IN RE: Luis M. et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Luis M., born January 22, 2003 and Luz M., born June 2, 2004, brother and sister of same parents, are subjects of petitions for termination of parental rights filed by DCF on June 1, 2009, in Superior Court Juvenile Matters, Waterbury.   On June 2, 2005, motions for orders of temporary custody to DCF were granted for both children.   On December 17, 2005, both children were adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF.

The termination petitions alleged as to mother:  A. Abandonment;  D. No ongoing parent/child relationship;  and, E. Mother of neglected child under the age of seven who has failed or is unable to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation, and, rights to another child were previously terminated.

The termination petitions as to father alleged ground E. only pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112(j).

On January 1, 2009, both parents were defaulted.   On September 30, 2009, at a hearing as to father only, a finding was made that service had been effectuated and proper notice had been provided.   By clear and convincing evidence the court found it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the parental rights of father.   The court made the seven dispositive findings, approved the permanency plan, and terminated father's parental rights as to both children.

On the first day of the termination trial against mother, the default against her was opened and the trial proceeded on Grounds A., D., and E. of General Statutes § 17a112(j).

The trial proceeded over the course of four days:  April 8, May 21, May 25, and June 25, 2010.   The state offered the testimony of one witness and also introduced 11 exhibits.   Respondent mother introduced 8 exhibits.   The respondent mother did not testify, however, as agreed by all the parties, the court was not to draw an adverse inference as to mother's choice to remain silent.

The only witness to testify throughout the four non-consecutive days of trial was Matlandy Rosario, permanency social worker assigned to Luis and Luz M. since February 26, 2007.   She testified that the two children had been in DCF care for a little less than five years.   Luz is 5;  Luis is 7. In 2005 mother was offered:

1) parenting education

2) visitation

3) counseling

4) medical management

5) domestic violence counseling Mother did not successfully complete them.

Initially mother visited consistently with children at Waterbury DCF office from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. once a week until January 16, 2008.   The next time she visited was on March 26, 2008 and then only for fifteen minutes.   On March 26, 2008 mother gave an address to the worker in a mixture of Spanish and English but the worker did not understand mother.   Mother was asked to write the address, but it still made no sense as it was a mixture of languages.   The worker thought mother had said 74 Walker or 74 Wolcott Street, and asked mother to come in again to confirm the address.   After the March 26 visit, however, mother did not attend any visits whatsoever and she has not seen the children since.

Mother's whereabouts were unknown from that date until August 3, 2009.   Ms. Rosario sent several letters to the addresses that she was given.   She also did the following:

1) Made a Department of Corrections check and a locate-plus check.

2) Asked father regularly of mother's whereabouts.

3) Made a Department of Social Services check.

4) Made a Department of Motor Vehicles check.

5) Made all other standard checks.

The worker continued to meet with father and continued asking him the whereabouts of mother.   She also saw mother and father together at a supermarket parking lot while off duty in May of 2008 but father denied it.

Mother finally came in to see Ms. Rosario on August 3, 2009.   Mother did not have housing or food and DCF provided shelter and food.   Mother stated that she has been in five different states, transient, and in some hospitals.   By this time termination proceedings had begun and both parents had been defaulted on July 1, 2009.   Mother's service was by way of publication and father's was abode service.   Mother was told to come back on August 17 but instead she came in on August 19 to speak with her former caseworker because she wanted her children back in order to obtain public assistance.

The worker again was not able to locate mother using the standard procedures.   The worker finally went to verify mother's address in October 2009 as instructed by the Attorney General's office and the address obtained from York Correctional was 90 Wolcott Street.

At time of trial mother did not have housing or employment.   The children are in play therapy counseling.   Both children have ADHD, are on medication and Luis has RAD as well as Oppositional Defiance Disorder.

Mother asked for visitation on March 5, 2010 but was told that DCF would have to talk with children's counselors.

On further cross examination social worker stated that mother had not requested visitation again since March.   Mother had asked for visitation once in August of 2009 but she then again disappeared.

On cross examination by attorney for the minor children the social worker testified further that mother said in August of 2009 that she did not visit children because she was too busy, too depressed, and in and out of the state selling gloves and T-shirts.   She also stated that she was living with the father at 90 Wolcott Street.

She also told worker that she was in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey as a traveling salesperson selling the things she made.   On August 3, 2009, mother stated that she had been hospitalized in all states she visited.   Notice for termination was accomplished by publication on 6/4/09 because worker was not sure where mother lived and worker did not trust father to tell the truth about mother's whereabouts.

After August 3, 2009, worker instructed mother to go to Safe Haven and participate in medication management.   She was consistent with medication management but the worker did not know if mother went to Safe Haven and did not know where mother actually lived.

Mother was incarcerated for the months of August, September and October 2009.   She resurfaced in November as the result of a hospital counselor calling DCF and mother remained in CVH from November 2009 through February 2010.   No other contacts were made by mother during incarceration or while at CVH.

As far as the children's current status is concerned, Luz is a challenge with temper tantrums as well as physical aggression.   The server in place helps manage Luz's behavior with foster mother and her own biological children.   Foster mother is willing to adopt and Luz has been in a pre-adoptive home for about two and a half years.   The social worker states that, “Luz is a difficult child to manage.”

Luis is quite challenging and has behavioral issues such as lying and stealing and oppositional and defiant behavior.   Luis is considered a legal risk child and will therefore need a therapeutic level of care.   He has disrupted in several places but foster mother is considering adoption at this time.

