IN RE: Tyler B.1 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE TERMINATION OF RESPONDENT FATHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS

The court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law by clear and convincing evidence:

Tyler B. (d.o.b. July 22, 2005) is the biological child of Nicole B. and Ted Jr. B.² Tyler's parents married in April of 2008 and although they live separately they remain married to date.   Mother consented to the termination of her parental rights on or about October 12, 2013.   The petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) proceeded to trial as to respondent father, alleging a failure to rehabilitate, pursuant to C.G.S. 17a–112(j)(3)(B).  Trial commenced on January 28, 2014 and continued to conclusion on February 28, 2014.

Tyler first came into the petitioner's care in July of 2011 when his maternal grandmother who had previously assumed guardianship of Tyler in July of 2010 reported she could no longer care for the Tyler.   In November of 2011 Tyler and his younger sister were adjudicated homeless and the court transferred guardianship of both children to their paternal grandfather.³  In April of 2012, the petitioner re-assumed temporary custody of the minor children after paternal grandfather requested their removal.   The children were adjudicated neglected on September 4, 2012 and remained in the care and custody of the petitioner.   On or about September 6, 2013, termination of parental rights petitions were filed as to both children.⁴

Reasonable Efforts to Locate and Reunify as to Respondent Father

Respondent father, after incurring a criminal record in Connecticut, relocated to Florida in approximately September of 2009.   By January of 2010 the respondent father was incarcerated in Florida and has remained continuously incarcerated to date.⁵  The petitioner has been aware of father's whereabouts during the pendency of this case.   Contact between the petitioner and respondent father has been effectuated through father's telephonic participation in Team Decision Making conferences, through the petitioner's communication with father's attorney and through written correspondence.⁶  The court concludes the petitioner has made reasonable efforts to locate respondent father.

The court also concludes the petitioner has made reasonable efforts to reunify Tyler with his father and that father is unable/unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

Specific steps were transmitted to respondent father.  (Petitioner's exhibit C.) Father testified he has attended NA/AA sessions and a parenting course while incarcerated in Florida.   Noteworthy is that during the pendency of the tpr trial father was disciplined and moved from the prison facility where he was taking classes in fiber optics to a prison where no courses are available.   Although father is due to be released from the Floridian prison system within the next four to six months, Connecticut authorities are seeking father's extradition for several outstanding criminal cases.  (Petitioner's exhibit D.) One of the CT warrants is for his alleged violation of probation;  in that case respondent father was committed to the Commissioner of Corrections for period of ten years, said sentence was suspended after he served forty-two months, therefore, the respondent's exposure, is six and one-half years of confinement.⁷  (Petitioner's exhibit B.)

The petitioner has included father in the permanency planning for Tyler.   When Tyler was temporarily placed with a paternal relative, telephonic contact between the father and son occurred.   When father was permitted prison mail privileges written correspondence between father and son was facilitated by the DCF social worker.   Father's Floridian incarceration, which will ultimately exceed four and one-half years in duration and father's looming CT extradition and his potentially protracted incarceration renders father unable to benefit from reunification efforts beyond what the petitioner has provided.

Adjudication

The petitioner alleges respondent father has failed to rehabilitate as a parent.   Statutory grounds exists to terminate parental rights when:  “the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court ․ to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding and [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 ․” C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).

Personal rehabilitation “ ‘refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [and] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ [a parent] [need not] prove precisely when he will be able to assume a responsible position in [his] child's life.   Nor does it require [him] to prove that [he] will be able to assume full responsibility for [his] child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [he] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he] can assume a responsible position in [his] child's life.’  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Melody L., [290 Conn. 131], 149 (2009)” In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485, 507 (2013).

At trial, respondent father credibly testified he loves his son and does not want to lose Tyler.⁸

Equally candidly father conceded that his present protracted Floridian incarceration and CT authorities' decision to extradite him made him and will continue to make him unavailable to Tyler.   Nonetheless respondent father wants Tyler to be able to “depend on him [respondent father] once in a while.”

Tragically, the choices and behaviors that thirty-two year old respondent father has elected to engage in throughout his adult life has resulted in numerous criminal convictions and periods of incarceration.   Father's elected criminal lifestyle has made him unavailable to Tyler for more than four years and he will continue to remain unavailable for the foreseeable future.

