IN RE: Mia M.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On January 8, 2010, the petitioner, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), filed coterminous petitions in neglect and in termination of the parental rights of Lorelle M., the biological mother, and David G., the biological father, of the child, Mia M., who was born on August 12, 2009.   The respondent mother, Lorelle M., has appeared and is represented by counsel.   David G. has been defaulted for failure to appear.   On March 16, 2010, the court found proper service on the respondent father.   After the commencement of the trial on June 7, 2010, 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.   Neither respondent parent claims Indian tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   Accordingly, the court has jurisdiction.

In the neglect petition, the statutory ground alleged is that the child is neglected in that she is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to her well-being.  General Statutes § 46b-120(8)(C) et seq.

In the termination of parental rights petition, the statutory ground alleged against the respondent mother, Lorelle M., is as follows:  the respondent is the parent of a child under the age of seven years who is neglected or uncared for, the respondent has failed, is unable or is unwilling to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, the respondent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child and her parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the commissioner of children and families.  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(E).   The statutory ground alleged against the respondent father, David G., is as follows:  the child has been abandoned in the sense that the respondent 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).

I. FACTS & FINDINGS

At the trial, which commenced on June 7, 2010, the court received or heard evidence in the form of testimony from the following:  Virginia Cameron, social worker from Community Center for Behavioral Health of Danbury Hospital;  Jennifer Bringman, DCF social worker, permanency unit;  Rodolfo Jose Rosado, Ph.D., clinical and child psychologist;  Diane E. Smith, licensed marriage and family therapist from Catholic Charities of Danbury;  William Curtis from the Harambee Center;  and Stina C. Reed, R.N. from Patient Care.

The court also received documentary evidence, including:  a social study in support of the petition for termination of parental rights dated June 3, 2010 (redacted by stipulation of the parties);  an individual psychological evaluation of the respondent mother, Lorelle M. prepared by Rodolfo Jose Rosado, Ph.D.;   both the behavioral health assessment of Lorelle and the physician orders and certification of outpatient treatment plan prepared by Virginia Cameron of the Community Center for Behavioral Health at Danbury Hospital;  a comprehensive assessment of Lorelle prepared by Catholic Charities of Danbury;  an initial treatment care plan dated October 30, 2009, and an updated treatment care plan dated January 15, 2010, prepared by Catholic Charities of Danbury;  a letter from Diane E. Smith to Jennifer Bringman, fax date stamped May 12, 2010;  and an undated letter from Diane E. Smith to Jennifer Bringman to Virginia Cameron.   The court takes judicial notice of the following proceedings and orders.

1. The court, Maronich, J., terminated the parental rights of Lorelle M. and David G. to their child Jasmine M., who was born July 4, 2008, after a trial on January 5, 2010.

2. The court, Maronich, J., granted an ex parte order of temporary custody vesting custody of the infant, Mia M., in DCF on August 14, 2009.   The order was sustained on August 18, 2009.

3. The court, Maronich, J., dismissed an uncared for petition for the minor child, Mia M., based on the allegation that the child's home cannot provide the specialized care which the physical, emotional or mental condition of the child requires after a trial on January 5, 2010.   The petition had been filed contemporaneously with the application for the ex parte order of temporary custody mentioned above.

4. The court, Maronich, J., in the instant case, granted an ex parte order of temporary custody vesting custody of the infant, Mia M., in DCF on January 8, 2010.   The order was sustained on January 12, 2010.

5. The court, Maronich, J., in the instant case, ordered specific steps ex parte on January 8, 2010.   The respondent mother, Lorelle M., agreed to the steps, and the court reconfirmed the steps on February 2, 2010.

The parties have stipulated that Attorney Tracey C. Hammer was appointed successor conservatrix of the estate and of the person of Lorelle M. in January 2008, by the Probate Court of the town of Bethel.

As To Respondent Mother, Lorelle M.

