IN RE: Arryonna C.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These are actions brought by the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Arryonna C. (hereinafter referred to as “Arryonna C.” or “child”).   The biological mother of the child is Roseanna K. (hereinafter referred to as “Roseanna K.” or “Mother”) and the biological father is Darryl C. (hereinafter referred to as “Darryl C.” or “Father”).   The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting Arryonna C.'s custody and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.

On 8/31/10, DCF invoked a 96–hour hold and filed a Motion for Order of Temporary Custody and a Petition of Neglect on behalf of said child with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford.

On 9/20/10, the Order of Temporary Custody was sustained, and on 12/16/10, a Motion to Vacate the OTC and Adjudication of Neglect and Transfer of Guardianship was consolidated with the TPR trial.   A CMC was set for 2/14/10.   Thereafter a trial date of 4/27/11 was set.

On 4/27/11, the date set for trial, the court canvassed Father and found that he knowingly and voluntarily consented to the termination with the assistance of competent counsel.   The court found such termination as to Father was in the best interest of the child by clear and convincing evidence;  a default had previously been entered for Mother for failure to appear.

At the time of the trial on 4/27/11, DCF submitted thirteen exhibits (A–M) and respondent Father submitted twelve exhibits (1–12).   Three witnesses testified.   After the State commenced trial, an agreement was reached wherein Father consented to the Petition of Termination of Parental Rights and the Court ordered the default of the Mother.

The ground of this petition for the Termination of Parental Rights as to Mother is no ongoing parent-child relationship.   The grounds as to Father were dropped and the ground of consent was substituted at the time of trial.

The court carefully considered all the evidence presented at trial.   The court applied the burden of proof applicable to the termination of parental rights petitions.   Only evidence relevant to the adjudication date was considered as a part of adjudication proceedings on the termination petitions.

I

FACTUAL FINDINGSA. Background/Present Situation/Reasons for Petition

DCF filed a petition for Termination of Parental Rights due to the fact that Mother, Roseanna K., is not willing or able to provide competent, safe, and nurturing parenting for the child.

Mother's family has been involved with DCF since 1993 and Mother and Father have been involved with DCF since their first child was born on 12/2/95, due to issues of substance abuse and Mother's inability to avoid domestic violence and parent her children properly.

On 11/24/08, the Department invoked a 96–Hour Hold on behalf of Arryonna C. due to Mother's unaddressed substance abuse and mental health needs.   On 11/26/08, the Department filed a Petition of Neglect/Uncared for, and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody.   The OTC was granted on 11/26/08, and was subsequently sustained on 12/5/08.   At the request of Father, an OTC Trial was held on 12/12/08 which resulted in his regaining custody of Arryonna C. under a six-month order of Protective Supervision.

Father was arrested for shoplifting from Target.   He fled the store, ran across the highway and was hiding out in the woods when he was apprehended.   After his arrest, he left Arryonna C. in Mother's care.   On 1/28/09, DCF invoked a 96–Hour Hold on behalf of the child.   On 11/29/09, DCF filed a Petition of Neglect/Uncared for, and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody.   The OTC was granted on 11/29/09, and was subsequently sustained on 2/6/09.   On 5/14/09, Arryonna C. was adjudicated neglected/uncared for and on 5/14/09 she was committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families as a neglected/uncared for child.

On 1/16/10, Arryonna C. was returned to the care and custody of her Father as he had completed the necessary specific steps to facilitate the return of his daughter to his care.   These steps included:  maintaining stable housing, completing substance abuse treatment and parent education classes.

On 8/31/10, Arryonna C. entered DCF custody under a 96–Hour Hold as Father was homeless and had left his daughter with her previous foster parents.   There were allegations that he had had contact with Mother despite a full protective order being in place, and that he was abusing illegal substances.   He had indicated that he was moving to North Carolina, but was unable to provide the investigator with a relocation address.   He was also suspect with respect to the arrangement he had with the foster family in stating that he was going to be flying to Texas where they were and would be picking up his daughter and bringing her back home with him.

At the time of adjudication, the presenting problems were suspected substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness and unemployment.