Respondent father's lack of parental rehabilitation must be assessed in light of Tyler's issues and needs.   Tyler has challenging mental/behavioral and emotional health issues;  he suffers from Generalized Anxiety Disorder (NOS), Relational Problems (NOS) and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (Combined Type) and requires daily adderall and risperdol.   Tyler has significant hearing loss in one ear ⁹ which requires amplification assistance in the classroom.   Tyler receives trauma focus therapy to address the significant abandonment issues he has faced in his life.   According to the guardian ad litem's testimony, Tyler has endured eight foster care placements.¹⁰  Family foster care placements have been diligently pursued by the petitioner but none have been successful as long-term placements for Tyler.¹¹

At the commencement of this school year Tyler feared that someone was going to come to the school at the end of the day and take him away.   The foster family and the child's therapist have had to work with Tyler to address the issue.   Tyler has endured too much instability, disruption and uncertainty in his young life to put permanency for Tyler on further hold to see when and how father's criminal woes play out.   Even if father, upon his extradition to CT. experiences months and not years longer incarceration, father will have to eventually transition back into the community as a convicted felon and find housing and employment.   Moreover, only time will tell if he re-engages in criminal behavior.   Father's past and present circumstances, as a result of the choices and decisions he has made over decades, given Tyler's significant issues, portend he will never achieve a sufficient degree of parental rehabilitation as to Tyler.   For all of the foregoing, the court finds the petitioner has proven the alleged statutory ground.

Disposition

In determining whether tpr is in a child's best interest, the court must consider the factors outlined in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k):

(1) As indicated previously, the petitioner has done everything plausible to maintain a connection between Tyler and respondent father during father's protracted out of state incarceration.

(2) Given father's protracted out of state incarceration, the petitioner has made reasonable efforts at reunification.   Respondent father is unable to benefit from further reunification efforts.

(3) The specific steps appropriately articulate the goals necessary to achieve reunification.   While father attempted to maintain contact with Tyler, his disciplinary issues resulted in a loss of prison privileges and a transfer to a prison facility with no educational courses and diminished capacity to communicate with others outside of prison.

(4) The court gives great weight to petitioner's exhibit F in determining Tyler's emotional bonds with the people in his life and in arriving at a best interest determination:

Tyler has been seen at our agency for outpatient treatment since 1–9–13.   Presenting problems included emotional reactions to multiple traumas including:  huge neglect, abandonment, frequent foul verbal abuse and physical abuse by mother, multiple disrupted placements within the family and in foster care;  possible sexual abuse by his brother;  and the recent termination of mother's rights

․ However, during this time in which there were multiple visits with multiple relatives, Tyler seemed to have increased anxiety and sexualized behaviors which often interfered with work on his traumas.   It is likely that visiting homes where he eventually was not able to stay permanently (including aunt Renata's [sic] home), would remind him of the uncertainty of placement and increase his anxiety ․

․ [H]e [Tyler] has clearly indicated a strong bond with his current foster family and stated that he wants to stay with them “forever.”   My understanding is that the foster family is considering adoption if that is possible.

Lawrence G. Ash–Morgan, Ph.D., senior psychologist at United Services, Inc.

The court credits father's assertion that he loves Tyler.   The sad reality is that father is not and will not in the foreseeable future be capable of parenting Tyler.   Fortunately, in spite of the horrific past Tyler has endured, Tyler has achieved remarkable stability and progress since placement with his therapeutic foster family.   The foster family's desire to have the termination of parental rights process fully resolved before committing to adoption is understandable;  Tyler's parents and prior guardians have at times presented challenging issues.   That reality combined with father's extensive criminal history and mother's recent allegations regarding the children's safety and wellbeing, (again something the father denies and this court makes no findings regarding) and father's now inevitable return to CT will hopefully be outweighed by the finality that accompanies the court's decision.   Tyler deserves to remain in his self-identified ‘forever home.’   The guardian ad litem credibly testified that Tyler's present placement is the best available placement for him at this time and that tpr and adoption is in Tyler's best interest.¹²  This court concludes that, although there is not complete certainty that the foster family will adopt, it is clearly in Tyler's best interest that he proceed in his treatment with Dr. Ash–Morgan, remain living with his foster family and that he be unencumbered by fears of others (particularly relatives) coming to take him away.

