Opinion
H14CP15011526A
11-18-2016
In re Joseph P.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge.
Mother, Amber O., originally brought a petition to terminate Father's, Michael P., parental rights in Simsbury Probate Court on May 12, 2015. Mother's Probate Petition alleged that:
The child has been abandoned by Father in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.
There is no ongoing parent/child relationship as defined in C.G.S. § 45a-717(g), and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of the parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child; or
The child is under seven years of age and is neglected or uncared for, and the parent of the child has failed, is unable, or is unwilling to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable amount 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 Children and Families.
The court notes there is no evidence of any prior termination of parental rights against Father.
The case was transferred to the Hartford Regional Children's Probate Court. The probate attorney for the minor children filed a motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court. This matter was transferred to the New Britain Superior Court for Juvenile Matters on July 13, 2015.
Paternal grandmother Anne C. filed a motion for visitation on New Britain Superior Court for Family Matters under docket number FA12-4029766. Paternal grandmother's motion was denied on September 9, 2015, for lack of jurisdiction.
Amber O. obtained a protective order against paternal grandmother in G.A. 12 Manchester on August 10, 2015.
An amended petition to terminate parental rights of Father was filed on February 16, 2016, alleging the following grounds for termination:
a. The Respondent abandoned the said Minor Child, as he has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern and responsibility as to the welfare of the said Minor Child;
b. The said Minor Child has been denied the care, guidance or control necessary for the said Minor Child's physical, emotional, educational or moral well-being, by reason of acts of parental omission or commission by the Respondent, as there was a non-accidental or serious physical injury to the child, when the said Minor Child was present as the Respondent assaulted and strangled the Petitioner, for which the Respondent is incarcerated;
c. There has never been, or is there an ongoing parent/child relationship, as defined in C.G.S. § 45a-717(g), and to allow further time for the establishment of the parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the said Minor Child; and
d. The said Minor Child was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care of DCF on March 30, 2011, while the Petitioner was pregnant with the said Minor Child's brother, by the Superior Court New Britain Judicial District, and the Respondent has failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage belief that, within a reasonable period of time, and considering the age and needs of the said Minor child, the Respondent could achieve a responsible position in the life of the said Minor Child.
Trial commenced on May 16, 2016, and continued on May 18, 2016, June 21, 2016, and concluded on August 17, 2016.
Father called the following witnesses at trial:
Michael Pierce, DOC Reintegration Unit Counselor;
Linda Dixon, Teacher, Willard-Cybulski Correctional Center;
Ron Klemba, Marriage and Family Therapist;
David Murray, Vocational Instructor.
Respondent Michael P. introduced the following exhibits at trial:
a. Certificates of Achievements, various dates;
b. CT DOC Visitors Log;
c. Family photos;
d. Psychological Report, Dr. Freedman, 2/23/16;
e. Amber O., Conviction Reports;
f. Matthew K. Conviction Reports;
g. Certificate of Completion in Horticulture/Horticulture Curriculum 3/17/16;
h. Father's Driver's License Restoration;
I. Healing House letter, 6/20/16;
j. Certified Conviction Record, Michael P., 6/15/16;
k. Family photographs;
l. Family Court Parenting Arrangement.
The Petitioner Mother called the following witnesses at trial:
Stephen DelBuono, DCF Case Aid;
Amber O. (Mother);
Michael P. (Father);
Flaviana Hunter, DCF Social Worker;
Lynn Mahoney, LCSW, Family Therapist;
Dr. Bruce Freedman, Ph.D.
Petitioner Amber O. entered the following exhibits.:
1. DCF Report of 9/18/15;
2. DCF Report of 12/11/15 (redacted);
3. Dr. Freedman's Amended Psychological Report, 4/15/16;
4. DMV Mother's License Reinstatement.
The court finds it has proper jurisdiction of the matter, notice of the proceeding was provided and the Family Court matter is on hold pending the decision of the Juvenile Court. The court has fully considered the criteria set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes, as well as the evidence, applicable case law, demeanor and credibility of witnesses, and arguments of the parties in reaching the decision reflected in the orders that issue in this memorandum.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having weighed all of the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the following relevant facts by clear and convincing evidence.
