IN RE: Autumn Z. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”) filed a coterminous petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112 et seq. to terminate parental rights.   The court found proper service on mother and father.   Pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(1)(A), the petition alleged the department made reasonable efforts to reunite mother and father with the child but that they were unable or unwilling to benefit from such efforts.   The petition also alleged that father abandoned the child in that he failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(A).   Third, the petition alleged that the child had been in the custody of the Department for at least fifteen months and that mother and father failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation, after being provided specific steps to facilitate the return of the child, as would encourage the belief that they could assume a responsible position in the child's life within a reasonable time pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(ii).

II. ISSUES

Has DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the mother and father with the child?   Have mother and father failed or been unwilling or unable to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the child's life?   Has father maintained a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child?   Is termination of mother's and father's parental rights in the best interests of the child?

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 2, 2011, the Department of Children and Families invoked a 96–hour hold on the child.   The court issued an Order of Temporary Custody on May 4, 2011 which it sustained on May 10th.

THE CHILD

Autumn was born on December 30, 2001.   She came into DCF care because her mother asked the Torrington police to have DCF take her.   At the time, mother was living in her car with Autumn and thought she and Autumn were being followed and were in danger.   The department placed Autumn in her first foster home in August 2011.   The foster mother fell ill and was unable to care for her.   The foster parents in her second foster home requested her removal.   In August 2012, the department placed her in her third foster home.   The foster parents are capable of meeting her emotional and physical needs.   Autumn is happy in the home and calls her foster mother “mom.”   In this home, Autumn feels safe to express her emotions.

When Autumn was placed in DCF's care, she had nine cavities and was not attending school regularly.   She had lived in more than one homeless shelter and in mother's car with mother.   She began the fifth grade in August 2013.   Her reading and writing skills have improved and she is a good math student.

Autumn is affectionate with her mother and appears resilient.   During interactional evaluations, she was able to remain cheerful and graciously endured awkward or uncomfortable comments in conversations with mother and father.   She wants to live with both mother and father, but likes the foster home because it is “really fun.”   Autumn paints a bright canvass for almost all of her relationships and circumstances.   She recognizes her mother's fears that someone was trying to hurt them, but does not adopt those fears.   During the interactional component of the psychological evaluation, Autumn was able to easily separate from her mother easily.   She has had no recent behavioral problems after the visits.   She also excuses father for not attending visits with her.

Autumn seems happy and well adjusted.   She relates to strangers in a sunny manner with a sense of closeness.   She lets no sign of unhappiness emerge.   These traits interfere with emotional adaptation and the appraisal of her true circumstances.   She “over adapts” by not acknowledging loss or disappointment.   Although she accomplishes this “over adaptation” at a subconscious level, she may later have a serious and substantial breakdown if she cannot begin to express a full range of emotion.   During individual therapy sessions, Autumn has been able to more easily express a range of emotions including anger and frustration.

THE MOTHER

Mother was born September 4, 1968.   She was in a relationship with Edward D. and gave birth to Katherine D. in 1987.   She married Jeffrey H. in October 1988 and had a son, Anthony in 1989.   Mother separated from Jeffrey in 1989 and the marriage was dissolved in 1991.   Mother married Jason S. in 1993 and gave birth to Taylor S. in 1995.   Mother separated from Jason in 1998 and they were later divorced.   Mother had a relationship with Autumn's father, Vincent Z., from 1999 to 2001.   The relationship ended before Autumn's birth on December 30, 2001.   After Autumn was placed in DCF care, they resumed the relationship, often separating from each other.   They were married in October 2011.

Mother signed specific steps to achieve reunification with Autumn on May 10, 2011 and on March 14, 2012.   Mother completed a parenting class in September 2011.   Father, Vincent Z., was arrested in a domestic violence incident in which mother was the victim in May 2012.   Mother left father's residence after the incident and they were divorced in January 2013.

Mother has had eight DCF referrals between 1999 and 2011.   Five of the referrals were substantiated.   Katherine, Anthony and Autumn have spent time in foster care.   Anthony and Taylor were removed from mother's care and placed with their respective fathers.   At sixteen, Katherine moved away from her mother.

