IN RE: Alianna K. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In accordance with General Statute 46b-124 and Practice Book 32a-7, the names of the parties involved in this case shall not be disclosed, and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.

This case presents a hearing on a permanency plan filed by the Department of Children and Families on June 11, 2010 and an objection to said plan filed by the mother on July 2, 2010.   The permanency plan filed by DCF requests that the court approve the permanency plan goal of termination of parental rights and adoption and find that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan goal.   The mother's objection requests that the court sustain her objection to the plan and that DCF be ordered to submit a new permanency plan.

This case also presents a motion filed by the mother on October 22, 2010 to revoke the order of commitment and place the child under an order of protective supervision.

A history of the file reveals that on September 14, 2009, the Department of Children and Families invoked a 96-hour hold on behalf of Alianna.   On September 14, 2009, DCF filed a petition of neglect and an order of temporary custody of behalf of said child.   The order of temporary custody was granted on September 14, 2009 and later sustained on September 22, 2009.   On May 26, 2010, Alianna was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.

The permanency plan, its objection filed by the mother and the motion to revoke commitment filed by the mother was tried to this court on November 12th and 24th, 2010.   The petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, was represented by an assistant attorney general.   The mother and father of the child were each present during the trial and each was represented by an attorney.   The child was represented by an attorney who also served as the guardian ad litem of the child.   The intervening paternal grandfather was also present during the trial and was represented by an attorney.   The foster parents were also present during the trial.

The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the General Statutes and the Connecticut Practice Book. The court finds that it has jurisdiction in this matter.   There are no other actions pending in any other court affecting the custody of the minor child known to this court.

The court has reviewed the evidence produced at the hearing and heard the testimony of the witnesses.   The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the trial reveals the following facts.

At the commencement of the trial, the parties presented the court with three stipulations for the hearing dated November 12, 2010 which the court acknowledged.

Both the mother and the father have had a long history with child protection concerns with DCF since May 2008 for issues relating to substance abuse, allowing inappropriate caretakers for the child, criminal involvement, homelessness and inability to maintain employment.   The mother's most recent involvement with DCF was due to her overdosing on a combination of heroin, crack cocaine, Xanax, Ambien, Remeron, Percocet and Zoloft.

The mother entered the Fresh Start Treatment Program on December 15, 2009 as a client in connection with her pending criminal charges in G.A. # 11.   The mother was unsuccessfully discharged from the program on February 11, 2010.   The mother had displayed a disregard for the policies and procedures of the program and appeared to be unwilling to improve her behavior.   The program requested to be relieved of its supervision which request was approved by the Rockville Superior Court.

The mother referred herself to be readmitted to the Community Renewal Team program in April 2010, as was admitted into the program on May 23, 2010.   Testimony was presented by a social worker for the Community Renewal Team that the mother was compliant with all aspects of the program, had good attendance in the program and reached maximum benefit.   The mother also had approximately eleven negative urine screens while in the program.   The mother appeared motivated to maintain her sobriety.   An exhibit was introduced by the mother supporting her successful completion of the CRT program dated October 14, 2010.   The report from CRT as well as the testimony presented confirms that the mother has been successfully discharged from the program and may return to the program for future treatment should she choose to do so.   The mother was referred by CRT back to DCF and encouraged to continue with their recommendations.   It was also noted that medication management of the mother was not required.

The mother was referred by DCF for reunification services on August 23, 2010, through the Reconnecting Families Program at the Village for Families and Children.   The referral form was introduced as an exhibit by the mother.   It reported that while DCF had sought to file a termination of parental rights petition in regard to the mother and the father, but that “due to Mother's increase in compliance with services the Department will work towards reunification with Mother.”   In regard to reunification, DCF reported on the referral form that “the Department will be filing a new Permanency Plan with regards to Mother in 9/10 that is reunification.   This was, however, just changed from TPR and adoption in 4/10.   TPR is still the permanency plan with regard to Father.”

