Opinion
No. H12-CP03-009007-A
March 7, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These are actions brought by Department of Children and Families ("DCF") seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and biological father of Nayelis I. (hereinafter referred to as "Nayelis I."). The biological mother of the child is Nairoby S. (hereinafter referred to as "Nairoby S." or "Mother") and the biological father is Edson I. (hereinafter referred to as "Edson I." or "Father"). The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting Nayelis' custody and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.
On April 10, 2003, an Order of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petition was filed by DCF, State of Connecticut in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters on behalf Nayelis I.
The allegations of the petition were Neglect and Uncared for in that the child was denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally. She was permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well being, and she was uncared for in that the child's home could not provide the specialized care which the physical, emotional or mental condition of the child required.
On July 14, 2003, Nayelis I. was adjudicated neglected and uncared for and was committed to the Commissioner of DCF by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford, Connecticut. On March 2, 2004, the court made a finding that the commitment of Nayelis I. should be maintained until further order of the court. Petitions for the Termination of Parental Rights was filed on August 6, 2004.
The biological Mother and biological Father were both served with notice of the petition of Termination of Parental Rights.
The Mother, Father and child were each represented by their own counsel throughout the proceedings. Nayelis' counsel supported the DCF petitions. On October 20, 2004, the court entered a default judgment for failure to appear with regard to the Father and set the date of November 23, 2004 for a default trial if Mother was to agree to a consent on that date. At that time the court set a trial for the termination with regard to Mother and Father of January 10, 2005, in the event Mother had not consented prior to that date. Thereafter the trial of this matter was held on January 10, 2005.
At the time of the trial the State submitted exhibits and witnesses. Exhibits consisted of a Social Study for the Termination of Parental Rights dated October 19, 2004, an Addendum to the Social Study of October 19, 2004 dated November 9, 2004, a Psychological Evaluation dated July 7, 2003 and a Psychological Evaluation dated June 15, 2004.
The grounds of this petition for the Termination of Parental Rights as to Mother are abandonment and failure to rehabilitate. However, at the time of the trial, DCF withdrew the ground of abandonment and proceeded only on the ground of failure to rehabilitate. The grounds for the petition for the Termination of Parental Rights of Father are abandonment and failure to rehabilitate.
The court carefully considered all the evidence presented at trial. The court applied the burden of proof applicable to the termination of parental rights petitions. Only evidence relevant to the adjudication date was considered as a part of adjudication proceedings on the termination petitions.
I FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Background/Present Situation CT Page 4313
DCF had been involved with this family since January 2001, as a result of the maternal grandmother contacting the New Britain Police Department looking for her fifteen-year-old daughter Nairoby S. and her two-week-old son Joseph. Mother was found by the police and discovered to not have any supplies or formula for her son. Mother was described as lacking parenting skills and extremely immature. Joseph did not appear well so he was taken to the hospital by the police where he was admitted and incubated. The child was diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial virus. At that time, Mother was under an order of protective supervision due to the maternal grandmother's physical abuse, inadequate supervision and a long history of drug addiction. Guardianship of Joseph was removed from Mother and warded to Ada S., a maternal aunt.In October 2002, a report was made on behalf of Nayelis I., and although it was not substantiated, reported concerns. On February 2003, another report was made for Mother feeding infant Nayelis I. whole milk, the case being closed after mother was referred to MIOP.
On April 7, 2003, maternal grandmother made a report after she broke the windows of Mother's boyfriend's car to prevent Mother from leaving with him. Mother's boyfriend was a drug dealer. Nayelis I. was present during this incident.
Mother has a history of domestic violence with her mother and men, is immature, has unsteady housing and poor parenting skills. Mother has admitted to a long history of substance abuse, non-compliance with treatment, homelessness and criminal behavior associated with substance abuse.
Mother's whereabouts were unknown to DCF since September 2004 when she stopped attending visits with her children. On October 19, 2004, Mother contacted DCF social worker Bentham and reported that she had separated from her boyfriend, Javier R. She stated that her father was physically abusive to her and that three weeks prior he had punched and hit her. She reported that he was in a romantic relationship with Mother's cousin with whom he is living. Mother reported that she is four months pregnant with Javier R.'s child but that he will not acknowledge paternity until a paternity test is done. Mother stated that she is living with her cousin Maria Isabel G. and maternal grandmother again.
Due to Mother's non-compliance with her visits with her children, her services from Preschool Intervention Program ended. The DCF social worker addressed with Mother this lack of contact with her children. Mother reported that she did not attend the visits because of the problems she was having with Javier R. DCF will need to make other visitation arrangements at the DCF office.
Father's whereabouts are unknown to DCF at the present time. His mother, who has supervised visits with Nayelis I., reported that Father moved to Florida with his girlfriend.
