IN RE: Hannah P.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a contested action brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to terminate the parental rights of Charity C. to her child, Hannah P. The mother has appeared and is represented by counsel.   The child is represented by counsel.   The mother does not claim Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   This court has jurisdiction.   The mother failed to appear for the scheduled trial.   The court takes that as an expression of her lack of interest in the child's welfare.

On October 21, 2009, seven days after the child's birth, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on the child while she was still in the neonatal unit of the hospital.   On October 23, 2009, DCF filed a petition alleging neglect and for termination of parental rights.   The petition to terminate parental rights is addressed only to the mother.   Initially, the petition sought to terminate mother and a man she named as the father.   Subsequent genetic testing excluded the man named in the petition (mother's long-term boyfriend who had acknowledged paternity).   So mother picked another possible mate, who, was subsequently genetically confirmed to be the child's father.   Thereafter on February 8, 2010, an amended neglect petition was filed naming mother and the newly identified James McG. as respondents.

Mr. McG. has court appointed counsel who was present for the coterminus neglect and termination trial.   He declines any offers of specific steps for reunification.   He is unwilling to work toward unification.   He does not wish to be a placement resource for the child and is reportedly willing to consent to the termination of his parental rights to enable his sister to adopt the child.   The child is currently comfortably in placement with his sister.

Mr. McG. seldom came to court for earlier proceedings and did not appear for this trial.   With respect to the amended neglect petition, he takes the position that he was the noncustodial parent and therefore may stand silent with respect to the neglect allegations.  Practice Book § 35a-1(b).

Charity C. has had six children, by five men, none of the children are in her care.   Her oldest child, 14-year-old Victoria W. is with the child's father.   Her next oldest two children, 11-year-old Clayton and 10-year-old Jacob, have had their parent's rights terminated.   See In re Clayton M., In re Jacob M., No. 5 CP02 013015 & 6, CPS Middletown, June 20, 2006, (Jongbloed, J.).   Seven-year-old Peter W. is with his father and five-year-old Adam A. is with his father.   Curiously, at least one of her earlier children had multiple men named as a possible father just as young Hannah.

By way of background to understand Charity's situation in life the findings of

Respondent mother, Charity C., was born in Meriden, CT, on July 7, 1978.   Mother and her siblings were severely emotionally and physically abused as children by their father who hit them with 2x4s, locked them in their rooms and tied them up.   Mother stated that her father used to beat them in order to “beat the demons out of them.”   Her mother apparently had untreated psychiatric problems including bipolar disorder.   Mother was raped at the age of thirteen by a sixteen-year-old, but did not disclose or report the incident.   She began using alcohol and marijuana at the age of fourteen.   Mother first used cocaine at fifteen.   Mother's twin brother has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), depression with frequent suicidal ideation, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and a severe polysubstance abuse disorder using crack cocaine, cocaine, alcohol and OxyContin.   Mother's sister also has PTSD, and social anxiety.

At the age of fourteen, mother began a relationship with Harold W., then twenty, and, as a result, she was thrown out of the house by her father.   She moved in with Harold W. and at the age of seventeen gave birth to her daughter, Victoria.   After approximately four years together, mother and Harold W. separated when mother was eighteen and mother began a relationship with Clayton M. who was thirty-eight years old.   They married and had two children Clayton, Jr., born March 3, 1999, and Jacob, born October 16, 2000.   The parents' relationship was fraught with domestic violence and both parties were unfaithful.   In May 2001, after they had separated, father was arrested and charged with risk of injury as a result of a physical altercation with mother in which he was accused of throwing Clayton into the car causing injury to Clayton's mouth.   Victoria and Clayton were both present.   In July 2001, mother was involved in another domestic violence incident to which the Meriden Police responded, in which her boyfriend Eric D., with whom she was living at the time, accused her of being unfaithful.   The children were also present at the time of this incident which resulted in an injury to mother's foot.

During her continued separation from Clayton M., mother met Scott W. and she and the children moved into a building he owned.   Significant domestic violence marred this relationship with police involvement and protective orders.   On August 25, 2002, Scott W. was arrested for driving while under the influence.   On September 14, 2002, Scott W. was charged with threatening and a violation of a protective order when he threatened to burn the house down with mother and children inside.   After this incident DCF offered mother and the children a secure placement in a shelter which mother refused.   This relationship ended after DCF told mother that a 96-hour hold would be invoked if she continued her relationship with Scott W. Shortly thereafter, mother left the children with her mother and became whereabouts unknown.   Her mother reported to DCF that she could not care for the children and a 96-hour hold was invoked on October 15, 2002.