Father is not in compliance with the specific steps ordered by the Court on 9/20/10 to facilitate the return of Arryonna C. to his care.

B. Roseanna K., Mother

Roseanna K. was born on 5/15/81 in Hartford, Connecticut to Debra C. and Horace K. She has one sister, Shameka K. (6/21/93) and two brothers, Ty–Shawn C. (7/28/78) and Germaine K. (11/16/87).   Her parents were never married but were together for 19 years until the death of her father.   Roseanna K. was very close to her father and his loss was difficult for her.   She denied any domestic violence between her parents, indicating that her father used crack cocaine but that it had not impacted her family.

Roseanna K.'s family was a recipient of DCF protective services' intervention.   Her family moved often during her childhood.   She attended Hartford Public Schools as well as schools in New Britain and East Hartford but left East Hartford High School in the 10th grade.

Roseanna K. met Devon R. when she was 13 years old.   He moved into her parent's home when she became pregnant with Brionna at the age of 14.   They resided at this home for about three years.   Roseanna K. applied for emancipation at the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters and it was granted when she was 17 years old.

Roseanna K. and Devon R. remained together for 10 years.   During this relationship she had a child, Horace K. (DOB 11/24/01) by another man.   He was born prematurely at 26 weeks' gestation and tested positive for marijuana.   He died at the age of six months due to his prematurity.   Mother reported that she began using cocaine after the birth of her fourth child, Dionna R. in 2003, and she was getting high with Devon R.

There was domestic violence toward Roseanna K. at the end of her relationship with Devon R. and she claims that this was the primary reason why she ended their relationship.   Shortly thereafter, she met Christopher H., the father of her fifth and sixth children:  Christopher H., who was born in 2006, and Keonna H., who was born in 2007.   Both children tested positive for cocaine at birth.

Roseanna K. has a criminal record history and has been arrested numerous times and also incarcerated.   Her last arrest was on 5/29/08 when she was charged with Breach of Peace 2nd.

Roseanna K. has worked as a nurse's aide (CNA) and at fast food restaurants.   She has not held a job since prior to November 2007.

Mother entered the Women and Children's Inpatient Substance Abuse Program and has also attended other programs with little or no positive effect.   Upon discharge from the Women's Center, she met Darryl C. who lived in her neighborhood.   They reportedly have a positive relationship.

Mother has been involved in three incidents of domestic violence during the past year.   To date, she has not been compliant with her attendance at Anger Management classes through the Wheeler Clinic, having attended only one group session on 9/11/08.

Keonna H. was born on 7/25/07 and tested positive for cocaine as reported by St. Francis Hospital.   A 96–hour hold was invoked on 7/27/07, and an OTC was filed on 7/31/07.   Keonna H. was subsequently committed on 10/4/07.   Christopher H. was born on 8/25/06, and tested positive for cocaine as reported by Saint Francis Hospital.   A 96–Hour Hold was invoked on 9/27/07 and was subsequently vacated as Christopher H. was placed in the care of paternal grandmother.   Another 96–Hour Hold was invoked on 11/6/07 due to Christopher H. no longer being able to remain in the PGM's home due to an open investigation in the home regarding PGM's daughter.   An OTC was filed 11/9/07 and Christopher H. was committed on 1/21/08.

On 6/14/07, during a prenatal appointment at Saint Francis Women's Center, Mother had a urine screen which tested positive for cocaine.   On 7/31/07, Orders of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petitions were filed by DCF in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters on behalf of Keonna H. and Devon and Dionna R;  and a Neglect Petition was filed on behalf of Christopher H. On 8/1/07, an Order of Temporary Custody and a Neglect Petition was filed on behalf of Brionna R. by DCF in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters and the OTC was granted.

C. Darryl C., Father

Darryl C. was born on 5/5/62 to Marie and Benjamin C., the second of four children.   Darryl C.'s brother, Benjamin is married with four children and resides in Hartford;  his sister also resides in Hartford and has no children;  his brother, Rodney, lives nearby.