B. Nairoby S., Mother
Nairoby S. was born on May 26, 1985 in Hartford, Connecticut. Her father was a drug addict and she was raised by her mother and a stepfather. She is the youngest sibling of two sisters and two brothers. Her relationship with her stepfather was good, but she has had a history of physical abuse by her mother. Her stepfather was killed and she lived in New Britain with her mother and siblings until she was 16 years old. They later moved to Hartford, where maternal grandmother continued having issues with crack cocaine addiction and child protective service issues which resulted in DCF becoming involved.
Mother has a tenth-grade education level and received special education classes in school. Mother does not report any mental health treatment.
At age 15, Mother met Jesus S. They moved to Puerto Rico and she became pregnant with Joseph S. Mother was physically abused by Jesus S. so she returned to Connecticut with the assistance from a domestic violence program.
Joseph S. was removed from her care on February 16, 2001 on a 96-Hour-Hold due to Mother's unstable and unsafe housing. Mother placed him with her maternal aunt voluntarily.
Mother then met Edson I. through her brother who was Edson I.'s cellmate in prison. She became pregnant by him shortly after meeting him and gave birth to their daughter, Nayelis I. She reported that Edson I. was physically abusive to her.
Mother met Jose M. after Nayelis I. was born and while Edson I. was in prison serving a drug-related crime. Jose M. also has a long history of drug sales activity and domestic violence issues against other women. Mother reported that she met him through maternal grandmother as he sold drugs to maternal grandmother. He was also physically abusive to her and despite this, Mother continued living with him at maternal grandmother's home after Nayelis I. was removed from her care. She became pregnant by him although she was not sure if he was the father as she became involved with another man, Javier R. and Jose M. was then arrested for weapon possession. Mother reported that she did not know that he had a gun while they lived together. Mother gave birth to her third child Alex in May 2004, not knowing which man was the father. DCF removed Alex from Mother's care one day after Alex's birth. Mother continued living with Javier R., reporting arguments with him and going back and forth from Javier R.'s home to maternal grandmother's home. Mother continued having weekly supervised visits with her children at Preschool Intervention Program until September 2004.
C. Edson I., Father
Edson I. was born in San Gennan, Puerto Rico to Rosa H. and Jose I. He is the oldest of one sister and two brothers. He reported that he lived in Puerto Rico as a young child and moved to New Britain, Connecticut with his mother when he was 8 years old.
Edson I. reported that he has a long history of criminal involvement which began when he was 12, stealing cars. He was admitted to Long Lane until age 18. He was incarcerated for 3 years at age 18, for drug sales. He was released from prison at age 21 but shortly returned to drug sales and was incarcerated again for 18 months. He was incarcerated again at age 23 until 2001. In 2002 he was incarcerated again for drug sales and discharged on January 2004. In March 2004 he was discharged to Berman Substance Abuse Treatment Center for 30 days. From there he was discharged to Sillman Halfway House for 30 days. DCF referred him to a substance abuse evaluation at Wheeler Clinic which recommended relapse prevention treatment, but he never followed through with attendance. Visits with Nayelis I. were provided while he was at these facilities and on April 2004, after discharge from Sillman House, the visits were arranged to be supervised at Preschool Intervention Program. He reported that he moved in with a girlfriend after he was discharged from Sillman House. In May 2004, he requested a change of visitation schedule because he had obtained a job. DCF offered to change the visits after he got out of work but he has not followed up with more visits since the end of May 2004. He then reported that he had lung cancer which has spread to his stomach.
D. Nayelis I., Child
Nayelis I. was born on September 18, 2002 at Hartford Hospital in Hartford, Connecticut. She has been healthy and does not have any developmental delays. She continues living with the foster family who has cared for her since June 2003. She is very bonded to her foster family whom she recognizes as her family. Her visits with Mother have always been irregular and she has not developed any attachment with either of her biological parents. Nayelis I. is now a cheerful and affectionate two year old living in a nurturing and structured home environment. Nayelis I.'s foster family wants to adopt her.
E. Relatives
DCF assessed Nayelis I.'s paternal grandmother but due to her own history with DCF, she was not eligible.
DCF then assessed Nayelis I.'s paternal aunt Eslaringa P. and began the process of licensing her. Eslaringa P. then stated that due to medical reasons she would be unable to care for Nayelis I.
DCF requested information about Mother's maternal aunt who has custody of mother's oldest son, Joseph, but Mother stated that maternal aunt had indicated that she could not care for more children. Nayelis's maternal grandmother and Mother's siblings do not qualify due to their own child protective service issues.
II TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION
The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Nairoby S. and Edson I.'s parental rights as of the date of the filing of the petition.
A. Reasonable Efforts Finding
Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, DCF, in order to terminate parental rights, initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child[ren] with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts." C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(l). "Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).
