IN RE: Carmen F. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On May 21, 2008 neglect petitions, based on denial of proper care and conditions injurious, were filed against mother and father.   In-hand service was found for mother on July 2, 2008 and for father by way of publication on October 8, 2008.

An Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) was granted ex-parte on July 11, 2008.   Abode service was found on mother on July 18, 2008 and on father by way of publication on October 8 for the neglect petition.

The OTC was sustained by agreement on July 18, 2008 and mother pled nolo to neglect denial of proper care, on March 16, 2009.   Father was defaulted on October 8, 2008 and the children were adjudicated and committed to the Department of Children and Families on March 16, 2009.   On February 26, 2010 a motion for Termination of Parental Rights was filed and in hand service was found on mother on March 24, 2010.   Service of publication was found on father and he was defaulted both on November 22, 2010 and the day of the termination trial.

TESTIMONY

The first witness, Caludia Sperrazza testified that she was employed by Boys and Girls Village.   She started working with mother in the Intensive Family Preservation Program (IFP) in May of 2008 when the children were in the home.

The two children in question had high levels of lead poisoning, the house was deplorable, and mother had substance abuse issues, so she worked with mother until both children were removed on July 7, 2008 and were in DCF custody.

When the children were removed IFP program ended and Intensive Safety Planning (ISP) began.   The witness assisted mother with parenting skills and helped mother to achieve the goals that DCF wanted.

The witness testified that mother gave excuses every time she tried to drive her to mothers' drug treatment program.   Mother was not available on three occasions.  “She never reported to me that she went.   And when I asked her she said she didn't.”   The program in question was conducted by the Morris Foundation in Waterbury.   The case workers last day with mother was August 14, 2008 and she has not had contact with mother since the date.

Treatment social worker Sonnette White was the next state witness.   In March of 2008 Ms. White was assigned to mother for two years.   She made numerous references to the Morris Foundation on behalf of mother for evaluation, hair analysis, and random drug screens.   Mother then went seventeen months without any engagement in drug treatment.

The children were in foster care the entire time and were not returned to mom because she did not comply with substance abuse services.   Mother had five children and three of the siblings were with maternal relatives.   Worker was not aware of any paternal relatives at the time.   Worker made a referral to supportive housing on mothers' behalf, but to be eligible mother must demonstrate that she was clean for three months.   Mother never obtained supportive housing;  worker provided weekly visits for mother with her children.   Mother had daily phone contact with children and some supportive visits at the foster home.

Mother initially complied with treatment until September of 2008, thereafter she was not compliant with treatment early on, but still tested positive for cocaine with hair analysis.

On cross examination all of the one hour narratives of the visits with mother were reviewed with social worker White.   Many visits occurred with mother, her boyfriend, mothers' father, mothers' son, and maternal aunt Finally, Ms. White insisted visits be with mother only.

On some occasions Angellys would go directly to maternal aunt first.   Most visits mother interacted appropriately overall.

The visits that were reviewed were from July 14, 2008 through April 12, 2010.   Some visits mom was not as attentive and at other visits children were bonding with other family members that attended.

Belinda Arce, director of Client Services for the Waterbury housing Authority testified that mother was a client of the authority who currently has a five-bedroom unit.   One of the criteria for Section–8 housing is family composition.   At the present time mother has listed all her five children as members of the household, even though four are residing elsewhere and none are in her custody.   Thus, the mothers' application is patently false.

Stephanie Misiewicz runs the outpatient clinic for Boys and Girls Village.   Carmen, age seven and Angellys, age five, came to her because of issues with Post–Traumatic Stress Disorder, adjustment in their environment with hyperactivity and self-esteem issues.

Angellys was expressing nightmares and was scared in the past when she wasn't where she currently is.   She is now very stable with her foster family.

Neither child mentions mother at all, but they talk about their foster mother, whom they consider “mom.”

Witness began working with the girls in July 2010.   She never saw or observed interaction with mother and daughters.   She was told that the children where in current placement for two years, but that foster mother was not going to be the children's permanent resource.