Amber O. and Michael P. were involved in a relationship from 2008 through 2011. Two children are the product of this relationship, Joseph P., date of birth July 2009, and Jasyn P., date of birth September 2011.
The relationship between the parties included substance abuse and intimate partner violence. Father was incarcerated on January 24, 2011, for strangulation 2nd degree, violation of a protective order and assault on personnel and was incarcerated until April 2016. Amber O. continued to visit Michael P. with Joseph until 2013, when she ended the relationship because she was involved with Mr. K. She began a relationship with Matthew K. in February 2013, and they were married on June 14, 2013. They have a daughter born on March 27, 2014.
A neglect petition was filed by the Department against Amber O. and Michael P. on October 6, 2010, alleging domestic violence and substance abuse.
A ninety-six (96) hour hold was invoked on December 20, 2010, and an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) was filed on December 22, 2010 and sustained by agreement on December 28, 2010.
Joseph P. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department on March 30, 2011. Joseph remained in non-relative foster care from December 20, 2010, through July 15, 2011, when he was reunited with Mother. A Revocation of Commitment was granted and an order of Protective Supervision was issued on September 21, 2011. Protective supervision expired on March 21, 2012.
The Department conducted six investigations of the family between January 2010 and July 2015. Five were unsubstantiated. Allegations of emotional neglect to Jasyn P. were made in January 2013 and substantiated. A friend of Mother's overdosed on heroin outside Jasyn's bedroom and paramedics were called. Paternal Grandfather was contacted by the police and took Jasyn to his home. Amber O. had recently relapsed and cooperated with services. Mother was involved with Family Based Recovery between February 2013 through November 2014. She initially tested positive for opiates and marijuana, but had submitted clean toxicology tests for three months by November 2014. Amber O. was on methadone maintenance, but was eventually weaned off, due to her pregnancy.
Mother's History
Amber O. is 28 years old. She never knew her own father. She lived with her maternal grandfather from ages 4-17. Maternal grandfather was appointed her guardian by Probate Court in 1994. Amber reported her mother was drug addicted during her childhood and she was raised by her grandfather.
Mother dropped out of high school in 11th grade and has reported she wants to obtain her GED. She was employed at a cleaning company from 2004-2009 and hasn't been employed since the birth of Joseph in 2009. She and the children are currently supported by Matthew K., who owns six properties in New Britain, owns a painting and remodeling company and runs a credit card processing company.
The DCF Social Study (Exhibit 1) and Addendum (Exhibit) state there have been multiple collections/small claims matters against Amber O. and/or Matthew K. in the past two years. In addition, Mr. K's criminal history (Exhibit 6) shows two convictions for issuing bad checks in 2015 and 2016 respectively.
Exhibit 2 also reveals that Mother and step-father were evicted from their home. Amber O. reported to the Department social worker alternately that she moved after she brought the TPR petition so Michael P. would not know where she lived and later claimed non-payment was due to property neglect and the collapse of a ceiling.
Based on the above facts, the court cannot find that Amber O. and Matthew K. have stable finances.
Matthew K. was convicted of violating protective orders in 2009. In addition, there have been unsubstantiated allegations of Amber and Matthew exposing the children to domestic violence on several occasions.
Father's History
Michael P. is 26 years old. He dropped out of school in 11th grade, but obtained his GED in 2010.
Father has an extensive criminal history dating to 2008. He was incarcerated on January 24, 2011, for strangulation 2nd degree, violation of a protective order and assault on personnel.
He was released in April 2016. At the time of this trial, he resided temporarily with family in New Britain.
Mr. P. was the alleged victim of nineteen referrals to the Department as a child. The allegations that were substantiated include February 2001, physical abuse by his paternal grandmother's paramour, May 2001, physical abuse by paternal grandmother and the same paramour, July 2001, emotional/physical neglect against paternal grandmother and physical abuse against her paramour, March 2002 physical neglect against paternal grandmother, September 2002 physical abuse against paternal grandmother, June 2004 physical neglect by paternal grandmother and Jerry L., her spouse, and finally, physical neglect for exposure to domestic violence in December 2004.