DCF involvement with Lorelle began the day after the birth of her first daughter, 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, the hospital staff provided constant one-to-one supervision for Lorelle at all times when the infant was with her.   Although an evaluation by a psychiatric nurse conducted shortly after the birth of Jasmine indicated that Lorelle was not psychotic at that time, there were grave concerns because Lorelle had stopped taking her medications for a period of time prior to Jasmine's birth.   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.   After consultation with Lorelle's conservator, Attorney Hammer, and Danbury Hospital physicians and staff, and because Lorelle's inability to care for herself created doubts 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-nine-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 volunteers her time several days a week at the Harambee Center in Danbury, a multipurpose youth center that provides recreational and cultural activities and opportunities for Danbury's youth.   Lorelle's involvement with the Center began in her youth, and she has continued to be involved by contributing her time and energy, assisting the center in clerical and office duties as well as coaching the Center's younger students in martial arts.   William Curtis, the director of the Harambee Center testified that he has known Lorelle for many years, since she attended as a youth, and that she has never acted inappropriately with either staff or with the children at the Center.   Lorelle relies upon social security disability benefits for support and resides alone in a one-bedroom apartment.   The most recent successor conservator of Lorell's person and of her estate, Attorney Hammer, was appointed in January 2008, by the Bethel 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 many years.   Sufferers of pseudocyesis falsely believe they are pregnant and manifest many of the physical symptoms of pregnancy.   Since the time of her first hospitalization, Lorelle has had numerous inpatient hospitalizations for her mental health issues, which manifest in the form of depression, delusional thoughts, extreme anxiety and aggressive behavior.   Two of her psychiatric inpatient admissions have occurred since the birth of Jasmine.   The first of these occurred shortly after the birth of Jasmine, during September and October of 2008.   The second inpatient admission occurred shortly after the birth of Mia, during September and October of 2009.

A court-ordered psychological evaluation of Lorelle was performed by Dr. Rodolfo Rosado, a clinical psychologist.   Rosado conducted his evaluation while Lorelle was inpatient at Danbury Hospital during September and October 2008.   Rosado confirmed Lorelle's prior Axis I diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder with paranoid delusions.   Although Lorelle initially denied that she had any significant childhood trauma, when she was completing the standardized childhood trauma questionnaire for Rosado, she noted that she had significant problems associated with emotional and sexual abuse.   Based on that abuse, Rosado also diagnosed Lorelle as having post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from sexual abuse as an adolescent.   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.   With regard to paranoia, Rosado noted Lorelle's extreme manifestations of psychotic delusions, which were evident in her preoccupation with an upstairs neighbor named Stephanie.   During the course of the clinical interview, Lorelle took every opportunity to bring the conversation around to Stephanie.   Her preoccupation with this nemesis pervades every aspect of Lorelle's life.   Rosado described Lorelle's preoccupation with Stephanie as follows:

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 1, p. 5.)

Rosado had the opportunity to observe Lorelle interact with her daughter, Jasmine, and he observed Lorelle's greatest strength to be in her affection and commitment to her daughter.   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 1, p. 14.)   Those observations are not, however, dispositive on his conclusions on Lorelle's ability to parent.   Rosado stated that schizoaffective disorder is a thought disorder involving impairment of logic and sensory experience.   Schizophrenia involves impairment of logical reasoning, while affective disorders are manifested in emotional responses that do not rationally correspond to exterior circumstances.   Affective disorders involve 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 that are not rational or appropriate.   With regard to her ability to parent, the risk for Lorelle arises from the combination of her post-traumatic stress disorder and her schizoaffective disorder.   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 1, p. 14.)   With regard to Lorelle's prognosis, Rosado noted that cases of early onset of schizoaffective disorder such as Lorelle's are especially difficult to treat.   He concluded in his written report that reunification with Jasmine could only be considered if Lorelle makes significant progress based on recommendations by her mental health service providers and therapists.  (Exhibit 1, p. 14.)   When questioned during the trial on what he would like to have seen Lorelle have accomplished in the intervening almost two years since his evaluation to encourage the belief that her reunification with a young child was possible, he replied that he would require a record that she had consistent and committed attendance and engagement with all therapy and treatment, an established working relationship with a therapist and sufficiently addressed the issue of early sex abuse trauma so as not to impair her present functioning.   As the court has already noted, Lorelle's parental rights to her older daughter, Jasmine, were terminated after a trial on January 5, 2010.

