IN RE: Tionna B.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITIONS TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS

Background

Under petitions dated November 5, 2009, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (hereinafter DCF) moved this court to terminate the parental rights of the mother and putative father ² of Tionna B. (date of birth:  2/13/01) and Jeremiah B. (date of birth: 9/9/02).   Service on the mother and putative father has been accomplished pursuant to statutory and practice book standards.   The termination petitions allege that mother and “father” have abandoned the children.   The petitions also allege that the children previously have been determined to be neglected or uncared for and that the mother has failed to achieve appropriate rehabilitation.   Finally, the petitions allege that there is no on-going parent-child or youth relationship between father and the children.

Putative father, Jody H., failed to appear for trial and, upon DCF's motion, putative father was defaulted for failure to appear.   Counsel for putative father had been appointed for the neglect petitions, however, father had never applied for counsel for the TPR petitions.   At the termination proceedings trial, at the request of father's “neglect” counsel, said counsel was excused from the proceedings.

DCF had forwarded bus tickets to mother in order for her to appear at trial, however, mother did not appear at trial.   Nevertheless, mother was diligently represented by her counsel.

The children were represented by counsel and their best interests were addressed by another attorney serving as guardian ad litem.

Evidence included the testimony of five witnesses, all called by the DCF, 13 documentary exhibits entered by DCF, and 3 documentary exhibits entered on behalf of mother.

There are no known other actions pending in any other court affecting the custody of these children.   While counsel for mother related to the court mother's assertion to her (counsel) and DCF of some Indian affiliation of the children, there was no specification regarding this nor was there any evidence presented as to same.   Indeed, DCF's investigation as to same revealed a negative result as to these claims:  Putative father, Jody H. denied any Indian affiliation, and the maternal grandmother, to whom mother had referred DCF on this issue, advised DCF that there was no Indian affiliation whatsoever.

Discussion and Factual Findings

Proceedings addressing petitions to terminate parental rights are governed by General Statutes § 17-112 et seq. and one or more grounds for termination set forth therein, as of the date of the petition or the last amendment, must be established by clear and convincing evidence.  In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 62 (1991).   The record supports, by clear and convincing evidence, the findings set forth below.

Mother, Sherry, is 41 years of age.   She was born in Rome, New York. Subsequent to the termination of her biological father's parental rights, Sherry was adopted by her mother's then husband, David Bresnahan.   Things did not go well-there were arguments, a series of runaways by Sherry from her family, and a subsequent divorce of Sherry's mother from the adoptive father.   Sherry completed high school and trade school, with a concentration in land surveying.   After a short marriage to one man, Sherry became involved with another man, John P., a relationship that apparently involved verbal and physical abuse.   This relationship resulted in the birth of three children, not at issue in these termination proceedings.

Subsequently, Sherry became involved with Jody H., who apparently had a problem with drug abuse.   The relationship was one that involved domestic violence so extreme that resort was made to a shelter.   Jody H. is the purported father of Tionna B. and Jeremiah B., the children at issue in these termination proceedings.   Although Jody H. at one time acknowledged that he was the father, albeit not in any legally binding proceeding, Jody H. reported that the children did not bear his name so that the family would be able to receive governmental financial assistance.   Jody H. has not had contact with the children since September 2004, and has not expressed any interest in having contact with them, nor has he expressed any interest in, or concern for, the children's wellbeing.   Jody H. lives in Texas.

The instant matter came to the attention of DCF when it received a phone call from the State of Missouri that mother had left the state with her five children,³ contrary to restrictions imposed by the State of Missouri.   The State of Missouri was prepared to issue an “Amber Alert” if mother did not surrender the children.   The Waterbury, Connecticut, police located the mother and the children and mother was arrested.   DCF exercised a 96-hour hold on April 7, 2007.   On April 10, 2007, an ex parte order of temporary custody of all five children was issued, and on April 20, 2007, the order of temporary custody was sustained.   In March 2008, without advising her children, mother moved back to the State of Missouri, to live with her boyfriend, Travis Crase.   Although at some time thereafter mother subsequently advised DCF that she no longer lived “with” Mr. Crase, she continued to reside in his home.   Mother is unemployed and has no legal source of income.   She has applied for social security benefits, but her applications have been denied.

