IN RE: Sophia C.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These actions are brought by The Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or “Petitioner”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Sophia C. (hereinafter referred to as “Sophia C.” or “child” and formerly known as Jennessey S.).   The biological mother of this child is Amelia S. (hereinafter referred to as “Amelia S.” or “Mother”).   The biological father is Hector L., (hereinafter referred to as “Hector L.” or “Father”).

On 2/23/09, the Department invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of the above-named child.

On 2/26/09, Neglect Petitions and a Motion for Temporary Custody were filed on behalf of the child with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford.   On 6/30/09 the child was adjudicated neglected and was committed to the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families.

On 1/12/10, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford approved a Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption.

On 2/24/10, Petitions to Terminate Parental Rights of Amelia S. and Hector L. were filed.

On 6/5/08, the Court confirmed abode service on both parents.   Mother was present, was advised and appointed an attorney.   Father was not present, a default was entered, and a CMC was set for 4/14/10 at 9:00 a.m. Thereafter, at a court hearing concerning the TPR trial, Father did not appear and was defaulted.   Mother appeared and requested a trial which was set for 7/7/10 at 9:30 a.m.

On 7/7/10, the court commenced trial and Father failed to appear.   Shortly after the trial began, the Court suggested that the trial be continued to 8/3/10 at 9:30 a.m. in order for DCF to provide further evidence with regard to Mother's status with child Hector L. III.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted nine exhibits (A-I).   Three witnesses testified.   No exhibits were submitted and no witnesses were called by the respondent.

The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting custody of this child and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.

The grounds of the Petition for TPR as to the biological mother, Amelia S., are Failure to Rehabilitate (B-1), Abandonment and Failure to Rehabilitate (E), and as to Father, Abandonment, No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship and Failure to Rehabilitate (B-1).

On 1/12/10, the court approved a Permanency Plan of TPR and Adoption.

The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights and Neglect Petitions, and has reviewed the Petitions and the social studies and exhibits that were submitted in evidence.   The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering the evidence and the testimony of any witnesses.

I

FACTUAL FINDINGSA. Background, Facts Substantiating Allegations of Termination, Reasons for Petition and Present Situation.

Amelia S.'s involvement with DCF began in 2004 due to allegations of neglect of an older child Amelia.   The presenting problems with this family were that mother was a teenager who exhibited poor parenting skills, was reported to be involved with a gang, and subsequently abandoned her child.   Guardianship of Amelia was eventually transferred to paternal grandmother, Lisa F.

On 05/12/06, Mother gave birth to a son, Jordan.   On 03/11/08, while in the care of a non-relative, Doris D., Jordan sustained second degree burns, with small areas consisting of 3rd degree burns to his right leg and his left ankle/foot area.   During the investigation, it was revealed that Jordan had lived with Doris D. for most of his life as Mother was living a transient lifestyle, maintained only sporadic contact with the child, and did not support him financially.   Jordan's father's identity is unknown.

On 03/12/08, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of Jordan and Amelia.   Even though Jordan appeared to be properly cared for, Doris D. expressed an inability to care for him alone due to her age, financial hardship and stress.   Jordan did not have a guardian and Mother indicated that she could not care for him.   Amelia was in a similar situation;  her caretaker had allowed the temporary guardianship to expire.   On 06/05/08, both children were adjudicated neglected in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford.   Jordan was committed to DCF's care and the guardianship of Amelia was transferred back to her paternal grandmother, Lisa F.

On 03/13/08, Mother gave birth to a son, Hector and on 03/15/08, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on his behalf.   This hold was vacated on 03/18/08, and Hector was placed in the care of his father, Hector L.

Mother was issued Specific Steps, but DCF was not able to offer her services as her whereabouts were unknown from 03/10/08 to 02/20/09.

Mother's criminal history dates back to 12/10/05, when she was arrested for Assault 1 and Unlawful Assembly.   Disposition was on 06/14/06 and Mother received 6 months incarceration, 6 months suspended, and 2 years probation.

On 02/20/09, Mother gave birth to a daughter, Sophia C., at St. Francis Hospital, using the alias of Jessica S. (DOB 01/31/87).   The hospital staff made a referral to DCF because Mother had no prenatal care and had used PCP during her pregnancy, as recently as the week before her admittance, and had been drinking every weekend.   The infant was born full-term and appeared healthy.