Father was incarcerated in January 2011 for strangulation 2nd degree and violation of a protective order. Mother was the victim. He was released from prison in April 2016.
Michael P. was born with a heart defect and while incarcerated, he had heart surgery and a pacemaker was implanted. Mr. P. testified that facing death inspired him to turn his life around. After his recovery, he completed numerous programs offered by the prison, including: Horticulture Introduction, Career Exploration and Plant Science, Electro-Mechanical Technology, Alternatives to Violence Project: Training in NonViolence, Embracing Fatherhood, Parenting Class, 12 sessions Houses of Healing Emotional Literacy Program, Good Intentions, Bad Choices--Errors in Thinking, Understanding Domestic Violence--Basic, Alternatives to Violence--Advanced--Anger Management.
Linda Dixon testified on behalf of Mr. P as his instructor in a medical coding class. Since his release, Michael P. has worked as an intern in Ms. Dixon's business and if he passes two exams, he is guaranteed a job. David Murry, a Department of Corrections vocational instructor testified Father completed an elective program in horticulture. Michael was a very good student and attained a sufficient skill set to become an assistant. He encouraged others to learn vocabulary and understand concepts in the program.
Amber O. either brought the children, or allowed paternal relatives to visit Michael P. in prison until 2013. Father introduced several photographs of Father and Joseph taken in the correctional institution. (Exhibit D.) In addition, he introduced letters and pictures Joseph made for him (as interpreted by Mother) while in prison (Exhibit D) and a Father's Day card (Exhibit C).
On December 20, 2012, Father agreed to give Mother sole custody of the children, because a family relations officer told him it would be easier for Mother to register the children for school. In the same court order, Amber O. agreed to bring the boys to the correctional institution twice monthly to visit their father.
The evidence is clear that Michael P. had contact with the children until Amber O. either stopped bringing the children to visit, or stopped paternal relatives from facilitating the visitation. According to Father, visits terminated when Amber O. met her current husband.
Father tried to enforce his visitation by filing a motion to modify on December 11, 2014. After numerous continuances, the issuance of a capias to get Amber O. to attend court on September 14, 2015, the motion was stayed pending resolution of the juvenile matter.
Additionally, in an effort to keep in touch with his children, Father called Mother and sent cards and letters to family members for special occasions, hoping someone would deliver them to the children.
Children's History
Joseph was born in July 2009 and is seven years old. He attended Pine Grove Elementary School beginning in August 2015 and had nineteen absences (four excused) and eighteen tardies for the school year. Joseph had difficulties with classroom behavior, but responded to staff interventions.
Jasyn P. was born in September 2011 and is five years old. His pediatrician has indicated Jasyn exhibits challenging behaviors and Mother would benefit from a parenting class. Amber has failed to follow the advice of the pediatrician.
The DCF social worker who prepared the study for Termination of Parental Rights (Exhibit 1) and Addendum (Exhibit 2) met Mother, step-father and the children in an announced visit on October 29, 2015 and November 20, 2015.
Joseph told the social worker that the " bad man" hurt his Mother, put a knife to her throat and said he was going to hurt her. When asked who the bad man was, Joseph yelled to his Mother, asking for the bad man's name. Then he said the bad man's name was Michael and yelled to his Mother to confirm. While the social worker was asking questions about Father, Joseph blurted out that Jordan S. put his pee pee in his mouth when Joseph was four years old. After some discussion, Joseph became anxious and asked to stop talking about this or anything else.
The social worker reviewed the investigation of allegations made in 2014 and wrote that the Department has concerns about contact between Joseph and Jordan S. The worker discussed the matter with paternal grandmother, who believed Joseph was taught the information.
When the social worker returned to the home for a second visit on November 20, 2015, Mother and step-father did not want the social worker to ask the children about Father or paternal grandmother. Mother claimed the children did not have a relationship with their Father or paternal grandmother and was adamant the children not be questioned about them.
Joseph's report card was provided to the social worker by Amber O. The report card indicated Joseph was reading below grade level. Joseph started kindergarten at Edna Stevens School in Cromwell in August 2014, he was withdrawn on November 11, 2014 and attended Pine Grove Elementary School in Avon. He had nineteen unexcused absences and eighteen tardies. As of October 2015, Joseph was attending school in an undisclosed town.