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. Her engagement with this service provider appears to have been on and off over the years, punctuated by periods of treatment with other service providers.   However for several months before, and at the time of, the birth of Mia, Lorelle appears to have been engaged with Western Connecticut once again for, at a bare minimum, monitoring services.   On September 4, 2009, Lorelle took her first concrete steps toward transitioning to treatment with Catholic Charities of Danbury.   Lorelle was not able to complete her intake assessment on that date, having arrived one-half hour late for the appointment and having consumed all but ten minutes of the remaining hour completing an intake form.   The session ended poorly with Lorelle becoming confrontational with the staff over the difficulty of completing the intake process.   In fact, it took a total of six sessions for Lorelle and her therapist to complete the intake assessment, a process which normally takes one or two sessions.   Lorelle's transition to Catholic Charities was interrupted when she was hospitalized from mid-September until early October because the state of her mental health deteriorated.   During this time, the treatment staff at Catholic Charities met and decided to nonetheless accept her into their program.

The intake assessment indicated psychotic symptomatology, including delusions, and multiple indicia of manic symptomatology, including expansive or elevated mood, inflated self-esteem, grandiosity, reduced need for sleep, pressured speech, excessive energy, flight of ideas, racing thoughts, distractibility, impulsivity and risky behaviors.  (Exhibit 5, p. 2.) During the six months of her engagement with Catholic Charities Lorelle engaged in eighteen therapeutic sessions.   Although she was consistent in attending the sessions, she frequently arrived late or left a session early after becoming angry.   Lorelle's therapist, Diane Smith, also indicated that Lorelle would not focus during the therapy sessions, was preoccupied with thoughts of her upstairs neighbor and was non-compliant with her medications.   Lorelle complained about the side-effects of the medications including weight gain.   Catholic Charities engaged the services of Patient Care, which provided visiting nurses who went to Lorelle's home to administer the medications and insure her compliance.   Lorelle began to refuse Patient Care personnel entry to her home, fabricating excuses as to why they could not enter.   At a meeting in January or February 2010, Lorelle agreed to accept her medications in the form of injections administered in her home by Patient Care nurses.   This method of administering the medications did not last long, and was discontinued after Lorelle pulled a syringe out of her arm as a nurse was attempting to inject her.   By the end of February 2010, Catholic Charities was recommending that Lorelle seek inpatient care.   When Lorelle refused inpatient treatment, Catholic Charities indicated that Lorelle required a higher level of treatment than it was able to provide and recommended that she receive intensive outpatient treatment at the Community Center for Behavioral Health at Danbury Hospital.   Lorelle was discharged from treatment at Catholic Charities in March 2010.   Lorelle's therapist, Diane Smith, testified that she saw no improvement in Lorelle's mental health over the course of her six month's of treatment and that although Lorelle was motivated to be in attendance to satisfy DCF, she was not willing to fully participate or engage in her treatment.

Lorelle completed a behavioral health assessment at the Community Center for Behavioral Health at Danbury Hospital on March 23, 2010.   Records of that assessment characterized Lorelle's general appearance, behavior, speech, mood, affect and thought process as abnormal and noted her agitated manner, garish makeup, loud pressured voice, angry mood, disorganized thoughts and preoccupation with DCF. (Exhibit 4, p. 6.) Further, the assessment noted an Axis I diagnosis of schizophrenic paranoid and an Axis II diagnosis of personality disorder NOS. (Exhibit 4, p. 7.) Lorelle's therapist, Virginia Cameron, testified that she has thus far seen Lorelle in five therapy sessions.   She also indicated that she discussed intensive outpatient treatment with Lorelle, which would require Lorelle to commit to therapy three times per week.   She indicated that Lorelle has declined intensive outpatient therapy, instead opting for a less intensive and more flexible plan of sessions to be held at a minimum of once per month and a maximum of once per week, potentially even less intensive than the therapy she was receiving at Catholic Charities.

