IN RE: Jaden A.1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On April 18, 2013, Joette Katz, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Nevada A. and Scott M. their child, Jaden.   The mother has appeared and is represented by counsel.   The child is 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 unacknowledged father has failed to appear at any court proceedings.   Exhibit A describes numerous efforts to locate Scott but has not been successful in securing his cooperation.   DCF has contacted his sister and asked her for assistance in locating him.   She provided no cooperation.   Nevada, the mother, reports that he did contact her and was told that the child was in DCF care.   The mother reports that the father wants nothing to do with the child.   She told the DCF social worker that when she found out she was pregnant with Jaden, she told Scott and he kicked her out of his home.   He has never inquired about the child, never visited, nor met the child.   He has never provided child support or manifested any interest in the child.   Nevada maintains that she is certain that Scott is the father, although no name is listed on the birth certificate.

In Lehr v. Roberston, 463 U.S. 248 (1983), the Supreme Court, in essence, describes that brute parental biology alone is not sufficient to activate due process protection.   A putative father has an obligation to robustly assert his parental rights and failure to do so is at his peril.   An excellent analysis of the issues is contained in Pena v. Matto, 84 F.3d 894 (7th circuit 1996).   Here in the present case, not only did the father not robustly come forth, he appears to have actively avoided detection.   In the underlying neglect case and in the current termination case, DCF has made diligent efforts to locate him.   The court has ordered publication in a newspaper circulating in a community which should have brought him notice of these proceedings.   This court in the neglect case and in a prior proceeding in this termination case, has defaulted Scott M. for his failure to appear (Simon, J.).

On July 23, 2013, the biological mother appeared with counsel for a contested hearing.   The court heard testimony from the social worker and the mother Nevada A. The court reviewed the documents entered in to evidence including comprehensive Social Studies.   After considering all of the testimony and documentary evidence presented and having the opportunity to physically observe the witnesses, their demeanor on the stand, and evaluate their testimony with all other testimony and the documentary evidence, the court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence.

The Mother, Nevada A.

Nevada is presently thirty-eight years of age.   She reports to having a difficult childhood due to her father's substance abuse, he was a “crack head” and his physical and verbal abuse of her mother.   She reports her father raped her between the time she was six to twelve years old.   She said when her father raped her he would quote the bible.   She said he sold drugs, robbed stores, and robbed banks.   Both her father and her uncle were both sexual offenders according to Nevada.   Nevada dropped out of high school but reports to hoping to complete her general equivalency degree although she has not done so in the past twenty years.   She presently is on social security disability income for an unknown psychiatric diagnosis that is believed to be Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Nevada reports that her mother had four children.   Nevada reports that her mother frequently called DCF to have them pick up her children.   Nevada believes her mother never wanted children.   Nevada was in DCF care herself and reports to being in two foster homes and a number of residential placements.   At eighteen years of age Nevada transitioned into the care of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.   At present, Nevada is under-educated, unemployed with an extensive criminal record, in unstable living conditions and not engaged in education, mental health therapy or any treatment.

Nevada has had four children by four paternities.   Her first child was born in New York on March 1, 2006.   The child was removed from her care by the New York child protection services due to mental health issues, anger control, inadequate child supervision and suicidal ideation.   That child is now seven years old.

A second child was born to Nevada on November 23, 2009.   That child is now three-and-a-half years old and lives with the biological father following involvement with DCF. The Middletown Juvenile court awarded custody to the father.   The child's father reports that Nevada only sees the child sporadically.

A third child was born on January 19, 2011, to Nevada by another paternity.   The child is now two and a half years of age.   That child was removed from Nevada through a North Carolina protective services agency due to inadequate care and supervision.   The child resides with the biological father in Bridgeport, CT.

Nevada's fourth child is Jaden, born March 21, 2012.   As earlier indicated, this child's father has never met Jaden and has taken no interest in his well-being.   The authorities at the hospital where Jaden was born were immediately concerned about Nevada's competence to care for an infant.   They contacted DCF. The hospital reported that Nevada's mother was principally caring for the child.   That woman is the child's maternal grandmother who is the same woman who didn't want any of her own four children.

