IN RE: Johnathen D. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a coterminous action for neglect and termination of the parental rights brought by Joette Katz, as she is the commissioner of the department of children and families (DCF).  The respondents are Cathrine D., to her two minor children Johnathen D., born March 13, 2009, and Jolyza T.,¹ born February 15, 2011.   The parental rights of the father of Johnathen have been previously terminated in this proceeding, by his consent.²

The petition also seeks to find Jovon T., who is the male biological parent of Jolyza T., to have neglected his child and seeks a commitment of the child.   There is no petition to terminate the parental rights of Jovon, only those of the mother.   The parents have been served with process, they have appeared, and each has counsel.   The court finds that the court has jurisdiction and that there is no known action pending in any other court affecting custody of these children.   There is no claim of American Indian affiliation of the children.

The court has granted by agreement a motion for technical correction which corrects the spelling of the mother's name, the spelling of the father's name, the date of birth of Johnathen, and the docket number on each of the cases.   The court has granted without objection the motion for judicial notice dated February 27, 2012.

The foster mother of Johnathen moved to intervene.   She is the adoptive parent of Johnathen's full sister, Natalie.   Over objection of the mother, the court granted the motion to intervene.

The court, having read the verified petitions, heard testimony from two DCF social workers, a psychologist, a clinician, and the children's biological mother, Cathrine, and considered the documentary evidence (Exhibits A–BB) makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence as to the termination matters, and by a fair preponderance of the evidence as to the neglect petition.

MOTHER:

Christine has had three children.   Her parental rights to the oldest child, Natalie, have been previously terminated.   A review of the prior termination of parental rights case (In re Natalie T., DN T11–CP06–012452–A, Child Protection Session at Willimantic (June 8, 2008, Foley, Sr. J.), reveals the following pertinent social history of the mother.

Cathrine D., who is presently 25 years of age, was born to Puerto Rican parents who never married.   She didn't meet her biological father until she was 13.   Her mother was a drug addicted person (heroin and cocaine), living with her children on state assistance.   Her father was an alcoholic.   The family was completely dysfunctional.   DCF was involved with the family.   Cathrine attended numerous schools without finishing the tenth grade.   She has held a multitude of entry level jobs, often repeating work with many of the same employers including McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts.

She moved in with her first boyfriend, Eric, at aged sixteen.   When Eric went to prison she met John T. Cathrine subsequently gave birth to her first child, Natalia T., born October 23, 2005.   Both parents, Cathrine and John's rights have been terminated by this court in 2008.   John T. is also the father of their second child Johnathen T. The parental rights of Johnathen are at issue in this proceeding.   John T. has previously consented to the termination of his rights earlier this month.  (See footnote 2.)

When Cathrine was twenty she found out she was pregnant with Natalia.   The father of the child was angry, jealous and violent toward her.   She was too far along in her pregnancy to consider alternatives, according to Cathrine.   Within three months of the birth of the child, John was incarcerated and mother reunited with her ex-boyfriend, Eric.

Cathrine reports her first use of marijuana at age 13 or 14;  first use of alcohol at 12 or 13;  and first use of cocaine at aged 18.   When the child Natalia was born in October 2005, she tested positive for the presence of cocaine in her meconium.   Natalia was several months premature and suffered intrauterine growth retardation.   Cathrine's urine tested positive for cocaine and marijuana.

On July 28, 2006, Natalia was removed from her mother's care by virtue of an order of temporary custody in favor of DCF. Specific steps to attain reunification were ordered.   On May 11, 2007, a finding of neglect was entered in the Rockville Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.

DCF identified mental health, substance abuse, transient life-style and domestic violence as issues which needed to be addressed.   Accordingly, in 2007, DCF offered a course of education for domestic violence issues, substance abuse evaluation and treatment for substance abuse issues, and individual counseling for depression and other mental health issues.   During DCF's first involvement with this particular mother she was referred to the following service providers:  Genesis Center, New Directions, Hockanum Valley Alcohol & Drug Recovery Center, the Lifeline program at the Wheeler Clinic and the Community Renewal Team for her mental health treatment.   Further she was referred to Rivereast for substance abuse and mental health treatment as an adjunct of her probation.³  For domestic violence counseling she was referred to the Hartford Interval House.   Cathrine did poorly in those programs and was most often discharged for non-compliance.

