IN RE: Aiden B.1 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law by clear and convincing evidence.

Aiden was born on March 10, 2013 to Linda B. and Kevin H.² On April 12, 2013, the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), assumed temporary custody of the minor child after respondent mother had shaken the infant in the early morning hours of April 11, 2013.   The child remained under an order of temporary custody (OTC) until October 22, 2013, when, after a contested neglect trial, this court adjudicated the child neglected and committed the child to the care and custody of the petitioner.   The petitioner filed the present termination of parental rights (tpr) petitions on or about January 2, 2014 and both respondent parents were properly served.   Respondent mother failed to appear for the January 31, 2014 plea date and a default judgment entered.   The court was informed father was residing in Texas and the court appointed counsel to represent respondent father.   Subsequently, on March 6, 2014, the court canvassed and accepted respondent father's consent to the tpr petition and the court heard argument and accepted exhibits regarding respondent mother's default tpr trial.

Reasonable efforts to locate respondent mother

At the time of the child's removal from mother's care, both respondent mother and child were residing in respondent mother's foster mother's home.³  In the early morning hours on or about April 11, 2013, mother became frustrated with Aiden around his feedings and shook him.   She immediately reached out to her foster mother who was downstairs and the foster mother assumed care of Aiden.   Respondent mother elected to leave her home;  respondent mother was not comfortable caring for Aiden and she wanted Aiden to remain in the care of respondent mother's foster mother.   Mother initially moved in with a boyfriend, Tom B., and his family in West Haven but by September of 2013 she had moved with Tom B. to Meriden;  mother and Tom B. lived with another couple in one room.⁴  By October the respondent mother was homeless and/or living in a motel subsidized by respondent mother's step mother.   On or about November 25, 2013, respondent mother reported to the petitioner that she moved to Meriden on November 19, 2013 to live with a boyfriend, Thomas F. A review of the exhibits and court file reflect the petitioner's last contact with respondent mother occurred on or about November 25, 2013, during an administrative case review (ACR) meeting, at that time respondent mother declined the petitioner's offer to be referred to a local mental health agency.

Based on the following findings, the court concludes DCF made reasonable efforts to locate respondent mother.

Reasonable efforts to reunify/ Unable/Unwilling to Benefit from Reunification Efforts

Mother's obstacles regarding parenting Aiden center around her unaddressed mental health issues,⁵ her inability to remain calm when physically caring for Aiden and her transient lifestyle.   Exhibit A and exhibit D, set forth the services and providers made available by the petitioner to mother and child to facilitate reunification.   The petitioner's efforts were appropriately tailored to addressed mother's issues;  mother failed/declined/refused to avail herself of the offered services.

A review of the exhibits and court file mother has little insight regarding her mental health issues and how her own personal unaddressed struggles preclude her from parenting Aiden.   Until and unless respondent mother engages in sustained treatment, including a medication regime if so indicated, as well as substantive parenting education, she will remain unable/unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

Adjudication

The petitioner alleges respondent mother 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)(t).

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).

The court file and exhibits reflect mother's inability to achieve virtually any degree of stability regarding any aspect of her life.   She struggles to maintain stable housing and as of her last contact with the petitioner she had no discernable income source.   She jumps in and out of relationships with men and could not or would not engage in requisite mental health treatment.   Even her contact with Aiden and her former foster mother, while initially consistent, became sporadic.  (Exhibit A, pp 4–5.)   The court finds that the issues that necessitated Aiden's removal from mother's care in April of 2013 persist to date and therefore the petitioner has proven the alleged statutory ground.

Disposition

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

(1) As discussed previously, the petitioner diligently identified mother's issues that needed to be substantively addressed for reunification to occur.   Appropriate services were offered but either refused or not utilized by mother.

(2) DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify.   Case management services, mental health evaluation and treatment, parenting education, and supervised visits were timely and appropriately made available to the respondent mother.

(3) The court ordered specific steps (exhibit C) were timely and comprehensive.   Mother refused or declined to engage in services and with providers and substantively failed to comply with the specific steps.

(4) Aiden has been deemed a medically complex child.   In May of 2013 Aiden was developmentally assessed and accepted for birth to three services.   In 2013 he required physical therapy for low muscle tone.   Aiden was also diagnosed with Plagiocephaly (soft skull requiring a helmut), hypospadias, webbed feet and sacral dimple.   The foster family is addressing Aiden's medical and developmental issues and Aiden is bonded to his foster family and them to him.  (Exhibit B pp. 4–5.)   The foster family wants to adopt Aiden.

Aiden has never met respondent father and any bond that may have once existed between Aiden and respondent mother is diminished given mother's substantive absence from Aiden's life.

(5) Aiden will turn one year old on March 10, 2014.

(6) This court is not aware of anything respondent mother has done to adjust her circumstances to make it in Aiden's best interest to return to her care in the foreseeable future.

(7) This court is not aware of any person, parent, agency or economic circumstance that has prevented respondent mother from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Aiden.

Accordingly, it is in Aiden's best interest to terminate respondent mother's parental rights.   Given the court's prior termination of Aiden's father's parental rights, the petitioner is hereby appointed Aiden's statutory parent.   The court approves the permanency plan of adoption by the present foster family and finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate said permanency plan.   DCF shall file a status report within thirty days and shall comply with all other statutory mandates.   When applicable, the adoption process may commence and proceed in the superior court for juvenile matters in Middletown.

Bernadette Conway, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Genetic testing confirmed Kevin H.'s paternity..  FN2. Genetic testing confirmed Kevin H.'s paternity.

FN3. Respondent mother's date of birth is April 19, 1994.   She became an adolescent foster child at age seventeen.   Noteworthy is petitioner's exhibit A, first page:  “ ․ [respondent mother]'s childhood has an extensive DCF history for parental issues related to domestic violence, substance abuse, physical abuse, educational neglect, medical neglect, and emotional neglect.   She entered foster care herself at age 17 as her mother kicked her out of the house and refused to care for her.”Respondent father represented to the court that he is eighteen years old..  FN3. Respondent mother's date of birth is April 19, 1994.   She became an adolescent foster child at age seventeen.   Noteworthy is petitioner's exhibit A, first page:  “ ․ [respondent mother]'s childhood has an extensive DCF history for parental issues related to domestic violence, substance abuse, physical abuse, educational neglect, medical neglect, and emotional neglect.   She entered foster care herself at age 17 as her mother kicked her out of the house and refused to care for her.”Respondent father represented to the court that he is eighteen years old.

FN4. In the summer of 2013, respondent mother had reported to DCF she was relocating out of state, possibly to Michigan and therefore would not be visiting with Aiden.   In August of 2013 the petitioner learned that although mother had not visited Aiden, she had in fact never left CT..  FN4. In the summer of 2013, respondent mother had reported to DCF she was relocating out of state, possibly to Michigan and therefore would not be visiting with Aiden.   In August of 2013 the petitioner learned that although mother had not visited Aiden, she had in fact never left CT.

FN5. Page 2 of exhibit A states that in June of 2013 respondent mother was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and panic disorder, all in moderate range.   Exhibit A reflects that in October of 2011 respondent mother was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, reoccurring.   Except for attending one intake appointment at St. Francis, mother failed to attend any other treatment or therapy appointments since April of 2013..  FN5. Page 2 of exhibit A states that in June of 2013 respondent mother was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and panic disorder, all in moderate range.   Exhibit A reflects that in October of 2011 respondent mother was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, reoccurring.   Except for attending one intake appointment at St. Francis, mother failed to attend any other treatment or therapy appointments since April of 2013.

Conway, Bernadette, J.