Lorelle currently is prescribed Geodan, an anti-psychotic medication.   The Community Center for Behavioral Health, like Catholic Charities before it, has engaged the services of Patient Care nurses to go to Lorelle's home to administer medications.   By all accounts, Lorelle has thus far been medication compliant since the start of her treatment in March 2010, with the Community Center for Behavioral Health.   Stina C. Reed, a registered nurse and employee of Patient Care, testified that she has been administering Lorelle's medication to her daily, Monday through Friday, each afternoon since March 28, 2010, and to the best of her observation and belief, Lorelle has been compliant.   Reed indicates that Lorelle takes her medications in Reed's presence and Reed pours out another dosage for Lorelle to take at bedtime.   Reed did not indicate that she is present to observe Lorelle take her medications at bedtime.   Another, unnamed employee of Patient Care arrives in the morning to administer medications to Lorelle at the start of each day.   It is also the duties of the nurses from Patient Care to make a quick assessment of the client each time they visit to administer medications.   Reed testified that Lorelle's apartment is well kept, she has good hygiene and her dietary habits are good.   She indicated, however, that on two occasions, she saw Lorelle become angry and act inappropriately.   On each of the two occasions, Reed encountered Lorelle outside of her apartment, and, on each occasion, Lorelle was angrily confronting her upstairs neighbor, whom she regarded as a threat.   On each occasion, Lorelle accused her neighbor of either stealing her boyfriend or of somehow being involved with DCF in the removal of her children.   Some time shortly after these two confrontations, Lorelle moved to a new apartment in a different condominium complex, after her landlord declined to renew her lease because of her ongoing conflicts with other residents in the apartment complex.

Since the birth of Jasmine, Lorelle has been arrested at least twice 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 violating a protective order in favor of her mother.   The second and most recent occurred on November 10, 2009.   On that night, Lorelle appeared at her mother's apartment, became agitated and began throwing items and breaking furniture.   Lorelle was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and disorderly conduct.

Since the time of her involvement with DCF, Lorelle has been offered the following services toward her rehabilitation:  1) supervised visitation with both of her daughters, Jasmine and Mia, 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) mental health case management services and monitoring through Catholic Charities of Danbury, 7) outpatient therapy through Greater Danbury Mental Health Association, 8) mental health treatment through Danbury Hospital's Community Center for Behavioral Health, 9) prenatal care through Danbury Women's Center, and 10) crisis intervention and inpatient treatment through Danbury Hospital.

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.

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 with Jasmine 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. David has never seen his daughter, Mia, who was born almost eight months after he left the United States.   Since David returned to Mexico, he has never contacted DCF to request visitation or information about either Jasmine or Mia, or to inquire as to their health or welfare.   David's relatives in Mexico have reported to DCF that he has recently struggled with alcohol abuse and that he is believed to be homeless and residing in the mountains.

As To The Child, Mia M.

Mia M., who is now approximately ten months old, was born without complications and was placed directly into foster care from the hospital.   She is in good health and has no chronic medical issues.   Recently, she has begun to exhibit minor developmental delays manifested as tightness in her muscles resulting in difficulty in sitting up.   She receives physical therapy through Birth To Three.   She is otherwise medically up to date and eats and sleeps well.   Mia appears to have adjusted well to her foster parents and appears bonded to them.   They are not, however, being considered as an adoptive resource for the child at this time.   Paternal relatives in Mexico have come forward as an adoptive resource for both Jasmine and Mia. During visitation sessions Mia reacts well to her mother, Lorelle.