To briefly state the course of Cathrine's progress during the two years that Natalia was out of her care, it is fair to say that she did not regularly visit her child, she was unable to maintain a stable home, she did not keep DCF informed of her whereabouts, her probation officer was about to violate her for her continued positive tests for cocaine and marijuana (as of May 20, 2008) and she was hospitalized for hallucinations.   She had made no progress at rehabilitating herself and was no position to care for Natalia.   Her parental rights were terminated on June 8, 2008.

Subsequently, she and the abusive, criminally active, substance abusing felon, John T., had another child Johnathen, born March 13, 2009.⁴  He has had multiple arrests and multiple restraining orders keeping him away from Cathrine, but they have in every case ignored the orders and continued their contact.   Catherine says they finally separated three months after the birth of Johnathen due to domestic violence.

The Father of Jolyza:

The father of Jolyza is Jovon T. He met Cathrine and John T. at Burger King where Jovon works as a manager.   He says he has no problems with the difficult John T. The details of his involvement with Cathrine are not stated.   The only thing that is known regarding their relationship is that sometime during 2010, Jovon and Cathrine became intimately involved.   Jolyza was born on February 15, 2011.

It is fair to say that Jovon has some on-going, present fidelity to Cathrine, notwithstanding the attempts by DCF to end the relationship.   The goal of DCF is to separate the historically incorrigible Cathrine from the less damaged and rehabitable Jovon.

Jovon has graduated from high school and attended one and a half years of college.   He is employed as an assistant manager of Burger King making $30,000 a year.   He plans to finish his college when he is 24 and considered old enough to be an independent student.   He is presently 23 years of age.   His greatest failing, as measured by the DCF barometer is that he uses marijuana, in moderation, weekly.   It is noteworthy that he eschews alcohol and other drugs.   One wonders if he would be viewed so suspiciously if he was a moderate alcohol user.   He does have a serious issue with his housing stability since he lives with his impaired father and he has parenting issues, namely caring for an infant.

The DCF plan for permanency for Jolyza is for possible reunification with the father, Jovon, or a transfer of guardianship to his mother, the child's paternal grandmother, who presently cares for Jolyza.

ADJUDICATION

Neglect:

The issue for both Jovon and Cathrine is whether they neglected Johnathen and Jolyza.   The court finds that they did.   The following facts support this finding.   He and Cathrine were living together in Manchester while Cathrine was pregnant.   During this same time as they were living together while Cathrine was pregnant, she was using marijuana, heroin and cocaine.   On December 10, 2010, at the Hartford hospital pre-natal visit, Cathrine tested positive for marijuana and cocaine.   On January 3, 2011, Cathrine tested positive for cocaine in a hair test in all three segments, indicating cocaine use over the previous three months.   On the date of Jolyza's birth, February 15, 2011, Cathrine tested positive for marijuana, cocaine and heroin.

Jovon conceded at the hospital to the DCF worker that he had used marijuana within the previous weeks and would not take a urine test.   Given his own use and the likelihood that he was aware of Catherine's serious and on-going abuse of dangerous illegal substances during her pregnancy, the court finds that both children were denied the proper care and attention by parents impaired with illegal substances and were permitted to live under circumstances, conditions or associations injurious to their well-being;  accordingly the children were neglected by both parents.

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF CATHRINE:

The grounds alleged in the petition as to respondent- mother are that she is the mother of the children, Johnathen and Jolyza, both under the age of seven years who have been neglected or uncared for, and she has failed or is unable to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of the children, such parent could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children and such parent's parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).

The children were removed from the care of Cathrine and Jovon on February 15, 2011, by virtue of an Order of Temporary Custody.   Jolyza was in the neo-natal unit of the hospital at the time of the order.   The department filed a petition for termination of the parental rights of Cathrine as to both children and to the father of Johnathen on February 18, 2011.

For a full perspective of Cathrine's problems with illegal substances some background is necessary.   Cathrine is now 25 years of age.   She told the social workers that she began using marijuana at age 12, smoking it with her parents (1998).   She said she used marijuana almost daily (Exhibit B).  Her first use of alcohol was at age 12 or 13 (1998).   She began using heroin with John T. at age 18 and cocaine intranasally (2004).   When her first child was born in October 2005, Catherine's urine tested positive for cocaine and marijuana.

She was referred to New Directions for drug treatment on November 2, 2007.   She was on probation from the criminal court for a felony failure to appear conviction.   She was sentenced to two years, execution suspended with two years probation.   She was referred by the Court Support Services Division to a program at River East for day treatment.   She did not complete either program.

