IN RE: Crystal V.1 (2011)

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) seeks to terminate the parental rights of mother, Lisandra M., and father, Noel V., to Crystal V. DCF executed a 96-hour hold of the then four-year-old child on February 1, 2009 on the basis of physical neglect of the child.   An ex parte order of temporary custody (OTC), together with specific steps for mother, was issued on February 2, 2009.   The OTC was sustained on February 11, 2009, at which time specific steps were again ordered by the court and these were signed by mother.   On November 5, 2009, the court adjudicated the child neglected, again issued specific steps to mother, and committed the child to the care and custody of DCF. Petitions for termination of parental rights were filed on May 17, 2010, alleging abandonment on the part of mother and failure to rehabilitate on the part of mother and father.

Service on the respondents has been confirmed.   This court has jurisdiction in this matter.   The court is not aware of matters pending in any other court affecting the custody of the child.   There are no claims of Indian tribal affiliation.

Noel V. was found to be the biological father of the child on July 19, 2010.   On January 10, 2011, father consented to the termination of his parental rights;  the court accepted that consent;  DCF amended its petition as to father to reflect the basis of consent;  and, after determining that the child's best interests dictated same, the court terminated father's parental rights.

On December 3, 2010, the court entered a default as to mother for her failure to appear and enter a plea.   Trial on the termination petitions was scheduled for, and proceeded on, January 10, 2011.   Mother was not present at trial but was represented by counsel.   Also present at trial were counsel for the child, a DCF representative and counsel for DCF. DCF presented the testimony of two witnesses and introduced documentary evidence.   Counsel for the child and for the mother participated in the trial but did not call any witnesses or introduce any documentary evidence.   In granting a motion filed by DCF at the commencement of the trial, unopposed by any of the parties, the court took judicial notice of certain filings, dates, hearings and decisions in these matters.

FACTS

When the administrative hold and the temporary custody were initiated in February 2009, the subject child was four years old and weighed only twenty-one pounds.   She was suffering from malnourishment, ear infections, chest pain, chronic coughing and dental problems.   While she is still petite, and has a fragile appearance, the child is now healthy, up-to-date medically and dentally, is talking, is interacting with her family and other children at school, and is developing appropriately.   The child has been in her current foster home since March 2009.   She is bonded to her foster brother, mother and father.   While she initially called her foster mother the Spanish equivalent of “aunt” she now calls her “mommy.”   The foster mother has expressed an interest in adopting Crystal.   The child has begun kindergarten, and, although she has some minor behavior problems, she is friendly and doing well.   The child is engaged in weekly play therapy sessions.

Mother, Lisandra M., is 28 years of age.   At the time of the initial hold of the child, mother was homeless and experiencing difficulty in even keeping a place in a shelter because of her failure or refusal to take medication for her significant health issues.   Mother suffers from Type I diabetes, high blood sugar and a vitamin K deficiency.   She is insulin-dependent and medication has been prescribed for her high blood sugar problem.   Mother's history also includes a diagnosis of depression.   Mother has experienced episodes of domestic violence with the child's father, resulting in protective orders in both New York and Connecticut.   Despite the existence of court orders protecting her against father, mother has voluntarily engaged in meetings with father.

In order to assist mother to successfully accomplish her specific steps, DCF made a referral for mother in February 2009, with the Boys' & Girls' Village Intensive Safety Planning (ISP) program.   ISP made appointments for mother for her to address her problems with her mental and physical health, and arranged for domestic violence and individual counseling.   Parenting classes were also arranged, as well as a substance abuse assessment.   Mother only cooperated with the program for a very short time.   Mother refused to follow through or comply with the program's recommendations.   Mother refused to meet with the ISP program worker.   Mother refused to undergo a substance abuse evaluation.   The ISP program ended as a result of mother's desire to enter a domestic violence shelter, which was arranged, however, mother left the shelter shortly after admission.   DCF provided mother with domestic violation class information as well as physical health and mental health counseling services, however, mother never contacted any of the providers and never attended any sessions available to her in Connecticut.

In February 2010, mother moved to Brooklyn, New York, to reside with her mother.   After that move, DCF made efforts to locate and establish programs for mother in New York similar to those it had initiated in Connecticut, but, again, mother did not avail herself of any of these services.

Mother has not taken care of her own medical needs nor followed any recommendations for treatment.   She becomes hospitalized on a regular basis due to her failure to take her insulin daily, as is medically necessary.

DCF arranged for mother to visit with the child for two hours every Wednesday.   As of April 2010, mother had missed forty-nine of sixty-seven of these visits.   Upon mother's voluntary relocation from Connecticut to New York, DCF offered to pay for bus or train tickets in order to accommodate visitation of mother with the child, but mother did not take advantage of that offer.   Mother would miss visits, without notice, and would later relate that she did not come because she was in the hospital, forgot, had doctors' appointments or simply did not feel like traveling.   However, mother never provided any documentation to support her excuses for the missed visits, and when asked, mother was unable to relate the name of the hospital or doctor to which she made reference in her excuses.   In addition to failing to maintain visitation, mother did not send cards, letters, gifts or make any other communication to the child in lieu of visitation.   In April 2010, DCF initiated weekly phone calls in an attempt to motivate mother to visit the child, however, that effort was non-productive.   As of the date of the filing of the termination petition, mother had not visited the child for two months.

In summary, mother has failed:  to keep her DCF appointments, to cooperate with services, to engage in individual counseling, to participate in parenting classes, to cooperate with recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, to submit to substance abuse assessment, to abide by restraining and protective orders and/or refrain from assisting in the violation of same, to secure and maintain adequate housing and income, and to take care of her own medical needs and treatment so that she is capable of caring for her child.

