IN RE: Jahrel J. (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 for the two children on March 30, 2010 and the objection to said plans filed by the mother on May 13, 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 objects to the permanency plan goals of termination of parental rights and adoption and a finding that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan goals.   The court will note that the father's objection to the permanency plans was withdrawn at the court hearing of March 17, 2011.

A history of the file reveals that on November 21, 2008, DCF filed petitions of neglect and for orders of temporary custody on behalf of the children.   The orders of temporary custody was granted on November 21, 2008 and later sustained on November 26, 2008.   The temporary custody of the children was vested in DCF. On November 4, 2009, the children were adjudicated neglected and committed on December 2, 2009 to the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families.

The motions to approve the permanency plans and objections to said plan was heard by the court on March 17, 2011.

The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the hearing reveals the following facts.

Jahrel is four years old and Dominique is three years old.   They were both placed in the care of DCF on November 11, 2008 and still remain in the care of the department despite the passage of over two years and four months.   The issues that led to the involvement of DCF, the orders of temporary custody and the adjudication of neglect include inadequate supervision and discipline of the children, inappropriate parental skills, unaddressed mental health needs, an unstable home environment and an inability to safely provide for these two young children.   The mother has also left the children unattended in a bathtub despite their tender ages.   The father has had limited involvement in the children's lives.   Neither parent is able to provide a safe and appropriate home for the children despite the passage of over two years and four months since the children were placed in the care of DCF.

As detailed in the social study in support of the motion to review the permanency plan that was entered as an exhibit in this matter, neither the mother or the father have substantially complied with the specific steps entered in this matter.   The father is not objecting to the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption.   The study clearly reveals the numerous and significant failure of the father to take efforts so that he might once again resume parenting of his children.   The exhibit also documents the mother's difficulties, including her transience/homelessness, her failure to keep her whereabouts known to DCF, her failure to participate in services and programs offered on her behalf, her failure to cooperate with DCF, her failure to sign releases, her involvement in domestic violence, her involvement with the criminal law, her failure to see the children for significant blocks of time and to exercise consistently the visitation that has been offered to her.   The exhibit also documents the numerous services offered to her and her children.

The children have spent the past two years and four months in the care and custody of DCF and are three and four years old.   Both the mother and father have longstanding issues that prevent them from safely caring for their young child either now nor within a reasonable period of time.

The attorney and guardian ad litem for the minor children requested that the court approve the permanency plan goals of termination of parental rights and find that the department has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan goals.

The attorney for the mother submitted to the court an argument, dated March 27, 2011, against the study in support of the motion to review the permanency plan.

Accordingly, the court, having considered the evidence presented in the permanency plan hearing, hereby finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan for the termination of the parental rights and adoption of the children is in the best interest of the children, Jahrel and Dominique.   The court hereby approves the permanency plans filed on March 30, 2010 for each of the children and overrules the objections filed by the mother on May 13, 2010.   The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the identified permanency plans.

BY THE COURT

E.Graziani

Graziani, Edward C., J.