IN RE: Callie D. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On August 10, 2012, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, hereafter “DCF,” filed a petition for the termination of the parental rights of Courtney R. and Peter D. to their child, Callie D. Callie D. was adjudicated neglected on September 15, 2011, committed to the care and custody of DCF, and placed in a relative foster home.

The termination petition alleges that both parents have failed to rehabilitate within a reasonable time so that they could parent Callie, who was previously adjudicated neglected.   See Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B).  The trial on the termination petition took place on November 21, 2013.   The father did not attend the trial, although his counsel was present.   On that date, the mother consented to the termination of her parental rights, which consent the court accepted and recorded and found to have been knowingly and voluntarily made.   The petition was amended to reflect the grounds of consent.   The court finds from the record that there are no other custody proceedings affecting Callie and that it has jurisdiction.   The court finds that the parents were duly served with the petition and had adequate notice of the termination proceeding, the respondent father last having been in court at the termination plea hearing.   His paternity of this child has been duly established.   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 Callie's best interests that her parents' rights to her are terminated.

I. FACTS

From the evidence, the court finds the following facts:

Both of Callie's parents have suffered from substance abuse and untreated mental health difficulties that have rendered them transient, homeless from time to time and unable to care for her.   Her father is now twenty-five years old, and has symptoms of Bi–Polar Disorder, depression and anxiety.   Although he has received treatment from time to time, he has never remained in treatment long enough to have his medications properly calibrated.   He has abused cocaine and marihuana, after reporting that he became addicted after a back injury when he was nineteen or twenty years old.   After the department became involved with the family in 2011, he was issued specific steps to rehabilitate and referred for services to assist him.   Every one of the services to which he was refereed has discharged him for non-compliance;  these include seeing an Advanced Practice Nurse for medication management, as well as substance abuse treatment.   Due to his involvement with the criminal justice system, he underwent a substance abuse assessment which recommended thirty-day inpatient treatment and then follow-up outpatient treatment.   He was inpatient for the required time but did not comply with outpatient treatment.   At present he is not engaged in any treatment.

Beginning in 2011, he did begin sporadic visits with his daughter, in whose infancy he had been uninvolved.   He visited fairly regularly in 2012, but has not seen the child since March 28, 2013.   He has until recently apparently resided with his mother and worked from time to time.   He has not had direct contact with DCF for some time, although the social worker was able to speak to him last at his mother's house on September 13, 2013.   He has not been in contact with his attorney.

Callie is a four-year-old child who resides with her relative foster parents and is doing well in their home.   She has been in this home for the last two and half years, most of her life.   She does have contact with her mother from time to time.

“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).

The evidence demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the Department offered relevant and necessary services to Peter D., but he was never able to complete them to secure the benefit successful completion would have provided him.   He is not in a position to be a parent to his daughter now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.   The court concludes that reasonable efforts were made by DCF. The termination petitions also alleged that both parents were unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.   The court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that Peter was unwilling to benefit from these efforts, as he failed to complete any programs to which he was referred.   Callie's mother was unable to so benefit.

As to Peter D.'s failure to rehabilitate so that he could care for the child with a reasonable time, considering her age and needs, the court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that Peter has not rehabilitated.   He has not completed all necessary services.   He has now been absent from his daughter's life for a considerable period of time and has not visited her since March.   The court concludes by clear and convincing evident that, given Callie's age and needs, her father cannot rehabilitate within a reasonable time.   The court finds that the adjudicatory grounds alleged against Peter D. have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

II. 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 Courtney R. and Peter D.'s parental rights have been proven.  “․ [B]efore 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 Peter D.

(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 the father with his daughter.

(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.   In Peter'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”

Callie has resided with relative foster parents for more than two years.   She has done well there.   She has had regular visitation with her mother and most likely will continue to have contact with her for the foreseeable future.

(5) “The Age of the Child”

Callie was four years old this October.   She was born on October 3, 2009.

(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”

While Peter D. initially made such efforts, he has not done so in more than six months.   It is not in his daughter's best interest to be returned to her 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 Callie.   See In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992).   In every termination case, the state has an interest in safeguarding the welfare of children which must be weighed against the constitutionally protected right of parents to maintain their connection and relationship to their children.  “The desire and right of a parent to maintain a familial relationship with a child cannot be separated from the desire and best interest of a child either to maintain or to abandon that relationship, or the interest of the state in safeguarding the welfare of children.   These legitimate interests of the parent and child require a balancing of the factors involved in those interests.   In every case involving parental rights, a struggle exists between parents and the state to determine what is in the child's best interest, the child being the focus of the struggle.”  (Internal quotations marks omitted.)  In re Shaquanna M., 61 Conn.App. 598–99, 767 A.2d 155 (2001).   In this case, Callie's interests in a safe and stable environment outweigh her parents' right to have her in their care.

In considering whether it is in Callie's best interest to terminate her parents' rights, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment;  her length of stay in foster care;  and her genetic bond to her extended family, which will be preserved despite such termination.

From all of the evidence, court finds that termination is in Callie's best interest.   It is time she has permanency and a secure and safe placement so that she can grow and mature to become a productive child and adult.   Her parents cannot provide such stability for her.   Her father also is not available to care for her, as his substance abuse and mental health difficulties remain untreated.   The court concludes from the clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parents' rights to her are in her best interests.

ORDERS

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the parental rights of Courtney R. and Peter D. to Callie D. are 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.