Darryl C. resided in Hartford during his childhood and was part of “Project Concern” so he attended Elm Hill Elementary School in Newington.   He also attended Martin Kellogg Middle School and graduated from Newington High School in 1979.   He attended a program offered through the Hartford College for Women and obtained an electrical certification which was paid for by the cable company at which he was employed.

Darryl C. described his home growing up as the “house to hang out at.”   He claimed that he did not have many problems growing up and that he was a good student.

Darryl C. started working at age 13 delivering newspapers.   He worked summer jobs during his adolescence and as a bank teller when he was older.   As an adult, he worked at a cable company and an oil company and as a truck and construction vehicle driver.   His job of longest duration was at Travelers Insurance Company where he worked as a processor installing computers.

Prior to meeting Roseanna K., Darryl C. claims to have had three serious relationships.   The first relationship with Jacqueline P. lasted for two years and ended approximately twelve years ago.   He then dated Valerie L. and their relationship produced two children:  Darryl Jr. (DOB 3/14/84) and Tyrone C. (DOB 3/4/85).   A subsequent relationship with Sandra J. also produced two children:  Kamisha (DOB 4/13/91) and Kendall C. (8/24/93).   Darryl C. met Roseanna K. prior to dating her as they had resided on the same street.   They began dating in November 2007 after she was discharged from her inpatient substance abuse program.

Darryl C. has a criminal record dating back to 5/13/97 for convictions on four counts of Failure to Appear, two counts of Unemployment Fraud/Larceny 4 and Violation of Probation.

Father denied any drug or alcohol issue, past or present.   He has never been hospitalized for medical or psychological reasons and described himself as “level headed.”

C. Arryonna C., Child

Arryonna C., an African American child, was born on November 22, 2008 to Roseanna K. and Darryl C. She was born full-term and considered healthy although she tested positive for substances at birth.   She is currently in a DCF licensed foster home.   She was removed on 11/24/08 and placed in the care of Father on 12/12/08;  she was removed again on 1/28/09 and returned to Father's care and custody on 1/16/10;  she was removed again on 8/31/10 and returned to her current foster home.

Arryonna C. is medically up to date.   She was seen at Burgdorf Pediatric Clinic for a physical examination on 7/8/09.   She was diagnosed with precocious puberty and was referred to CCMC Endocrinology for further examination and follow-up, but no concerns were noted at that time.   Arryonna C. has an umbilical hernia that continues to be monitored closely although surgery is not needed at this time.   She does not receive any Birth to Three services as there are no concerns regarding her development.

Arryonna C. is bonded to the people in her life that provide a safe and nurturing environment for her.   She is in need of a stable and competent caretaker.

E. Present Situation

Roseanna K. has pending charges from 2009 and 2010 which include violation of probation, possession of drug paraphernalia and illegal operation of a motor vehicle.   She had a court hearing on 5/5/11 for these charges.   The DCF social worker assigned to Mother's case found that on 4/22/11, Mother gave birth to another child and DCF is seeking custody.   Mother has refused to be in contact with DCF regarding Arryonna C. and no further information regarding her present situation is available.

Darryl C. reported to DCF that he is employed and although he was requested to provide proof of employment by producing paycheck verification, he has failed to provide DCF with this documentation.

On 3/21/11, Father participated telephonically in an administrative case review held at the DCF office in Hartford.   At that time, he informed DCF that his current address was 136 Enfield Street in Hartford.   On 4/4/11, when DCF was making arrangements for a home visit to this address, Father informed the Department that the address he had provided was his brother's address and that he actually resided on the 2nd floor at 31 East Raymond Street in Hartford.   At the scheduled home visit he informed DCF that he had been living at the Raymond Street residence for approximately three months and that he was attempting to obtain an apartment.   He wanted to know whether DCF would provide his security deposit but on 4/25/11 it was determined that DCF would not approve the payment of such deposit.

On 3/21/11, Darryl C. informed DCF that he had completed the parenting program through My People's Clinical Services (MPCS), however, a report was received from MPCS that Father had been unsuccessfully discharged due to non-compliance.   To verify this information DCF spoke to MPCS and it was confirmed that Father had been unsuccessfully discharged from the program but had returned a few weeks later and requested to participate in the support groups.   As he completed his attendance at the support groups of his own volition, DCF has no reports or records that relate to his participation or goals.