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 Mia's older sister, Jasmine.

II NEGLECT ADJUDICATION

DCF's petition in this matter is premised upon predictive neglect.  “Our statutes clearly and explicitly recognize the state's authority to act before harm occurs to protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected and not just children whose welfare has been affected.”  In re Michael D., 58 Conn.App. 119, 124, 752 A.2d 1135 (2000).  “General Statutes § 17a-101(a) provides:  The public policy of this state is:  To protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through injury and neglect;  to strengthen the family and to make the home safe for children by enhancing the parental capacity for good child care;  to provide a temporary or permanent nurturing and safe environment for children when necessary ․” (Emphasis in original.)  In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502, 512, 939 A.2d 9, cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914, 945 A.2d 976 (2008).

Based upon the child protection history of this case, at the time of the birth of Mia, as well as at the time the original uncared petition was dismissed on January 5, 2010, and at the time of the filing of the instant neglect petition, the respondent mother, Lorelle's mental health had been conclusively established as unsuitable for the care and custody of a young child and dangerous to such child's safety and welfare.   Lorelle had made little to no progress by January of 2010.   Since her discharge from inpatient care in October of 2009, Lorelle had been recommended for supervised injections because of her non-compliance with medications, and she had not met any of the benchmarks set by Dr. Rosado for consideration of reunification.   Under the statutory scheme and the case law, the court, under the circumstances of this case, can and does find that the child, Mia M., has been neglected in that she has been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or association injurious to her wellbeing.  General Statutes § 46b-120(8)(C).

III. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS 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, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing ․ or determines at trial on the petition that such efforts are not required ․” 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, Mia:  visitation, parenting education, anger management, reunification services and family preservation, mental health case management and monitoring services.   The court notes that DCF commenced reunification efforts shortly following the birth of Lorelle's first daughter, Jasmine, in July 2008.   The services provided by DCF constituted efforts at reunification that continued through the following thirteen months, until the birth of Mia in August 2009, at which point they continued on as efforts at reunification with both girls.   By the time the instant petitions were filed in January 2010, DCF had been providing services towards Lorelle's reunification with Mia for almost five months.   DCF has continued to provide services, including visitation, for Lorelle during the pendency of these petitions, up through the time of trial.   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 never offered himself as a resource for his daughter, Mia, and by all accounts would be unsuitable to serve in such capacity.   He has absented himself from the jurisdiction and has returned to his native Mexico.   He has never contacted DCF to inquire as to the health, safety or well-being of his daughter.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that David G. is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.

As To Respondent Mother, Lorelle M.:

In considering rehabilitation under the provisions of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(E), “the critical issue is whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  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, “by clear and convincing evidence, 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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 149, 962 A.2d 81 (2009).   With regard to the scope of the court's inquiry, the court in a termination of parental rights hearing should consider all potentially relevant evidence, no matter the time to which it relates.  In re Anna Lee M., 104 Conn.App. 121, 128, 931 A.2d 949, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 939, 937 A.2d 696 (2007).   See also In re Christopher B., 117 Conn.App. 773, 787, 980 A.2d 961 (2009).   The trial court may also, 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 or personal rehabilitation within the meaning of the statute.  In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748-49, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002).

In his evaluation of Lorelle in October of 2008, Dr. Rosado noted that Lorelle's love and devotion to her older daughter, Jasmine, was Lorelle's greatest asset.   Lorelle has exhibited that same devotion toward her younger daughter, Mia. The presence of a strong loving bond in and of itself is not, however, sufficient to prevent termination of parental rights.  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 762-63, 936 A.2d 638 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920, 943 A.2d 1100 (2008).   The court found most persuasive Rosado's evaluation and his testimony that reunification was only viable if Lorelle were to achieve demonstrable progress in three respects:  1) a record of consistent and committed attendance and engagement with all therapy and treatment, 2) an established working relationship with a therapist, and 3) sufficiently addressed the issue of early sex abuse trauma so that it did not impair her present functioning.   The court therefore considers critical the events that occurred between the time of Rosado's evaluation in September/October 2008, and the present and, most particularly, those that occurred in the intervening ten months since the date of Mia's birth.

