IN RE: Paige Y. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Termination of Parental Rights

On May 1, 2013, Joette Katz, as she is the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed a petition for the termination of the parental rights of Shannon Y. and Steve Y. to their three children Paige, Samuel and Jackson.   The parents have appeared and they are represented by counsel.   The children are represented by counsel and a guardian ad litem.   The case was heard to completion on February 4, 2014.

The case was scheduled to begin for a two-day trial beginning on February 3, but the parents did not appear.   Believing that the snow was a cause for the parents failure to appear, the matter was continued one day to February 4. Neither of the parents appeared for trial on February 4. Both lawyers indicated that the parents had been contacted and that neither of them intended to appear for trial.   The parents were advised by counsel of the likely consequences of failing to appear for trial.

The father of the children claims to have affiliation with the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island.   The tribe was verbally contacted by DCF on May 9, 2012, and was formally notified in writing on November 11, 2013, pursuant to The Indian Child Welfare Act, 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.   A second formal notification was sent to the tribe in Rhode Island and to the regional and national offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on January 2, 2014.   The tribe has neither sought to intervene nor moved to transfer the proceedings to a tribal court.

Shannon is presently 32 years of age.   Steve is 38 years of age.   They have been married for eleven years, having married on June 22, 2002.   They have three children;  twelve year old Paige, born November 14, 2001;  eight year old Samuel, born October 24, 2005, and five-year-old Jackson, born June 25, 2008.   Shannon comes from a substance abusing, dysfunctional household.   Steven's father died when he was six months old.   He was raised by his mother and her husband who was a truck driver.   Steven reports his younger sister being removed from the home by DCF and later returned after six months.   Shannon and Steve met when they were both working at Wal–Mart.   This is their only marriage.   Neither parent has other children.   Neither parent has served in the military service.

This is an unusual case on many levels.   Family members confirm, as well as admissions made to the court appointed psychologist (Exhibit F), that the domestic violence within the relationship was caused by a recurring pattern of Steven getting verbally abusive, angry and calling Shannon names to the point that Shannon would become physically abusive of Steven.   During their marriage they were frequently evicted, transient and homeless.   Both have substance abuse and mental health issues.   Neither is steadily employed.

Paige was three years old in 2005, when DCF first became involved with the family.   Steve and Shannon had resided briefly in South Carolina and returned to Connecticut.   They were living with the maternal grandmother.   Steven was asked to leave due to an episode featuring his intoxication.   DCF investigated and substantiated a complaint alleging emotional abuse and physical neglect of Paige.   The family soon reunited and moved to Manchester.

In August 2010, the children began living with the maternal grandmother and her husband again as the parents were in conflict and Shannon was having difficulty dealing with Steve's disclosure of his gender identification issue and dressing like a woman on week-ends.   The children remained with maternal-grandmother for fifteen months.   During that time the Northeast Regional Probate court had awarded the maternal grandmother formal custody of the children.   The order was vacated in November 2011, when the parents had met the DCF service requirements and custody was returned to them.   The children remained in the care of the parents for less than six months.

Steven and Shannon had issues of extremely poor parental judgment, housing instability, unemployment and perhaps most concerning, was their relational instability.   The relational instability was predicated upon the conduct of the parents as it relates to their admitted bi-sexuality and the father's plans as a trans-gendered person.

In May 2012, Shannon and Steven were separated.   They had separated because of a breach of personal agreement between the parents.   The agreement was that they would each have an open relationship with same-sex partners and they agreed that they could share sexual partners, as long as each was having sexual relations with a same sex partner.   Steven apparently violated the agreement by entering into a romantic and sexual relationship with a female.   Shannon was distressed, she said she could not trust Steven.   So Steven left Shannon.

While separated, on or about May 5, 2012, the mother, Shannon, was a participant in a serious domestic assault.   Shannon was intimately involved with another woman named Sheri.   Sheri is a convicted and registered sex offender.   DCF maintains that Sheri also has untreated mental health issues and was previously arrested in 2008, for stabbing her wife, Adele.   Shannon was aware of this history and did not think that residing with Sheri posed a threat of harm to herself or her children.

On May 5, 2012, Shannon, and her partner, Sheri, and Sheri's wife, Adele, were having a sexual encounter involving the three women.   They had all been drinking and were intoxicated.   Adele somehow sustained a knife wound to her abdomen.   Adele initially reported that Sheri had stabbed her, but later in open court, Adele recanted saying that she had stabbed herself.   At the time of the incident Shannon engaged in a struggle with Adele over possession of the knife and sustained cuts and bruises to herself.   The police were summoned.   Steven was summoned and came to the apartment while the police were there.

