IN RE: Yasiel 1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On November 21, 2012, Joette Katz, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Ashley P. and Otoniel R–S. to their children, Yasiel, age four, and Sky, aged three.   The parents have appeared and are represented by counsel.   The children are represented by counsel.   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children.   This court has jurisdiction.

A contested hearing was scheduled for November 12, 2013.   The parents appeared with counsel.   The parents expressed that they could not bring themselves to sign a consent to terminate their parental rights, but had no objection to the court deciding the case without witnesses based on the documentary evidence and social studies.   Each parent expressed, through counsel, their love for the children.   Thereafter exhibits A through X were admitted as full exhibits without objection.

After a review of the exhibits the court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence.

Grounds

As statutory grounds for terminating the parent's rights, the petition alleges failure to rehabilitate under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)that section provides in relevant part that termination is warranted if the trial court, in the adjudicative phase, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child (1) has been found by the Superior Court ․ to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ․ and (2) 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 (3) the parent 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.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706 (1999).

(1) The record reflects a finding that the children were adjudicated to be neglected in that they were permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their wellbeing on February 8, 2012.  (Dyer, J.)

(2) The record further reflects that specific steps were provided to the parents at the time of the initial order of temporary custody and again at the time of the neglect hearing on February 8, 2012 (Exhibits F & G).  “Specific steps provide notice and guidance to a parent as to what should be done to facilitate reunification and prevent termination of rights ․ [T]heir completion or noncompletion, however, does not guarantee any outcome.   A parent may complete all of the specific steps and still be found to have failed to rehabilitate.”   In re Elvin G., SC19108 (11/12/13).

(3) The third factual determination for this court, and that which requires greater factual attention is:  whether the parents have achieved rehabilitation as contemplated under C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B), that is, rehabilitation sufficient to render them able to care for these particular children.

“Personal rehabilitation as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [Section 17a–112] requires the trial court to analyze the [parents'] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ [The statute] requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [that the parents have] achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life ․ [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved her ability to manage her own life, but rather whether she has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue ․ As part of the analysis, the trial court must obtain a historical perspective of the respondent's child caring and parenting abilities, which includes prior adjudications of neglect, substance abuse and criminal activity.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 353–54, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).   See also In re Christopher L., 135 Conn.App. 232 (2012).

It is further noted, that the commissioner also alleges in the petition as to the respondent-mother that she is the mother of the children, under the age of seven years who are neglected or uncared for, and she has failed or is 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, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child and such parent's parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).   The record reflects that Ashley's parental rights to three other children were terminated on June 13, 2007, (Dyer, J.) and that these children, Yasiel, born February 6, 2009, and Sky, born March 23, 2010, are both under seven years old.

The Biological Mother

The history of Ashley as a parent with mental health issues, addiction problems, educational deficits and dysfunctional family of origin, is disturbing.   Prior to being a parent, as a youth she was in foster care for many years and as a teenager she had problems with anger and emotional dysregulation.   She became pregnant in the tenth grade of school, never completed school nor ever obtained a general equivalency degree.

Her employment history has never been satisfactory.   Her first job was at McDonalds fast food restaurant.   She lasted a week before she “quit” after becoming angry and verbally abusing a customer.   She has had a series of entry level positions without consistency or regularity.

She says she became pregnant in the tenth grade with an older boy after being in the relationship only a month.   She had a second child by another paternity after being involved for two months.   She had a third child by yet another paternity with another abusive male.   All three of those children have been removed from Ashley's care, her rights have been terminated and the children subsequently adopted.

Her fourth child, Yasiel, was born to Ashley when she was twenty-two years old.   The father, Otoniel, was fifteen years old when he impregnated Ashley.   Ashley was subsequently arrested for statutory rape.   Otoniel moved in with Ashley while she was pregnant.   After the child was born, Ashley reported that Otoniel became increasingly violent.   She said she did not want to remain in the relationship and wished to leave but she became pregnant with Sky, her fifth child, in July 2009, only four months after Yasiel was born.

At about the same time Otoniel was busy impregnating Ashley, he also impregnated another young girl, Anysa, who gave birth to a daughter on January 30, 2010, while Anysa was only fifteen.   Sky, Ontoniel's daughter by Ashley, was born March 23, 2010.   So Otoniel at age seventeen had two children by different mothers who were born within two months of each other.   Otoniel has taken no interest in his child by Anysa.   So much for parental responsibility.

DCF has been providing services to Ashley for at least eight years.   The records show a substance abuse evaluation in July 2005.   She was admitted to Coventry House in December 2005 to address substance abuse issues.   She entered New Life Center in May 2006 where she tested positive for cocaine, methamphetamine metabolite and benzodiazepines.