On 02/21/09, St. Francis Hospital notified DCF that Mother and baby had tested negative for opiates, cocaine, marijuana and benzodiazepines on a first drug test.   A second test revealed that the infant's toxicology screen was positive for PCP.

On 02/21/09, Investigator Donna W. conducted a home visit to the uncle's home and he revealed that Jessica C.'s real name is Amelia S. Mother later admitted to her real identity.

On 02/23/09, Donna W. and a social worker went to the residence of Hector L.'s mother, Lizbeth S. He was no longer living with his mother, but was there at the time and provided DCF with his address.   Hector L. was involved in another relationship and he and Hector were sharing his paramour's apartment for approximately six months.   Father claimed that he and Mother were involved when she became pregnant and that there was a possibility that Sophia C. is his daughter.   He expressed a desire to have a paternity test, and if it was conclusive that he is the father, he wanted the child placed in his care.   He claimed that his mother would assist him in caring for the child.   Father stated that he and his mother went to 95 Washington Street in the spring of 2008 and he was given sole custody of Hector.   He had allowed Mother visitation with the child, but only if he was present.

On 02/24/09, Lizbeth S. came to the DCF office to confirm the information provided by her son.   She is a relative provider for three of her maternal grandchildren and was willing to provide care for Sophia C. She confirmed that she and her son went to 95 Washington Street in April 2008, but she does not recall receiving an order.

On 02/24/09, DCF attempted to make telephone contact with Mother at the numbers provided to verify whether or not she had named her daughter.   An unidentified male stated that he did not know anyone named Amelia S. or Jessica C.

B. Mother, Amelia S.

Amelia S. was born on 08/03/88 to Milagros M. She identifies herself as Puerto Rican and she has no Native American heritage.

Amelia S. has an eighth grade education.   She attended Hartford Public Schools and was a student at Burr Middle School when she became pregnant.   She transferred to the Hartford Transitional Academy, however, shortly afterward she was transferred to the STRIVE program.   She has not obtained a high school diploma or a GED.

During Amelia S.'s childhood, DCF was involved with Amelia S. and her siblings.   She was initially placed with a maternal aunt, Elizabeth A., through a temporary transfer of guardianship in Hartford Probate Court.   Guardianship was subsequently transferred to the aunt on 04/18/10.   Even though Amelia S. was supposed to be living with her aunt, she was actually living a transient lifestyle.   She eventually went to live with her friend Suzy's family.   Suzy's mother, Lisa, agreed to Amelia S. living in their home as long as she complied with her house rules and attended school.

In February 2003, Elizabeth A. began hinting that she was moving to Florida.   She approached Lisa's mother, Doris, about providing permanent care for Amelia S. In March 2003, Hartford Probate Court accepted Elizabeth A.'s resignation and appointed Doris as Amelia S.'s guardian.

In May 2003, DCF received an anonymous referral alleging that Amelia S. was pregnant by Suzy's older brother, Jose. Amelia S. denied the allegation and reported that the pregnancy was the result of a one-night stand.   Doris feared that she could not keep her grandson and Amelia S. apart, and after initially wanting Amelia S. to leave, she subsequently changed her mind and signed a DCF service agreement that she would supervise the contact between Amelia S. and Jose. A few days later Doris was hospitalized and while Jose remained at Doris' apartment, Amelia S. went to stay with Lisa and decided that she liked living there.

In June 2003, a hearing was held in Hartford Probate Court and Doris reported that she could no longer take full responsibility for Amelia S. The Probate Court gave temporary custody of Amelia S. to Lisa on the condition that Jose would not be allowed to live in his mother's home and that Amelia S. and Jose would not be allowed unsupervised contact.   Before the court hearing, Amelia S. acknowledged to the DCF social worker that Jose was the father of her unborn child.   Her attorney, Carol Veroczi, advised her not to discuss the paternity.

After Mother gave birth to her daughter, Amelia M., she resumed school and was doing well.   She assisted with the care of her infant, but Lisa was the primary caretaker, and according to Lisa, this arrangement worked well for the first six months.   After that time Amelia S. became very difficult to parent.   She disobeyed rules, disrespected authority, was hanging out in the streets and became involved with a gang, which according to West Hartford PD, was involved with weapons, drugs and intimidation.   Amelia S. was known to the PD as an enforcer, meaning that she was directed by leaders of the gang to enforce certain rules on other members.