Arryonna C. resides with a non-relative foster family that divides their time between homes in Texas and Connecticut.   Father had given permission for the family to travel with the child when she was under an OTC. The foster family has expressed a desire to adopt Arryonna C. should she become legally free for adoption and to maintain contact with Father post-adoption so he could be in contact with his daughter.

II

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION

The court must determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate parental rights to Arryonna C. as of the date of the filing of the petition.

A. Reasonable Efforts Finding

Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, in order to terminate parental rights DCF initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child[ren] with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(l).  “Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).

DCF has been involved with Roseanna K. as a child and as a mother since July 2001.   The presenting problems with this family were Mother's lack of parenting skills and the ability to provide a safe living environment;  unaddressed substance abuse and mental health needs;  unstable living arrangements;  criminal justice involvement and unemployment.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Arryonna C. with Mother, Roseanna K. are no longer possible due to Mother's failure to maintain contact with DCF.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Arryonna C. with Father, Darryl C. are no longer appropriate due to Father's unemployment, lack of housing and lack of responsible parenting efforts.

Mother is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services in that she has failed to adequately address her parenting and substance abuse issues.   She continues to use illegal drugs and she has recently been involved in domestic violence incidences.

Father is unwilling or unable to benefit from the reasonable efforts put forth.

DCF has been involved with this family and Arryonna C. since 7/27/07.   In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Grounds for Termination:  No Ongoing Parent–Children Relationship—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(D) as to Biological Mother, Roseanna K.

This ground alleged by DCF requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means “the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.”

This statutory definition, as it has been interpreted in case law, requires a finding that “no positive emotional aspects of the relationship survive.”   In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459, 470, 586 A.2d 597 (1991).  “It is inherently ambiguous when applied to non-custodial parents who must maintain their relationship with their child through visitation.”  Id., 459;  In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 531, 613 A.2d 748 (1992).   Although the ultimate question is usually whether the child has any present memories or feelings for the natural parent, the existence of a loving relationship or a “psychological parent” relationship with one other than the natural parent does not, of itself, establish the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination.  In re Jessica M., supra, 473–475.

Unlike the other nonconsensual grounds to terminate parental rights, the absence of a parent-child relationship is considered a “no fault” ground for termination.   To establish this ground requires the trial court to make a two-pronged determination.   First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists;  and second, the court must look to the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop.   The absence of a parent-child relationship can be demonstrated in situations where a child has never known his or her parents so that no relationship ever developed between them, or where the child has lost that relationship so that despite its former existence, it has now been completely displaced.  In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).

Judicial interpretation has imposed a requirement that a child have “present memories or feelings” for the parent, and “at least some aspects of these memories and feelings are positive” to overcome this ground.  In re Jessica M., supra, 217 Conn. 475;  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 195 Conn. 801 (1984).   The existence of positive feelings usually depends on the viewpoint of the child.  In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 35, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).   As the Appellate Court recently noted, “the feelings of the child are of paramount importance.”  In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 602 (1999).  “Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only.”  Id.

Ground D—No Ongoing Parent–Children Relationship as to Biological Mother, Roseanna K.

1. Roseanna K. has not seen Arryonna C. for at least fifteen months.

2. Arryonna C. would not recognize Roseanna K. as she has never been in her care.

3. Roseanna K. is a stranger to Arryonna C.

4. Arryonna C. has no present positive memories of Roseanna K.;   she does not ask for her Mother, nor does she mention her name.

5. Arryonna C.'s previous positive relationship with Roseanna K., if any, no longer exists, but she does have a strong emotional attachment to her current foster parents with whom she has resided for the majority of her life.

6. To permit additional time to develop a parent-child relationship will not be in Arryonna C.'s best interest as she is approximately two years five months old, and has spent over half her life in foster care.   She is in need of a stable and permanent home to consistently meet her physical, emotional and medical needs, and Mother is not capable of providing for these needs at this time.   Arryonna C. has never lived with her Mother as she was removed from her care at birth.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  (1) that the biological Mother, Roseanna K., has not maintained an ongoing parent-child relationship with the Arryonna C.