(5) Tyler is almost nine years old.

(6) To the extent that father committed acts for which he was convicted and imprisoned for four years and ten months in a Floridian prison and has outstanding CT criminal charges that he must next address, he has done nothing to change his circumstances to make it Tyler's best interest to return to father's care in the foreseeable future.

(7) This court is not aware of any person, parent, agency or economic circumstance which has prevented father from having a meaningful relationship with Tyler, except father himself.

Accordingly, the court finds it is in Tyler's best interest to terminate respondent father's parental rights.   Father's parental rights are hereby terminated.   Given the court's prior canvas and acceptance of mother's consent both respondents' parental rights are hereby terminated and the petitioner is appointed Tyler's statutory parent.   DCF shall file a status report within thirty days and shall comply with all other statutory mandates.   When appropriate the adoption process may be filed and proceed in the superior court for juvenile matters in Middletown, Ct.

Bernadette Conway, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Respondent father's name appears on the child's birth certificate and testimony at trial reflected a written acknowledgment of paternity had been executed..  FN2. Respondent father's name appears on the child's birth certificate and testimony at trial reflected a written acknowledgment of paternity had been executed.

FN3. There is some indication in the court file that guardianship vested in paternal grandfather and his then wife;  regardless, said guardianship order was vacated in April of 2012..  FN3. There is some indication in the court file that guardianship vested in paternal grandfather and his then wife;  regardless, said guardianship order was vacated in April of 2012.

FN4. Both respondent parents consented to the termination of their parental rights as to Tyler's sister..  FN4. Both respondent parents consented to the termination of their parental rights as to Tyler's sister.

FN5. According to petitioner's exhibit B, the Floridian charges included burglary, gun possession, possession of narcotics, grant theft, stolen property and obstruction of justice;  it is unclear as to what conviction(s) resulted in him receiving a four-year, ten-month prison sentence in Florida..  FN5. According to petitioner's exhibit B, the Floridian charges included burglary, gun possession, possession of narcotics, grant theft, stolen property and obstruction of justice;  it is unclear as to what conviction(s) resulted in him receiving a four-year, ten-month prison sentence in Florida.

FN6. Father participated in the tpr trial via audio connection between the court and the prison in Florida..  FN6. Father participated in the tpr trial via audio connection between the court and the prison in Florida.

FN7. The defendant testified that he will have earned CT jail credit on at least the violation of probation charge based on his prison confinement in Florida.   Father also testified that CT authorities recently decided to extradite him based on false allegations by respondent mother as to her and/or the children's safety and wellbeing once father is released from prison.   Clearly this court cannot make any findings regarding the reasons for father's extradition nor can the court predict or speculate as to what additional incarceration time the respondent father will ultimately serve upon his return to CT, other than to note the three existing cases stem from three different police departments and, according to the respondent, the Meriden case is the violation of probation, the Plymouth case deals with the theft of scrap metal and the Southington case deals with the burglary of storage units..  FN7. The defendant testified that he will have earned CT jail credit on at least the violation of probation charge based on his prison confinement in Florida.   Father also testified that CT authorities recently decided to extradite him based on false allegations by respondent mother as to her and/or the children's safety and wellbeing once father is released from prison.   Clearly this court cannot make any findings regarding the reasons for father's extradition nor can the court predict or speculate as to what additional incarceration time the respondent father will ultimately serve upon his return to CT, other than to note the three existing cases stem from three different police departments and, according to the respondent, the Meriden case is the violation of probation, the Plymouth case deals with the theft of scrap metal and the Southington case deals with the burglary of storage units.

FN8. Respondent father testified that he was Tyler's caregiver for the first few years of Tyler's life.   The file reflects Tyler endured significant neglect/abuse from a young age and was in the care of a myriad of relatives when not in the petitioner's care..  FN8. Respondent father testified that he was Tyler's caregiver for the first few years of Tyler's life.   The file reflects Tyler endured significant neglect/abuse from a young age and was in the care of a myriad of relatives when not in the petitioner's care.