In July 2004, Mother left her daughter with Lisa and returned home approximately ten days later, having been whereabouts unknown.   Her attitude was negative and Lisa asked Mother to leave.   She left the child and initially went to live with friends, then went back to live with Doris and eventually back to Lisa's home.

On 08/19/04, DCF received a referral regarding Mother's neglect of her infant.   For the second time, Mother had been gone from her home for approximately ten days without her infant and her whereabouts were unknown.   Lisa was willing to obtain temporary guardianship of the infant, Mother agreed, and physical neglect was not substantiated.   Temporary Guardianship of Amelia M. was first granted to Lisa in the West Hartford Probate Court on 08/27/04.   The application was renewed annually before it expired on 01/02/08.

On 01/07/08, a Motion for Family Support was filed:  Plaintiff Lisa F. v. Defendant Amelia S. with a disposition date of 02/04/08.   A Judgment of Support was issued.

On 03/12/08, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of the Amelia M., who did not have a guardian at the time.   On 03/13/08, an Order of Temporary Custody and a Petition of Neglect were filed.   The Order was granted on 03/13/08, and subsequently sustained on 03/19/08.   Jose finally acknowledged paternity of the child in Juvenile Court.   On 06/05/08, an unsubsidized transfer of guardianship was granted by the Juvenile Court to Lisa F., the child's former caretaker and paternal grandmother.

In addition to Amelia M. and Sophia C., Mother is also the biological mother of two other children, Jordan and Hector III. Jordan (DOB 05/12/06) has lived most of his life by family arrangement in the care of Doris D. On 03/06/08, he sustained second degree burns while in her care and DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold. Mother did not maintain any contact with DCF regarding Jordan's wellbeing and his father's identity is unknown.   Mother consented to the Termination of Parental Rights on 10/23/09, and Jordan was adopted on 03/09/10.

Hector III was born on 03/13/08, during the investigation regarding his older siblings.   On 03/15/08, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of the infant.   On 03/18/08, the hold was vacated and the infant was placed in the care of his alleged father, Hector L., who was living with his mother at the time.   Hector L. said that he planned to apply for sole custody of the infant, but he did not follow through.

Amelia S. has no major physical issues and denies any behavioral health issues.   She has never been married and has had both heterosexual and bisexual relationships.   She acknowledged that her relationship with Hector L. was unhealthy due to domestic violence, but she did not provide any specific details.

Mother has an extensive substance abuse history and PCP is her drug of choice.   She first began using PCP when she was sixteen years old.   With her children in DCF custody, Mother was whereabouts unknown from March 2008 to February 2009 and lost contact with her children due to her substance abuse.

Amelia S.'s criminal history dates back to 12/10/05, when she was arrested for Assault 1 and Unlawful Assembly.   Disposition was on 06/14/06, and she was sentenced to 6 months incarcerations, 6 months suspended, and 2 years probation.

On 09/09/09, Amelia S. was admitted to the Department of Correction, York CI, with a primary charge of Violation of Probation and was held on a $25,000 bond.

On 10/06/09, she was released relative to her first sentence, but she was held on a CT detainer with a bond of $17,000 for Violation of Probation and was sentenced on 10/29/09 to three months incarceration at York CI. With jail credit, her maximum release date was 11/23/09;  however, she was released on 10/30/09 for time served.   She is currently on probation.

See also Status Report dated 8/2/10 (Exhibit H).

C. Father, Hector L.

Hector L. was born on 05/14/88 in Hartford, CT. to Lizbeth S. and Hector L. Sr. He identifies himself as Puerto Rican and has no Native American heritage.   He has four siblings, three of whom are older.

Hector L. has lived in the Hartford area and attended public schools, but dropped out of Hartford High School as a sophomore.   He was a regular education student, had a lot of friends and enjoyed high school baseball.   He described his overall health as good and denied any mental health concerns.   He has never been married and denied being in a dating relationship with Amelia S. at the time of Sophia C.'s conception, but acknowledged that they had maintained an intimate relationship.

