IN RE: Rachelle S. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In accordance with General Statute Section 46b–124 and 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 petition for the termination of the parental rights of the mother, Jessica A., and the father, Charles S., the biological parents of the minor child, Rachelle S., born on October 8, 1996 as well as the removal of guardianship of the parents to the child.   These matters were initially filed in the Marlborough Probate Court and was subsequently transferred to the Regional Children's Probate Court, District # 56, on March 17, 2011.   On April 28, 2011, upon motion of the attorney for the minor child, pursuant to General Statute 45a–715, the matter was transferred to the Superior Court.   The Superior Court assigned Docket Nos. W–10–CP11–016031–A to the termination of parental rights case and W10–CP11–016030–A to the removal of guardianship case.   The Probate Court of Marlborough Connecticut had previously ordered that the temporary guardian of the minor child be vested in the child's paternal aunt and uncle, Konya H. and Henry H. pursuant to its order of July 8, 2010, in which the guardianship commenced on July 8, 2010.

The court (Vacchelli, J.) found on August 17, 2011, that the mother and father were noticed of the pendency of the termination of parental rights petition by publication in the Valley News. The court also defaulted the mother and the father for their failure to appear and continued the matter for a default trial for August 23, 2011.

The petitioners in the termination of parental case, the paternal aunt and uncle, Konya H. and Henry H., allege multiple grounds for the termination of the parental rights of the parents.   They are consent, that the child has been denied the care, guidance, or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being by reason of acts of parental commission or omission, and that the child is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families for at least fifteen months and the parents have failed to achieve personal rehabilitation so that they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   The petition was amended on August 23, 2011, to include as a ground for the termination of the parental rights, that the child has been abandoned by the parents in the sense that the parents have failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.

The termination of parental rights case was tried to this court on August 23, 2011.   At the trial, two social studies prepared by the Department of Children and Families were entered as exhibits.   In addition, the court heard testimony from a social worker for the Department of Children and Families at the hearing.   The court also heard testimony from Henry H., the co-petitioner and temporary co-guardian of the child.

The court, having read the verified petition and exhibits and having weighed the testimony presented, makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

The Department of Children and Families conducted a social study in this case both for the Probate Court as well as the Superior Court.   A DCF social worker testified at the trial that although the studies of November 22, 2010 and August 12, 2011 titles were for the removal of guardianship, they were also applicable for the termination of the parental rights and that it was DCF's position that it was recommending the termination of the parental rights of the mother and the father and that the reports fully support that conclusion.

The mother, Jessica A., is thirty-five years old.   As detailed by the exhibits entered in this case, she has a long history of unresolved substance abuse issues and unresolved mental health issues.   She has been unemployed since 2008.   The mother is married to Chester A. at the present time.   Out of the mother's relationship with Charles, S., the father, Rachelle S. was born.   The mother obtained sole custody and guardianship of the child, Rachelle S., through the Vermont Family Court on November 4, 1999 with supervised visitation by the father.   Both the mother and the father had a history of domestic violence in their relationship and it was reported that the father had threatened a girlfriend with a loaded gun in the presence of the child, Rachelle S. The mother has an extensive history with the State of New Hampshire Division of Children and Youth and Families regarding physical neglect of Rachelle S. as well as other children she has.   Her history reveals significant chronic concerns including issues of domestic violence with the children witnessing the violence, unresolved mental health issues, unresolved substance abuse issues and transiency.   There was also concerns regarding both the physical and emotional abuse of the child.   On June 20, 2010, the mother dropped off the child, Rachelle S. at the home of the child's paternal aunt and uncle, Konya H. and Henry H. The mother was in the company of Chester A. along with other children.   Chester had told Henry H. that he was going to take the child into the woods and beat her up.   The mother has not seen Rachelle since that time nor has she requested any visitation with her.   She has not provided any financial support for her nor has she sent her any cards, gifts or letters.   She has literally abandoned her child to the child's paternal aunt and uncle where the child still remains as of this trial.   The mother has not made herself available to DCF for the social study nor has she made herself available to the caretakers of the child.

The father of the child, Charles S. date of birth is unknown.   He did attend a court hearing in the Marlborough Probate Court in August 2010.   On November 4, 1999, the mother obtained an order of sole physical custody and guardianship of Rachelle through the Vermont Family Court.   The father was allowed to have only supervised contact with Rachelle.   The father has only seen Rachelle once in the last nine years consisting of a brief one-hour visit in the paternal aunt and uncle's home after a Connecticut Probate Court hearing.   He has not provided any support for his child, has not requested visitation with her and has not sent her any letters, gifts or cards.   The father has also not made himself available to DCF or the caretakers of Rachelle S. The father has not been involved in this child's life since the child was approximately five years old.   The child is soon to be fifteen years old.