After the date of Rosado's evaluation, Lorelle's compliance with mental health treatment faltered.   By the time of the birth of Mia, Lorelle was non-compliant with her medications, and she was treating at only a monitoring level.   Shortly after the birth of Mia, she attempted to change service providers and her mental health had deteriorated to the extent that inpatient treatment was again required, for the second time within a year.   She treated with Catholic Charities of Danbury from October 2009, until March 2010, but was never fully engaged or committed to her treatment and was medication non-compliant.   Her therapist testified that Lorelle made no progress within the term of her treatment.   As recently as within sixty days before the start of this trial, she was once again recommended for inpatient treatment, or, in the alternative, intensive outpatient treatment.   She declined both.   In March 2010, she once again transitioned to a new service provider.   Although she has exhibited compliance with medications with this new service provider, six weeks of compliance is hardly a sufficient period of time to encourage the belief that she will continue to be compliant, given her track record during the almost two years that she has been the object of DCF's scrutiny.   Furthermore, all indications are that she still suffers from the manifestations of her illness.   A nurse employed by Patient Care who administers medications to Lorelle at her home has witnessed two angry confrontations between Lorelle and her upstairs neighbor within the last forty-five days.   As recently as November 2009, Lorelle was arrested for yet another domestic violence incident involving her mother.   Lorelle has come no closer to being able to safely parent her daughter, Mia, than she was able to parent her older daughter, Jasmine, when Rosado evaluated her in October 2008.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child, Mia M., is under seven years old and has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for, and that the respondent parent, Lorelle M., has failed, or is unable or unwilling, 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, and such parent's parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by DCF. General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(E).

As To Respondent Father, David G.:

“A parent abandons a child if 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) ․ 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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 513-14, 959 A.2d 1063 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 911, 964 A.2d 545 (2009).

David G. has never been involved in the life of his daughter, Mia. He announced his intention of returning to Mexico to DCF almost eight months before her birth and left without providing a forwarding address.   Since that time, he has never contacted DCF to inquire as to the health, safety or wellbeing of his daughter.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child, Mia M., 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).

IV. 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 Mia 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 had been offered counseling, visitation and parenting education, all in a timely and appropriate fashion in connection with his older daughter, Jasmine.   He left the jurisdiction prior to the birth of Mia, and 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, Mia, have been reasonable and appropriate.

(B) As to David G., the court finds that he has not availed himself of such services, and his present whereabouts are unknown.

3. As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their 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 of all of the services that were offered and ordered as preliminary steps in the instant neglect proceeding.   In particular, the respondent has failed to fully cooperate and take advantage of services offered to her for the treatment and monitoring of her mental health.   In fact, the only services with which the respondent has cooperated completely have been the 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.   Preliminary specific steps had been ordered for him at the time the order of temporary custody was entered in the instant 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.   Mia is approximately ten months old and has been in DCF care since she was one day old, when the department invoked a ninety-six-hour hold in the prior uncared for proceeding.   She has been in the care of her current foster family since that time.   She and her foster family have developed a familial bond.   Mia interacts well with her biological mother, Lorelle.   Mia has never known her biological father, David, and has no present memory of him.

5. As to the age of the child, the court finds that the child, Mia M., was born on August 12, 2009, and is approximately ten 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.   Nevertheless, she has 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 in 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, has offered extensive 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 respondents is in the best interests of the child.  In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 163.   The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the respondent parents' parental rights is in the best interests of the child, Mia M. 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 respondents.  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).

V. 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, that 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, Mia M.

It is further ordered that the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent for the child, Mia M. 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

Maronich, Michael G., J.