IN RE: Liliana M. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

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

These cases present a hearing on the permanency plans filed by the Department of Children and Families on October 4, 2010 and objections to said plans filed by the mother on October 22, 2010 and by the father on October 14, 2010.   The permanency plans filed by DCF request that the court approve the permanency plan goals of termination of parental rights and adoption and find that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan goals.   The mother's objection to the permanency plans stated that “further efforts to reunify the children with the Respondent Mother are appropriate, that the Department of Children and Families has failed to make reasonable reunification efforts to date, and that reunification of the children with the Respondent Mother is in the children's best interest.”   The father's objection to the permanency plans stated that “further efforts to reunify the children with the respondent father are appropriate, that DCF has failed to make reasonable reunification efforts to date and that reunification of the children with the father is in the children's best interest.”

A history of the file reveals that on December 23, 2009, DCF filed petitions of neglect and for orders of temporary custody on behalf of the children.   The orders of temporary custody were granted on December 23, 2009 and were later sustained on December 29, 2009.   The temporary custody of the children was vested in DCF. On October 4, 2010, the child were adjudicated and committed to the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families.

The motions to approve the permanency plans and the objections to said plans were heard by this court on February 28, 2011.   The petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families was represented by an assistant attorney general.   Both the mother and the father of the children were present during the hearing and each was represented by their own attorney.   The children were represented by an attorney who also served as the guardian ad litem for the children.

The court has reviewed the applicable motions, has heard the testimony of the witnesses produced at the hearing and considered each full exhibit.   The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the hearing reveals the following facts.

The children, Liliana and Tatiana were born as twins on October 28, 2009 at 29 weeks gestation.   They remained hospitalized after their birth due to their prematurity and complex medical issues.   Tatiana was discharged from the hospital on December 26, 2009 and Liliana was discharged on January 4, 2010.   The children are medically complex and have a variety of medical issues that require intensive and frequent medical services.

Despite the order of temporary custody being issued over a year ago, neither parent is in a position to be able to safely parent and provide a home for the children.   The plan of termination of parental rights and adoption is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.   The court, in making its determination, has considered the children's need for permanency, and the children's health and safety.

Both children are medically complex and have been in the care and custody of DCF since their release from the hospital after their birth.   They require a high level of care, not just as a result of their young age, but due to their medically complex condition.

The mother has long standing issues of mental health, substance abuse issues, lacks parenting skills and has a history of domestic violence.   She and the father have a poor relationship and do not speak to each other.   The father was arrested on April 14, 2010 for allegedly assaulting the mother which resulted in a protective order being issued although it is no longer in effect.   In addition, the mother is currently in therapy but has not been able to corporate the skills she has learned into her life.   She is currently residing in her mother's residence along with other people, including her brother.   Unfortunately, the mother and her brother have a poor relationship as evidence by a physical altercation that occurred in June 2010 in which the brother is accused of punching the mother in the face.

The mother is unemployed and no work history has been presented.   She has not maintained her own residence and has no ability to do so at the present time.   The mother is reported to have received a significant amount of money recently due to a settlement but only has approximately $3,000.00 left which she is unwilling to utilize for a residence as she would like to save the money for her children.   The mother last tested positive for marijuana in August 2010 but has tested negative since that time.   The mother also has a criminal history that includes violation of a protective order, criminal trespass, breach of peace and harassment.

The mother does not have an extended support system to be able to help her care for the children.

The father asserts that he is currently employed but has failed to provide any supporting documentation of his employment despite multiple requests by DCF.

The father has had great difficulty in being able to attend his children's medical appointments due to his work schedule.   He is currently rents a room in a residence that is occupied with two other couples and three children.   Despite their efforts, DCF has been unable to obtain the last names or the dates of birth of the other occupants to assess whether they present a safety concern for the children if they were to reside with the father.

The father reported to DCF that if the children were to be returned to him, he would have the women who were residing in the home where he were to rent a room, take care of the children when he was at work.   He did not have a plan for taking the children to their medical appointments but said he would figure that out when the time came.   Testimony was given by the father's substance abuse counselor that she was informed by the father that the women in the home where he was residing would most likely be called for work and as such would not be able to care for the children.   The father does not have any transportation that is available to him.   He reported to his counselor at the Family Enrichment Program that he has other children in Guatemala that he sends money to for their use.   He also did attend group substance abuse counseling including an evaluation at New Perceptions due to concerns of alcohol abuse by DCF.

The court finds that the father does not have an adequate residence where the children can reside and does not have a plan to provide care for the children in his absence as well as a plan for the children to be taken for their medical appointments.

The father does visit with the children but his parenting skills are limited.   He does not know how to change a diaper for the children and when visiting, only interacts with one child at a time.

The father has also been involved in domestic violence with the mother having been arrested on April 14, 2010 for breach of peace having allegedly assaulted the mother.   A protective order was issued in favor of the mother which was lifted on July 29, 2010.   He does not speak to the mother and does not maintain a relationship with her.   He does not have an extended support system to help him care for his children.

Both the mother, father and the children have been provided with a multitude of services by DCF as evidenced by the exhibits entered in this case as well as the testimony presented.

The attorney and guardian ad litem for the minor children urged the court to approve the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption of the children.

The two children have extraordinary needs for their care, health and safety that neither parent is able to provide both now nor within a reasonable time.

Accordingly, the court, having considered the evidence presented in the permanency plan hearings, the court hereby finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the plans for termination of the parental rights and adoption is in the best interest of the children, Liliana and Tatiana.   The court hereby approves the permanency plans filed on October 4, 2010 and overrules the objections filed by the mother on October 27, 2010 and the father on October 14, 2010.

BY THE COURT

Graziani, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.