Hector L.'s work experience is limited to brief “under the table” jobs and he has no military service.

Hector L. is a convicted felon.   His criminal history dates back to 2007 for driving under suspension;  a 12/26/07 charge of possession of narcotics;  sale of hallucinogens and sale of narcotics.   Disposition was on 07/17/08 and he received 5 years jail/5 years suspended with 3 years probation.   He violated his probation, and on 07/09/09, he was arrested, posted bond and was rearrested on 01/08/10.   He was charged with Possession of Narcotics and Nonstdnt/Drgs Nr Sch/Hsg/Dy Cr. His bond was set at $20,000.00 and he was released on a professional surety.

See also Status Report dated 8/2/10 (Exhibit H).

D. Child, Sophia C.

Sophia C. was born 02/20/09, at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford.   On that same date, DCF accepted a referral from the hospital on behalf of a mother who identified herself as Jessica C. The mother had no prenatal care and admitted that she had continued to use PCP and drink alcohol throughout the pregnancy.   Toxicology screens were positive for PCP, but the infant did not exhibit any symptoms of withdrawal.   Medical staff inquired as to why she had not sought prenatal care and she stated that she was “in another world” that others would not understand.   Physical neglect of the newborn (substance abuse with adverse physical impact) by Mother was substantiated.

After interviewing Mother, the DCF investigator made a visit to the home of her maternal uncle and was informed of Mother's real name.   After being confronted by the investigator she admitted her true identity as Amelia S.

Mother was discharged from the hospital before naming the infant.   On 02/23/09, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of the infant and she was discharged to DCF as “Baby Girl C.” Mother had mentioned to the investigative social worker her intent to name the baby Jennessey S. and DCF entered that name in the case record.

On 02/26/09, a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody and a Petition of Neglect were filed by the Department of Children and Families for the State of Connecticut in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford on behalf of Sophia C. The Order of Temporary Custody was granted on 02/26/09, and subsequently sustained on 03/06/09.

Mother identified Hector L. (DOB 05/13/88) as Sophia C.'s father.   The couple reported that they had not been in a dating relationship for several months, however, they had maintained an intimate relationship.   A paternity test confirmed Hector L. is Sophia C.'s Father.   He did not like the name Jennessey, so he and Mother agreed to select a middle name together.   They planned to go to City Hall to legally name the child.

On 06/30/09, Sophia C. was adjudicated neglected and was committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department.   DCF allowed the parents almost eight months to name their child, but they never followed through.   Subsequently, the foster parents selected a name and on 10/07/09, DCF legally named the child Sophia Grace and requested a birth certificate.

Although Sophia C. has not received a professional developmental assessment nor a mental health screen, there are currently no concerns in this area.   Sophia C. celebrated her first birthday on February 20, 2010.   The child receives coordinated, comprehensive and continuous health care and her one-year physical exam was completed on 02/26/10.

Sophia C. was discharged from the hospital into DCF's care.   She is in placement with a non-relative foster care family who has expressed a desire to adopt her.   They are an English speaking family consisting of two parents, their two teenage sons and a young foster daughter;  two older birth daughters are away in college.   The family's spacious home is located out of the immediate Hartford area.   The foster father is employed and the foster mother is a homemaker.   The family is involved in their church, community and the lives of all the children in the home.   The home environment offers Sophia C. stimulation through personal interaction and appropriate toys to help enhance her development.   There are no safety concerns.

Sophia C. has an older sister, Amelia M., and two older brothers, Jordan and Hector, III. The two older siblings have different fathers, but Sophia C. and Hector share the same father.

There is no established visitation schedule between Sophia C. and her siblings.   The first and only sibling visit occurred on 05/03/09.   Amelia M.'s guardianship was transferred to her paternal grandmother and Jordan is adopted.   If Sophia C. is adopted by her current foster family, they are receptive to Sophia C. and Jordan visiting biannually provided they continue to reside in Connecticut and Jordan's mother is in agreement.

E. Relative Resources

On 08/25/09, Brenda G., who identified herself as Mother's cousin telephoned DCF. Although she had not had contact with Mother for a long period of time, she seemed willing to be a relative resource.   Information obtained during the telephone conversation indicated that she did not meet licensing criteria.