Through the years she has had treatment for mental health and substance abuse treatment at New Perceptions, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Natchaug Hospital and Generations Behavioral Health.   She has been provided with supervised visitation and transportation.   These two children, Yasiel and Sky, were removed from Ashley's care on September 21, 2011.

Ashley has had a number of arrests between April 2010, and the present time (Exhibit H).  Almost all her criminal charges were disposed of on May 14, 2013, when she plead guilty to sale of hallucinogenic substances (cocaine, see exhibit M) for which she received a sentence of ten years in jail, suspended, with 5 years of probation;  risk of injury to a minor for which she received a sentence of ten years in jail, suspended with 5 years of probation, and a concurrent sentence for a risk of injury to a minor charge (sexual relations with 15–year–old Otoniel) for which she received a third sentence of ten years in jail, suspended, with 5 years of probation.   She has three felony convictions.   All of her other criminal charges were not prosecuted (nolled) by the State.   Ashley is presently a client of the office of adult probation who now monitors her drug screens and numerous conditions of probation.   Ashley is, as far as DCF knows, compliant with probation.   At present, Ashley is employed and living on her own.

Ashley is not in a position to be a resource for these special needs children.   She is nurturing and responsive to her children during visitation.   She manifests a love of her children.   She presents to DCF as an immature person who has yet to assume responsibility for the removal of her children.   As indicated earlier, she did not contest the allegations of DCF, leaving the decision regarding her parental rights to the court.   Ashley has been offered numerous services through the years.   She has successfully completed some programs for parenting education and substance abuse treatment.   At other times she drops out of sight of DCF and has been incarcerated at York Correctional Institution and thus was unable to continue her employment or her services.

It does appear that since the resolution of her criminal cases in May 2013 (six months ago) she has been able to stabilize her life by obtaining employment and housing.   The office of Adult Probation is now monitoring services for Ashley as required by the conditions of her probation, including mental health services.   She is participating in treatment for addictive disorders and has a counselor through adult probation.

But these children have been out of her care for more than two years, they need stability, permanence of placement and security now.   Ashley seems to recognize that she is marginally caring for herself and cannot provide the care the children need.   The court concludes that she has failed to achieve the measure of rehabilitation that would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date she can assume a responsible position in her children's life.   Further, that as of the date of the petition, Ashley was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services.

The Biological father

Otoniel is, as of this month, twenty-one years of age.   He is the father of three children none of whom he supports.   It appears that he has very recently impregnated yet another women, Jessica, and as of this writing, may have a fourth child.  (Exhibit U.)

Otoniel is one of nine children whose parents separated when he was five years old.   DCF was involved in his life at an early age.   A behavioral problem as a child, Otoniel attended the Joshua Center Clinical Day school for troubled children.   He was abusing illegal substances at fifteen.   He completed the ninth grade.

With no high school diploma, no vocational training, and abusing drugs, it is no surprise that Otoniel's employment history is sporadic, and inconsistent.   He was arrested in front of Ashley's house on September 14, 2009, for sale of marijuana and held in jail until January 2010.   He has been held in custody on four occasions (exhibit J) between August 27, 2009 and November 10, 2011.

Otoniel recognizes that his frequent incarceration has been an obstacle to assuming a parental role.   Even after his release he has been sporadic with regard to services and visitation with the children.   He has been referred to Advanced Behavioral Health and Project Safe for evaluation and treatment.   They have recommended both individual and group therapy for Otoniel (May 2012).   Otoniel failed to follow through with the recommendations as he does not believe he needs therapy.   With respect to visitation with Yasiel and Sky, Otoniel was engaged with the Family Reunification and Preservation program and seemed to be making good progress and was compliant with the recommendations until May 2013.

As another counseling service Otoniel received through the Court Support Services Division of the court, Otoniel was not fully compliant, was not regularly attending and was frequently late for classes.  (Exhibit 5.) He did complete a group program and as of March 7, 2012, was working with the AIC job developer for assistance in obtaining employment.

Otoniel was referred by DCF to Supportive Housing for Families who arranged for Otoniel to have an apartment.   The program has been paying his rent and utilities of $1,255 per month since June 2012.   Otoniel has not obtained any stable employment known to the department in the past two years.   He currently receives SNAP benefits (state assistance) and state insurance through the Department of Social Services.   At twenty-one years of age he is not now nor ever has been completely able to support himself from legal employment.