Testimony was presented by a social worker from the Reconnecting Families Program that was assigned to the mother.   She testified that the mother was cooperative and working towards the program goals that have been set for the mother towards the goal of reunification.   The program consists of several stages prior to reunification.   The mother is currently in the first stage which consists of supervised visitation with the child.   The social worker testified that the mother was appropriate in her visitation and had a clear bond with her daughter.   The mother had also cooperated with her in administering the program.   It was the recommendation of the social worker that the mother progress to the second stage which consists of unsupervised visitation.   Once that stage is completed successfully, the next step would be reunification.   The social worker had anticipated that the mother progress to the second stage forthwith and the goal of having a reunification with her daughter in the middle or end of December 2010.   However, DCF did not approve the advancement of the mother to the second stage of unsupervised visitation so the mother remained in stage one.   The program is designed for reunification so that if the goal is no longer reunification, then the continuation in the program by the mother would be examined to see if it should continue.   The Reconnecting Families Program did not work with the father with the social worker only having incidental contact with him.

Testimony was also presented by DCF on the second day of trial that if the court were to approve the permanency plan of termination and adoption, Reconnecting Families would terminate its services.   If the court does not approve the plan, DCF would continue its reunification services and include the mother's participating in the Reconnecting Families Program.

The mother has not been honest in her dealings with DCF on a number of occasions.   When she was discharged from the Fresh Start Program due to her noncompliance, she reported to DCF that she left the program because it was being investigated.   The mother also was not truthful to DCF in her representations as to whether she was pregnant.   The mother and the father also visited with their child at the foster home in February 2010 knowing that they were not permitted to do so without the permission of DCF. The mother had falsely represented to the foster parents that the visit was approved by DCF on an emergency basis because the child was suffering a medical condition.   DCF never approved the visit and the mother's representation to the foster parents was untrue.   The mother has not disobeyed the prohibition on unauthorized visits since that incident.

The mother has a multitude of involvement with the criminal law.   She was incarcerated from September 2009 until December 2009, and from February 2010 through April 2010.   A letter from the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch dated November 4, 2010 was entered as an exhibit.   The exhibit details the four active cases involving seven different criminal cases, that have resulted in the mother being supervised by the Office of Adult Probation.   Her total effective sentence, according to the exhibit, was seven years in jail, execution suspended after six months in jail, with two years of probation.   The exhibit also details that the mother was ordered to make restitution payments and remain in compliance with the Standard and Special Conditions of Probation as well as the Office of Adult Probation.

The DCF case worker assigned to the case in December 2009 testified that the concerns raised by DCF with the parents included ongoing substance abuse issues, the parents placing the child with inappropriate care givers due to their substance abuse problems, domestic violence concerns as well as their involvement with the criminal justice system.

The social worker did acknowledge that she was not aware of any domestic violence incidents occurring after the child was born in 2008.   Since the child was committed to DCF, the mother has complied with the specific steps issued by the court.   She has kept her appointments, she has participated in counseling and made progress towards her goals.   Her participating in the Reconnecting Families program addresses the requirement that the mother receive parenting education.   The mother has cooperated with substance abuse evaluation and therapy since the involvement of DCF's social worker assigned to the case.   Drug testing performed was negative including a hair test of November 18, 2010.   Reconnecting Families has reported to DCF that the mother has been compliant with their program and cooperative.   No safety concerns were reported.   The social worker also testified that if DCF doesn't agree that reunification is the plan for the mother, the program would likely be terminated.   She also testified that if the mother were to legally separate from the father, her chances of reunification would improve.

