IN RE: Destiny D.T.1 (2013)

ARTICULATION OF ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The child, Destiny T., was born in August 8, 2012 to the mother, K.P. At the time of birth, the mother and the child tested positive for cocaine and opiates.   On August 31, 2012, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed a petition alleging statutory neglect and a motion for an order of temporary custody.   DCF also filed a motion to give DCF authority to approve medical treatment necessary for the child.   The motions for order of temporary custody and to authorize medical treatment were granted on August 31, 2012.   The order of temporary custody was sustained by default on September 7, 2012.   On November 1, 2012, the child was adjudicated neglected and was committed to the custody of DCF. On March 1, 2013, DCF filed a petition for termination of parental rights.   The court is unaware of any other proceedings regarding the child.

The mother identified G.T. as the child's father.   Based on the information provided by the mother, DCF made numerous attempts to contact him.   These efforts were unsuccessful and DCF has had no contact with him.   He has not contacted DCF either to acknowledge paternity or to assume any parental role.   Furthermore, neither he nor anyone else signed the birth certificate.   Consequently, DCF also made constructive service on the father, John Doe, through publication.   As evidenced by the record and the hearing held on May 16, 2013, the mother and the father (both G.T. and John Doe) were defaulted for failure to appear.   On the basis of these defaults and the evidence presented to the court at the hearing held on May 16, 2013 (see studies marked as Exhibits A and B), the court 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 thirty-two years old.   She has never been married.   The evidence indicates that she has an extensive history of substance abuse.   She has also been diagnosed with depression.   The mother has two older children.   The first child was born in October 1999.   Since her birth, she has been placed in the care of her maternal grandmother.   Subsequently, the probate court granted custody and guardianship of the oldest child to the maternal grandmother.   The mother's second child was born in May 2008.   Since his birth, he has been in the sole custody of his father.   The mother has had sporadic contact with these two children.

As previously stated, Destiny was born on August 8, 2012.   When the mother arrived at the hospital, she reported to hospital officials that she had not received any prenatal care and that she was homeless.   When Destiny was born, she and her mother tested positive for cocaine and opiates.   The mother was discharged from the hospital on August 12, 2012, while Destiny remained in the hospital for continuing care.   Soon thereafter, hospital officials contacted DCF because the mother could not be reached in order to consent to medical care necessary for Destiny.   Specifically, the child had contracted a blood infection and needed a blood transfusion and a spinal tap.   As stated previously, on August 31, 2012, DCF acquired an order of temporary custody and an order giving the agency authority to authorize medical treatment.   On September 24, 2012, Destiny was released from the hospital and was placed in a DCF licensed, non-relative medically complex foster home.   The child has remained in DCF custody since then.

The mother visited Destiny at the hospital on August 16, 2012.   She has not visited or seen the child since that time.   DCF last communicated with the mother on September 28, 2012.   The mother has not provided DCF with any information about her present employment or living circumstances.   The mother has not provided DCF with any information about any present substance abuse or mental health treatment.   The mother also has not provided DCF with any information about family resources for possible placement.²  The father has never seen or visited the child and he has never communicated with DCF. Neither parent has appeared or participated in any of the proceedings before the court.   As previously stated, the parents have been defaulted for failure to appear.

Destiny continues to reside with non-relative foster parents.   She presents with various medical conditions.   Specifically, as a result of the blood infection that she contracted, her bones have become very fragile and a small mass has formed on her left shoulder.   She also has been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome.   Her present foster home placement is ensuring that her medical needs are being met.

ADJUDICATION

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

The parents have been identified, but after reasonable efforts by DCF, the father has not been located.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   Based on the record, the court finds that the parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts and such efforts are not required.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   The child has been in DCF's custody since August 31, 2012 without either parent having any continuing involvement with the child and without either of them exercising any parental role.   The parents have been defaulted for failure to appear.

Thus, the court further finds that:  the parents have abandoned the child under General Statutes § 17A–112(j)(3)(A);  the parents do not have a parent-child relationship with the child under § 17A–112(j)(3)(D);  and termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2).

DISPOSITION

Based on the facts, the court further concludes that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the child needs security arid stability through a permanent placement and that parental rights should be terminated.   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, including case-management services, supervised visitation and transportation assistance.   The mother failed to take advantage of these services.   Despite DCF's efforts to locate and communicate with the father, he has failed to contact DCF in order for services to be provided to him.   Under the circumstances, DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.

The terms of and compliance with court orders (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(3)).

Neither parent appeared or participated in any court proceedings in order for any court orders to be directed to them.

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 was born in August 2012.   The mother has not seen or visited the child since August 16, 2012.   The child has had no contact with her mother since then and she is now ten months old.   She has had no contact with her father.   The parents have provided no support for the child.   There exists no parent-child relationship.   The child has been abandoned by her parents.   The evidence establishes that it would not be in the child's best interest to be reunited with the parents at this time.   Moreover, the evidence fails to indicate that it is probable that reunification with the parents would be in the child's best interests in the foreseeable future.   The child has continuously been placed in a foster home since leaving the hospital after her birth.   This foster home has adequately cared for her and satisfied her needs.   The court again emphasizes that the child's present need for a stable placement and a secure environment.

Circumstances preventing the parent from maintaining a relationship (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(7)).   There is no evidence indicating that the parents have been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable conduct of anyone or by their economic circumstances.

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 1st day of July 2013.

STEVENS, J.

Presiding Judge

Bridgeport Juvenile Court

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The court notes that the maternal grandmother has expressed an interest in being a placement resource for Destiny.   The maternal grandmother visits the child and DCF is evaluating and addressing issues concerning the placement of Destiny with her..  FN2. The court notes that the maternal grandmother has expressed an interest in being a placement resource for Destiny.   The maternal grandmother visits the child and DCF is evaluating and addressing issues concerning the placement of Destiny with her.

Stevens, Barry K., J.