IN RE: Aidan G. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS

This termination of parental rights petition was filed on February 17, 2011.   The petitioner is the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“department” or “DCF”), and the respondents are Tanisha G. (“mother”) and Tornando R. (“father”).  Mother and father were served, appeared, were advised and appointed separate counsel.   The child was appointed an attorney, who also served as guardian ad litem (“GAL”).   The Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable.   This court has jurisdiction.   A trial was held at which the court heard testimony from the assigned DCF worker, and thirteen exhibits were entered into evidence.   Mother and father failed to appear for trial, though their respective attorneys did.   Parents were defaulted, but their attorneys participated in the trial.

The petition alleges that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the father and mother have failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of each child, either parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child, per § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I).

“Our Supreme Court has stated that [p]ersonal rehabilitation as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [Section 17a–112] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ Rehabilitate means to restore [a ․ delinquent person] to a useful and constructive place in society through social rehabilitation.  [Webster's] Third New International Dictionary.   The statute does not require [a parent] to prove precisely when she will be able to assume a responsible position in her child's life.   Nor does it require her to prove that she will be able to assume full responsibility for her child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation she has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date she can assume a responsible position in her child's life.”   (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Jeisean M., supra, 270 Conn. 382, 398–99, 852 A.2d 643 (2004).

As to father only, the petition also alleges abandonment, no ongoing parent-child relationship, and a prior DCF initiated termination of parental rights and a current neglected child under seven years of age.

“A parent abandons a child if the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child ․ General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A).   Abandonment focuses on the parent's conduct ․ Abandonment occurs where a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare ․ Section 17a–112[ (j)(3)(A) ] does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child.   A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child.   Maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern.”   (Citation omitted internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 513–14, 959 A.2d 1063 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 911, 959 A.2d 1063 (2009).

General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 17a–112[ (c)(3)(D), now] (j)(3)(D), provides that the court may grant a petition to terminate parental rights if it finds 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 ․” “This part of the statute requires the trial court to undertake a two-pronged analysis.   First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists, and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop ․ In considering whether an ongoing parent-child relationship exists, the feelings of the child are of paramount importance ․ The ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent ․ Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only ․”

(Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Jonathon C., 63 Conn.App. 516, 525, 777 A.2d 695 (2001).

The court finds the following by clear and convincing evidence.

Aidan G. was born on June 13, 2009.   His parents are the respondents, Tanisha G. and Tornando R. Aidan was discharged from the hospital to his mother's care, which was troubled by housing and parenting issues.   The petitioner became involved when Aidan was two weeks old as mother's electricity was to be shut off.   The department paid to keep her electricity current.   Eventually, mother's lifestyle, i.e., parties, a filthy apartment, people in and out at all hours, domestic violence, lack of food, and police activity led to a threatened eviction.   On September 21, 2009, DCF learned mother had been arrested for interfering with a police officer.   On September 22, 2009, DCF responded to the apartment to discover the electricity in the apartment had been shut off, garbage and filthy conditions were prevalent, and Aidan's babysitter was a young woman from New York. The babysitter's arm was in a sling as she was recovering from a gunshot wound.   DCF imposed a ninety-six-hour hold that day, and obtained an order of temporary custody on September 24, 2009.   Aidan has been in the department's care and custody since September 24, 2009.   Mr. R. was then listed as the putative father.   He was incarcerated at the time.   Paternity testing resulted in his adjudication as father on November 17, 2009.

Aidan was adjudicated neglected on December 8, 2009, and committed to DCF, a commitment which has never been revoked.   On August 24, 2010, the court approved a permanency plan calling for reunification with mother, and found efforts to reunify with father were no longer required.   The court also approved a concurrent plan calling for termination of parental rights of both parents.   The instant termination of parental rights petition was filed February 17, 2011.

