IN RE: Devin W.1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On March 19, 2012, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, hereafter “DCF,” filed a petition for the termination of the parental rights of Robin D. and Patrick W., to their child, Devin W. Devin was removed from the care of his mother and father by an order of temporary custody on February 10, 2012, just 8 days after his birth as both parents were actively engaged in substance abuse and Devin was born with drugs in his system.   He was adjudicated neglected in April 2012 and has remained in DCF care for his entire life.

The termination petition alleges that both parents have failed to rehabilitate so that they could parent Devin, a child under the age of seven who is neglected, and that their rights to a previous child were terminated.   See Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).   The trial on the termination petition took place on October 22, 2013.   Neither parent attended the trial, although all counsel were present.   The court finds from the record that there are no other custody proceedings affecting Devin and that it has jurisdiction.   The court finds that the parents were duly served with the petition and had adequate notice of the trial dates.   After duly considering all the evidence and for the reasons set forth in detail below, the court grants the petition and finds that it is in the best interests of Devin to terminate his biological parents' rights to him.

From the evidence presented, the court finds the following facts:

A. FACTS

1. Robin D., Devin's biological mother.

Robin is now thirty-two years old.   She has been actively involved in poly-substance abuse since she was a teenager, and only completed the 9th grade in school, as she and her mother and grandmother moved around a great deal.   She has recently received her GED. Her relationship to her child's father, Patrick W., is of long standing, having been formed when she was thirteen.   During her teenage years, the two lived together with his family for some time.   On February 16, 2002, Robin and Patrick had their first child, Felicity, and their rights to this child were terminated in 2004, due to significant drug abuse by both of them.

Robin has engaged in substance abuse treatment and methadone maintenance with too many service providers to recount in the years since her use began.   It is apparent with all the time that has passed that she has little insight into the causes of her addiction or how to maintain sobriety for any significant length of time.   She has an arrest history and some convictions but has not been incarcerated.   She is apparently willing to participate in programs from time to time, but clearly does not derive any long-term benefit from them.

(b) Services provided to Robin D.

During the course of DCF's involvement, Robin D. has been referred to and received many significant services.   Specific steps were ordered for her in February 2012.   Those steps included parenting and individual counseling, in order to develop strong parenting skills.   Also inpatient drug treatment was ordered.   She did not attend inpatient treatment, although she participated in the intake assessment.   It was some six months after Devin's birth that she finally did accept such treatment, as she had struggled unsuccessfully to maintain sobriety while in the community.   She was admitted into Crossroads in October 2012, hoping to be able to reunite with her child.   In March 2013, she was discharged from this program to a sober home.   In addition, intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment was recommended which Robin failed to attend.   By June of 2013 she again tested positive for the use of cocaine.   Nonetheless throughout this time, she has visited regularly with her child.

2. Patrick W., Devin's father.

Patrick W. is now thirty-four years old.   He grew up in the care of his mother.   His father was in the military and away a great deal.   His parents divorced when he was eight.   At one point, he went to live with his father for a time.   He attended school but did not graduate, ultimately received his GED in 2003 when he was incarcerated.   Like Robin, he has engaged in substance abuse since he was a teenager.   He has also received significant treatment services and as of September 2013, claimed to be sober.   He has been employed for much of his adult life.   He has an extensive criminal history largely around substance abuse and larceny.   As noted, he has been incarcerated.   But currently he has no charges pending and his probation has been terminated.   He has been largely absent from this child's life.   He stopped visiting regularly in October 2012.   He has not been in touch with his counsel since April 2013.   As noted, he did not appear at trial.

(b) Services

DCF recommended that Patrick W. undergo a substance abuse evaluation, have inpatient treatment if recommended, and attend parenting counseling.   Despite services offered, he has not been able to maintain any length of sobriety and continued to test positive for cocaine use.   While he completed the assessment for substance abuse after some considerable time, he never followed any recommendations for treatment.   He failed to attend the psychological evaluations scheduled in this matter.   Given his lack of contact for many months, the court concludes none of these services has been utilized by him and he has failed to benefit by them or rehabilitate in any way.

3. The child, Devin W.

Devin is now one year and eight months old.   He has been in foster care all his life.   He has not needed any special services and is meeting his developmental milestones.   He has a good relationship with his foster parents, who are able to meet his needs and provide him with stability and permanence.

B. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

The legal issue before the court is whether DCF has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of the respondent parents should be terminated.  “In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under [General Statutes] § 17a–112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that:  (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family;  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1);  (2) termination is in the best interest of the child;  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2);  and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a–112(j)(3).”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 148–49, 962 A.2d 81 (2009).