Between 8/3/09 and 3/20/10 mother requested information on the children but only twice requested visitation.   While mother was in jail in 2009, the social worker did not bring Luis or Luz to jail because mother had not seen children for over one and a half years and because children were unstable and would need therapeutic recommendations.   When mother was at CVH, it was for her own restoration.

ADJUDICATORY FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

By clear and convincing evidence DCF has proven that mother has abandoned and has had no on-going parent/child relationship since a fifteen-minute visitation on March 26, 2008 with both children.   The reasons for the findings are multitudinous:  1) jail, 2) hospitalization, 3) physical abuse, 4) out-of-state travel, 5) depression, 6) too busy, 7) no job, 8) homelessness, 9) no home for children, 10) no food, and 11) failure to participate in programs to assist mother's rehabilitation as provided by DCF.

During mother's prolonged absence she did not write, phone, communicate, or engage in any form of communication with either child at all including birthdays.   She provided no gifts or any acknowledgement of their existence.

Mother is not a resource for her children.   Both children have a variety of needs that cannot be met by mother.   She continues to be transient with no viable means of support, now or in the future.   Her relationships with Luz and Luis are non-existent since January of 2008.   Her own mental health issues and abuse issues have not been addressed by her.   Mother is not a viable caretaker.

The court finds that mother has abandoned Luz and Luis and has no ongoing parent/child relationship, by clear and convincing evidence.

As to best interests of the children Luz and Luis the court finds the following.

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

Children have been in foster care for almost five years.   Mother was consistent with visits with them through January 16, 2008.   Since that time to date there has been only one 15-minute visit by mother.   In 2005 mother was offered parenting education, visitation, counseling, medication management, domestic violence counseling.   Mother did not successfully complete these programs.

After March 26, 2008, mother disappeared until August 3, 2009.   And then mother went to jail and was hospitalized until February of 2010.   Mother had been offered Safe Haven and participation in medication management in August and was given food and shelter.

The evidence presented at trial reflects that DCF tried to meet mother's schedule and transient lifestyle.   Between 8/3/09 and 3/20/10 mother only twice requested visitations.

Luz is a difficult child to manage but has been in a pre-adoptive home for 2 1/2 years.   Luis is a legal risk child with behaviors such as oppositional and defiant behavior.   However foster mother is considering adoption.

Mother originally made attempts to comply with her specific steps but after January 16, 2008, she has been missing in action.   DCF provided services for reunification and they were made available to mother.

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 by DCF. Visitations for parents were consistent, weekly and held at the Waterbury DCF office from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. Mother attended initially until January 16, 2008 but after a 15-minute visit she has not seen Luz and Luis since.   Mother was either too busy, out of state, in jail, in CVH, making and selling handmade items, or too depressed.

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.

Specific steps were ordered for mother on 1/18/07 both in English and in Spanish.   They provided a variety of services to assist mother with mental health issues, physical abuse issues as well as coordination with children's therapy and visitation.

By clear and convincing evidence mother has not complied with these steps.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to the child'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.

Luz, the younger child, has absolutely no recollection of who her mother is and has not seen her since a fifteen-minute visit on March 26, 2008, over 2 1/2 years ago.

Luis is seven and he also has not seen his mother for so long that he would have trouble recognizing her.   He never asks for her.

Both children have developed strong ties with their individual foster parents.   Luz is waiting to be adopted by her foster parent and Luis may also be near a pre-adoptive phase with his foster parent.

Both children have moved on a long time ago and any change would be traumatic and have a permanent negative effect on both Luz and Luis.

5. The ages of the children.

Luz was born on June 2, 2004 and is 6 years old.   Luis was born January 22, 2003 and is 7 years of age.

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 testimony revealed, since March 26, 2008 mother has only seen children for fifteen minutes while at the DCF office in Waterbury.   She reappeared on August 3, 2009 asking for food and shelter.   Since August 2009 mother has only asked to see the children twice.   During this time there had been a question of mother's competency.   On February 8, 2010, both attorneys for mother and the state stipulated to mother's competency during sentencing at Superior Court GA 4 at Waterbury, State Exhibit C.

Mother has not maintained contact with children and that includes no communication, contribution or incidental visitation.   Mother has had no contact with DCF from March 26, 2008 through August 3, 2009 and since then sporadic contact with months of silence.   DCF did not know she was in jail for three months or at CVH for three months except that a counselor informed DCF.

It is not in the best interests of the children to be returned to mother because she cannot even care for herself as she has multitudinous problems such as day-to-day survival.

7. The extent to which the parents have been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable acts(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.

Father was misleading at times as to the whereabouts of mother but that did not prevent mother from having a relationship with her children.   The contention that somehow the social worker's failure at one time to obtain mother's address was an unreasonable act is without merit.   Mother never came back to provide a correct address as she was so advised.

During visits mother was always in a hurry and had little interest in the children.   Mother's transience, depression, jail time, legal status, marital relationship and economic circumstances all prevented her from maintaining a meaningful relationship with children.   Her failure to have any contact with children whatsoever was not due solely to any one of these alleged circumstances.   She simply was and is overwhelmed or too busy to maintain a meaningful relationship with her children.   As to the seventh finding, the evidence revealed no such circumstances.

DISPOSITION

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist to terminate parental rights of mother and that such termination would be in the children's best interest as both children need secure and permanent placement.

The commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for the children.   A status report shall be submitted to the court within 30 days and such further reports shall be filed with the court as required by law.

SO ORDERED

Thomas F. Upson, Judge

Upson, Thomas F., J.