On September 9, 2008, the five children were adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF.

In April 2009, mother declined DCF's offer of transportation to and from Connecticut to visit with her children.   She did accept such offers in October and December of 2009, however, two of the older children, not at issue in these termination proceedings, refused to visit with mother.

Tionna B. has been treated for post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from alleged physical and sexual abuse by her putative father, during the time she was in her mother's care.   Similar allegations have been asserted by the child as to mother's boyfriend, Travis Crase.   Tionna is doing well in her foster home, having made a very positive adjustment.   Tionna is very comfortable in this home, has established an emotional bond and relationship with the family and wishes to remain there.   The foster parents are eager to adopt Tionna.

Jeremiah B. has struggled with some learning disabilities.   He was in need of medical and dental testing and attention at the time of coming into the care of DCF and these problems have been addressed.   At the present time, he is in good health, having undergone excision of rotten teeth, removal of adnoids and insertion of tubes in his ears.   He suffers from delayed speech and this educational challenge is being addressed.   He loves to be outside and engaging in outdoor activities.   Jeremiah has participated in individual counseling for over a year to address the trauma and neglect he has suffered in his family situations, as well as the separation from his mother and his siblings.   Jeremiah is doing well in his present foster home, however, it is not a pre-adoptive situation at this time.

Special concerns have been noted in that Tionna and Jeremiah have engaged in inappropriate contact with one another, i.e., kissing, hugging, rubbing one another, and lying on top of one another.   The children have been prompted to discontinue these activities and it has been determined that it is best that they not reside together.

In the past, mother has acknowledged to DCF that her children have a history of exposure to domestic violence and have been physically and sexually abused, as well as neglected and homeless, while in her care.   However, mother continues to act as though these problems do not exist and it is clear that she is not capable of addressing them in the foreseeable future.

Adjudicatory Findings and Disposition

The clear and convincing evidence reveals that mother has abandoned her children.   Furthermore, by that same standard, the evidence reveals that mother has proven herself unable to benefit from reunification services because she is not able to care for herself, much less her children;  is not able to provide a safe and stable home for her children;  is unable to protect her children from abusive individuals such as the boyfriend for whom she moved to Missouri, while simultaneously deserting her children;  and in discontinuing to partake in the programs established with the assistance of DCF. She is not a viable caretaker for her children, will not become one within the foreseeable future, and suffers from unaddressed mental health and abuse issues.

The clear and convincing evidence reveals that the putative father has abandoned his children and has no on-going relationship with either of them, much less a parental one.

As to the best interests of the children in this matter, clear and convincing evidence establishes the following findings of the court:

1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and children to facilitate reunion.

DCF has offered mother substance abuse services.   While she was in Connecticut, mother tested negative for illegal drugs, however, there were incidents in which mother appeared to be under the influence of a substance, and mother did have a history of prescription drug abuse.   Mother has completed a psychological and mental health assessment arranged by DCF. Although she started to participate in the psychotherapy and mental health treatment recommended as a result of this assessment, that participation terminated when mother left Connecticut in March 2008 to live with her boyfriend in Missouri.

In short, mother has made attempts to comply with her specific steps, however, she has fallen short, and appears to have simply been going through the motions, with no real success, or meaningful accomplishment.

DCF has also made arrangements for, and financially subsidized, mother's visitation with the children.   Mother has not taken full advantage of this, and has not made any other attempts to be with these children.

The children have also been enrolled in individual counseling at Advanced Solutions Therapy Center, and treated at that facility as well.

2. Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

Reasonable efforts were made.

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

No specific steps were issued for Jody H.