ADJUDICATORY FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

The applicable statutory language as to termination of parental rights on the bases alleged is:

(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;

General Statutes § 17-112(j).

Conduct that demonstrates a parent's lack of continuing interest in the child and a lack of concern or responsibility as to the child's welfare constitutes abandonment.  In Re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 732 (2010).   Indicia of interest include relatively regular and continuing, rather than sporadic, attempts to maintain contact with the child in person or through telephonic, postal or electronic means.  Id.;  In Re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 514 (2008).   In addition, parental responsibility includes attention to the physical, educational, and emotional needs of the child.  In Re Ashley E., 62 Conn.App., 307, 315 (2001).

A hearing addressing the issue of termination of parental rights consists of two phases.   The initial adjudicatory phase addresses whether one or more grounds for termination exist and, if that is decided in the affirmative, the court moves on to the dispositional phase in which the court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child.  In re Lukas K., 120 Conn.App. 465, 486, cert. granted on other grounds, 297 Conn. 914 (2010).   In accordance with all of the applicable statutory and practice book requirements and directives, as well as the applicable decisional authority construing same, this court makes the following adjudicatory findings.

The clear and convincing evidence establishes that DCF has made more than reasonable efforts to reunify the mother and the child in providing programs, service referrals, visitation and visitation enhancement.

The clear and convincing evidence establishes that, as of the date of the filing of the termination petition, mother had been provided with specific steps on three occasions, but mother did not comply with the steps.   As of the date of the termination petition, mother continued to need to make a great deal of improvement in addressing her own physical and mental care needs in order for her to be able to begin to attempting to address the physical and emotional needs of her daughter.   Mother made only a meager initial attempt to follow through on the programs that were arranged for her, and then did not address any of her debilitating personal and parental issues, even though all sorts of programs and service contacts were arranged for her both before and after her voluntary move from Connecticut.   Mother has failed to even commence efforts toward the goals she needs to accomplish.   Not only has she has not attempted to begin achievement thereof, she has not expressed any interest in doing so or exhibited any inclination to do so.   Mother has failed to achieve any degree of personal rehabilitation and there is nothing on which to premise a hope or belief that she would do so within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of her daughter.   Mother is not capable of assuming a responsible position in the child's life now or at any time in the foreseeable future.

In addition, mother has failed to maintain any degree of interest, concern or responsibility for the child or the child's welfare, and has repeatedly neglected to see the child despite diverse efforts made on her behalf to facilitate that visitation.   Mother has abandoned the child.

Having so found, the court must now consider whether termination of mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the child, which interests encompass sustained growth and development, well-being, continuity and stability of her environment.  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 clear and convincing evidence confirms that termination of mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the child because of the needs of this child for continued appropriate parenting and protection, nurturing, stability, guidance, and permanency, as the child has begun to experience with the members of her foster family to whom she has become very attached in the last two years.   The following findings, supporting the conclusion that termination of parental rights of mother is in the best interests of the child, 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 and the child to facilitate reunion.

Not only did DCF make services available in Connecticut, it facilitated services for mother in New York after mother relocated herself.   In addition, DCF not only provided for visits, it also attempted to motivate mother to make the visits by arranging weekly phone contact between mother and child.   The efforts were more than appropriate and were timely.

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.

As is described above, DCF made such efforts.   In addition, DCF has investigated the possibility of placement of the child with relatives.   The maternal grandmother in New York could not be approved because of unhealthy living conditions in the grandmother's home.   In the spring of 2010, mother advised of a maternal aunt in New York. DCF made an interstate compact request as to the aunt and the home was approved, however, there were other outstanding issues, the required resolution of which has not been accomplished.

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

Crystal enjoyed seeing her mother and her father.   She would look forward to mother's visits and ask about them, but, as the evidence reveals, she repeatedly had to endure the disappointment of not seeing her mother.   Before the termination petition was filed, mother missed almost seventy-five percent of the scheduled weekly visits.   Since the filing of the termination petition, mother has only visited on one occasion-in June 2010.   Crystal no longer makes any inquiries about visiting with her mother.   Crystal has found a sense of belonging, security and stability with the members of her foster family, with whom she has been living for almost two years.   The child's physical and emotional needs have been addressed by this family and she is now a healthy, friendly and happy child, bonded to her foster mother, father and brother.

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).

Mother was provided specific steps, and she acknowledged them on February 11, 2009, indicating that she understood that she had to comply and that termination could result from failure to do so.   The steps included, inter alia, engaging in individual and parenting counseling, addressing her own physical and mental health issues and following recommendations for same, learning to understand and address the child's physical and developmental needs, and visiting with the child as often as DCF permitted.   DCF was to provide all of the programs and information to enable mother to accomplish compliance.   DCF complied with the steps.   Mother did not.

5. The age of the child.

Crystal was born on January 12, 2005.   She has just celebrated her sixth birthday.

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 child to return such child 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.

Mother has consistently and repeatedly failed to visit or make any communication with Crystal, and has not maintained contact with Crystal's foster family.

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

No such acts, conduct or circumstances exist in this case.

Having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of mother, that 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 respondent mother, Lisandra M., to Crystal V.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent of this child.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall file, within thirty days hereof, a report as to the status of this 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 this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterbury of the date on which the adoption is finalized.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

BY THE COURT

Constance L. Epstein, J.

Epstein, Constance L., J.