 (2001).

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent mother has not seen Jonathan since he was eight weeks old.   The court further finds that there has been no interaction or relationship of any kind since the child was eight weeks old with the respondent mother.   There is no parent child relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child.   The court further finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow time for such a relationship to develop would be detrimental to the child's best interest.

Disposition

Having found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent mother has abandoned Jonathan and that there is no ongoing parent child relationship between the respondent mother and Jonathan, the court must then proceed to the dispositional phase.   In the dispositional phase, the court is required to make the following findings pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 45a-717(h).

(1) The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by a child-placing agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.

There were no specific steps issued to the respondent mother by any child-placing agency.

(2) The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or child-placing agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.   There were no applicable court orders entered.

(3) The feelings 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.

Jonathan has been in the care and custody of his paternal grandparents since he was eight weeks old.   The paternal grandparents have provided all of Jonathan's day to day needs since he was eight weeks old.   Jonathan has bonded with his paternal grandparents.   Jonathan does not know his biological mother.

(4) The age of the child.

Jonathan was born February 13, 2008.

(5) 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 the child to the parent's 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 visitation, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.

The respondent mother moved from Connecticut when Jonathan was eight weeks old.   The respondent mother did not contact Jonathan until January 27, 2009, nine months later.   The respondent mother knew where Jonathan was, had the telephone number and address of Jonathan and never called or wrote to see how he was doing until January 27, 2009.   The respondent mother has not seen Jonathan since April 13, 2008.   The respondent mother has sent cards and two gifts to Jonathan, however, the cards and gifts are too little and too late for a child that was eight weeks old when he last saw his mother.

(6) The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.

The respondent mother left the State of Connecticut under her own will.   The respondent mother voluntarily left Jonathan in the care and custody of the paternal grandparents.   The respondent mother has not been prevented from having any meaningful relationship with Jonathan.

ORDERS

Wherefore, after considering all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist to terminate the respondent mother's parental rights, and finding by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interest to do so, the court orders:

That the parental rights of the respondent mother, Amber Rose, are hereby terminated as to her son Jonathan L.

That the court appoints the paternal grandparents statutory parents of Jonathan.

That within thirty days paternal grandparents shall file with the court a written case plan for Jonathan.

BY THE COURT,

Suarez, J.

Suarez, José A., J.