On 01/13/10, Adriana P., Mother's paternal aunt telephoned DCF. Mother had called her aunt after the 01/12/10 court hearing and asked her to provide care to Sophia C. Adriana P. stated that she maintains regular contact with Father's family, but she and Mother had not maintained regular contact with each other.   Information obtained during a subsequent telephone conversation indicated that Adriana P. did not meet licensing criteria.

Ms. S. was a relative provider for three older grandchildren, but DCF had concerns about their placement in her home.   The children were reunified with their Mother and on 01/26/10, a revocation hearing was held regarding Ms. S.'s licensing.   On 03/08/10, Ms. S. informed DCF that she would seek placement of Sophia C. as a relative provider.   She also filed a Motion to Intervene in Juvenile Court.

On 3/22/10, the decision to revoke Ms. S.'s license was upheld and on 3/22/10, her Motion to Intervene was denied.

No other relatives have come forth or have been identified by either parent.

F. Present Situation

See FACTUAL FINDINGS, Paragraph A., above and also the Status Report dated 8/22/10 (Exhibit H).

II

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION

The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Mother, Amelia S.'s and Father, Hector L.'s rights as of the date of the filing of the petition.

A. Reasonable Efforts Finding

Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, in order to terminate parental rights DCF initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify Sophia C. with her parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  C.G.S. Sec. 17a-112(j)(1).  “Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).

Reasonable efforts to reunify Sophia C. with Amelia S. are not possible because Mother has not visited her daughter on a regular basis and she has engaged only minimally in any treatment services offered by DCF. She has not been in contact with DCF regarding the well-being of Amelia S. on a regular schedule as set by DCF. She has refused the substance abuse treatment services that were offered by DCF.

Mother is unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts in that she has not made herself available to DCF despite attempts to engage her in services.   It is unknown whether Mother is still actively using substances as she is presently not in treatment.   She has shown little interest in caring for Sophia C.

Father is unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts in that he did not complete his substance abuse treatment services and has not returned to re-engage in services.   Father has not made himself available for visits with DCF for a long period of time.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Sophia C. with Amelia S. and Hector L. are no longer appropriate because despite parenting, therapeutic and reunification services offered, Mother has not demonstrated the parental skills and judgment needed to parent this child nor has she been able to take responsibility for her actions.   Father returned to prison after being released at the onset of this case.   Father has made no attempt to schedule visits with his daughter through DCF or Mother.   He was offered services through the DCF case involving his older child and he was non-compliant with those services.

The parents are unwilling to benefit from efforts because after being offered services by the Department to address the court-ordered specific steps, the parents either failed to participate in services or participated but were unable to apply the necessary skills learned.

DCF has been involved with this family since 2004.

The presenting problems with this family were the parents' immaturity and failure to understand parental responsibility, refusal to address substance abuse issues, criminal history, unstable housing, and abandonment.

The following reasonable and active efforts were made to prevent removal of the child and to reunify the child with the child's parents:

Mother:

Klingberg Family Center

Anger Management-CREC

Education-Our Piece of the Pie

Substance Abuse Evaluation & Screen-Institute for the Hispanic Family

Job Training-Our Piece of the Pie

Supervised and Unsupervised Parent-Child Visitation-DCF & MPCS

Father:

Parenting-Fatherhood Initiative Program

Supervised Parent-Child Visitation-DCF & MPCS

Substance Abuse Treatment

In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Grounds for the Termination:  Failure to Rehabilitate-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1)-as to biological Mother, Amelia S.

The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother has failed to rehabilitate herself after her child had been adjudicated as neglected.   This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1) states in part that:

[t]he Superior Court ․ may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ the child under the age of seven years ․ has been found by the Superior Court ․ to have been neglected ․ 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 the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child

Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent.  “․ [‘The statute] requires the trial court ․ to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [she] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child's life.”   (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999) “․ [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000).   See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001);  In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).

Whether the age and needs of the child would support allowance of further time for the parents to rehabilitate must also be considered.  In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 157, 167-68, 5545 A.2d 722 (1989).   The reasonableness of the time period within which rehabilitation is sought to be accomplished is a question of fact for the court.  In re Davon M., 16 Conn.App. 693, 696, 548 A.2d 1350 (1988).   Also, in determining whether further allowance of a reasonable period of time would promote rehabilitation, a court can consider efforts made since the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights.  In re Sarah M., 19 Conn.App. 371, 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Amelia S. has yet to achieve a sufficient “level of rehabilitation ․ which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child's life.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000).   See In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005);  In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001).   The credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study and exhibits, clearly and convincingly establishes that Amelia S. has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Amelia S. has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.