DCF entered into a safety plan whereby Nevada was to live with her mother and assist her in caring for the infant.   That plan lasted a week.   Nevada moved out from her mother's home with the child without telling her mother.   Jaden missed the one-week pediatrician's visit.   Nevada failed to attend her April 1, 2012, therapy session.   DCF was unable to locate Nevada and the child.   Nevada's mother later disclosed to DCF that Nevada had left with a male boyfriend, known to the department to have an extensive mental health history and a criminal history for possession and sale of illegal drugs, and weapons charges.

The department sought and obtained an order of temporary custody on April 4, 2012, and placed two-week-old Jaden in the child's current foster home.   The child has never known another home and is bonded to the foster parents and extended family.   Jayden is now seventeen months old.

Failure to Rehabilitate and Reasonable Efforts

The Mother, Nevada A.

The termination petition alleges that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position the life of the child. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I).   At the time of the removal of the child and the adjudication of neglect (June 12, 2012, Baldwin, J.) and at the commencement of the termination of parental rights petition, specific steps were prepared and signed by the court.  (See exhibit F–May 1, 2012.)   These steps provided a guideline for the mother to attend services, benefit from those services and, hopefully, achieve reunification with her child.   Regrettably, the record supports a finding that Nevada was unable or unwilling to benefit from the services provided to her.

Nevada has moved around a lot in the past sixteen months.   Sometimes she lived off and on with her mother;  sometimes she lived with boyfriends, sometimes with girlfriends;  never in her own apartment.   She did not always let DCF know where she was staying.   She testified that some of the places she stayed did not want DCF involved.   It is unlikely that any of the places Nevada stayed would have been an appropriate setting for an infant.

Central to her problems are those of a mental health nature.   So DCF has tried to make services available to her wherever she was living;  most often Middletown or Meriden.   She was directed to participate in the Family Affirmation Center for treatment (see the Specific Steps).   She did not.   While in Vernon, DCF offered her services at the Hockanum Valley Mental Health Services clinic.   She did not cooperate.   DCF identified parenting skills training as essential for reunification.   They offered her one-on-one parenting training in Vernon.   She didn't go.

When Nevada moved to Middletown, DCF offered her mental health services at Community Health Services (CHC) of Middletown.   She did not cooperate.   When Nevada moved in with her mother in Meriden, Nevada was offered Community Health Services of Meriden.   Nevada did not go.

Nevada has been offered regular supervised visitation.   DCF provides her with a bus pass to attend.   Sometimes Nevada would miss visits for a month at a time.   The visits are supervised by My People Clinical Services.   A visitation supervisor is being paid to attend every visit even when Nevada does not show up.   Since Nevada was not consistent, the supervisor set up rules for Nevada to call the day before to confirm the visits.   Even when Nevada called to confirm the visits she often missed some visits.   In all she attended little more than half the sixty-six visits offered by DCF.

Housing. This has been a major problem for Nevada.   There are not a lot of housing providers for single men or single women.²  There is more housing available to women with children.   Nevada does not have any of her four children with her.   There are homeless shelters which Nevada did not wish to use.   She stayed mostly with friends, boyfriends or with her mother.   Her mother lived in Section 8 housing which prohibits the tenants from allowing people to stay with them.   So when Nevada stayed for extended periods with her mother, she was violating the terms of her mother's lease, thus putting her mother in jeopardy of losing her lease.   DCF did make a referral to supportive housing for Nevada.   There is no indication of how long that list may be.

Nevada has been referred for substance abuse evaluation and treatment.   The treatment providers, when Nevada would go for an evaluation, all recommended that Nevada enter a relapse prevention program.   Nevada wouldn't do it.

In summary, Nevada has unaddressed mental health problems that can be addressed by therapy.   Nevada will not attend with the consistency, duration and dedication necessary for meaningful treatment.   She has not followed through to get her general equivalency educational degree.   She has minimal vocational skills or training.   Her criminal history may also be a barrier to her.³  She is very transitory in her housing.   She has no car.   She is inconsistent in her visits with the child.   The court concludes that she is unable or unwilling to benefit from services.

Similarly, she has failed to achieve any sort of rehabilitation that would enable her to be considered as a placement resource for this child within a time frame that is meaningful to the child.   In truth, Nevada is, at thirty-eight years of age and only marginally able to provide for herself.   She has been unable over time to provide for any of her four children.   The court finds that the petitioner has satisfied her burden of proof of failure to rehabilitate.

The Putative Father, Scott M.