On January 23, 2008, Cathrine was admitted to Manchester Memorial Hospital for a drug overdose.   She was then referred to a higher level of care at the partial hospitalization program but was discharged unsuccessfully due to non-compliance on February 12, 2008.   On that same date she tested positive for cocaine, marijuana and PCP. Later in the year she was admitted to a New Haven program run by Connections, Inc., but again she was unsuccessful in completing the program.

Cathrine appears to have stayed beneath the DCF radar for about a year.   She next appears in a series of criminal offenses that are often associated with drug usage.   In October 2010, Cathrine was arrested for evading responsibility and injury to property.   She rear-ended another automobile and fled the scene.   She failed to appear in court on May 9, 2011 and in June 2011, both of which resulted in Failure to Appear charges.  (Still pending.)   She was arrested on April 23, 2011 for shoplifting, leaving a Stop and Shop with a grocery cart full of groceries.  (Charges still pending.)   On June 18, 2011 she was arrested in Hartford for lying to a police officer and charged with Interfering or Resisting arrest.   While in custody she disclosed that she has crack cocaine in her bra.   She was charged with possession of narcotics and possession of drugs near a prohibited place.  (Charges still pending.)

Five months after the institution of these termination proceedings, on August 24, 2011, Cathrine is arrested in Hartford for prostitution.   She tells the police officer “that she uses a bundle (ten bags) of heroin a day and also smokes crack cocaine.”  (See exhibits L, M, N and O.) That was six months ago while her children were in DCF care.   The department had tried numerous times to get her into treatment without success.   She was not vigorously trying to rehabilitate herself to get her children back.

Cathrine was held in custody and subsequently released through the Jail Re–Interview program on condition she enter a residential drug treatment program in New Haven known as Elm City Women and Children's Center.   She entered on September 30, 2011 and remains in that program.

Prior to entering that program she had unsuccessfully participated in at least five programs in 2012:  In-patient program at Rushford in Middletown, an Intensive Outpatient Program at Rushford in Glastonbury:  the Mother to Mother program for parenting services;  the Steps Intensive Outpatient program in Manchester;  and to RiverEast Intensive Out–Patient treatment in Vernon, CT. (Discharged for noncompliance July 26, 2011.)   While DCF can offer programs, they cannot provide the personal discipline and resolve necessary for successful drug rehabilitation.

In July 2011, the court ordered the parties to submit to psychological evaluation and interactional evaluation with the children.   The psychological evaluation by Dr. David Tobin (Exhibit G) reveals, inter alia, the following findings.

“Diagnostic considerations for Cathrine include polysubstance dependence, PTSD with accompanying problems of anxiety and depression, and a personality disorder characterized by narcissistic and histrionic features.   Cathrine has emotion regulation problems and has great difficulty trusting other people, which triggered her relapse on heroin ․ It is unfortunate that Cathrine was herself victimized by so much neglect and abuse in her life, first with her mother and subsequently with John T. She reports having to parent her sister when she was only five years old and never had a stable home life.   She left home into the arms of John T., who physically and emotionally abused her, and has already suffered the termination of her parental rights for her first child.   These experiences have left her vulnerable to abusing substances as a way to manage her fear of intimacy and dysphoric feelings.”  (P. 11.)

“Cathrine needs ongoing drug treatment to ensure her abstinence from opiates and other substances.   She needs ongoing mental health treatment which includes both psychiatric care and long-term psychotherapy to address her mood and anxiety problems and personality disorder.   Her psychotherapy should be weekly and last at least two years.”  (P. 14.)

“ ․ Cathrine has mental health and substance abuse issues that interfere with her parenting to Jonathen and she has never been a custodial parent for Jolyza, who is too young to remember much about Cathrine.   It is unclear if Cathrine will be able to remain abstinent from substances and the period of sobriety needed to ensure this will take at least a year.   Her children are in more urgent need of permanency then (sic) the time it will take Cathrine to rehabilitate.”  (P. 15.)

During his in-court testimony, Dr. Tobin testified that the one year of sobriety which he contemplated to verify her sobriety was a year of sobriety, in an unstructured environment, in the community.   While Cathrine has been demonstrating rehabilitative success while in the Elm City Women and Children's Center, that is, a very structured residential treatment program which is further positively reinforced through the office of Adult Probation by the prospect of incarceration if she fails to remain abstinate.   Her many criminal charges remain pending and the disposition of them will be greatly influenced by the success or failure of her present treatment program.

Given her history of drug use and abuse over the past 12 years, the lack of enduring success of the many treatment programs, the failure to profitably use the most recently offered programs immediately following the children's removal, her continued drug use and criminal involvement, even continuing for five months after the adjudicatory date of February 18, 2011, and further, considering that there has been the termination of her parental rights to another of her children, the court is satisfied that the petitioner has met her burden.

