IN RE: Anthony S.1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ARTICULATING ORDER TERMINATING THE FATHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pending before the court is the petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) to terminate the parental rights of G.M., the father of Anthony S. This petition was filed on June 26, 2013.   The court is unaware of any other proceedings involving the child.   On September 17, 2013, a hearing was held on the petition.   Based on the evidence, the court, on September 17, 2013, issued an order terminating the father's paternal rights.   This memorandum articulates the order of termination.   The following facts were proven by DCF by clear and convincing evidence.

The child was born in June 2011.   At the time of birth, Anthony's mother, E.S., was twelve years old.   When he was born, the mother stated that she did not know that she was pregnant, but she asserted that her stepfather, G.M., had sexually assaulted her.   G.M. was then forty-seven years old.   G.M. denied the allegation, but agreed to a paternity test.   The paternity test confirmed that G.M. is Anthony's father.   The court finds that G.M. is the child's father.   Soon after the results of the paternity test became known, G.M.'s whereabouts became unknown.   The court takes judicial notice of the fact that G.M.'s sexual relations with the mother violated the criminal laws of this state.

On July 5, 2011, DCF filed an application for an order of temporary custody and a petition alleging that the child was being exposed to statutory neglect.   On July 5, 2011, the court granted the application for DCF to have temporary custody of the child.   This order was sustained on July 15, 2011.   On February 23, 2012, the child was adjudicated uncared for and was committed to the custody of DCF.

As previously stated, DCF filed a petition to terminate the father's parental rights on June 26, 2013.   On September 5, 2013, the court confirmed service on the father through publication and he was defaulted for failure to appear.

In July 2011, the mother and the child were placed together in a DCF licensed foster home where they continue to reside at the present time.   The mother attends counseling biweekly.   Her therapist reports that the counseling sessions have progressed well.   The mother is a ninth grade honor student.   She has participated in programs teaching her independent living and parenting skills.   The mother has an excellent, bonding relationship with her son, and under the supervision of her foster mother, she addresses his needs impressively.   The child has been evaluated to be age appropriate in all areas of development, except for concerns that he has a phonological impairment.   Services have been provided to him to address this concern both in the foster home and at his daycare.   He attends daycare five days a week, where he has begun to model his peers and has increased his crawling and walking behavior.   See Exhibit A.

ADJUDICATION

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

The parents have been identified, but the father has deliberately absented himself to avoid the consequences and responsibilities of being the child's father;  efforts to locate the father have been unsuccessful.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   Based on the record, the court also finds that the father is unwilling to benefit from any unification efforts and such efforts are not required.   See General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   The child has been in DCF's custody since July 2011.   Since then, the father has had no involvement with the child, he has absented himself and he has been defaulted for failure to appear.

Thus, the court further finds that:  the father has abandoned the child under General Statutes § 17A–112(j)(3)(A);  the father has no parent-child relationship with the child under § 17A–112(j)(3)(D);  and termination of the father's parental rights is in the child's best interests under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2).

DISPOSITION

Based on the evidence of record, the court further concludes that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the child's security, safety and stability will be advanced by a termination of the father's parental rights, and for these reasons, his 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)).

The father's whereabouts are unknown because he disappeared after the paternity tests confirmed that he was the child's father and after these tests provided evidence that he had committed a criminal offense.   Under these circumstances, DCF could not provide any services to the father and the court has found that efforts to unite the father with the child are not required.

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

The father neither appeared nor participated in the court proceedings in order for the court to direct any orders to him.

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 father has neither seen the child, nor had any contact with him.   As previously stated, the father has abandoned the child.   The evidence establishes that it would not be in the child's best interest to be united with the father.   Since July 2011, the mother and the child have been in foster care and they are both thriving in the foster home.   The court finds that it would not be in the best interests of either the mother or the child to have any contact with the father now or even in the foreseeable future.

Circumstances preventing the parent from maintaining a relationship (General Statutes § 17a–112(k)(7)).

There is no evidence indicating that the father has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child because of anyone's unreasonable conduct or because of his 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 father's parental rights and establishing that the termination of his parental rights is in the child's best interests.

The court orders the termination of the father's parental rights.   The child and the mother have been committed to the custody of DCF.

Dated this 29th day of October 2013.

STEVENS, J.

Presiding Judge

Bridgeport Juvenile Court

Stevens, Barry K., J.