The child, Rachelle S. was born on October 8, 1996 and is soon to be fifteen years old.   She was raised by her mother who ultimately obtained sole guardianship and custody of Rachelle with supervised visitation with her father, through the Vermont Family Court.   The mother dropped Rachelle off at her paternal aunt and uncle's home on June 20, 2010 where the child currently remains.   Rachelle is up to date medically.   While residing with her mother, the child was exposed to domestic violence.   Since residing with her paternal aunt and uncle in June 2010, she has been enrolled in therapy and has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.   Neither her mother nor her father have participated in any therapy with the child.   She is thriving in the care of her paternal aunt and uncle and is doing very well in school.   She has also been involved in numerous school activities and looks forward to starting high school.   The child described her previous care by her mother and, the mother's husband, her step father, Chester A., as being deplorable.   She relates that they were abusive to her, and were physically violent towards her.   She also reported that she was verbally abused by her mother and her stepfather.   Rachelle also reported that her mother and stepfather would take their children's prescribed drugs and snort it.

Rachelle has expressed a strong desire to remain in the care of her paternal aunt and uncle, Konya H. and Henry H., who have provided a warm and loving home for her since she was dropped off by her mother there over a year ago.   She expressed a desire to be adopted by them and calls them her “Mom” and “Dad.” She desires not to have any contact with her biological parents.

The paternal uncle and aunt, Konya H. and Henry H., have provided a loving and stable home for Rachelle since she was dropped off at their home on June 20, 2010 by their mother.   They have provided both medical, and counseling services for Rachelle and have been actively involved in her schooling.   The DCF investigation conducted in this case found no safety concerns in their home.

The petitioners have not proved by clear and convincing evidence the allegations in the petition that the parents consented to the termination of the parental rights petition nor have they proved by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been found to be neglected and uncared for and has been in the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families for at least fifteen months and that the parents have failed to achieve such personal rehabilitation so that they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   Accordingly, those allegations are denied.

The petition also alleges that the parental rights of the parents should be terminated because the child has been denied the care, guidance or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being by reason of acts of parental commission or omission.

As detailed in this decision and as evidenced by the testimony and exhibits entered, the parents have exposed the child to domestic violence, were physically violent to her, and verbally abused her.   They have provided deplorable living conditions for the child when she was with them.   The father has seen the child for approximately an hour in the last nine years and the mother has dropped off the child on June 20, 2010 at the child's paternal aunt and uncle's home and has had no contact with the child since that time.

Accordingly, the court finds clear and convincing evidence that the child has been denied the care, guidance or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being by reason of acts of parental commission or omission.

The petitioner further alleges that the parental rights of the mother and the father should be terminated because the child has been abandoned by the parents in the sense that the parents have failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.

As detailed in this decision and as evidenced by testimony and exhibits presented, the child was dropped off by the mother at the paternal aunt and uncle's home of the child on June 20, 2010.   The father has seen the child approximately one hour in the past nine years.   Neither the mother nor the father have had any contact with the child since the child was dropped off on June 20, 2010 nor have they requested visitation, sent any cards, letters, or gifts or provided any support for the child nor have they participated in the child's education or shown any interest in her health.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Rachelle has been abandoned by the mother and the father in the sense that they have failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility in the welfare of the child.

As to the mother and the father, the court makes the following factual findings required by General Statute 45a–717(h)

1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by a child-placing agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.

The whereabouts of the mother and the father are unknown.   The Department was unable to provide services to the mother and the father as they have not made themselves available to receive services.

2. The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or child-placing agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order.

The mother and the father did not cooperate with the social studies requested by the court as they have not made themselves available.

3. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of the 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 had developed significant emotional ties.

The child is bonded with her paternal aunt and uncle, Konya H. and Henry H., where she has resided since June 20, 2010.   She looks to them for all of her needs and considers them to be her mother and father.   In addition, she has expressed a desire to be adopted by them.   They have also expressed a desire to adopt Rachelle should she be available for adoption.

4. The age of the child.

Rachelle S. is fourteen years old.

5. 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 the child to the parent'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 the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contribution and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.

As detailed in this decision and as evidenced by the exhibits and testimony presented in this case, neither parent has been able to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to the parent's home in the foreseeable future.

6. 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.

There was no evidence that the mother and the father were prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the act or conduct of any parent of the child or the unreasonable act or conduct of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parents.

Accordingly, the court, by clear and convincing evidence presented, finds that it would be in the best interest to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father.

The court, in addition to considering the above referenced six factors, has considered multiple relevant factors, including the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment, and the degree of contact with her biological parents.

In addition, the court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with her biological parents.

The attorney for the minor child is also requesting that the court terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father.

The present lack of permanency and the negative effects on the life of this child is not consistent with the child's best interest.   The termination of the parental rights of the mother and the father is in the child's best interest.

ORDER

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that based upon the testimony and evidence presented, it would be in the child's best interest to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father at this time.

This finding is made after considering the child's sense of time, the child's need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship that the child has with her biological parents and the totality of circumstances that the termination of the parental rights is in the child's best interest.

It is accordingly ordered that the parental rights of the mother and the father are hereby terminated as to the child, Rachelle S.

Pursuant to General Statute 45a–717(g), the court hereby appoints the paternal aunt and uncle, of Rachelle S., Konya H. and Henry H., as co-guardians of the minor child whom the court finds to be suitable and worthy caretakers of the child.

In regard to the removal of guardianship case Docket No. W10–CP11–016030–A, in light of the termination of parental rights being granted as well as the appointment of Konya H. and Henry H., as co-guardians of the minor child, that matter is dismissed as being moot.

E. Graziani, Judge

Graziani, Edward C., J.