IN RE: Baby Boy Jaethaniel 1 (2011)

ARTICULATION OF ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS

On August 27, 2010, the petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF), filed a petition pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112 to terminate the parental rights of the respondents Jasmine A. and John Doe of baby boy Jaethaniel, born August 26, 2009.   The petition alleges that the respondents' parental rights should be terminated on the following grounds:  the child has been abandoned by the parents;  the child has been found neglected by the mother and she has not achieved the degree of personal rehabilitation to reasonably expect reunification within a reasonable time;  and there is no ongoing relationship between the child and his parents.   As evidenced by the record of this case and the hearing held on February 24, 2011, the respondents were duly defaulted for failure to appear.   The court is not aware of any other pending proceedings regarding the child.   On February 24, 2011, the court issued an order terminating the respondents' parental rights.   This memorandum articulates the findings supporting this order of termination.

ADJUDICATION

Pursuant to General Statutes Section § 17a–112 and based on the evidence of record (see Social Study marked as Exhibit A), the court concludes that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the respondents' parental rights is in the child's best interests.   The court makes the following subordinate findings.

I

The mother is twenty-five years old.   The child was born on August 26, 2009.   The child has been in the custody of DCF since he was two days old as a result of an administrative, ninety-six-hour hold initiated by DCF. On August 31, 2009, DCF filed and the court granted a motion for an order of temporary custody.   The order of temporary custody was subsequently sustained by default on September 19, 2009.   Also on August 31, 2009, DCF filed a neglect petition.   On January 27, 2010, the court found that Jaethaniel was neglected and committed him to the custody of DCF. On August 30, 2009, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–129, the court issued specific steps directed to the mother to facilitate reunification.

Based on the following facts, the court finds that the mother has abandoned the child under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A), has had no ongoing parent-child relationship with the child under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(D), and has failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that she could assume a responsible position in the child's life within a reasonable time under § 17a–112(j)(3)(B).

Since the child has been in DCF's custody, the mother has not maintained any significant or ongoing communications with DCF about the child's physical or emotional well-being.   She has not had any care-taking role in the life of the child.   She has not made herself available to participate in any medical or developmental planning and she has not attended any of the child's medical appointments.   She has had only three visits with the child since he has been in DCF's custody.   The first visit occurred in September 2009, about a month after he was born, and the last visit occurred in December 2009, over a year ago.   She has not provided any financial or emotional support for the child.   She has stated that she does not have the resources to care for the child on a daily basis.   She has stated that she does not want to bond with the child.   Thus, the mother has not taken any steps to parent the child and she has not formed a relationship with him.

In addition to visitation opportunities, DCF has provided numerous services to the mother in an effort for reunification, including:  substance abuse evaluation and treatment, mental health evaluation and treatment, housing assistance, and transportation assistance.   The court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to facilitate the mother's reunification with the child.   The court further finds that the mother has failed to comply fully with the court-ordered specific steps directed to her to facilitate reunification.

On the basis of these findings, further efforts to reunify the mother with the child or to establish a parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.

II

Based on the following facts, the court finds that the father has abandoned the child under General Statutes General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A) and has had no ongoing parent-child relationship with the child under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(D).

As previously stated, the mother has not identified the child's father.   The record reflects that she advised DCF that the father's first name is Justin, but she could not provide a last name, an address, a telephone number or any other information to help determine his identity.   No one signed the child's birth certificate acknowledging paternity and no one has contacted DCF to acknowledge paternity.   An attempt to determine his identity was made by DCF through service by publication.   Under these circumstances, the efforts by DCF to locate the father were reasonable and efforts by DCF to unify the father with the child were not possible.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).

Because the child's father is unknown, he has not been a resource for the child, has not participated in the child's care in any way, and has not established any relationship with the child.   Under the circumstances, more time to try to locate the father and to establish a parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the child's best interests.

DISPOSITION

The mother has an extensive history of unaddressed mental health issues that have resulted in periods of hospitalizations.   She also has a history of substance abuse.   She tested positive for substances in her system while she was pregnant with Jaethaniel, however, both she and the baby tested negative for any substances in their systems at the time of his birth.   The mother is presently on probation for criminal offenses involving two separate incidences, one where she assaulted an EMT worker and another where she entered the Bridgeport Police Department with a loaded handgun.   The guardianship of her oldest child, who is three years old, was transferred to the child's maternal grandmother in December 2008.   Thus, the mother has not provided parental care of any significant nature to either of her children during the past twelve months.

As previously stated, Jaenthaniel was born in August 2009 and he has been in DCF's custody since he was two days old.   At that time, he was placed with a non-relative, foster care family licensed with DCF. Since November 2009, the child's foster care placement has been with his maternal cousin.   The evidence indicates that he is doing well at this placement, has been included in this family's routine, and is establishing emotional and supportive ties.   Since his transfer to DCF custody, the mother has visited with the child on three occasions.   The last visit occurred in December 2009.   The evidence fails to indicate that the mother has had sufficient contact with the child or has had sufficient concern about the child for her to have developed any emotional or bonding ties with him.   She has stated that she does not want to bond with him.   See General Statutes §§ 17a–112(k)(4), (5), (6).

Services have been made available to the mother to facilitate reunion.   See General Statutes §§ 17a–112(k)(1).   As previously discussed, DCF provided various services to her, including substance abuse and mental health treatment and evaluation services, housing assistance, and transportation assistance.   The mother is currently involved with the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services where she has received services for medication management and mental health treatment, and it is reported that she is now compliant in these areas.   The mother was offered formal substance abuse evaluation through Southwest Community Healthcare, but she failed to fully utilize these services or the services of any other substance abuse treater.   Consequently, the evidence does not indicate that an evaluation was conducted confirming the resolution of substance abuse concerns.   The court finds that the efforts to address the mother's parenting problems and to achieve reunification with the child were relevant and reasonable.   See General Statutes §§ 17a–112(k)(2).   Despite these efforts, the mother failed to take sufficient steps to establish a meaningful parent-child relationship.

The mother has not complied with all the specific steps ordered by the court to facilitate the reunification.   Particularly, she has not maintained regular visitation with the child, she has not kept her appointments with DCF, and she has not maintained contact with DCF or her court-appointed attorney.   See General Statutes General Statutes §§ 17a-l12(k)(3).

Also, as previously addressed, the father's identity is unknown.   Consequently, he has neither developed a relationship, nor been an available resource for the child.   It appears unlikely that his unavailability will change within any reasonable time.   Efforts to unify the child with the father were not possible because of his unknown identity.   Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating that the economic circumstances of the parents or the unreasonable acts of any person have actually prevented them from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(7).

CONCLUSION

Consequently, for all the foregoing reasons, the court finds that DCF has met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of the respondents' parental rights is in the child's best interests.

So ordered this 7th day of March 2011.

STEVENS,J.

Stevens, Barry K., J.