ADJUDICATION:

The court finds that Cathrine is the mother of the two children, under the age of seven years who have been neglected or uncared for, and that she has failed or is unable to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of the children, such parent could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children and such parent's parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.

DISPOSITION:

A finding that grounds exist to terminate parental rights does not end the inquiry.   During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.  In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000).  “In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a–112(k) ].”  In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)).   The seven factors “serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.”  In re Quanitra M., id. at 104.

In this particular case, the children are in different situations which compels the court to evaluate their circumstances separately.   The court makes the following seven written findings as to Johnathen:

(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the mother and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with respondent, the court finds that DCF offered an heroic number of services including parenting education, individual counseling, visitation and substance abuse testing, screening and counseling.   The court relies upon the findings above regarding mother's lack of cooperation with these offered services.  (Services are set forth in the social studies.)

(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts.

(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered.  (See exhibit C.) The steps most necessary for full compliance and rehabilitation:  individual counseling, successful compliance with substance abuse treatment and avoiding criminal involvement, all were fully violated by Cathrine.   More importantly, she failed to benefit by the many rehabilitative services offered by DCF. Her apparent success at the New Haven program will be discussed infra.

(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child Johnathen, with respect to the child's 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 court notes the following particular circumstances which compel different treatment for Johnathen and for Jolyza.

Johnathen is placed with the intervening foster mother.   That foster mother is the adoptive mother of Natalia, Johnathen's full sister.   Johnathen is older than his younger half sister, Jolyza.   He has never lived with Jolyza.   He will be three years old (in two weeks), and Jolyza is just one year old.   Johnathen's need for permanency, as described by Dr. Tobin is greater.   He cannot wait for another year or more before Cathrine can establish herself in the community;  secure housing;  secure employment;  attend her meetings, continue her counseling, drug and alcohol relapse prevention counseling as well as the two years of treatment recommended by Dr. Tobin to treat her personality disorder.   And there are no guarantees that she will succeed in the community.   It remains a gamble.   While Cathrine does have an affectionate relationship with her son, he sees the foster parent as his psychological parent and is bonded in the home with his full sister, Natalia.

(5) As to the age of the child:  Johnathen is three on March 19, 2012.

(6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children 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 contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child;  the court finds as follows:  The mother has made efforts as will be discussed to adjust her circumstances in this matter, but they come too late to be available for Johnathen.

(7) As to 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, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parent or third parties.

With respect to the best interests of the child contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Cathrine D. to the child, Johnathen T. is in the best interest of the child.

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his environment;  his length of stay in foster care;  the nature of his relationship with grandmother and biological parents;  the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents;  and his genetic bond to his parents.  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167 (2000);  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816 (1999).   The court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with his biological parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 313–14 (1998).

The child's attorney supports the termination of the parental rights as being in the best interest of Johnathen.   Counsel supports the plan of adoption by the intervening foster mother.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Cathrine D. to the minor child, Johnathen T. are hereby terminated.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for this child.

With regard to the permanency plan for the child, the objection to the approval of that plan is over-ruled and the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as being in the best interest of Johnathen.   To the extent not previously found, the court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan.

The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of this child as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.

The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 25 School Street, Rockville, CT. 06066 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

As to Jolyza:

(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the mother and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with respondent, the court finds that DCF offered considerable services including parenting education, individual counseling, visitation and substance abuse testing, screening and counseling.   The court relies upon the findings above regarding mother's lack of cooperation with these offered services.  (Services are set forth in the social studies.)

(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts.

(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered.  (See exhibit C.) The Steps most necessary for full compliance, individual counseling, successful compliance with substance abuse treatment and avoiding criminal involvement, all were fully violated by Cathrine.   More importantly, she failed to benefit by the many rehabilitative services offered by DCF.

On September 30, 2011, Cathrine entered a program in New Haven known as the Elm City Women and Children's Center, which is a criminal justice and residential treatment program for substance abusing women.   She entered the program as a condition of her release from prison on the prostitution charges.   She has been in the program since the beginning of October 2011, and is achieving the goals that have been set out for her in programs which include drug education to prevent relapse, assistance in identifying housing, family reunification, assistance, vocational skills, educational opportunities, parenting skills and assistance in handling legal issues.   She is scheduled to complete the program on March 30, 2012.   Since her admission to the program, Cathrine has remained and tested free of any illegal substances.   In addition Cathrine is participating in a substance abuse treatment plan at a methadone clinic and she has applied for Social Security benefits due to her previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder.   She is also receiving medication management by a psychiatrist.   To the department's knowledge, Cathrine is presently prescribed Remoron, Lithium, Vistral, and Lamprogine for her depression and bi-polar disorder.  (Exhibit Y.) She also takes 50 milligrams of methadone daily.