Witness could not say that children had a bond with mother, but definitely they had a strong bond with foster mother.

Marion Alamo is employed as a clinician of the Morris Foundation.   Mother is in her Intensive 10, intensive outpatient Latino program for substance abuse for over two years.   Ms. Alamo works one on one with mother to review a plan of care before she started group session.

Mother did not comply with program in 2008 as she did not attend sessions.   She was never discharged from program because she missed so many of the group sessions.   She has been in her group three times since 2008 and the present.   Her goal is to stay clean, but she relapsed in September and her most recent goal was to be admitted in-patient.   She still has not completed a full week of sessions over the two-year period.

Morris Foundation did accommodate mother regarding language barriers.   Mother still has not committed herself to treatment and has not made that decision.

When she relapsed, witness would call her in one on one and then would talk about it.   Drug screenings were done weekly.   Witness said she got along with mother and she was a wonderful person.

Maria Coles, foster mother for Carmen and Angellys since March 2009 testified that her brother lives with the girls' maternal aunt.   She already had a relationship with the children before they came to live with the family.

Mother is able to call on a daily basis and visit on special occasions.   The phone calls ceased however, for the last two months and mother did not come to Angellys's birthday party as she had previously done.   The girls refer to Maria Coles as mommy and they refer to mother as Glenda.   Ms. Coles has had a stroke and has her mother-in-law living with her, the mother-in-law has also had a stroke, and her daughter had a liver transplant.   Because of her overwhelming medical issues, she cannot be an adoptive resource.

Both girls have lead poising, Carmen has eczema and Angellys has asthma and is being tested for ADD and ADHD.

Weekly visits were not allowed at the Coles' home because her husband works at the Morris Foundation, as it would have been inappropriate.   When asking if foster mother had ever seen mother under the influence of drugs, she answered “I don't know.”

The last witness for the state was Maria Vega–Tiru, permanency social worker, assigned to the case in March of 2010 ․ She said that DCF's plan is for termination and adoption.   The department has two relatives from fathers' side who are interested in adoption of both girls, one from Puerto Rico and the other from Massachusetts.   The reason it took so long for the paternal siblings to come forward is that they were unaware that DCF had custody of the girls.

Of the mothers five children, two are with an uncle, two are in DCF custody and one lives in mothers' household, but not under her care, DCF is waiting for the interstate definite.

Worker testified that she continues to offer mother transportation, visits, and services.   Father has had zero contact since this case was opened in May of 2008.   Mother has been offered substance abuse counseling at the Morris Foundation, mental health services, and parenting classes as well as recently in-patient treatment for cocaine.

Mother consistently visited children until July of 2010 when she missed eight or nine visits (the same time she stopped calling the girls at foster care).   Visits often revolve around food;  mother brings a lot of treats for the girls.

Lastly, since September mother has provided four positive substance abuse tests for cocaine.   Mother stopped going to treatment since October and is not consistent with anything.   Mother is in danger of being evicted, as she stated in her housing application that all five children were living with her.   Mothers' continued use of drugs directly impacts her ability to regain custody of her children.

Father, Luis F. is reportedly residing in Puerto Rico and according to DCF, does not want any involvement with the children, Carmen and Angellys.   Father has not contacted DCF and was in default in 2008 and has never attended any court hearings.

ADJUDICATION

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the date of the filing of the termination petition that mother fail to rehabilitate pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 17a–112(j).  Further the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that father abandoned both children and has no ongoing parent/child relationship.

The girls, Carmen age eight and Angellys age five and a half, were taken from mother by DCF on July 7, 2008 and mother was issued specific steps on July 11, 2008.   Mother neglected to attend drug treatment programs over the entire two-and-a-half–year period.   She has almost continuously tested (when allowing it) positive for cocaine even as recent as September 2010.

The girls have lead poisoning which requires monitoring.   Carmen has eczema and Angellys has asthma and both are in counseling.

Mother does not have any visible means of support and may loose her current rental since she lied on her housing application.

