IN RE: Kaela P.1 v. Warden (2013)

ARTICULATION OF ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The child, Kaela P., was born in July 2012 to the mother, E.U. On September 7, 2012, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed a neglect petition.   On that day, DCF also filed a motion for an order of temporary custody, which was granted by the court.   On September 14, 2012, the order of temporary custody was sustained absent objection.   The child has remained in DCF's custody since September 2012.   On November 28, 2012, based on a finding that the child had been abandoned, the court concluded that the baby had been subjected to statutory neglect and ordered that she be committed to the custody of DCF. At the hearing held on November 28, 2012, the court also granted DCF's motion that DCF was not required to make any further efforts to reunify the child with the mother.   This motion was granted absent objection, the mother indicating that she did not want to be reunited with the child and that she did not want to exercise any parental responsibilities regarding the child.

On February 25, 2013, DCF filed a petition seeking a termination of parental rights.   This petition was considered by the court at a hearing held on April 1, 2013.   The court is unaware of any other proceedings regarding the child.   As evidenced by the return of service, the mother was duly served with the petition and the summons to appear.   Because, as discussed further below, the mother failed to identify the baby's father, constructive service was made on the father, John Doe, through publication.   As evidenced by the record and the hearing held on April 1, 2013, the mother and the father have been defaulted for failure to appear.   On the basis of this default and the evidence presented to the court at the April 1, 2013 hearing (see Social Study marked as Exhibit A), the court issued an order terminating the parental rights of the parents and appointing DCF as the statutory parent.   This memorandum articulates the order of termination.   The undisputed facts clearly and convincingly establish the following.

The mother lives with C.P. They have one child together, who was born in 2010.   As previously stated, Kaela was born in July 2012.   In August 2012, the mother brought the child to a health care center for a well child evaluation.   The mother was crying and distressed.   She feared that C.P. was not the father of the baby.   She explained that she was not bonding with the baby and that she did not want her.   DCF was contacted.   The mother advised DCF that she wanted the baby to be placed in foster care because she had no maternal feelings toward her.   In September 2012, DCF took custody of Kaela as requested by the mother.   DCF filed the motion for temporary custody, which was granted by the court.   The baby was placed with foster parents.   Subsequently, a paternity test confirmed that C.P. was not the baby's father.   Despite requests, the mother gave DCF no information to identify the baby's father.

DCF provided the mother with mental health services, visitation, safety planning and ongoing case management.   Since DCF took custody of the child in September 2012, the mother has neither contacted DCF concerning the child, nor availed herself of the opportunity to visit the child.   The mother has not provided any material or emotional support to the child.   At the hearing held on November 28, 2012, the mother indicated that she did not want to engage in any efforts to be reunited with the child and that she wanted her parental rights to be terminated.   The mother has also indicated that she has no family in this country, and she has not provided any family resources for the child.   The father, John Doe, has not been identified.   Consequently, neither the mother nor the father has developed any parent-child relationship with the baby.   As stated above, the parents have been defaulted for failure to appear.

ADJUDICATION

Based on these facts as evidenced by the record, the court finds that DCF has proven the following by clear and convincing evidence.

As previously stated the mother has been identified, but she has not identified the father.   The court finds that DCF, under the circumstances, has made reasonable efforts to identify the father.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   DCF has also made reasonable efforts to communicate with the mother about reunification, however, based on the record, the court has found that such efforts are not required.   The court further finds that:  the parents have abandoned the child under General Statutes § 17A–112(1)(2)(A);  the baby has been found neglected under General Statutes § 17A–112(j)(3)(B)(I);  and the parents do not have a parent-child relationship with the baby under § 17A–112(j)(D).

The court notes its concerns about terminating the father's parental rights under the circumstances of constructive service and without actual notice.   On the present record, it is unclear whether the father even knows of the child's birth.   Nevertheless, the child is now nine months old, the mother has been unable or unwilling to identify the father, and there is nothing indicating that the passage of time will change the present situation.   Because of the baby's need for stability through a permanent placement, it would be detrimental to the baby's best interests for the parents to receive more time to establish a relationship with her.   Pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2), the court finds that DCF has proven that termination of parental rights is in the baby's best interests.

DISPOSITION

Therefore, in summary, the court finds that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the baby needs stability through a permanent placement and that termination of the parents' parental rights is in the baby's best interests.   These conclusions are further premised on the following statutory considerations and factual findings.   These factual findings have been proven by DCF by clear and convincing evidence.

Services (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(1)) and reunification efforts (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(2)).   DCF provided services to facilitate reunification.   The mother failed to take advantage of these services.   The court issued an order that DCF was not required to make further efforts to reunite the mother and the child.

The terms of and compliance with court orders (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(3)).   As indicated by the record, on September 7, 2012, the court issued a preliminary order that the mother comply with specific steps to facilitate reunification.   The mother did not comply with these steps.   She indicated on the record that she did not want to engage in any reunification efforts and she consented to the issuance of an order relieving DCF of any obligation to facilitate reunification.

Emotional ties with the child and the parent (General Statutes §§ 17a–112(k)(4), (5)) and the parent's efforts to adjust in order to facilitate reunification in the foreseeable future (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(6)).   The baby is nine months old and was placed in the custody of DCF in September 2012.   Since September 2012, the child has been in a non-family foster home and the parents have not had any contact with her.   The parents have not developed a parental relationship with the baby.   As evidenced by the parents' default and the totality of the factual record, the evidence fails to indicate that it would be in the baby's best interest to be reunited with them now or in the foreseeable future.   As previously stated, the baby's need for a stable placement and a secure environment establishes that it would not be in her best interest for the parents to receive more time to develop a parenting relationship with her.

Circumstances preventing the parent from maintaining a relationship (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(7)).   There is no evidence indicating that the mother has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the baby by the unreasonable conduct of anyone or by her economic circumstances.   As previously stated, the mother has not identified the father.

CONCLUSION

Consequently, for all the foregoing reasons, the court finds that DCF has met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that facts exist satisfying statutory criteria for the termination of the parents' parental rights and establishing that the termination of their parental rights is in the baby's best interests.

The court orders the termination of the parents' parental rights.   DCF is appointed as the statutory parent for the child.

Dated this 16th day of May 2013.

STEVENS, J.

Presiding Judge

Bridgeport Juvenile Court

Stevens, Barry K., J.