The most recent social study also indicates that Cathrine is participating in a GED program at the local high school in New Haven.   She expects to take the exam sometime in mid-March 2012 to obtain her general equivalency degree.

With all this considerable support Cathrine has remained sober and abstinate.   This is truly commendable.   But there are no assurances that, once removed from the program, she will be able to remain substance free.   Dr. Tobin has indicated that it would be unwise to consider placement of a child with her until she has demonstrated a year of abstinence living within the general community.

While Johnathen should not be required to remain in temporary care for at least another year of uncertainty, assuming a complete and successful integration into the community by Cathrine, Jolyza is comfortably situated with her paternal grandmother.   There are several possible scenarios that may play out for Jolyza;  her mother could make the recovery that everyone hopes may occur;  Jovon could obtain suitable housing, complete his substance abuse therapy and be prepared for a full custodial role;  Cathrine and the child's father may reunite and be in a position to raise Jolyza together;  the paternal grandmother may obtain a subsidized guardianship, and also the possibility exists that in a year or more from now, the parents will have failed to achieve a parental rehabilitative status and a complete severance of their parental rights may be warranted.

To summarize:

The pending petition is not filed against Jolyza's father, Jovon.

Jolyza is younger and less aware of the instability of her situation.

A delay to determine the progress of Cathrine outside of the structure of her present surroundings may not be ultimately harmful and may be very beneficial.

Jolyza is placed with her paternal grandmother, i.e. within her close kinship.

The permanency plan is for reunification and to be reunited with the father.

The father and Cathrine may re-unite upon her discharge if not prevented from doing so by the department.

The court is satisfied that the termination of one parent's rights, Cathrine's, at this time is not the best possible course for this child at this time.   Given that finding, further findings pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(2), are unnecessary.

Neglect Findings:

Based upon Cathrine's child protection history and the illegal drug use by both parents at the time of Jolyza's birth, the court finds that neither had the demeanor, ability or skills necessary to care for the infant, Jolyza, nor to care for and protect, the then two-year-old Johnathen.   Neither parent could possibly be considered as a safe, secure, consistent, nurturing caretaker of the children.   Cathrine has a long-standing history of parental insufficiency.   An infant child in their care would have placed the child in imminent risk of danger or harm.

Based on all of the evidence presented in the present matter, this court finds that the doctrine of predictive neglect applies to the facts in this case.   The court finds as proven that Johnathen and Jolyza were in immediate danger of physical injury from their surroundings at the time of the removal, neither parent was free from mental health and substance abuse issues.

Also for the reasons recounted above, the court further finds that the petitioner has proven both of the grounds alleged in the neglect petition by a preponderance of the evidence as to both respondents.   Accordingly, the court finds that commitment of Jolyza is warranted and is in the best interest of the child.

It is hereby ORDERED that the minor child, Jolyza T., be, and hereby is, committed to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   The court service officer shall review new final specific steps as necessary with the parties and all counsel at the time of the next court proceeding consistent with this opinion and the presently existing facts and known treatment plans.

The petition to terminate the parental rights of Cathrine as to Jolyza is dismissed without prejudice.   The department is ordered to prepare a new permanency plan, not inconsistent with the findings herein.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 1st day of March 2012.

Foley, J.T.R. # 408.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Jolyza is pronounced “Jo–Lisa.”.  FN1. Jolyza is pronounced “Jo–Lisa.”

FN2. Simone, J., in Rockville on January 12, 2012..  FN2. Simone, J., in Rockville on January 12, 2012.

FN3. Cathrine was then serving a 2–year suspended sentence and was on 2 years probation as of Sept. 25, 2007..  FN3. Cathrine was then serving a 2–year suspended sentence and was on 2 years probation as of Sept. 25, 2007.

FN4. His parental rights to two older children were previously terminated In re Destinie and Michael T., Superior Court, Child Protection Session at Willimantic, DN T11–CP06–012458 and T11–CP06–012459 (November 28, 2007, Foley J.)..  FN4. His parental rights to two older children were previously terminated In re Destinie and Michael T., Superior Court, Child Protection Session at Willimantic, DN T11–CP06–012458 and T11–CP06–012459 (November 28, 2007, Foley J.).

Foley, Francis J., S.J.