1. Reasonable Efforts

In order to terminate parental rights, DCF must initially show by clear and convincing evidence that it “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and reunify the child with the parent ․ unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such a finding is not necessary if the court has determined at a hearing ․ that such efforts are not required ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   The court has reviewed the services provided to these parents and the repeated attempts to permit them to demonstrate that they had learned a sufficient amount to be able to care for their son.   The court finds, from the clear and convincing evidence, that more than reasonable reunification efforts were made for these parents.   Neither Robin D. nor Patrick W. was able to benefit from them nor are they are able to care for Devin in the reasonably foreseeable future.

(a) Robin D.

Devin was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF in April 2012.   He is a child under the age of seven.   He has remained in care continuously since February of 2012.   The court further finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that as of the filing of the termination petition and since that time, Robin had not achieved such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of her child, she could assume a responsible position in his life.   Her rights to another child were terminated in 2004.   Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).   She has been incapable of maintaining her abstinence from drug use so that she could parent her child.

Drug addiction remains a terrible scourge for those who suffer from it.   They are rendered incapable of many important life tasks, including meeting the complicated multifaceted demands of raising a child and providing a loving and nurturing environment.   Robin has been completely incapable of meeting these challenges for two children to whom she has given birth.

The court's primary concern is Devin's stability and permanence as well as his sense of time.   See In re Katia M., 124 Conn. 650, 666–67 (2010), 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 930, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010).   Devin is doing well in his foster home where there are individuals who can meet his needs for nurturance, care and permanency.

(b) Patrick W.

The same ground is alleged against the child's father.   As to his failure to rehabilitate so that he could care for the child, the court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that he has not rehabilitated.   He has not completed all necessary services, he has now been absent from his son's life for a considerable period of time and has not visited him for many months.   His rights to his previous child with Robin were terminated.   The court finds that the adjudicatory grounds alleged against both parents have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

1. Disposition

(a) The Seven Statutory Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of Robin D. and Patrick W.'s parental rights have been proven.   Before making a decision whether or not to terminate parental rights, “the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(k).”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Devon W., 124 Conn.App. 631, 648, 6 A.3d 100 (2010);  In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 835, 863 A.2d 72, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 403 (2005);  In re Vanna A., 83 Conn.App. 17, 26, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004).

(1) “The timeliness, nature, and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent”

As set forth above, the court finds that DCF offered timely, appropriate and reasonable services to both parents.

(2) “Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended”

As noted above, DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify both of the parents with their son.

(3) “The terms of any court orders entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which the parties have fulfilled their expectations”

The court finds that specific steps were ordered for both parents through which DCF offered them timely, appropriate and reasonable services.   Although Robin was sometimes cooperative with the steps, she is not sober and cannot abstain from use of drugs.   It is not in Devin's best interest to be returned to her care.   In Patrick W.'s case he has not complied with the steps necessary to have the child returned to him.

(4) “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the parents, any guardians of his 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”

Devin was never in his parents' sole care, having been removed from the hospital in which he was born.   He has resided with non-relative foster parents.   He has done well there.

(5) “The Age of the Child”

Devin is one year and eight months.   He was born on February 2, 2012.

(6) “The effort the parent has made to adjust his circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to his 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 with the guardian or other custodian of the child”

As set forth above, Robin has made some efforts, including regularly attending supervised visitation.   However, it is not in Devin's best interest to be returned to her care.   While Patrick W. initially made such efforts, he has not done so for some considerable time.   It is not in his son's best interest to be returned to his father's care.

(7) “The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship 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”

There has not been any such conduct that has prevented the maintenance of a meaningful relationship between either parent and the child, nor have economic circumstances stood in the way of development of a meaningful relationship.

(b) Best Interests of the Child

The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.   See In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992) (“Our statutes and case law make it crystal clear that the determination of the child's best interest comes into play only after statutory grounds for termination of parental rights have been established by clear and convincing evidence.”  [Emphasis in original.] )

From all of the evidence, the court finds that termination is in Devin's best interest.   It is time he has permanency and a secure and safe placement so that he can grow and mature to become a productive child and adult.

In considering whether termination of his parents' rights to him is in Devin's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in physical safety, sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his environment;  his length of stay in foster care;  the nature of his relationship with his biological parents;  the degree and quality of contact maintained with his biological parents;  and his genetic bond to his extended family.

The court has also balanced this child's crucial need for safety, emotional stability, validation, consistency and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with his biological parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).   After such scrutiny, and after considering the child's age, and the totality of circumstances, the court concludes from the clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parents' rights to him is in his best interests.

ORDERS

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the parental rights of Robin D. and Patrick W. to Devin W. 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.   Judgment may enter accordingly.

BY THE COURT

Barbara M. Quinn,

Superior Court Judge

Quinn, Barbara M., J.