In addition, it was testified to by the social worker that the mother has obtained legal employment, first by working at a donut shop and then by working at a rental center.   The mother has also obtained a residence with the assistance of DCF and the father.   Inspection of her residence by DCF has never revealed the presence of the father.   The mother has also availed herself of visitation with the child.   The social worker testified as to her concerns as to the mother's relationship with the father, domestic violence issues and her lack of credibility.   Her concerns about the mother's credibility were based upon the mother not being honest about her pregnancy, her discharge from the Fresh Start program as well as her visiting the foster home without the permission of DCF. The relationship that the mother may have with the father is a concern, for among other reasons, that the father's failure to make progress on his substance issues might be a trigger to cause the mother to relapse.   The social worker also sent the mother correspondence dated April 19, 2010 which was entered as an exhibit.   It expressed the concern that the mother was residing with the father and his mother at that time and that the residence is not suitable for reunification.   The social worker also testified that the father has not been complying with his treatment.   The paternal grandmother and her husband were assessed as a potential resource but they refused to do a hair test.   The social work did testify that the mother did seek her readmittance to the CRT program of her own volition and that was a good step.   DCF does not have any evidence that the mother and father are residing together at the present time.

The DCF supervisor in the permanency unit in this case testified that DCF is opposed to the mother having unsupervised visitation as recommended by Reconnecting Families due to the mother's lack of credibility and her poor decisions regarding Alianna.   After the mother's release from the York correctional facility, she moved in to the paternal grandmother's house where the father was residing.   The supervisor testified that the mother and father had also previously left the child with inappropriate caretakers while they were abusing substances.   The mother and father have been untruthful with DCF which raised concerns about their ability to comply with orders.   DCF also expressed a concern that the mother's short period of sobriety was not a sufficient period of time to eliminate the concerns that DCF has for the safety of the child.

The mother testified as to progress she has made in turning her life around.   She also testified that she attempted to commence a dissolution of marriage action but was denied her request for a waiver of fees by the Family Court and as such was unable to proceed with the action at the present time due to the costs.   She also acknowledged that the father could be a trigger for her relapse for substance abuse and that she is not planning on the father living with her anytime soon.   She also explained why she changed jobs due to a significant increase of salary along with her receiving a number of benefits.

The father has a criminal history and was incarcerated from December 23, 2009 until about December 29, 2009.   He was incarcerated again in May 2010 for failure to appear although he is no longer presently incarcerated.   He has not complied with the specific steps issued by the court.   As evidenced by the exhibits presented in this case, he has not complied with numerous services that were put in place to assist him with his substance abuse treatment programs.   He is not able to parent the child at the present time and did not file an objection to the permanency plan that is the subject of this case.

Alianna is two and one-half years old.   She has been in her current foster home since September 2009 and is doing very well in the home.

The guardian ad litem and attorney for the child reported to the court that she does not believe that the court should revoke the commitment of the child as it has not been a long enough period of stability and sobriety for the mother.   She also reported that she is not in support of the permanency plan as to the mother of termination of parental rights and adoption.

Based upon the evidence presented, the child cannot be restored to the care and custody of either the mother or the father at the present time.   Both the mother and the father have had longstanding issues that have prevented them from safely caring for their young child.   While the mother has made significant progress, the uncertainty of her present relationship with the father, the short period of time that she has maintained sobriety, housing and employment, and her failure to provide truthful information to DCF, all contribute to the need for the commitment to remain in place.   The court cannot make a finding that the cause for commitment of Alianna no longer exists and that revocation of the commitment is in her best interest.   The court does not find that as to the mother, the plan for the termination of her parental rights and adoption is in the best interest of the child.   The plan for the termination of the father's parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court is as follows.   As to the mother's motion to revoke the commitment, the motion is hereby denied.

Accordingly, as to the permanency plan and the mother's objection to it, as to the mother, the court sustains the mother's objection to the permanency plan as it applies to her and DCF shall file a revised permanency plan as required by law.   The appropriate plan should be a plan of reunification of the child with the mother.   The court is aware of the representation of DCF that upon the denial of the plan of termination and adoption as to the mother, it intends to allow the mother to continue her participation in the Reconnecting Families Program.   As to the father, the court hereby approves the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and does not approve the permanency plan of adoption at the present time in light of the sustaining of the objection of the mother to the permanency plan.   The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to approve its plan.

BY THE COURT

Graziani, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.