IN RE: Cayla Ann C.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

STATEMENT OF CASE AND PROCEEDINGS

The captioned matter is a child protection proceeding in which the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has petitioned the court to terminate the parental rights of Tricia C. (mother) and Herman R. (father) to their daughter, Cayla Ann. C. On December 17, 2010, mother consented to the termination of her parental rights;  after appropriate canvass, the court accepted that consent;  DCF amended its petition to reflect consent as the basis for its petition as to mother;  the court found that termination of mother's parental rights were in the best interests of the child;  and, the court terminated mother's parental rights.   On December 20, 2010, DCF presented DNA testing results and upon motion, without objection, the court made a finding that Herman R. is the biological father of Cayla Ann C.

The record also reflects exceptionally perseverant efforts on the parts of father's attorney and DCF to locate father at various times during the course of these proceedings, including for the termination trial, however, those more-than-diligent efforts have not always been fruitful.

This court has jurisdiction in this matter.   The court is not aware of any matters pending in any other court affecting custody of the child.   Father had initially advised DCF that he is of Narrangansett Indian heritage, and DCF made appropriate inquiries and investigation under the Indian Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.   The evidence reveals that the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island has advised the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut that Cayla Ann. C. is not a member of the tribe, nor is she eligible for membership.   Consequently, Cayla Ann is not an “Indian child.”  25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).   In addition, the Narragansett Tribe also has advised the Office of the Attorney General that it does not seek intervention in the captioned matter.

Trial in this matter proceeded on December 20, 2010.   Mother's consent to termination was noted.   Father was not present and a default entered against him.   However, evidence was taken on the issue of termination of father's parental rights.   The assistant attorney general presented the testimony of two witnesses and introduced eleven exhibits.   Counsel for father and for the child were present, and although neither presented any witnesses nor introduced any documentary evidence, each had the opportunity to do so and to cross-examine the witnesses presented by DCF.

DISCUSSION and ADJUDICATORY FINDINGS

In its May 12, 2010, petition to terminate father's parental rights, DCF alleged abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, and lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship.   As to these bases, General Statutes § 17-112(j) requires clear and convincing proof that:

(1) the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at the hearing pursuant to section 17a-111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required, and

(2) termination is in the best interest of the child, and

(3)

(A) 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;

(B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and 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;

[or]

(D) 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;

On July 29, 2008, a 96-hour hold was invoked on behalf of then four-month-old Cayla Ann and on July 30, 2008, an ex parte motion for an order of temporary custody (OTC) was granted by the superior court.   Preliminary specific steps were ordered on that date.   The OTC was sustained on August 8, 2008.   On November 25, 2008, the child was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF.

Father last saw the child in July 2008.   Although DCF has met with some success in locating father from time to time, and father has attended one or two administrative case reviews and appeared at court once and perhaps twice, father has not taken advantage of DCF's efforts to provide him with visitation with the child.   In addition, father has declined to participate in services and has advised DCF that all he wants is for Cayla to be reunified with her mother.   On June 30, 2009, the superior court ordered that reasonable efforts to reunify Cayla Ann with her father were no longer necessary.   Father has not made any attempts to contact the child by any means, and has not provided for the child in any way whatsoever.   As previously noted in this memorandum, both father's attorney and DCF have exercised more than due diligence in attempting to locate father at various times during the course of these proceedings, including for trial.  (See December 19, 2010 Report to the Court of Atty. Frank B. Twohill, filed on December 20, 2010, and Affidavit Regarding Diligent Search for the Parent, dated December 14, 2010.)

For more than two years, Cayla Ann has been residing with two loving and caring foster parents and two foster sisters.   The child is happy, well-adjusted, developmentally on target and medically up to date.   Indeed, the child is thriving in her environment, very bonded to her foster sisters and mothers, the latter of whom are eager to adopt her.

The clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that DCF has made more than reasonable efforts to locate the father and to reunify the father with the child, before and after the court determined that efforts to reunify were no longer required.   The child has been in DCF's care for more than fifteen months and has been found to be neglected.   Because the only specific steps that were ordered as to father were preliminary steps issued at the time of the ex parte OTC and because there is no record that even these were provided to the father, the court cannot make a finding that father has failed to rehabilitate, as DCF has alleged.  In re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 506-07 (2008).   However, the clear and convincing evidence reveals that father has abandoned the child, having failed to maintain any degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the child's welfare.   In addition, the clear and convincing evidence reveals that father has no ongoing relationship with the child, much less a parent-child relationship, and it would be detrimental to the best interests of the child to allow any additional time for the development of such a relationship.

DISPOSITION

In addition to the adjudicatory phase of a termination hearing as addressed above, the court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child, which interests encompass sustained growth and development, well-being, stability and continuity.  In re Lukas K., 120 Conn.App. 465, 486, cert. granted on other grounds, 297 Conn. 914 (2010);  In re Jaime S., supra, 120 Conn.App. 733-34;  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 763-64 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920 (2008).The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of father's parental rights is in Cayla Ann's best interests.

In addition, the following findings, supporting the termination of parental rights of father, are made in accordance with the directives of General Statutes § 17-112(k).

1. The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parent(s) and the child(ren) to facilitate reunion.

DCF made offers to father to provide services and did so whenever DCF was able to make contact with father.   Father took no advantage of this whatsoever.

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.

DCF has made such efforts.

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

The child last saw her father when she was only a few months old and she has not seen him nor heard from him since.   Cayla Ann has strong feelings and emotional ties to her foster family, with whom she has resided for more than two years, almost all of her life.

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

Specific Steps were issued for father at the time of the granting of the ex parte motion for an OTC. Father has never attempted to address any of the steps outlined, despite offers by DCF to assist him in doing so.   The court has also previously determined that efforts to reunify the father are not necessary.

5. The age of the child.

Cayla Ann is two and one-half years of age (date of birth:  April 1, 2008).

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

No efforts have been made by the father.

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

There has not been any such conduct nor have there been any such circumstances.

Having found by clear and convincing evidence that:  grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of father;  termination would be in the child's best interests;  and, the child has a need for a secure and permanent placement, with a focus on adoption, the court grants the petition to terminate the parental rights of father, Herman R., to Cayla Ann. The parental rights of Tricia C. as to the child have already been terminated.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent of Cayla Ann.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall file, within thirty days hereof, a report as to the status of the child and shall also timely file any additional reports as are required by law.

The clerk of the Probate Court which has jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford of the date the adoption is finalized.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

BY THE COURT,

Constance L. Epstein J.

Epstein, Constance L., J.