Mother's presenting issues were concerns regarding unstable housing, unmet mental health needs, substance abuse, and poor parenting.   Many of these issues were rooted in this young mother's troubled history.   Mother was adopted, and removed from her adoptive mother's care for cause at age eleven.   The cause was mother's aggressive behaviors which were escalating.   Mother was committed to DCF, and remained so until her eighteenth birthday.   Mother had multiple placements, including several residential placements.   She did obtain her high school diploma and matriculated briefly at an area college.   Mother has had a limited arrest history, commencing at age thirteen, mostly from misdemeanor offenses of disorderly conduct, threatening, or interfering.

Mother was issued reunification steps to address the above noted concerns on December 8, 2009.   They included cooperation with referrals to:  United Community and Family Services (“UCFS”) for mental health treatment, Southeastern Council On Addiction and Drug Dependence (“SCADD”) for substance abuse evaluation and treatment, Covenant Shelter for housing and parenting;  obtain or maintain housing and an income;  avoid arrest;  and to visit her child.

Mother sporadically complied with some steps, and has failed in her last and most significant step.

Mother claimed regular employment, but refused to provide proof of the same to DCF. Initially mother was transient, often staying with random friends or in a shelter.   She obtained an inadequately sized apartment in New London as of December 2010, but left it for financial reasons in approximately June of 2011.   She was living then with father, and they purportedly relocated to another apartment at the same address with two friends.   This information was provided, not by mother or father as their specific steps require, but by mother's probation officer.   The parents have denied DCF access to the apartment, and have used a local daily hospitality center for the homeless as their mailing address for DCF.

Mother was referred to SCADD for substance-abuse evaluation and treatment.   Mother submitted to urinalysis which proved negative for recent use.   Based upon that and her self-report, drug treatment was not recommended.   However, SCADD recommended mental health counseling, as did DCF, and as was required by the court.   Despite multiple referrals, and several intakes, mother has never consistently attended therapy nor ever been discharged successfully.

Mother was referred to UCFS, Nurturing Families, Intensive Safety Planning, Madonna Place, the Thames River Family Program, and Supportive Housing for Families.   All of these programs were designed to address mother's need for counseling, parenting, and stable housing.   None reported success.

Mother, as noted, resumed her relationship with father upon his release from incarceration.   Their relationship was marred by father's ongoing relationship with another woman, with whom father had a child.   All three of these adults were arrested on August 19, 2010 for domestic violence.   Father was incarcerated briefly as a result.

Mother has cooperated inconsistently with DCF. She was frequently argumentative or angry in her dealings with her worker, if she agreed to speak with her worker.   She did not follow through with her referrals.   She did cooperate with supervised visitation with Aidan, to which DCF provided transportation, for a long time.   The visits were supervised by an independent agency, and incorporated parenting.   This agency reported a warm relationship between mother and child, but parenting deficits, particularly regarding Aidan's nutritional needs.

Most significantly, mother ceased visiting, and cut off all contact with DCF, child, or foster mother on May 17, 2011.   Aidan is in the foster home which adopted Aidan's half-brother.   It is known to mother.   Mother has conceded an unwillingness or inability to rehabilitate, and there is no reasonable prospect of mother rehabilitating in the near future.   The petitioner has proven its case as to mother by clear and convincing evidence.

Father has a personal history which is similar to mother's in that he was a child in the child protection system.   He came into DCF care at age five, and was placed in relative and non-relative care, and in several residential facilities.   He never obtained a high school diploma.   He has fathered four children, including Aidan, by three different women.   His parental rights to one of his sons were terminated on November 3, 2010 pursuant to a petition filed by the department.   This child was adopted by Aidan's current relative foster family.

Father was issued specific steps on December 8, 2009, after his paternity was confirmed.   They required him to maintain contact with his son and DCF, to obey the law, cooperate with SCADD for substance use evaluation and treatment, participate with the Fatherhood Initiative for parenting, attend individual therapy, and to visit his son.

