IN RE: Morgan A.1 (2013)

ARTICULATION OF ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The child, Morgan P., was born in February 2012 to the mother, M.A. At the time of birth, the mother tested positive for cocaine.   She also tested positive for cocaine three times during the pregnancy.   On February 14, 2012, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) invoked an administrative, ninety-six-hour hold on the child for her protection and safety.   On February 17, 2012, DCF filed coterminous petitions alleging that the child had been subjected to statutory neglect and that statutory criteria existed for the termination of parental rights.   The court is unaware of any other proceedings regarding the child.

On February 17, 2012, DCF also filed a motion for an order of temporary custody.   This motion was granted on that date and sustained on February 24, 2012.   The child has been in DCF's custody since February 14, 2012.

The mother identified two men as possible fathers of the child.   Paternity tests established that neither of the men identified by the mother was the baby's father.   Despite further requests, the mother was unable to identify the father.   Consequently, constructive service was made on the father, John Doe, through publication.   As evidenced by the record and the hearing held on April 16, 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 16, 2013 hearing (see studies marked as Exhibit A, B, C and D), the court issued two rulings.   The first ruling found that DCF had established statutory neglect by a preponderance of the evidence based on abandonment.   The second order terminated the parental rights of the parents and appointed DCF as the statutory parent.   This memorandum articulates the order of termination.   The undisputed facts clearly and convincingly establish the following.

The mother is presently twenty-six years old.   She has two older children, one born in August 2006 and the other born in June 2008.   During her pregnancy with both these children, the mother tested positive for cocaine.   In March 2012, the mother's parental rights were terminated as to these older children.   As previously stated, the child at issue, Morgan, was born in February 2012.   The mother also tested positive for cocaine while she was pregnant with Morgan.

The mother's history with substance abuse appears to have begun in 2006 when she was introduced to cocaine by a boyfriend.   In addition to substance abuse problems, the mother also has mental health issues.   She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and mental retardation.   The mother's substance abuse treatment over the years has been intermittent and inconsistent.   The same can be said for her mental health treatment.   She discontinued her work with the Greater Bridgeport Mental Health Center in April 2007.   During the course of these proceedings, DCF attempted to have her receive treatment or therapy at the Center for Women and Families, Southwest Community Health Center and the Liberation Programs.   The mother failed to cooperate with or complete any of these programs.

The mother also has a lengthy criminal history, including a felony conviction.   Although DCF provided her with the opportunity to regularly visit Morgan, the mother visited the child sporadically.   The last visit was in September 2012, more than eight months ago.   The mother last communicated with DCF in the fall of 2012.   At that time, she was transient and unemployed.   At the last court hearing held on April 16, 2013, the mother's whereabouts were unknown and she was defaulted for failure to appear.   As previously stated, the mother has been unable to identify the father, and constructive service was made on the father through publication.   Thus, the father has had no contact with the child and has also 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 engage and work with the mother regarding reunification with the child.   Based on the record, the court finds that the mother is unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   The court further finds that:  the parents have abandoned the child under General Statutes § 17A–112(j)(2)(A);  and the parents do not have a parent-child relationship with the child 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.   There is no evidence that the father even knows about the child's birth.   The mother, however, has been unable to identify the father, and there is nothing indicating that the present situation will change soon or even within a reasonable time period.   Because of the child's need for stability through a permanent placement, it would be detrimental to the child's best interests for further time or effort to be taken in order to identify the father.   Pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2), the court finds that DCF has proven that termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests.

DISPOSITION

Based on the facts, the court further concludes that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the child needs stability through a permanent placement and that termination of the parents' parental rights is in the child's best interests.   These conclusions are supported by and 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 the mother to facilitate reunification.   The mother failed to take advantage of these services.

The terms of and compliance with court orders (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(3)).   As indicated by the record, on February 17, 2012, the court issued an order that the mother comply with specific steps to facilitate reunification.   The mother did not comply with these steps as indicated, for example, by failing to visit the child, defaulting in this action, and having her whereabouts become unknown.

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 child is now sixteen months old and has been in the custody of DCF since February 2012.   Since that time, the child has been in a relative foster home.   Since that time, she has had limited contact with the mother and no contact with the father.   The parents have not developed a parental relationship with the child.   As evidenced by the parents' default and the totality of the factual record, the evidence fails to indicate that it would be in the child's best interest to be reunited with them now.   Moreover, the evidence fails to indicate that it is probable that reunification would be in the child's best interests in the foreseeable future.   As previously stated, the child'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 child 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 child'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 18th day of June 2013.

STEVENS, J.

Presiding Judge

Bridgeport Juvenile Court

Stevens, Barry K., J.