Father consented to the termination of his parental rights in open court.   He filed written consent.   This court found that Father voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of his rights, having received the advice and assistance of competent legal counsel and having understood the consequences of his actions.   His consent was accepted by this court.

The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes and the Practice Book.

The court took jurisdiction in this matter;  there is no pending action affecting custody of the child in any other court.

The petition has been amended to allege as the sole ground for termination of the Father, his consent to the termination.

The court having read the verified petition and the social studies, made the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

Adjudication. The Father has consented to the termination of his rights to his child and the consent was accepted by the court.

No findings are necessary to be made pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a–112 with regard to the Father due to his consent.

III

DISPOSITION

Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights applying the appropriate standard of proof, the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial establish, by clear and convincing evidence, after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest.   If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.

A. C.G.S. § 17a–112(k) Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.

Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Roseanna K.'s parental rights, as she did not consent [but rather a default plea was found by the court], the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k).  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).   These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:

1. “The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.”

Mother's concern and interest in her child is non-existent and she has not presented herself as a resource for the child in order for DCF to assist her in securing the appropriate services.   It is unlikely that she could assume a responsible position in the life of the child in the foreseeable future.

2. “Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Children Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.”

Mother is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts in that her whereabouts and interest is unknown and she has failed to become involved in the life of the child.

3. “The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order.”

Specific steps were ordered by the Court on 9/20/10, and Mother has not complied with those steps.

4. “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.”

The child has no positive feelings towards her Mother but appears bonded to and has significant emotional ties with her current foster parents with whom she has lived almost exclusively since shortly after her birth.

5. “The age of the child.”

Arryonna C. (DOB 11/22/08) is two years five months old.

6. “The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to such child's home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent provided that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.”

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that they have refused to cooperate with DCF or programs presented.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for Arryonna C. To permit the child to return to the parents' care would compromise the safety of the child.

7. “The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.”

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable conduct by DCF, foster parents, the Department of Corrections or third parties prevented Roseanna K. or Darryl C. from maintaining a relationship with Arryonna C., nor did their economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

B. Best Interest of the Child

Termination of Parental Rights is in the best interest of Arryonna C. as to her parents.   Father consented to the termination of his parental rights on 4/27/11.

Given the age of the child, the child's need to have her individual emotional and educational needs met, her need to have a permanent and stable home, her need to be raised in a nurturing and stable home, Roseanna K. and Darryl C. cannot, within a reasonable period of time, assume a responsible position in her life.

Mother has a history of moral issues, criminal issues and substance abuse issues and has not adequately addressed the issues which led to the removal of the child and she has not addressed her other issues to an extent necessary to reunify with her child.

Mother has shown a lack of interest or ability to care for the child to the extent that she has no ongoing relationship with the child.

Since 11/24/08, Arryonna C. has been placed in a DCF licensed foster home where she has remained with the exception of two occasions when she was returned to her Father for periods of six weeks (12/12/08—1/28/09) and seven months (1/16/10—8/30/10).   She is thriving in her current foster home placement and has formed a strong attachment to the family seeking them out to have her needs met.   Her foster parents are committed to her and have expressed the willingness and desire to adopt her should this become an option for them.

Arryonna C. is a two-and-a-half-year-old child who is in need of a responsible and sober caregiver who can meet her basic needs in a timely manner and provide her with permanency and stability.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Arryonna C.'s best interest for Termination of Parental Rights to enter with respect to Roseanna K., her biological Mother and Darryl C., her biological Father.

IV

CONCLUSION

The court, having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Arryonna C.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Roseanna K., the biological Mother and Darryl C., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Arryonna C. are hereby terminated.

It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for the child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for the child.

The statutory parent is ordered to file with the court the appropriate written reports, required by state and federal law, which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of this child.

BY THE COURT,

WOLLENBERG, J

Wollenberg, William L., J.T.R.