IN RE: Jazzalin 1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On October 4, 2012, Joette Katz, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Peggy P. and Gabriel C. to their child, Jazzalin.   A second petition seeks to terminate the parental rights of Peggy P. and Gary S. to their child Natasha.   Only Gabriel C. has appeared and has been represented by counsel.   The children are represented by counsel.   No parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   This court has jurisdiction.   The mother has been previously defaulted and the father, Gary S. has failed to appear for trial.   He is defaulted.

At the commencement of this contested hearing, the father has presented to the court properly executed forms consenting to the termination of his parental rights to Jazzalin.   Having canvassed the father, this court finds that he has been represented by competent counsel who was present with him, explained the legal consequences of his action to him when he executed the consent form.   The court further finds that the consent has been knowingly and voluntarily entered with a full understanding of the legal consequences of his action.   The consent has been accepted by the court.

The Department of Child and Families (DCF) through counsel has moved to amend the petition to withdraw the non-consensual grounds and to change the grounds to consent § 17a–112(I) of the father.   Without objection, the motion was granted.

With respect to the remaining parents Peggy P. and the father of Natasha, Gary S., the court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.   Both parents have actual notice that the Department of Children and Families has removed the children into custodial protection.   In September 2011, then six-year-old Jazzalin and, then three-year-old, Natasha were removed from the care of their maternal grand-mother and possibly the care of their maternal great aunt.²  It is likely that the mother had deposited the children with her mother in January of 2011 and that may have been the last time the children were seen by her.   The last time Gary S. had seen his daughter Natasha was approximately two months after her birth.   At the time of removal the children were living in squalid, unsanitary and physically dangerous living conditions.   The property had been designated as uninhabitable by the local building inspector ten years earlier.  (Exhibit B.) Neither the grandmother nor the maternal great aunt were competent caretakers, both living in unsanitary and uninhabitable living conditions.

At the time of the removal it was likely that the mother was living in Newport, Rhode Island with her boyfriend, Kip. When notified by DCF that the children had been removed, she told DCF she did not wish to assume a parental role and she has not seen the children since early in 2011.   She has not visited with the children.   She does not support the children.   She has not inquired into the welfare of the children nor acknowledged birthdays, holidays or other special occasions.   She has demonstrated no interest or concern regarding the children's welfare.

Gary S. is also aware the children are in the care of DCF. He had a telephone communication with a DCF social worker.³  His mother and sister attended one of the court proceedings.   He has never been married to the child's mother.   He told DCF that he lived with Peggy for two months after the birth of Natasha in June 2008, and he has not seen the child since 2008.   He does not support the child.   He has not visited with the child.   He has not inquired into the welfare of the children nor acknowledged birthdays, holidays or other special occasions.   He has demonstrated no interest or concern regarding the child's welfare.   He has not robustly asserted his parental rights.   He has never acted in a parental role and has no relationship with this child.

DCF has alleged in the petitions that Peggy and Gary have abandoned the children.   The petition also alleges no on-going parental relationship and failure to rehabilitate.  “The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes:  (1) express love and affection for the child;  (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child;  (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing, and medical care;  (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile;  and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.  In re Adoption of Webb, 14 Wash.App. 651, 653, 544 P.2d 130 (1975), In re Shane P., 58 Conn App. 244, 255 (2000).

Based upon the lack of demonstrated concern, interest or attention to the children over the course of years, the parent's failure to perform the commonly understood obligations of parenthood, the court concludes that they have abandoned these children.

The second ground in the petition alleges:  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;  § 17a–112(j)(3)(D).

Given their lack of contact with these children over the past two years for the mother and five years for the father, given the young ages of the children at the time of last contact and given the bonding that has occurred in the foster home (see exhibit A, pp. 9–15), the court also concludes that there is no on-going parental relationship and allowing further time would not be in the best interests of the children.

DISPOSITION

As to the dispositional phase of this hearing on the petition for termination of parental rights, the court has considered the evidence related to the circumstances and events up to and including the date upon which the evidence in this matter was completed.   During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.   In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689 (1999).

The court makes the following seven written findings: ⁴

(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with respondents, the court finds that father has expressed a willingness to allow the child to be adopted.   He has not sought services including visitation and has been largely at unknown locations.

Peggy has a history of parental neglect, substance abuse, transience deplorable living conditions and domestic violence.   Specific steps were prepared for her.   She has not responded to efforts by DCF to engage her in services.

(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 offered to provide services but neither parent expressed interest in participation.

(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 that specific steps were prepared but neither parent expressed interest in reunification.

(4) As to 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 of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties, the court finds that there is no on-going parental relationship due to the lack of interest in the children.   The children are bonded to their present foster parents who wish to adopt the children.

(5) As to the age of the children, girls are, as of next month, eight and five.   The children's attorney recommends permanency which can only be achieved in this case through termination of the parent's rights.

(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 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, the court has previously addressed this issue.   The court has explained the lack of interest in these children.   Giving either of them additional time would not likely enable them to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to be reunited with them within a time-frame suitable for the children.  In re Luis C., 210 Conn 157, 167, 554 A.2d 722 (1989);  In re Juvenile Appeal, 183 Conn 11, 15, 438 A.2d 801 (1981).

(7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children 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 parents 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 Gabriel, by his consent, and of Peggy and Gary to their respective children is in the best interest of the children.   Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for children.   These children are now in a foster home where they are very well cared for by foster parents who are fully committed to them.

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the children's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environment;  the length of stay in foster care;  the nature of the relationship with foster parents and biological parents;  the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents;  and their genetic bond to respondents.  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000).

ORDER

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of the biological parents are hereby terminated as to the minor children Jazzalin and Natasha.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for both children.

The Clerk of any Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Willimantic, 81 Columbia Avenue, Willimantic Ct 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

Foley, J.T.R. # 453

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Also removed was the younger brother George, aged eleven months.   This child was the subject of separate proceedings..  FN2. Also removed was the younger brother George, aged eleven months.   This child was the subject of separate proceedings.

FN3. During a phone conversation on October 16, 2012, Gary indicated a willingness to consent to the termination of his rights knowing Natasha was in a good home.  (Exhibit A, p. 8.).  FN3. During a phone conversation on October 16, 2012, Gary indicated a willingness to consent to the termination of his rights knowing Natasha was in a good home.  (Exhibit A, p. 8.)

FN4. No such findings are necessary as to the consenting parent, Gabriel C..  FN4. No such findings are necessary as to the consenting parent, Gabriel C.

Foley, Francis J., J.T.R.