Following this episode, DCF sought and obtained an order of temporary custody.  (Dyer, J.) The children have been placed with the maternal grandparents for the past nineteen months (May 5, 2012 to February 2014).   The children had previously been placed with the maternal grandparents for fifteen months (August 2010 to November 2011), so that the children have been out of the parents care for thirty-four of the past forty months.

Steven's issues present considerable instability for harmonious family life with Shannon.   He has announced in November 2012, that he is going to undergo a gender change.   He was unemployed, he told his therapist that he intended to re-educate himself by returning to school.   He did not disclose when that might be, nor when his gender re-assignment might occur.   He was receiving unemployment benefits but did not disclose when those benefits would end.   He was, at the time, not seeking employment.

Shannon has serious issues already regarding her relationship with Steve.   She has no employment, she depends on Steve's unemployment check.   She has trust issues with him regarding his fidelity.   She was diagnosed as having bi-polar disorder.   She has struggled with major depression.   Until December 2012, she was living with Steve in an apartment which she would not let DCF inspect, since her room-mates were actively using drugs.   Shannon and Steve obtained a new apartment.   They had no phone because they couldn't afford one.   And neither person was actively seeking employment.

The parties were given Specific Steps at the time of the initial order of temporary custody (5/9/12, Dyer, J.) An adjudication of neglect was made on October 17, 2012.   Final Specific Steps were developed and signed by the court (Dyer, J.)

Notwithstanding these many issues of employment, housing, drugs and mental health issues, the parents made efforts to rehabilitate.   Dr. Suzanne Ciarmella, the court appointed psychologist was very supportive of the parents in her seventy-two page evaluation of the parents in September 2013.  (Exhibit F.) In court she testified that at the time of her earlier evaluation, the parents were reunited, in a stable housing situation, Steve was back to work, they appeared to be addressing their unresolved mental health and substance abuse issues.   And importantly, both parents had an intact relationship with the children.   The children had a very responsive relationship with the father and mother was able to redirect and discipline the children.   According to the psychologist there was a true attachment, love and connection between the parents and the children.   The psychologist said that notwithstanding the prior chaos and dysfunction in the parent's lives, she was optimistic that reunification was possible.   DCF had even admitted that the parents “have demonstrated an ability to benefit from services over a short period of time where they exhibit periods of stability, but each time they destabilize again.”  (Exhibit 5.) That was in September 2013.

In October 2013, the prophesy of DCF materialized.   The parents admitted to “slipping.”   Steve admitted to going to bars after work, drinking and smoking marijuana in October.   Both parents admitted to using “Molly” (MDMA).   Both admitted to marijuana use.   On December 12, 2013, two months before this trial, Steven admitted to drinking eight to ten beers, smoking a “blunt,” took a “Molly” and two Ambien tablets.   He became verbally aggressive toward Shannon.   She responded in predictable fashion.   She became violent toward Steve.   She repeatedly beat him with a frying pan to the point of serious injury and bleeding.   Steve remembers collapsing, bloody in the street.   Steven also remembers waking up in a hospital the next morning.   He says after that he went to a battered men's shelter in New London.

Shannon was arrested and charged with Assault 2nd Assault 3rd, and Breach of Peace.   A full no contact protective order was issued in the criminal court.   Shannon spent three days in jail before she was able to obtain bail.   The charges against her have not been resolved.

On January 7, 2014, the social worker was able to meet with Shannon and Steve to discuss the domestic event and present status of the parties.   The apartment did not have a working furnace.   The house was heated by using the oven and space heaters.   They had run out of oil.   They said they did not have money to buy oil or wood.   Steve said he no longer had a job.   They could not pay the $450 rental payment due on January 10, 2014.