The petition alleges that the father has abandoned the child and has no on-going relationship with the child.  “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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Ilyssa G., 105 Conn.App. 41, 46–47 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 918 (2008), In re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 514 (2008).

Here the evidence is clear that Scott rejected the mother and the unborn child once he was notified of the pregnancy.   He has demonstrated absolutely no concern for the child's welfare, ever.   He has in every sense of the word, abandoned this child.

It is unnecessary for the agency to provide reasonable efforts at reunification with the father if the court finds, as it does, that the father has abandoned the child. § 17a–111b(b).

Further, the court finds, there is no ongoing parent-child relationship with respect to Scott and Jaden that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day to day basis the physical, emotional, moral or educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.   There is no parent-child relationship as that term is legally understood.

The petitioner has established these grounds, abandonment and no on-going relationship by clear and convincing evidence.

DISPOSITION

“During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.”  In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000).  “In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a–112(k) ].”  In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)).   The seven factors “serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.”  In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. at 104.   The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section.   The court makes the following seven written findings:

(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the mother and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the mother, the court finds that the social worker reviewed mother's deficiencies with her and in particular set up visitation to establish a connection with the child and mental health and treatment to deal with the mother's most problematic behavior.   The agency also set up individual one-on-one parental education for Nevada.   DCF cannot make a parent take an interest in their child nor provide motivation where none exists.   Here Nevada was irregular her visits and failed to follow through with mental health counseling or substance abuse relapse prevention therapy.

It is unnecessary for the agency to provide reasonable efforts at reunification with a father if the court finds, as it does, that the father has abandoned the child. § 17a–111b(b).

(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 made such efforts.   Nevada is well-meaning and well intentioned but lacks the skills and dedication necessary to improve her own community standing.   She also completely lacks parental competency and judgment.

(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 specific steps were ordered as to mother.   Nevada has not been able to demonstrate an ability or interest in complying with the specific steps in accordance with her own wishes.   She has not been able to restore herself to a rehabilitative status that would benefit the child within the reasonably foreseeable future.

(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.   Jaden has spent his whole life with the foster family which has been a wonderful out come for the child.   His mother no longer has a parental relationship with Jaden.   She has a visitation relationship which has been reduced by Nevada's failure to consistently and regularly visit.

(5) As to the age of the child, Jaden was born on March 21, 2012.   He is seventeen months old and is fully bonded and adjusted in his present foster home.   The family has expressed a desire and willingness to adopt Jaden.

(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 children 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 finds the father has failed to maintain any contact.   The mother's visitation has been previously described.

(7) As to 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 court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parent or third parties.   DCF had a visitation and parental education program for Nevada.   The agency provided bus passes for transportation.   No unreasonable conduct is noted.

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 Nevada A. and Scott M., is in the best interest of the child.

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his present 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 the biological parents;  and the genetic bond to the parents.  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167 (2000);  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816 (1999).   The court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with the biological parents.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Nevada A. and Scott M. to Jaden are hereby terminated.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child.

The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of this child as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.

The permanency plan calling for termination of parental rights and adoption that has been consolidated with this hearing is approved, the objections are over-ruled.   The court finds that DCF made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan.

The Clerk of any Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 25 School Street, Rockville, CT of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 24th day of July 2013

Foley, Judge Trial Referee # 457

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The problem of inadequate housing for the poor, the victims of domestic abuse, the mentally challenged and others in need is not exclusive to Connecticut.   The New York Times reports “227,000 Names on List for Rare Vacancies in City's Public Housing.”   The article indicates that there are only approximately 5,000 vacancies annually.   N.Y. Times, July 24, 2013..  FN2. The problem of inadequate housing for the poor, the victims of domestic abuse, the mentally challenged and others in need is not exclusive to Connecticut.   The New York Times reports “227,000 Names on List for Rare Vacancies in City's Public Housing.”   The article indicates that there are only approximately 5,000 vacancies annually.   N.Y. Times, July 24, 2013.

FN3. Nevada has a criminal history in Connecticut, New York and the state of Nevada.   She is presently on a wanted persons list for probation violators in Nevada, the underlying criminal conviction was for possession of a stolen vehicle.  (Exhibit A, p. 4.).  FN3. Nevada has a criminal history in Connecticut, New York and the state of Nevada.   She is presently on a wanted persons list for probation violators in Nevada, the underlying criminal conviction was for possession of a stolen vehicle.  (Exhibit A, p. 4.)

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