After her relationship with Scott W. ended and her children were placed in DCF care, mother continued in a series of short-term relationships.   Mother's fourth child, Peter, was born February 26, 2003.   In April 2003 mother claimed that Peter's father was Paul B., who was then incarcerated.   Based on mother's representations, Paul B.'s family provided mother with financial assistance, including rent.   A short time later, however, mother denied that Paul B. was the father and moved in with Michael B. for a short time.   Mother moved in with her mother briefly and then moved into a shelter with Peter in July 2004.   When she was discharged by the shelter in September 2004 for failure to follow the shelter rules, mother, twenty-six, moved in with her current boyfriend, Rick A., who was then forty-six.

An affidavit of an investigating social worker (Petitioner's Exhibit O) provides greater detail on Charity's continuing substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, physical abuse emotional and physical neglect of her children, her use of very profane language directed at her children, her inadequate living arrangements and inadequate care and supervision of her children.

Charity is age 32.   She admits to first use of cocaine at age 15 (1993).   Charity's use of opiates and heroin has continued prior to, and well past, the birth of Hannah in October 2009.   There is evidence that on August 19, 2009, Charity was admitted to St. Francis Hospital for an overdose of heroin.   When Hannah was born on October 14, 2009, a meconium test came back positive for cocaine, opiates and methadone.   Fortunately, Hannah did not suffer withdrawal symptoms while in the hospital.

DCF has been offering Charity various services since 1997.   The problems of chronic and unremedied substance abuse have continued unabated by treatment over ten years, possibly as long as seventeen years.   The agency has continually attempted to monitor her drug use through the use of hair testing and urine analysis.   During 2010, she missed hair tests scheduled for January 8 and 12.   She missed a February 3, 2010, hair test.   On February 5, she took the test and tested positive for cocaine.   The test was positive in all three tested segments for cocaine indicating continued use during the preceding 90 days.   Urine screens on February 22, and March 12, were inconclusive due to diluted samples.   Charity denies use of illegal drugs maintaining that the positive screens are a result of her medications for dental work.   The DCF worker confirmed that Lidocaine and Novacaine would not cause a false positive for cocaine.

Consistent with her claims that her dental work causes positive drug screens, Charity tested positive for opiates on May 11, 2010.   She blamed her dental care for a false positive.   The Social worker found that Charity was using the dental services at the Hartford Dispensary.   That dispensary is a drug treatment facility which assists addicted persons and also prescribes methadone to assist in withdrawal.   The Hartford Dispensary dental clinic reports that it does not prescribe or use any drugs which would result in a client's positive urine screens or hair tests.

Charity was unsuccessfully discharged from a relapse prevention program at the Community Prevention and Addiction Services with a recommendation that she participate in the more intensive outpatient program.   The counselor reported to DCF that Charity is avoidant in the group and has missed several sessions.   He has recommended her for a dual diagnosis, mental health and substance abuse program.   A program has been offered to Charity.   DCF has attempted to have Charity submit to hair tests on May 11, 18, and 25, without success.

Charity has rescinded her release of information allowing DCF to contact her probation officer.   She has two probation cases ending in July 2011.   She has an obligation to pay $1,515 in restitution and complete 300 hours of community service.

Charity's lawyer, in the absence of her client, made much of the fact that for many months Charity was regular in her visitation with the child.   She was appropriate during the supervised visitation and enjoyed her visits.   Since June of 2010, Charity has declined all drug testing and has missed most of her weekly visits;  two in June, three in July, and three in August.   When she did attend the visits she had track marks present.

Thus Charity has failed to establish that she is free of drugs.   Indeed, the tests which she has taken confirm her continued use of illegal substances.   She has exhibited a declining interest in visiting her child, her only positive conduct of parenthood.   But principally, her overdose of drugs while she was pregnant and the child's positive testing for drugs at birth establish Hannah as a neglected child at the time the petition was filed.

Based upon these facts this court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time the petition was filed, the child was neglected in that she was permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to her well-being, pursuant to § 46b-120(9)(C).

Termination of Parental Rights

The grounds alleged in the petition as to respondent mother are that she is the mother of the child, under the age of seven years who is neglected or uncared for, and she has failed or is unable 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, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child and such parent's parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.  C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(E).

Each item will be addressed individually.

1) Hannah was born on October 14, 2009.   She is under seven years of age.   Charity is the mother.

2). Charity's parental rights to two other children, Clayton and Jacob, were terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families on June 20, 2006.  (Jongbloed, J.)

3) A neglect petition was filed by DCF on October 23, 2009, as to Hannah P. This court has just concluded that the child was neglected or uncared for in that Hannah was permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to her wellbeing.

4) The last aspect of this ground relates to personal rehabilitation.   The court finds that considering the age and needs of the child, Charity could not assume a responsible position in the life of this child.   She has failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of Hannah, she could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   Hannah remains an infant, perhaps a toddler.   She needs twenty-four hour a day care by a responsible, competent and sober caretaker.   Charity has been unable, during Hannah's life, and for years before, to demonstrate that she can maintain sobriety or perform as a competent parent.   Indeed, the record confirms her intolerence, impatience and incompetence as a parent.   She is completely dependent herself upon the man she is living with for her support.   She has no known employment.   She has not demonstrated an ability to be self-sustaining.   She continues to test positive for illegal substances.   There is nothing in her history that is indicative of reform and rehabilitation.