Petitioner's Exhibit S

Shannon indicated there was something else they needed to speak with this worker about.   Steve then indicated he feels he needs to see a psychiatrist as he has multiple personalities.   Steve said that he realized this a couple of years ago.   He indicated there were four of them and to keep them straight he and Shannon have “nicknames” for them:  Steve, Reason, Wendy and the Protector a.k.a. Evil. “Steve” was described as the lazy drug user who doesn't really care about anything.  “Reason” was described as being level-headed and having insight and is reasonable about things.  “Wendy” is the female personality who likes to dress up, look pretty, have nails done and dress to the nines.   When Steve began describing “the Protector/Evil,” Shannon began crying.   Steve and Shannon agree that “Evil” is cruel and verbally abusive toward her.   Steve went on to say “Evil” is abusive all around but denied that he physically abuses Shannon, just verbally abuses her.   Steve did say that he is abusive to other men.   When this worker attempted to clarify what this meant, Steve said that he abuses them against their will.   Shannon went on to say she has been living with the personalities for a long time and it is very hard for her because she never knows what is going to happen.   Shannon indicated that he will stay in one personality for days to weeks at a time but said that there is a certain order to how they will change from one personality to another.   For instance, he would never change from “Reason” to “Evil” and so forth.   Shannon indicated that Steve does not remember things that happen when he was one personality when he changes from one to another, he cannot recall periods of this time and cannot recall what happened, what he did or where he was.

When Dr. Ciarmella was presented with these developments during her testimony on February 4, 2014, she referred to Steve's multiple personalities as dissociative identity disorder.   She said that none of her collateral sources, including the parents' clinicians, had disclosed this condition to her.   Steve said he never disclosed this to his mental health provider since the provider was not equipped to handle those issues.   Dr. Ciarmella said this is a very complicated disorder.   She said that in order for Steve to achieve integration of his personality he would need extensive trauma work with an expert in the field which would require long-term treatment.   The treatment would potentially be unraveling deep trauma over years of treatment.   She said that living under the conditions described would have been clinically exhausting for Shannon to endure the incredible roller coaster of life with Steve.   Dr. Ciarmellas' previous assessment of apparent stability in the relationship, was not correct.   She said the pattern of prior disturbance remains.   The parents continue to have mental health substance abuse problems and relational instability.

The court finds by evidence that is clear and convincing, that these parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.   Further, the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother and father have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, they or either of them could assume a responsible position in the life of the children. 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I)

Disposition

During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.   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).  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.

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

Multiple timely and appropriate services were provided for the 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.   Both parents were referred to United Services for mental health and substance abuse evaluations.   Both parents have been referred to Behavioral Health consultants for parenting education and supervised visitation.   Both parents were referred for couples therapy.   The parents have had taxi transportation and bus passes.   Some gains were noted by DCF and the psychologist.   But they were short-term and the parents returned to dysfunctional behavior.   Perhaps this occurred because there was a much larger issue than that which was disclosed to any therapist.   This is a substantial mental health disorder that cannot be overcome quickly.   It is clear that Steve will need a much higher level of psychiatric care to address issues of dissociative identity disorder.   His treatment will require years of therapy that may be very debilitating for Steve.   Shannon will also require a higher level of mental health services to address her trauma including her aggression, substance abuse and the chaos that was life in her family of origin and with Steve.

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.   Reunification was nearly a feasible plan according to Dr. Ciarmella until the parents relapsed to their prior state of substance abuse and domestic violence, and as exacerbated by the disclosure of multiple personalities.   The court finds that DCF complied with the obligations imposed by the court in the Specific Steps and complied with federal law.

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

Specific Steps were ordered in a timely fashion.   The parents participated in a psychological evaluation and services as previously indicated.   The parents were able to make some gains in therapy only to relapse and disclose even more severe problems than earlier known.

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

Both children have been in their present relative foster home since May 2012.   The children have adjusted well and are overcoming many identified problems and medical issues through active intervention.   The grandparents are conscientiously meeting the many medical, psychological and educational appointments of the children.   The children are bonded with their parents and with their grandparents where they feel safe and have stability and structure.   Only the grandparents can provide consistent, secure and appropriate child care.

5. AGE OF THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)

As previously indicated the children are ages twelve, eight and five.

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

Previously discussed.

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, the grandparents or third parties prevented the parents from maintaining, a relationship with the children.

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 evidence that was clear and convincing that grounds exist for termination of parental rights;  and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the child's best interests, the court issues the following orders.

It is ordered that the parental rights of the biological parents, Shannon Y. and Steve Y., are terminated.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for both children.

A case plan shall be submitted within thirty days and such other reports as are required by law shall be filed in a timely fashion.

The parents' objections to the proposed permanency plan are over-ruled.   The permanency plan is approved.   The court finds that the Department made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.

The Clerk of any court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at 81 Columbia Ave., Willimantic CT 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

Foley, Judge Trial Referee # 481

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