In late 2015, Jasyn was not yet enrolled in any school program, as he was not potty trained when school began in the fall. Mother said Jasyn was now potty trained and she would be enrolling him in an educational program in January 2016.
Exhibit 2 indicates that Mr. K. went to the prison to file a complaint against Father in May 2015. During the incident, prison staff had to escort Mr. K. out of the building, due to his behavior, as he demanded to speak to someone on staff to stop Mr. P., or his mother, from trying to contact Amber O. Mr. K. was very agitated and there were several correctional officers in the lobby to assure he was not physically hostile.
Mr. K. has a history of protective orders listing him as the perpetrator dating from 2003-2009, with four individuals as the protected person. Mr. K. also has a criminal history, including two violations of protective orders in 2009.
On June 7, 2015, allegations of physical neglect of the children by Mother and stepfather due to exposure to intimate partner violence. The allegations were unsubstantiated.
The Department social worker's reports (Exhibits 1 & 2) express concerns as Amber O. has not consistently met the children's medical and educational needs, as evidence by failure to appear at medical appointments and excessive unexcused school absences. In addition, Amber had a suspended driver's license until May 2016 (Exhibit 4), has not cooperated with pediatrician's recommendations and has several allegations of domestic violence with her current husband.
The Department did not recommend termination of Michael P.'s parental rights, because it was not Father's choice or intention to stop having a relationship with his sons and does not support Mr. K. adopting the children for reasons outlined above.
Dr. Bruce Freedman wrote two psychological evaluations in this case. The first (Exhibit B), dated February 23, 2016, was based on contact with Father and several witnesses, who testified at trial, involved with prison training programs. In that report, Dr. Freedman opined: " Michael has shown impressive rehabilitation during his prison term . . . He shows very good potential to assume a responsible position in the lives of both his sons."
The amended report dated April 15, 2016 (Exhibit 3) included three hours of interviews with Amber O. Dr. Freedman did not evaluate Ms. O. Based solely on facts presented by Mother, the psychologist opined, " It would be extremely stressful for her to adjust to having the boys spending time with their father . . . He showed many instances of inappropriate behavior around Joseph before going to prison." " Mr. P. would have to 'compete' for the boys' attention and interest (with their stepfather) and the chances of Mr. P. having the maturity to tolerate this are low."
Dr. Freedman acknowledged " there is some potential for benefit to the boys of having relationships with their biological father. However, there is also considerable ways in which these relationships could have detrimental effects on the boys . . . It is my opinion that the potential for negative effects on the boys substantially outweighs any possible positive effects."
In evaluating and weighing expert testimony, the trier of fact is never bound by the opinions and conclusions of the expert merely because of that individual's background, experience or expertise. In Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn.App. 173, 789 A.2d 1104 (2002, for example, the Appellate Court expressly upheld the trial court's decision to reject the recommendations of the guardian ad litem and court-appointed psychologist: " a trial court is not bound to accept the expert opinion of a family relations officer . . . [and] is free to rely on whatever parts of an expert's opinion the court finds probative and helpful." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 190, citing Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 281, 440 A.2d 899 (1981). " It is the sole province of the trier of fact to evaluate expert testimony, to assess its credibility, and to assign it a proper weight." State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 706, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061, 108 S.Ct. 1017, 98 L.Ed.2d 982 (1988). " It is the quintessential function of the finder of fact to reject or accept evidence and to believe or disbelieve any expert testimony . . . The trier may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of an expert." (Citation omitted.) Tartaglino v. Dept. of Correction, 55 Conn.App. 190, 195, 737 A.2d 993, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 929, 742 A.2d 364 (1999). Ultimately, the court is responsible for sifting through and evaluating all the evidence and then rendering its own findings and conclusions. In the present case, with such a stark contrast between the conclusions and opinions of the different experts, it is the court's role to decide which, if any, of those opinions and conclusions to adopt or reject.