The specific steps for mother, dated 9-9-08, included participation in parenting, individual and family counseling and utilizing services to assist in parenting, mental health and addressing the children's needs and issues.   They also provided that mother cooperate with the children's therapy and visit with the children as often as DCF permits.   As the evidence set forth above clearly and convincingly reveals, there has not been compliance with these steps.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to the children's parents, any guardian of such children's persons, and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control for at least one year and with whom the children have developed significant emotional ties.

The children have expressed no desire to return to living with their mother.   Indeed, even returning to Missouri to live with another relative has been adamantly rejected by Tionna, who is fearful of abuse by her mother's latest boyfriend.   The therapist advises that the traumatic effect of subjecting these children to a return to Missouri or their mother's care would have devastatingly disastrous, permanent effects on the children.   In addition, the children have done amazingly well in their present living environments and, equally amazingly, have been able to develop emotional ties to their care-giving foster families, despite the history of the children's lives.

5. The ages of the children.

Tionna B. is 9 years of age;  her date of birth is February 13, 2001.

Jeremiah B. is 7 years of age;  his date of birth is September 9, 2002.

6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the children as part of an effort to reunite the children with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact of communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.

As the factual findings set forth above reflect, mother has made minimal efforts to communicate with the children, and, indeed, has engaged in a course of conduct that precludes meaningful communications and meetings.   Mother has moved to another state and persists in engaging in a relationship with another person which is detrimental to the well-being of her children.   Mother was provided with paid transportation to this state for these proceedings, but did not even bother to attend so as to give the court at least some indication of her interest in the well-being of these children.

Putative father has not had any contact with the children, in person or by any other means.   He has not provided any emotional, moral or financial support, and has not maintained any relationship with the children, much less showed any iota of interest in the children.

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

The evidence reveals no such circumstances.

Having found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts to reunify with mother and putative father have been made, that those efforts have not resulted in the possibility of reunification in the foreseeable future, that grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of mother and putative father, as previously set forth, and after consideration of the children's need for a secure, permanent placement, the court finds termination of parental rights to be in the children's best interests and orders that the parental rights of mother Sherry K. and putative father, Jody H., are hereby terminated as to Tionna B. and Jeremiah B.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for the children and is directed to immediately attend to the outstanding issue of establishment of paternity for these children and to proceed expeditiously so as to permit adoption as soon as possible.

A status report shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be filed with the court as required by law.

SO ORDERED

Constance L. Epstein, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The file reflects reference to “acknowledged” father, however, at the April 26, 2010 trial of the termination petitions in this matter, the court made inquiry to assure that the paternity of the individual who had been named in the neglect and termination petitions, as to these two children, had been established and the court was advised that paternity had not been established..  FN2. The file reflects reference to “acknowledged” father, however, at the April 26, 2010 trial of the termination petitions in this matter, the court made inquiry to assure that the paternity of the individual who had been named in the neglect and termination petitions, as to these two children, had been established and the court was advised that paternity had not been established.

FN3. In addition to the two children at issue in this termination matter, mother is the parent of three other children, Tinamarie, 17 years of ace, Destin, 16 years of ace, and Cheyenne, also 16 years of age.   The father of these latter-named children has been identified as someone other than the father of the children at issue in this termination proceeding.   As to all of the children, a decision on the motion to review permanency plans, for 2009, and for 2010, has been placed on the record on this date.   A signed transcript of those proceedings will be incorporated into the file..  FN3. In addition to the two children at issue in this termination matter, mother is the parent of three other children, Tinamarie, 17 years of ace, Destin, 16 years of ace, and Cheyenne, also 16 years of age.   The father of these latter-named children has been identified as someone other than the father of the children at issue in this termination proceeding.   As to all of the children, a decision on the motion to review permanency plans, for 2009, and for 2010, has been placed on the record on this date.   A signed transcript of those proceedings will be incorporated into the file.

Epstein, Constance L., J.