IN RE: Kaycie P. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On July 31, 2013, Joette Katz, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112 et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Dawn P. and Jeremy P. to the minor child Kaycie P. At the commencement of the child protection proceedings the child and the mother were living in Connecticut;  the father having recently left the state.   The mother has appeared and is represented by counsel.   Neither parent has claimed 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.

With respect to the father, Jeremy P., he is married to Dawn. They have been separated since August 2011.   Since that time he has been located living with an aunt in Illinois and often living with his father in Granite City, Illinois.   Jeremy is aware of the pendency of the child protection proceedings.   He has suggested his aunt to the DCF social worker, to be a placement resource for the child.   The Interstate Compact study did not approve the aunt for placement and the aunt has communicated with DCF indicating that she did not wish to be a placement resource.   While Jeremy was in contact with DCF and provided the address of his aunt and of his father, he has stopped responding to mail to those addresses.   The court ordered notice by publication in the Chicago Tribune.   On August 20, 2013, the court made a finding of constructive notice upon the respondent-father (Dyer, J.).   Letters were sent to Jeremy at his father's house and at his aunt's house to notify Jeremy of the date for the present contested hearing.  (Petitioner's Exhibit B.) Jeremy did not attend the hearing and is defaulted for his failure to appear.

At the commencement of this contested action, the mother, Dawn, has presented, through her court appointed counsel, a properly executed form consenting to the termination of her parental rights to Kaycie.   A telephonic communication with the mother in Iowa was arranged to enable the court to question the mother about the affidavit of consent that she had signed.   Having canvassed the mother, this court finds that she has been represented by competent counsel when she 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 her 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 mother.   Without objection, the motion was granted.

With respect to Jeremy, the missing, father of Kaycie, in August 2011, while residing with mother and child, Jeremy notified the police that he had observed his daughter acting in a sexual manner, suggestive of inappropriate sexual knowledge.   When asked where she learned this, Kaycie reportedly said she learned it from the boyfriend of the maternal aunt.   Subsequent to that report to the police, Jeremy left the state and was believed to have returned to Illinois.

DCF has attempted to engage Jeremy in placement planning and in securing telephone communication with Kaycie.   The department arranged for weekly phone calls to Kaycie.   There was inconsistent contact and then since December 2012, there has been no contact whatsoever between the father and daughter.

Kaycie was initially placed in a Connecticut foster home following removal from the family home in September 2011.   After another Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children study was conducted, the maternal grandparents were approved for placement in Iowa on April 3, 2013.

Since placement with the grandparents, Kaycie has adjusted very well.   She is in the first grade of school.   She is happy to be in her extended family.   All of her physical, emotional, medical and educational needs are taken care of by her grandparents.   She sees her mother from time to time.   The maternal grandparents are willing to be an adoptive resource for Kaycie.

The petition alleges that Jeremy has abandoned his daughter.   With respect to abandonment our cases inform the trial court that “[A]bandonment focuses on the parent's conduct ․ A lack of interest in the child is not the sole criterion in determining abandonment ․ General Statutes [§ 17a–112(c)(3)(A) ] defines abandonment as the [failure] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child ․ Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child ․ 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 ․” In re Adoption of Webb, id. 657, In re Juvenile Appeal, (No. 9489), 183 Conn. 11, 15 (1981).   This court also considers the obligations of parents.

“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).

Here Jeremy walked away from the child two years ago.   He has not seen her once since that time.   While he initially offered his aunt as a possible placement resource, he has not made himself available nor has he robustly performed any of the generally understood obligations of parenthood.   Since December 2012, he has not demonstrated any concern for the child's welfare and has not personally interacted with the child or the child's caretakers.   He has not contacted DCF nor has participated in any of the child protection proceedings.   This demonstrates a lack of interest and concern for the child's welfare.   The petitioner has established the grounds of abandonment by clear and convincing evidence.

While the court recognizes an obligation to consider the findings as set forth in C.G.S. § 17a–112(j), since the address of the biological father is unknown, no services could be provided to him, no reasonable efforts could be made to him, no relationship with the child could be repaired or improved, it would serve no useful purpose to make written findings regarding the mandatory considerations.   Lex non requirit frutra.

The mandatory findings have been considered.   The child will be seven years old on November 27, 2013.   Jeremy no longer has a relationship with the child.   A termination of parental rights will allow adoption by the grandparents, providing Kaycie with safety and security.   No barriers are known to have occurred to prevent the father from contacting or visiting with the child.

DISPOSITION

With respect to the best interests of the child by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the evidence, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of the parents is in the best interest of the child.   In making this 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 mandatory considerations expressed in C.G.S. § 17a–112(j), and the notion that permanency, consistency and stability of placement are crucial for children.   Children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of environment are equally important.   The length of stay in foster care;  the nature of the relationship of the child with the biological parents;  the degree of contact maintained with the biological parents;  and the genetic bond to respondents, all have been considered.  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).

IV. ORDER

It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental rights of Dawn upon her consent, are terminated as to Kaycie.   The parental rights of Jeremy are terminated in accordance with the grounds alleged.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent.

A case report shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.

The Clerk of any court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters 81 Columbia Ave., Willimantic CT of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

Foley, J.T.R. # 470

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