All of the relationships between mother and the fathers of her children involved verbal and emotional abuse against her.   Some involved physical abuse or threats of it.   On one occasion, one of her boyfriends threatened to throw her out of a window.   She also was abused by strangers and family members.   One man she befriended took nude photos of her and made a video of her getting in and out of the shower.   As a child, a neighbor sexually abused her when she was between 10 and 12 years old.   Her brother facilitated the abuse.   Another neighbor sexually abused her by rubbing the inside of her thigh on one occasion.   She reported that Autumn's father twisted her arm 6 to 10 times, hit her with something that could hurt or touched her 6 to 10 times, choked her and slammed her head against a wall She reported she needed to see a doctor after the assaults but only went once.

Mother maintained that people have been trying to hurt or kill her and Autumn since the time they lived in Florida.   She reported that a former boyfriend who was a police officer has played a role in getting her fired from five jobs.   She believes the former boyfriend is following her and monitoring her.   She believes Autumn's father will perpetrate violence and has connections to the Waterbury Police Department, the Justice Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the mafia.   She believes that father will kidnap Autumn from a foster home.   She alleged that father spread a green gel around his home to make her sick.   She also alleged that father is trying to make her say things which he will later edit using audio technology to make her sound as if she is crazy.   She claimed several cars were following her ․ one with a Texas license plate and another with a Rhode Island license plate.   She asked one of the department's social workers to smell Autumn's backpack because she thought father had placed poisoned powder in it.   In one meeting with a department social worker, mother spoke softly because she thought there was a bugging device picking up her conversation.   On another occasion mother called police alleging that someone drained the oil out of her car as had happened in Florida.   One the same day she reported to police that someone was making ape noises directed at her and then another person threatened her because she was making the ape noises.   She connected this incident to a criminal investigation pending in Florida.   While in Florida, mother reported leaving one residence because the babysitter put cat litter on the toothbrushes.

Mother denies mental health problems and scoffs at the need for therapy.   Mother is pervasively distrustful and suspicious.   These traits interfere with her ability to accurately assess reality.   She has blamed others for her problems which leads her to reject help.   She discontinued individual therapy once she moved to Danbury even though the department offered to pay for the therapy.   She had not identified any goals for therapy when she attended therapy.   However, she requires treatment for her history of domestic violence and unsafe relationships.   She also requires monitoring for mental illness including depression, over reactivity, impaired judgment, impulsiveness, anger management and oppositionality.   She is at high risk for continuing her behaviors.   At the time of trial, mother was homeless and not employed.   She failed to attend trial after the first day.

Mother is unable to understand Autumn's needs besides the need for, food, clothing, shelter and affection.   She does not understand the effects that her transience and relationships have had on the child.   Mother visits regularly with Autumn and shows affection, however she chooses to discuss the court case and her personal affairs with Autumn.   Mother cannot help Autumn develop a realistic view of life's circumstances.

THE FATHER

Father was born May 13, 1975.   He dated his former wife, Shelly M., at the same time he was dating Autumn's mother.   Shelly M. became pregnant around the same time that Autumn's mother became pregnant.   The women later found out about each other.   Shortly after marrying father, Shelly M. filed for divorce.   Father was awarded custody of the minor child of that relationship, Haley.

After the divorce father invited mother to live with him.   Autumn was already in DCF custody.   Father married mother on October 31, 2011 but did not notify DCF. Mother suffered physical and emotional abuse from father and at times left his residence.   At other times, father put mother out of his residence.   On May 12, 2012 father was arrested for pouring pancake batter over mother's head.   The criminal court disposition required that he participate in a domestic violence course.

On May 10, 2011 and March 14, 2012, father signed specific steps to facilitate reunification with Autumn.   They included keeping all appointments with DCF and attending visits with Autumn.   They also included an agreement not to become involved in the criminal justice system and signing releases so that the department could communicate with service providers.

Father completed 7 of 8 sessions of a parenting program through Family Services of Greater Waterbury in 2011.   He has not maintained contact with the department and has not signed releases which would allow the department to communicate with his service providers.

Father met Autumn for the first time on May 27, 2011 when she was nine years old.   He visited Autumn on supervised visits from May to August 2011.   On one occasion he brought his other daughter, Haley, to the supervised visit.   The department prohibited this arrangement and father chose to leave the visit.   He never visited Autumn again.

