IN RE: Brianna L. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In accordance with General Statute 46b–124 and the Practice Book 32a–7, the names of the parties involved in this case are not to 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 January 10, 2011 and the objection to the plan filed by the mother on January 18, 2011.   The permanency plan filed by DCF requests that the court approve the permanency plan goal of termination of parental rights and adoption that find that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan goal.   The mother's objection to the permanency plan stated in relevant part the following:  “PROPER PLAN:  REUNIFICATION WITH MOTHER WITH SERVICES.   ALTERNATIVE:  TOG TO MATERNAL GRANDPARENT'S PATRICK AND PATRICIA L.” The court will note that the mother had previously filed a Motion to Transfer Guardianship on January 18, 2011 to the maternal grandparents but at the court hearing of March 21, 2011, marked the motion off.   Additionally, the father had previously filed an Objection to the Permanency Plan on January 18, 2011 but the motion was withdrawn by the father's attorney at the court hearing of March 21, 2011.

The motion to approve the permanency plan and the objection of the mother to said plan was heard by the court on March 21, 2011.

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 Department of Children and Families has had a history with the family of Brianna since 2002 due to concerns of substance abuse, mental health issues as well as a pattern of domestic violence.   As to the recent history, Brianna was removed from the care of the mother and her husband, Christian P., in 2007 due to concerns of the mother's mental health and her irrational behavior.   The mother went to the children's schools stating that the children wanted to kill themselves, and took the children from school to bring them to United Services.   The police and DCF arrived at the mother's home to investigate their concerns and were told by the mother that the children were not home.   Her three children, including, Brianna, were found at the bottom of the master bedroom closet covered with pillows and blankets.   The children told the authorities that they were scared.   The mother had advised the children to stay down so that they would not be observed from the outside.   As a result, DCF requested an order of temporary custody, which was granted and filed neglect petitions.   The children were ultimately returned to the mother in June 2008.

In February 2010, a domestic violence incident between the mother and her new husband, Judson F. occurred in which there was physical violence with the mother reporting that Judson F., punched her in the chest and shoulder area and attempted to choke her.   As a result, on February 17, 2010, a no contact Protective order was issued by the Superior Court ordering Judson F. to stay away from the home of the mother and he was also ordered not to have any contact with the three children, including Brianna.   As evidenced by the DCF prepared Study in Support of Permanency Plan submitted as an exhibit by the petitioner, the mother continued to have contact with Judson F., in violation of the protective order.   On April 7, 2010, DCF filed neglect petitions as well as a motion for an order of temporary custody on behalf of the child, Brianna.   The order of temporary custody was granted on April 17, 2010 and sustained on April 21, 2010.   The custody of Brianna was vested in the maternal grandparents.   However, that order was modified to vest the custody of Brianna in the Department of Children and Families on May 12, 2010.   Brianna was adjudicated neglected on October 22, 2010 and Brianna was committed to the Department of Children and Families.   Since that time, the mother has not fully cooperated with the specific steps ordered by the court as detailed by the Study in Support of the Permanency Plan and the testimony presented.   She did not consistently participate in her counseling, did not follow through with her parenting education services.   The Study in Support of the Permanency Plan also reports that the mother is on probation for disorderly conduct and interfering with an emergency call.

Brianna is eight years old and was placed with her maternal uncle, Derek L., on May 25, 2010 after being removed from her mother's care and having resided for a short time with her maternal grandparents.   The child is doing well with her placement and is bonded well with not only her maternal uncle, but his fiance, Laura C. Both Derek L., and his fiancée, Laura C., have expressed an interest in adopting Brianna should she be available for adoption.

Correspondence dated February 15, 2011, from the child's therapist at United Services was entered as an exhibit.   The clinician reported that Brianna has adjusted very well to her current placement, is doing very well at school and is involved in extracurricular activities.   In addition, Brianna is reported to have “expressed feeling happy and secure in her current living situation.”

Dr. Suzanne Ciaramella conducted a court-ordered evaluation of the mother, Megan P., and the father, Thomas F. as well as internationals with the children, including Brianna.   The doctor testified at the court hearing of March 21 and her report was entered as an exhibit.   Dr. Ciaramella testified that the mother is not anywhere near able to have the child placed in her custody.   She also testified that the more quickly the issues of permanency of a child are resolved, the more likely it will be that the child will have a healthier upbringing.   In addition, she testified that the mother has a long history of making poor choices that put both herself and her children at risks.   She also testified that children who are neglected or abused will often insist on staying with an abusive parent and endure the abuse rather than being moved.   Dr. Ciaramella has testified that she has not evaluated Brianna and would have to do so in order to determine whether a termination of parental rights would be preferable to a transfer of guardianship.   In regard to the mother, her report stated the following:  “The psychological evaluation of mother revealed a woman with significant psychiatric issues, a history of significant head trauma, and likely a history of substance abuse despite her denial ․ although she has been in treatment for years and has attended domestic violence classes, it does not appear that Megan has been able to internalize the changes she needs to make in her life nor has she truly taken responsibility for those choices and how they affected her children.   This is evidenced by her repeated engagement with Judson after her children's removal and not just a few times but for months, and her difficulty realizing that this is her co-dependent pattern despite years of treatment.”   Her report concludes that the “Mother does not seem to have a good understanding of her children's needs as evidenced by her reported ongoing contacts with her husband up until at least a little over two months ago, reported and observed minimization of the impact the incidence of domestic violence and ongoing contact with him has had on the children, her inappropriate boundaries as both self reported and reported by the children within the documentation, and her own psychiatric instability that interferes with her insight and judgment overall.   Mother continues to require intensive treatment to address her issues as well as intensive family treatment in order to understand her children's needs and develop the skills to meet them.   Her life has been chronically chaotic and filled with aggressive persons and despite time and different partners this dynamic has not remitted.   Therefore, without mother demonstrating consistent and reliable changes there is little evidence to suggest that she can safely meet the needs of her children and not conduct herself in ways or make choices that continue to jeopardize their psychological and emotional stability in the future.”

The attorney for the minor child reported to the court that she is not in favor of approving the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption.

The guardian ad litem for the child testified that he believes that a lengthy court battle is not in the best interest of the child.   He agrees with the permanency plan as presented by DCF but would also agree with a transfer of the guardianship of the child only if the terms and conditions could be worked out among the various parties regarding all of the issues involving the child with the parents and the guardians.   His report and an addendum to the report were submitted as exhibits.   The addendum to the report acknowledged that the mother and her proposed guardian, her brother, Derek, have a “strained relationship.”

The court finds that the father withdrew his objection to the permanency plan goal of termination of parental rights and adoption.   He has not played a significant role in the life of Brianna and has relied on others to raise her.

The mother has had long-standing problems with mental health issues, and has been involved in a pattern of relationship with men that have resulted in domestic violence, both away and in front of Brianna.   Despite the passage of years and her participating in services, the mother does not recognize the harm and danger that domestic violence places on both herself and Brianna.   The mother is unable to provide for the needs of Brianna either now nor within a reasonable time.   Brianna is now eight years old.   She has been removed from her mother's care multiple times due to the mother's difficulties and has resided in her current home for almost a year and is thriving.   The permanency plan of termination of parental rights is appropriate.

Accordingly, the court, having considered the evidence presented at the permanency plan hearing, hereby finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan for the termination of the parental rights of the child, Brianna, is in the best interest of the child.   The court hereby approves the permanency plan filed on January 10, 2011 and overrules the objection filed by the mother on January 18, 2011.   The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the identified permanency plan.

BY THE COURT

E.Graziani

Graziani, Edward C., J.