Ground B1-Failure to Rehabilitate with Sophia C. as to biological Mother, Amelia S.

The following specific steps, ordered by the court on 6/30/09, to facilitate the return of Sophia C. to Amelia S.'s care, have not been complied with.

Keep whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney and child's attorney.

Amelia S. has not had a permanent address since the onset of DCF's involvement in March 2008.   She has a history of transience and does not consistently keep DCF informed of her whereabouts.   After Sophia C. was committed to the Department on 6/30/09, Mother did not maintain any further contact with DCF. Her whereabouts were unknown until she was arrested in September 2009.   Since her release in October 2009, Mother has been living sporadically with her biological mother and uses her mother's address for correspondence.   Mother has a cell phone, but does not respond to voice messages in a timely manner.

Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals:  Parenting X;  Individual X;  Family;  Goals:  substance free, safe and nurturing parenting, mental health.

Amelia S. was referred to an eleven-week parenting class at Klingberg Family Center.   The classes began on 04/29/09, and were scheduled every Wednesday from 5:00-7:00 PM. She did not attend any classes.   Mother was not referred for individual counseling, because she did not maintain contact with the Department.

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment.

Mother has a long history of substance abuse and her drug of choice is PCP. On 04/03/09, she completed a urine screen and participated in a substance abuse evaluation at the Institute for the Hispanic Families.   It was recommended that she participate in intensive outpatient treatment, with a start date of 04/13/09.   Mother attended only a few groups before she stopped participating in May 2009.   She was discharged unsuccessfully from the program on August 5, 2009.

Submit to random drug testing;  the time and method of that testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.

On 4/03/09, Amelia S. participated in a urine screen which was positive for PCP.

Cooperate with recommended service providers for parenting/ individual/ family counseling;  in/home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment

DCF referred Mother to the Institute for Hispanic Families for substance abuse treatment and to Klingberg Family Center for parenting.   She has not cooperated.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income

Amelia S. did not secure permanent housing.   She has no income and is unable to meet her personal expenses.

Not engage in substance abuse

Before her incarceration, Amelia S. reported her substance abuse issues, but she failed to address them through the treatment services offered to her.

Have no involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system

On 09/09/09, Amelia S. was admitted to the Department of Corrections, York CI, with a primary charge of Violation of Probation.   On 10/06/09, she was released relative to her first sentence, but she was held on another Connecticut charge for Violation of Probation.   On 10/29/09, she was sentenced to three months at York CI for Violation of Probation and was released on 10/30/09 with time served.   She is currently on probation.

Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household

Mother does not have a permanent address.

Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of these steps and in a timely manner thereafter, notify DCF in writing of the name, address, family relationships and birthdates of any person(s) whom the respondent would like the Department to access

Amelia S. did not provide any direct information to DCF regarding a family resource for the child.   However, an alleged cousin contacted DCF on 08/25/09 and an alleged maternal grand aunt contacted DCF on 01/13/10, after being asked to do so by Mother.

Visit child as often as DCF permits and demonstrate appropriate parent/child interaction during visits.

From 4/13/09 through 9/1/09, Mother visited her infant 4 out of 19 visits available to her under the weekly visitation schedule developed as part of the child's treatment plan.   The supervised visits occurred in the community with DCF transporting her and the foster family transporting the infant.   On 10/27/09, a DCF social worker and the foster mother transported the infant to York CI for a visit with Mother who had been placed in segregation the night before and was not allowed other visitors.

On 11/10/09, Mother telephoned the DCF worker and requested that weekly visits resume.   From 12/1/09 through 1/26/10, Mother visited her infant 2 out of 8 possible visits.

Amelia S. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of her child within a reasonable time period.

Sophia C. is totally dependent on a competent caregiver to meet her basic daily needs and to provide for her safety and well being.   The child was placed in a foster home on 2/25/09, and she is thriving well.   Interactions between the child and the foster parents demonstrate attachment and mutual responsiveness.   The foster parents want to adopt the child and the child needs a permanent, nurturing home where she can grow into a healthy, happy and productive adult.