Following a court ordered psychological evaluation in April 2013, the psychologist, Dr. Mary Cheyne, identified a number of skills necessary to properly parent children progressing through different psychosexual stages as they mature.  (Exhibit D.) “At the same time, given the children's individual challenges, the evaluator was not optimistic that (Otoniel) could acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively parent his children.”   The court accepts this conclusion and agrees with her analysis.   Otoniel is unwilling to attend individual and group therapy for himself.   Thus, it does not appear that he is a good candidate to acquire the parental skills identified by Dr. Cheyne.

Significantly, on August 23, 2013, and September 28, 2013, two years after the children had been removed, Otoniel tested positive for marijuana at the Office of Adult Probation.   His therapist at the Permanency Placement Services Program, who had been giving generally favorable reports about Otoniel, discharged him from the program for 1) not participating in his parenting program, 2) for his relapse regarding marijuana, 3) his refusal to undergo a hair toxicology screen, 4) his unsuccessful discharge from his therapy services, 5) domestic violence in his current relationship, 6) his longevity of being unemployed, 7) not being honest with the Department as well as 8) safety and parenting concerns.   In summary, there is nothing in Otoniel's present situation that is in any way encouraging in terms of parental rehabilitation.   His rehabilitative status is essentially unchanged since the children's removal two years ago.

The court finds that Otoniel is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services and that he has failed to rehabilitate as a parent as that term is used in General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3).

Statutory Findings

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., supra, at 104.  “There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”   In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009).   The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section

1. TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES— § 17a–112(k)(1)

Multiple timely and appropriate services were provided for both parents.   Those services included, but are not limited to:  treatment and permanency plans;  case management services;  and administrative case reviews;  transportation services for visitation supervised by DCF personnel, or by therapeutic visitation programs;  and most urgently, repeated referrals so that the parents could participate in both hospital and community-based substance abuse counseling and/or evaluations over the past eight years for Ashley and over the past two years for Otoniel.

2. REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW— § 17a–112(k)(2)

DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, through the provision of timely reunification services as previously described.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS— § 17a–112(k)(3)

As previously indicated “Specific steps provide notice and guidance to a parent as to what should be done to facilitate reunification and prevent termination of rights ․ [T]heir completion or noncompletion, however, does not guarantee any outcome.   A parent may complete all of the specific steps and still be found to have failed to rehabilitate.”   In re Elvin G., SC19108 (11/12/13).   Specific steps were issued to both parents.   Their degree of compliance has been previously discussed.

4. THE CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES— § 17a–112(k)(4)

Both parents have maintained some visitation.   Ashley's relationship with the children has been good but disruptive of the children bonding with the foster parents.   Otoniel had been doing well with his visitation until his relapse of drug use.   But he clearly has not been able to establish himself as self-sufficient and has a host of problems preventing him from being a parental resource.

5. AGE OF THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(5)

As mentioned, Yasiel is four and Sky is three.   They have been in foster placement for two years.   As Dr. Chyene noted, these children need permanency now.

6. PARENT'S EFFORT TO ADJUST CIRCUMSTANCES— § 17a–112(k)(6)

Melanie has made realistic and sustained efforts for the past six months to conform her conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.   Her accommodations are not acceptable for the placement of children and her stability is fragile.   Placement of the children with her would destabilize her fragile recovery.   Otoniel seemed to be making some progress but there was a collapse and failure at therapy and in acquiring needed parental skills.   There is no likelihood of sufficient rehabilitation within a time-frame useful to the children.

7. EXTENT TO WHICH RESPONDENT WAS PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(7)

No unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties was noted.   On the contrary, great efforts were made to maintain a relationship with the children.

Upon a review of all the evidence, the court notes that the children are in a secure foster home where they are overcoming problems of prior placement.   They are by all accounts comfortable and secure in their present foster home.   The foster parents are willing to provide a safe and secure home for the children through adoption.   Considering the statutory criteria the court concludes that termination of parental rights and adoption is in the children's best interest.

IV. Orders

“The public policy of this state is:  To protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through injury and neglect;  to strengthen the family and to make the home safe for children by enhancing the parental capacity for good child care ․” General Statutes § 17a–101(a).  “Time is of the essence in child custody cases ․ This furthers the express public policy of this state to provide all of its children a safe, stable nurturing environment.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Juvenile Appeal (Docket No. 10155), 187 Conn. 431, 439–40, 446 A.2d 808 (1982).

After due consideration of the children's sense of time, their need for a secure and permanent environment and the totality of circumstances;  and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights;  and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the children's best interests, the court issues the following

ORDERS

That the parental rights of Ashley P. and Otoniel R–S. are hereby terminated as to the children Yasiel and Sky. That the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the children for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for them.   That a permanency plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as are required by law.

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, 81 Columbia Ave., Willimantic CT 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 13th day of November 2013.

Foley, J.T.R.

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