FN9. A review of the file indicates Tyler's hearing loss resulted from being physically assaulted while in his mother's care..  FN9. A review of the file indicates Tyler's hearing loss resulted from being physically assaulted while in his mother's care.

FN10. The level of disruption and loss due to multiple placements in this young child's life cannot be overstated.   A review of the file reflects in 2010 mother precipitously left Tyler and his older brother with maternal great grandmother in Florida, ostensibly so mother could join the circus.   Tyler left great grandmother's care in Florida (the older brother remained with great grandmother) to live with maternal grandmother;  after a year maternal grandmother sought and obtained a CT probate court order removing Tyler from her care due to Tyler's challenging behaviors and needs.   While in the petitioner's care Tyler and his sister were first placed with a maternal great aunt but after one month they were removed and then placed with paternal great aunt, Renata Tewksbury.   Tyler stayed in Ms. Tewksbury's care from August to November of 2011.   When no other long-term family resources were forthcoming, paternal grandfather agreed to assume guardianship of the children from November of 2011 until he asked for their removal in April of 2012.   A maternal grandmother's cousin was identified as a temporary placement but in August of 2012 Tyler's inappropriate sexual behavior toward his sister necessitated his placement in a therapeutic foster home through Waterford Country School.   Tyler has remained in this therapeutic foster home to date..  FN10. The level of disruption and loss due to multiple placements in this young child's life cannot be overstated.   A review of the file reflects in 2010 mother precipitously left Tyler and his older brother with maternal great grandmother in Florida, ostensibly so mother could join the circus.   Tyler left great grandmother's care in Florida (the older brother remained with great grandmother) to live with maternal grandmother;  after a year maternal grandmother sought and obtained a CT probate court order removing Tyler from her care due to Tyler's challenging behaviors and needs.   While in the petitioner's care Tyler and his sister were first placed with a maternal great aunt but after one month they were removed and then placed with paternal great aunt, Renata Tewksbury.   Tyler stayed in Ms. Tewksbury's care from August to November of 2011.   When no other long-term family resources were forthcoming, paternal grandfather agreed to assume guardianship of the children from November of 2011 until he asked for their removal in April of 2012.   A maternal grandmother's cousin was identified as a temporary placement but in August of 2012 Tyler's inappropriate sexual behavior toward his sister necessitated his placement in a therapeutic foster home through Waterford Country School.   Tyler has remained in this therapeutic foster home to date.

FN11. During the first day of the tpr trial both the father's and child's attorney motioned the court to consider placing Tyler with Ms. Reynata Tewksbury.   The petitioner claimed Ms. Tewksbury was not able and/or willing to be a placement resource for Tyler.   The issue resulted in a guardian ad litem being appointed by agreement of the parties.   On the second day of trial, respondent father and the child's attorney withdrew their motions;  all parties agreed Ms. Tewksbury was not an available placement resource for Tyler..  FN11. During the first day of the tpr trial both the father's and child's attorney motioned the court to consider placing Tyler with Ms. Reynata Tewksbury.   The petitioner claimed Ms. Tewksbury was not able and/or willing to be a placement resource for Tyler.   The issue resulted in a guardian ad litem being appointed by agreement of the parties.   On the second day of trial, respondent father and the child's attorney withdrew their motions;  all parties agreed Ms. Tewksbury was not an available placement resource for Tyler.

FN12. The GAL diligently and expeditiously became involved during the pendency of the tpr trial.   He credibly testified that in his conversation with the foster mother she is amenable to Ms. Tewksbury and possibly other appropriate relatives having contact with Tyler if therapeutically recommended.  (Petitioner's exhibit F reflects further work needs to be done before such contact would be therapeutically appropriate.).  FN12. The GAL diligently and expeditiously became involved during the pendency of the tpr trial.   He credibly testified that in his conversation with the foster mother she is amenable to Ms. Tewksbury and possibly other appropriate relatives having contact with Tyler if therapeutically recommended.  (Petitioner's exhibit F reflects further work needs to be done before such contact would be therapeutically appropriate.)

Conway, Bernadette, J.