C. Grounds for Termination:  Abandonment-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) as to Biological Father, Hector L. and Biological Mother, Amelia S.

This ground is established when 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.   Sporadic efforts are insufficient to negate the claim of abandonment.   The test for determining abandonment of a child for purposes of termination of parental rights is not whether a parent has shown “some interest” in his or her child, but rather, whether the parent has maintained any reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare.  In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 36, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).

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.”  In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 209, 504 A.2d 533 (1986).

“The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes:  (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.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17-18, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993);  In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).

Ground A-Abandonment as to Sophia C. by Biological Father, Hector L.

1. Father has not seen the child since June 1, 2009.

2. Father has not provided financial support for the child.

3. Father has never sent cards, gifts or letters to the child.

4. Father has never acknowledged the child's birthday or other special days.

5. Father has not shown an interest in his child's health or welfare since February 2009.

6. Father has not inquired about the child or requested visitation for a lengthy period of time.

Ground A-Abandonment as to Sophia C. by Biological Mother, Amelia S.

1. Mother's contact with her child has been sporadic and inconsistent.

2. Mother has not provided financial support for her child.

3. Mother has not shown a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of her child.

D. Grounds for Termination:  No Ongoing Parent-Children Relationship-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) as to Biological Father, Hector L.

This ground alleged by DCF 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.”

This statutory definition, as it has been interpreted in case law, requires a finding that “no positive emotional aspects of the relationship survive.”   In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459, 470, 586 A.2d 597 (1991).  “It is inherently ambiguous when applied to noncustodial parents who must maintain their relationship with their child through visitation.”  Id., 459;  In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 531, 613 A.2d 748 (1992).   Although the ultimate question is usually whether the child has any present memories or feelings for the natural parent, the existence of a loving relationship or a “psychological parent” relationship with one other than the natural parent does not, of itself, establish the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination.  In re Jessica M., supra, 473-75.

Unlike the other nonconsensual grounds to terminate parental rights, the absence of a parent-child relationship is considered a “no fault” ground for termination.   To establish this ground requires the trial court to make a two-pronged determination.   First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists;  and second, the court must look to the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop.   The absence of a parent-child relationship can be demonstrated in situations where a child has never known her parents so that no relationship ever developed between them, or where the child has lost that relationship so that despite its former existence, it has now been completely displaced.  In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).

Judicial interpretation has imposed a requirement that a child have “present memories or feelings” for the parent, and “at least some aspects of these memories and feelings are positive” to overcome this ground.  In re Jessica M., supra, 217 Conn. 475;  In re Juvenile Appeal (84-6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 195 Conn. 801 (1984).   The existence of positive feelings usually depends on the viewpoint of the child.  In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 35, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).   As the Appellate Court recently noted, “the feelings of the child are of paramount importance.”  In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 602 (1999).  “Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only.”  Id.

Ground D-No Ongoing Parent-Children Relationship as to Biological Father, Hector L.

1. Paragraphs one through six of Ground A as to Sophia C. by Hector L. are hereby incorporated by reference.

2. Father has not seen child in over a year.

3. The child would not recognize his Father.

4. Father is a stranger to the child.

5. The child's previous positive relationship with the parent no longer exists because Father has had no contact with the child for over a year.

6. There is currently no ongoing parent-child relationship between Father and the child.   Given the age and needs of said child, to permit additional time for the establishment of such relationship would be detrimental to the child's best interest.   The child is in the care and custody of DCF and is emotionally bonded to the foster family and specifically the foster mother.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Mother, Amelia S., has failed to rehabilitate and has legally abandoned Sophia C. after a prior court finding of her having neglected the child.   Father has legally abandoned Sophia C. and has not maintained an ongoing parent-child relationship with the child.

III

DISPOSITION

Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights applying the appropriate standard of proof, the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial establish, by clear and convincing evidence, after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest.   If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.

A. C.G.S. § 17a-112(k) Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.

Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Amelia S.'s and Hector L.'s parental rights, as they did not consent [but rather a default plea was ordered by the court as to Father], the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k).  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).

These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:

1. “The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.”