Father later sought unsupervised, overnight weekend visits with Autumn.   The department declined the arrangement but offered weekend supervised visits.   Father declined, in part, because he wanted Haley to also attend the visits.   Father has ended communication with the department.   He has not inquired about Autumn's well being.   He has given her no gifts nor presents nor acknowledged any significant days or events in her life.

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW

“Long term stability is critical to a child's future health and development.”  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 767 (2007).   Our legislature has deemed necessary the early permanency of children through reunification, foster placement or termination of parental rights and adoption.  C.G.S. § 17a–110 et seq.  “The Superior Court ․ may grant a [termination of parental rights] petition pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent ․ unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts ․ (2) termination is in the best interests of the child, and (3)(B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least 15 months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b–129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child ․” C.G.S. § 17a–112(j).  “Personal rehabilitation ․ refers to the restoration of the parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent [and] requires the trial court to analyze the parent's [rehabilitative] status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time.”  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 757 (2007) (citations omitted, internal quotation marks omitted).

The standard of proof which applies in a decision to terminate parental rights is clear and convincing evidence.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j).  “The burden [of proof] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.”  Chernick v. Johnston, 100 Conn.App. 276, 280 (2007) citing Notopoulos v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 277 Conn. 218, 226 (2006).

“The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ․” In re Anna Lee M. et al., 104 Conn.App. 121, 137–38 (2007).  “In the adjudicatory phase ․ the court must decide whether there is clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for the termination of parental rights exists.”  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 229–30 (2000) (italics omitted).  “[T]he court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time.”  Id. at 230.  “If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists [by clear and convincing evidence] it proceeds to the dispositional phase.   In the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent's parental rights is not in the best interest of the child.   In arriving at this decision the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [C.G.S.] § 17a–112(k)” ¹ In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 626–27 (2007).

V. ANALYSIS

The court finds the following proven by clear and convincing evidence.

The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(k)(1).

The department has offered appropriate services to mother and father in a timely fashion to facilitate reunification as contained in the body of this decision.   Mother has declined services or has not taken them seriously.   Father ultimately declined services.

Whether the department has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(k)(2).

The department has made reasonable efforts to reunite mother and father with Autumn.

The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(k)(3).

Mother had attended individual therapy but has not taken therapy seriously.   Mother and father have completed parenting classes.

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.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(k)(4).

The child shows affection for and has a strong bond with mother but is able to easily separate from her.   The child has no contact with the father but expressed affection for him.   The child is bonded to her foster parents who care for the breadth of her needs.

The age of the child.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(k)(5).

Autumn is 11 years old.

The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions that make it in the best interests of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future including but not limited to the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of the effort to reunite the child with the parent provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions or maintenance of communications with the guardian or other custodian of the child.  C.G.S. § 112(k)(6).

Mother and father have made few efforts to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions, and have made insufficient efforts to care for Autumn's social, educational, emotional and medical needs.

The extent to which the 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 by the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(k)(7).

No other person has prevented mother and father from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Autumn.   Their economic circumstances have not prevented them from attempting to establish a bond with Autumn.

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The court concludes the following based on clear and convincing evidence.   The department has made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify mother and father with Autumn in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a–111b.   The court finds the child has been neglected.   Mother and father had been provided specific steps to facilitate the return of the child pursuant to section 46b–129 and have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the child's life.   Father has abandoned the child.   The department has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan.   The permanency plan calling for termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests and is approved.   It is in the child's best interests that the court terminate the respondents' parental rights.

VII. JUDGMENT

Respondents' parental rights are terminated.   The Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for Autumn.   The department shall file a status report within thirty days of this judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Randolph, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. “Except in the case where termination is based on consent, in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall consider and shall make written findings regarding:  (1) The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent;  (2) whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended;  (3) the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligation under such order;  (4) 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;  (5) the age of the child;  (6) the efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the child 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;  and (7) 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.”   C.G.S. § 17a–112(k)..  FN1. “Except in the case where termination is based on consent, in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall consider and shall make written findings regarding:  (1) The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent;  (2) whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended;  (3) the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligation under such order;  (4) 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;  (5) the age of the child;  (6) the efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the child 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;  and (7) 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.”   C.G.S. § 17a–112(k).

Randolph, Kevin A., J.