Father has a lengthy criminal history, including periods of incarceration for domestic violence.   He was arrested for the domestic violence incident involving respondent mother and father's paramour on August 19, 2010.   Father was incarcerated as a result.

Father was dismissive of all other referrals, stating that he was unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.   His refusal to cooperate with the department confirms this.   He has had no contact with Aidan since August 17, 2010.   The failure to rehabilitate allegation is established by clear and convincing evidence as there it is no reason to believe that father will rehabilitate in the future.

Father knows where his son is, and has made minimal efforts to visit with him.   He last had contact with Aidan on August 17, 2010.   He has sent no money, cards, or gifts.   He has abandoned Aidan, and this is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Aidan does not know his father.   He has no memories of him.   Aidan regards his foster father as his father.   There is no parent-child relationship between Aidan and respondent father, who has made no effort to meet this child's needs.   Father's expressed lack of interest in Aidan would make it detrimental to Aidan's best interest to make further attempts to establish a parent-child relationship.   This ground is established by clear and convincing evidence.

Finally, Aidan is two years old, adjudicated neglected, and as previously found, the half-sibling of a biological child of father's.   Father's parental rights to this child were terminated on November 3, 2010 by virtue of a DCF-initiated petition.   Father has failed to rehabilitate and there is no reasonable belief that he will.   The final ground alleged is proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Dispositionally, the court must consider the child's best interests, taking into account the seven factors set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(k).  In doing so the court considers and makes the seven statutory findings as follows.

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

As noted above, DCF made timely referrals to services, including visitation, individual counseling, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, transportation, housing assistance, and parenting education, all to no avail.

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 made reasonable efforts.

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

Specific steps for both parents were set by the court on December 8, 2009.   The parents failed to comply sufficiently for reunification as set forth above.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child 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 for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.

Aidan does not know his father.   The child had a warm relationship with his mother, who unfortunately terminated all contact with her son on May 17, 2011.   Aidan is bonded with his foster family, and regards them as his parents.

5. The age of the child.

Aidan is two years old, born June 13, 2009.

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 such child 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.

Father's and mother's respective efforts to modify their circumstances, or lack thereof, are noted above.   Father terminated contact with Aidan on August 17, 2010, and mother did so on May 17, 2011.

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.

The parents' mutual acts of domestic violence contributed to the deterioration of their parental relationship.   No evidence indicated that others were responsible for their loss.

Aidan is a medically complex child with asthma, and his treatment requires daily medication.   He is very low in height and weight percentiles.   Despite these concerns, he is generally healthy because his foster family cares well for him.   The visitation supervisor expressed doubts that mother could or would meet Aidan's nutritional needs.   Aidan's mother made minimal efforts to address this, prior to ceasing contact with Aidan.

Aidan views his foster parents as his mother and father, and his foster family includes his adopted half-brother.   The permanency and stability necessary for Aidan's continued healthy development, physically, educationally, and emotionally, can be found there, not with either parent.   Aidan's attorney supports termination and adoption.   The department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Aidan's best interest to terminate parental rights and free him for adoption.

Wherefore, after due consideration of the child's need for a secure, permanent placement, and the totality of the circumstances, and having considered all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that efforts at reunification with father and mother were made and that they were unwilling or unable to benefit from those efforts, and that grounds exist to terminate father's and mother's parental rights as alleged, and that it is in the child's best interest to do so, the court orders:

That the parental rights of respondent father, Tornando R., and the respondent mother, Tanisha G., are hereby terminated as to their child, Aidan G., born June 13, 2009;

That the commissioner of the department of children and families is appointed statutory parent of the child for the purpose of securing the child's adoption, with first consideration to be given to the current foster parents;

That a written report of the plan for the children shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be filed with the court as required by law;

That the Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford of the date when said adoption is finalized, as shall the petitioner.

BY THE COURT

John C. Driscoll, J.

Driscoll, John C., J.