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Sophia C. with her parents.   Those services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent parents to facilitate [their] reunification with [their] child and made reasonable efforts to reunite [them] with [their] child.  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Amelia S. and Hector L. are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.  CGS § 17a-112(j)(1).   Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.  In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004).

DCF was unable to provide services to facilitate the return of the child since Father, Hector L., has not come forward to participate in services and to establish stability.

2. “Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.”

This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that the parents are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as was contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF has previously offered multiple services to the parents.   DCF has made reasonable efforts to maintain contact with both parents.

3. “The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order.”

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the parents have failed to fully comply with most of the steps ordered by the court.

4. “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to her 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 child has been able to exhibit only limited bonding with her parents, due to their substance abuse and reluctance to accept their role as parents.   She has developed a strong bond with his foster parents with whom she has been placed for some time.   They have expressed a desire to adopt her.

Since Father, Hector L., has not come forward, Sophia C. was unable to bond with him.

5. “The age of the child.”

Sophia C. was born on 2/20/09 and is 1 year 6 months old.

6. “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 to such child'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 that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.”

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that they have refused to cooperate with DCF or programs presented.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for Sophia C. To permit the child to return to the parents' care would compromise the safety of the child.

7. “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.”

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, foster parents, the Department of Corrections or third parties prevented Amelia S. or Hector L. from maintaining a relationship with Sophia C., nor did their economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

B. Best Interest of the Child-C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2)

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Amelia S.'s and Hector L.'s parental rights to Sophia C. would be in her best interests.²  Applying the appropriate legal standards ³ to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of the State of Connecticut and DCF.

In determining whether termination of Amelia S.'s and Hector L.'s parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment;  her length of stay in foster care;  the nature of her relationship with her biological parents;  and the degree of contact maintained with her biological parents.⁴  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);  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).   In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance Sophia C.'s intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with her parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional wellbeing must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).

Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that it is not in Sophia C.'s best interest to continue to maintain any legal relationship with her parents.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that her parents have failed to gain insight into becoming safe, nurturing and responsible parents for Sophia C. and that their judgment and conduct remains questionable, and has not improved since their child was taken into DCF care.

The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles.   Their recalcitrance concerning referrals clearly and convincingly shows that, without commitment to consistent substance abuse treatment, as well as individual and parenting counseling, it is likely that they have extinguished what little chance they ever had to be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for any child.

An additional factor to consider in this case is time.   The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates Sophia C.'s pressing need for permanence and stability.   Unfortunately, much time would be required for Mother and Father to show that they have forsaken substance abuse, addressed their issues, undertaken the necessary counseling and succeeded in it, established themselves in the community and shown that they were capable of being safe, nurturing and responsible parents to their child.

Sophia C. cannot delay her need for permanence and stability for her parents' uncertain future.

Based upon the parents' behavior and performance so far, this court cannot foresee them ever having the ability or the opportunity to be able to follow the regimen necessary for this child to maximize his abilities and achievements.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time needed for the parents to attempt to rehabilitate and establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing and responsible parents, if that were possible, is time that their daughter cannot afford.

The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles.   Their conduct clearly and convincingly shows that it is unlikely that they will ever be able to conform their behavior to appropriate norms or be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for Sophia C.

Our courts have recognized that “long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development ․” In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999).   Furthermore, “[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence” when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children.  In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992);  see also In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).   The court is obliged to agree with DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Sophia C. is entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of her biological parents as caretakers.

Having balanced Sophia C.'s individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with her parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the child's best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to her parents.  Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.

The parents have shown a lack of interest or ability to care for their child to the extent that they have abandoned their child and have no ongoing relationship with their child.

Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by CGS § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, including the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Amelia S. and Hector L. as to Sophia C. is in the best interest of the child in question.

IV

CONCLUSION

The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Sophia C.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Amelia S., the biological Mother of the child and Hector L., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Sophia C. are hereby terminated.

It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for this child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for this child.

The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as are required by state and federal law and which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of this child.

BY THE COURT,

WOLLENBERG, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, CGS § 17a-112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court must find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”.  FN2. The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, CGS § 17a-112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court must find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”

FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action, In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33-5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000)..  FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action, In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33-5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).

FN4. “[T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999)..  FN4. “[T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).

Wollenberg, William L., J.T.R.