ADJUDICATORY DECISION
" A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases: the adjudicatory phase and the dispositional phase. During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must determine whether one or more grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in General Statutes § . . . 45a-717(g)(2) has been proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Brian T., 134 Conn.App. 1, 11, 38 A.3d 114 (2012). Under Practice Book § 35a-7(a), " [i]n the adjudicatory phase of the proceeding, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events preceding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment, except where the judicial authority must consider subsequent events as part of its determination as to the existence of a ground for termination of parental rights." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 757, 936 A.2d 638 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920, 943 A.2d 1100 (2008). The Mother initially filed the TPR petition in this proceeding in the Simsbury Probate Court on May 12, 2015. An Amended Petition was filed in New Britain Juvenile Court on February 16, 2016. That day is, therefore, the adjudicatory date, as of which the court must determine the statutory grounds for termination.
The present case was brought under § 45a-717(g)(2)(A), (B), (C) and (D) in Probate Court. Since virtually identical language is now contained in General Statutes § 17a-112(b)(3) as a ground for terminating parental rights in petitions brought in the Superior Court, cases construing that statute are also applicable and relevant to understanding the meaning of this portion of the Probate Court statute. See, e.g., In re Brian T., 134 Conn.App. 1, 16, 38 A.3d 114 (2012) (" apply[ing] the same meaning and analytical framework" to failure to rehabilitate claims brought under Probate Court TPR statute as applied to TPR claims under juvenile court statute because the statutory language is " virtually . . . identical").
Section 2 of P.A. 83-478 amended § 45-61f(d), in pertinent part: " [T]he court may approve the petition terminating parental rights . . . if it finds . . . that . . . (2) the child has been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission, the care, guidance or control necessary for his physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being. Nonaccidental or inadequately explained serious physical injury to a child shall constitute prima facie evidence of acts of parental commission or omission sufficient for the termination of parental rights." Section 6 of P.A. 84-171 simply reenacted the 1983 bill to cure problems resulting from a later 1983 enactment that had omitted the 1983 changes.
Judge Elgo fully analyzed this section of the TPR statute, its legislative history, and court decisions construing the statute in her recent decision in In re Jasmine C., Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Child Protection Session at Middletown, Docket Nos. H14-CP-12-010646-A and H14-CP-12-010647-A, (March 13, 2014, Elgo, J.). She noted there that " the specified acts of omission and commission, such as severe physical abuse, sexual abuse and/or non-accidental/inadequately explained serious physician injury, have been the basis for most terminations granted under this provision, " but reasoned that, " [a]s the plain language of the statute clearly states, however, this ground is not limited to severe physical abuse, nonaccidental or inadequately explained serious physical injury, sexual molestation or exploitation, or even a pattern of abuse." Id. Indeed, as our Appellate Court has stated, " [t]here is nothing in this clear statutory language that limits the acts of commission or omission to the serious physical injury of a child, rather than the serious emotional injury of a child." In re Sean H., 24 Conn.App. 135, 144, 586 A.2d 1171, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1078 (1991).
Judge Elgo's observation that the statutory language is not limited to severe physical abuse also applies to severe emotional abuse, neither of which is required by the statutory language as a prerequisite for termination on this ground. The language contained in subdivision (g)(2) is broad and inclusive. As Judge Elgo noted, " [T]he parameters of this ground are defined by a parent's denial of the care, guidance or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jasmine C., supra, Superior Court, Docket Nos. H14-CP-12-010646-A and H14-CP-12-010647-A, . This court agrees with her conclusion that
the legislature contemplated some quantum of evidence that rises to the level of acts of omission or commission which may not be among the acts specifically enumerated in the statute itself. Otherwise, the language that allows for termination based on acts which have denied the child the care, guidance or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being would have no meaning whatsoever. [I]n interpreting a statute, we do not interpret some clauses of a statute in a manner that nullifies other clauses but, rather, read the statute as a whole in order to reconcile all of its parts . . . Every word and phrase is presumed to have meaning, and we do not construe statutes so as to render certain words and phrases surplusage.(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The legislative history makes clear that the statutory changes adopted by the legislature in 1983, 1984 and 1998 were intended to provide examples of the conduct covered by the language of the statute without limiting the statute's broad scope.