In summary no income, no rehabilitation, no drug treatment, no stable housing.   Mother has not seen children or called them for over two months and missed Angellys's birthday.

Mother has flunked the tests necessary for her to assume a responsible position in either child's life now or in the near future.

The children have been in custody of DCF for over two and a half years.   Mother has lost custody of her remaining three children.   Mother simply cannot control her cocaine habit and her recent noninvolvement with the children is very disturbing.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification of mother with children and efforts to locate father.   Mothers' failure to rehabilitate is a clear warning that she cannot take care of the medical problems of her children.

The court finds that as of the date of the termination petition the children had been found to be uncared for, had been in DCF custody for almost two years, and mother failed to achieve personal rehabilitation.

Based on all the testimony of the seven witnesses;  the court finds that it is in the best interest of the two girls that mothers' rights be terminated.   The court also finds that is it in the best interest of the two girls that the father's rights be terminated based on abandonment and no parent/child relationship.

DISPOSITION

In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 17–112(k) the court makes the following findings.

1. The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children to facilitate reunion.

DCF could not provide any services for father Luis F.

Mother was taken to one-hour visits weekly from 7/14/08 through 4/12/10.   (Said visits were recorded by DCF worker in great detail).   She was offered drug abuse counseling at the Morris Foundation (both individual and group) of which she availed herself off and on over a two year period.   In September of 2010 mother was offered inpatient treatment.

Several programs were offered to mother including but not limited to parenting classes, mental health treatment and housing assistance.   She was never eligible for supportive housing because mother was never drug-free for a three month period.

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.

DCF could not provide any services for father Luis F.

Based on the testimony of seven witnesses, DCF has provided abundant assistance to mother and thereby has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the above federal act.

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

There are no ties of the children to the father Luis F.

Both Carmen and Angellys have been in the care of their current foster mother since March 2009.   Foster mother had a relationship with children before they came to live with her and her family.   The girls refer to foster mother as “Mommy” and to their mother as “Glenda.”   Testimony revealed that the children had a bond with their mother, but they had a strong bond with their foster mother.   During some visits mother was not attentive, and at other visits children bonded with other family that attended.   In most cases mother was appropriate.

Because of new medical conditions, foster mother cannot be an adoptive resource.   DCF has uncovered paternal siblings that are interested in adoption of the girls.   The evidence does not reveal overwhelmingly strong emotional ties or feelings towards mother.   This court finds that the children's need for stability and permanency are more important than maintaining any legal connection with their mother.

4. The terms of any applicable court order(s) entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parents, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order(s).  Mother has not complied with many of the steps ordered by DCF especially in the area of substance abuse.   DCF has provided the services promised but mother has not been compliant with many court orders.

Not applicable to father Luis F.

5.  The ages of the children.

Carmen—8 (date of birth:  March 15, 2003);  Angellys—5 1/2 (date of birth:  July 3, 2005).

6. The efforts the parents have made to adjust such parents' circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parents have maintained contact with the children as part of an effort to reunite the children with the parents, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardians or other custodians of the children.

No efforts have been made by father Luis F.

Except for a two-month hiatus, when mother had absolutely no contact with children either in person or by telephone, she has maintained regular visitations.   She has been unable to develop strong bonds and adequate parenting skills.

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

Not applicable as to father Luis F.

Mother has not been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with children by any unreasonable acts or conduct of others or by her economic circumstances.

ORDERS

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of mother and father are hereby terminated;  said termination is in the best interests of the children and the children have a need for a secure and permanent environment with a focus on adoption, the court grants DCF's petition and orders termination of parental rights of mother Glenda S. and father Luis F.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent of each of these children.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall file, within thirty days hereof, a report as to the status of each of these children and shall also timely file any additional reports as is required by law.

The clerk of the Probate Court which has jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of any of these children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterbury of the date that each adoption is finalized.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

BY THE COURT,

Thomas F. Upson,J.

Upson, Thomas F., J.