Reasonable efforts to reunify § 17a-112(j)(1)

Based upon Charity's substantiated drug use, likely continuous for the past thirteen years, the court finds that she is unable or unwilling to benefit from services and reunification efforts.  In re Jorden R., 293 Conn 539, 551 (2009).   That is not to say that DCF did not offer reasonable and appropriate services.   Indeed, appropriate, reasonable and focused efforts were made to address her most disabling issue of drug abuse but Charity would only tepidly engage in substance abuse treatment before withdrawing or being involuntarily terminated for poor attendance.   But participation in services is not the test.   Before a court could possibly consider returning a child to a parent under these circumstances, the court must be fully satisfied that the parent has benefitted by the services and has made significant progress toward personal rehabilitation.   The clear and convincing evidence presented to this court is that Charity is unable to maintain herself free of illegal substances thus disqualifying herself from a parental role.

Finding:

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Charity is the mother of the child, under the age of seven years who is neglected or uncared for, and that Charity has failed or is unable 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, that she could assume a responsible position in the life of Hannah and that Charity's parental rights of two other children were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.

C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(E).

Required Considerations

The court makes the following factual findings required by Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(e) as to the parents, which findings are also made upon clear and convincing evidence:

1. Finding regarding 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.

As to Charity:  Mother has been offered a multitude of programs and services which have not generated any significant benefit.   Indeed, her conduct after the removal of the child has been unchanged.   She has not benefitted from any of the most widely used and accepted drug treatment services.

2. Finding regarding whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF has been willing to discharge its statutory obligations as evidenced by the many substance abuse programs made available to the mother directly and indirectly.   She continues to be avoidant to mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment.

3. Finding regarding 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.

Specific Steps were entered.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A.) While Charity complied with some steps, most notably visitation, she failed in the most crucial of the steps to attain rehabilitation personally and parentally.

4. Finding regarding the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to their parents, any guardian of his 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.

In her own way, the mother loves her daughter and enjoyed her visits with Hannah.   However, parental love does not equate to parental competence.  In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575 (2005).

The foster parents have committed to the long term care of Hannah through adoption.   She is well adjusted and settled in the home of her paternal aunt.   DCF and the child's attorney see adoption with this family as necessary for the secure, safe and nurturing future of the child.

5. Finding regarding the age of the child.   Hannah was born on October 14, 2009.   Hannah has developed a bond with her caretakers who are attending to all of Hannah's needs.   Hannah is meeting all her developmental milestones.   Foster parents love having her in their home and will adopt her should she become legally free for adoption.

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

These issues have been previously developed within this decision.

7. Finding regarding 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.

There is no evidence of any unreasonable act or conduct by DCF personnel or any other person preventing the respondent from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Hannah.   To the extent that Charity has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Hannah, it has likely been due to her own conduct and attitude and her regular lack of sobriety.

IV. DISPOSITION

With respect to the best interests of Hannah contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Charity C. is in the best interest of the child.   Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for all children.   Charity has not achieved rehabilitation with any confidence within a meaningful time frame for this nearly one-year-old child.   Hannah cannot wait indefinitely for such an unlikely event.   The child is now in an appropriate foster care setting where Hannah is very well cared for by the foster parents who are fully committed to this child.   She has safe and sober caretakers.

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity of her environment;  her length of stay in relative foster care;  the nature of her relationship with foster parent and biological parent;  and the genetic bond to respondent and the aunt.   The court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with her mother.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998).   Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that termination of respondents' parental rights is in the child's best interest.

The court also notes that counsel for the child recommends termination of parental rights and adoption by the present foster family.

After considering the child's sense of time, her need for a secure and permanent environment, the need to avoid future placements, and the totality of circumstances, the court concludes that termination of parental rights of respondent parents is in the child's best interest.   It is accordingly,

ORDERED that the parental rights of Charity C. are hereby terminated as to Hannah.   Based upon a finding of neglect and a termination of the mother's parental rights the child is committed to the Commissioner of the Department of Children.

With regard to the permanency plan for the child, the court hereby approves the plans of termination of parental rights and adoption and finds that such plan is in the best interest of the child.   The objections to such plans are over-ruled.   The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan.

The evidence is clear that the biological father of the child has taken no meaningful interest in the child, has refused all offered services and does not wish to be personally considered a placement resource.   Accordingly the court finds that James McG. is unable or unwilling to benefit from services and reunification efforts.   DCF is relieved of further reunification efforts and is directed to file a petition to terminate his parental rights with all deliberate speed.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

Foley, Sr. J. # 258

Foley, Francis J., S.J.