Thus, as the Appellate Court noted in In re Jessica M., 49 Conn.App. 229, 241, 714 A.2d 64 (1998), appeal dismissed as moot, judgment vacated, 250 Conn. 747, 749, 738 A.2d 1087 (1999), " [u]nder this subdivision, parental rights can be terminated for one or numerous acts or omissions that affect a child's well-being." The reach of this language has not yet been fully defined by our appellate courts. Rather, the acts of omission and commission portion of the TPR statute, much like the failure to rehabilitate portion, appears intended to cover a broad range of conduct or inaction, the precise metes and bounds of which remain to be defined and circumscribed by the specific cases brought under the statute.
The adjudicatory issue in this case is whether the evidence establishes, by the required standard of clear and convincing proof, that acts of omission or commission of the father has denied the children:
(1) of the care, guidance or control necessary for their physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being,
(2) Father had abandoned the children by failing to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility for the child (C.G.S. § 45a-717(g)(2)(A)),
(3) there is no ongoing parent-child relationship which is defined as the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on continuing, day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and emotional and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child (C.G.S. § 45a-717(g)(2)(C)),
(4) the parent of the child is unable to unwilling 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. § 45a-717(g)(2)(E)).
The facts found by the court failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent Father, by acts of omission or commission, had as of the adjudicatory date, denied the children the care, guidance and control necessary for their physical, moral and emotional well-being. There is no evidence that Father physically abused Joseph. Michael P. was incarcerated and acknowledged he strangled Amber O., but she testified it was in front of a cashier at a Newington gas station. The Mother testified intimate partner violence took place in the home, but Joseph was not in the room. She testified the couple would fight in a bedroom across the hall from Joseph's room.
The court did not find Amber O.'s testimony credible that on the date Father was supposed to report to prison he put a knife to her neck and engaged in a high speed chase with Mother and child in the car. The compelling evidence suggests that Mother left a domestic violence shelter and brought Joseph to Father to say goodbye, before he was incarcerated. The couple remained together in various locations until DCF involvement and Father's incarceration.
The evidence presented to the court failed to establish that Michael P. abandoned the children. Joseph visited him in prison and Father had telephone contact until January 2013, when Mother ceased all contact. Amber O. brought a restraining order against paternal grandmother, cutting off contact with paternal relatives, refused telephone calls, changed her address and telephone number, and filed a false complaint with the prison warden, alleging Michael P. was calling her from jail. Step-father appeared at the prison to complain about Michael and was escorted out of the facility, due to threatening and hostile behavior. Father filed unsuccessful motions in Family Court in an attempt to maintain contact with the children while incarcerated.
The court finds that Amber O. denied Father contact with the children from early 2013 to present, and Father did not abandon the children.
The fact that there is no ongoing relationship between Father and sons is due to Mother withholding visits, despite a Family Court order requiring twice monthly visits. Mother changed her telephone number and address, thereby preventing Father from communicating by mail or telephone.
Mr. P.'s testimony at trial was compelling and credible that he has turned his life around and is fully rehabilitated. He was a star pupil in a medical coding course offered while incarcerated and, after passing a state test, has a job guaranteed to him.
Mr. P. took multiple intimate partner courses during his time in prison, as well as parenting classes. The court found Michael P.'s testimony that his heart surgery and facing possible death motivated him to turn his life around credible.
The court is persuaded that Father is fully prepared to assume a responsible role in his son's lives, as soon as they are ready to see him.
The court is cognizant of the domestic violence Amber O. suffered at the hands of Michael P. However, the court is confident the Family Court has the ability to order appropriate safeguards, so that Mother and Father do not have to meet in person to exchange children, and there will be a therapist engaged to reintegrate Father into the children's lives.
Given Mother and step-father's financial instability, it is appropriate that an order for child support pursuant to the guidelines be entered to ease the financial burden on Mother of raising two children.
Dispositional Phase
Having concluded that petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any statutory ground for termination, the court is not required to proceed to the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights.
ORDERS
The court, having considered all the statutory criteria and having found petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground exists for termination of Father's parental rights to the children, it is hereby ordered.
Mother's petition to terminate Father's parental rights is denied. The matter is referred to Family Court for further orders.