Inasmuch as a finding has been made that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, the court will review services that have been provided to Mother and Father to assist them in their ability to parent their children to address their mental health, unstable housing and for other services that may be appropriate. Parents have been unable to demonstrate to DCF that they can provide their child with a safe, stable and secure home.
The following services were offered to Mother and Father to reunite them with their child:
DCF referred Mother to Interval House Domestic Violence Program twice.
DCF referred Mother to parenting class at The Institute for the Hispanic Family.
DCF referred Mother to individual counseling at the Institute for the Hispanic Family.
DCF referred Father to substance abuse assessment at The Wheeler Clinic.
DCF referred Father to substance abuse treatment at The Wheeler Clinic.
DCF referred Father to parenting education/services at Preschool Intervention Program.
DCF referred Mother to parenting education/services at Preschool Intervention Program.
B. Grounds for the Termination: Abandonment — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) as to the biological Father.
This ground is established when the child has been abandoned by the parent 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. Sporadic efforts are insufficient to negate the claim of abandonment. The test for determining abandonment of a child for purposes of termination of parental rights is not whether a parent has shown "some interest" in his or her child, but rather, whether the parent has maintained any reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare. In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 36, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).
Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts and financial support are indicia of "interest concern or responsibility." In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 209, 504 A.2d 533 (1986).
The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes: (1) express love and affection for the child; (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child; (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care; (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted. In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17-18, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993); In re Roshawn P. 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).
Ground A — Abandonment as to Nayelis I. by biological Father, Edson I.
1. Father has not seen child for five months.
2. Father has not maintained contact with DCF to find out how the child was doing or to ask how he could contact the child.
3. Father has not supported the child either physically, emotionally or financially.
4. Father made no financial contributions to his child's maintenance.
5. Father's whereabouts have been unknown since referral. He has not come forward despite DCF's efforts to locate him.
Edson I. has failed to display any attribute of parental obligation. He has manifested no affection, interest concern or responsibility whatsoever as to his child's welfare. In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 37-38, 534 A.2d 897 (1987); In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 121-23, 614 A.2d 832 (1992).
C. Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) — as to Father, Edmond I. and Mother, Nairoby S.
The Commissioner has alleged as another ground for termination that the parents have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child has been adjudicated as neglected in a prior proceeding. This ground for termination, based upon the prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) states in part that:
[t]he Superior Court . . . may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the child . . . has been found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected . . . in a prior proceeding . . . and the parent of such child has been provided with specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent . . . and 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.
Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a respondent to a constructive and useful role as a parent. In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 203, 504 A.2d 532 (1986). The parent's compliance with expectations or steps set after the adjudication of the neglect or uncared for case or the parent's success in fulfilling service agreements entered into with DCF are relevant, but not dispositive, to the rehabilitation finding. In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 167-68, 5545 A.2d 722 (1989). The ultimate question is whether the parent at the time of the filing of the termination petition is more able to resume the responsibilities of parents than he or she was at the time of the commitment. In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 126, CT Page 4320 614 A.2d 832 (1992).
Whether the age and needs of the child would support allowance of further time for the parent to rehabilitate must also be considered. In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 167. The reasonableness of the time period within which rehabilitation is sought to be accomplished is a question of fact for the court. In re Davon M., 16 Conn.App. 693, 696, 548 A.2d 1350 (1988). Also, in determining whether further allowance of a reasonable period of time would promote rehabilitation, a court can consider efforts made since the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. In re Sarah M., 19 Conn.App. 371, 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).
Ground B1 — Failure to Rehabilitate After Adjudication as to Nayelis I. by Nairoby S.
1. At and prior to the time of commitment of Nayelis I., contributing factors in the neglect of Nayelis I. were Mother's history of domestic violence with men and her mother, unstable housing, lack of parenting skills and inability to provide a stable home for Nayelis I.
2. Throughout the time from the first DCF involvement on 4/7/03 through the present, Mother has been informed by the Court and DCF that she needs to attend individual counseling, domestic violence services, parenting services and provide adequate housing for her child.
3. On July 14, 2003, the Court ordered Mother to appropriate specific steps but she has failed to comply as follows:
a. Keep your own whereabouts known to DCF, cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and with visits by the child's court appointed attorney.
Since the family's involvement with DCF, Mother has attended only one ACR meeting out of the three scheduled. She has kept home visits DCF has scheduled with her.
b. Keep whereabouts known to DCF and her attorney.
Mother has not kept her whereabouts known to DCF. In December 2003, Mother's whereabouts were unknown to DCF and service providers. It was then found out through Preschool Intervention Program, that Mother was at a homeless shelter. On February 2004, Mother's whereabouts were again unknown to service providers and DCF. Mother moved out of the homeless shelter and did not notify providers or DCF. Two weeks later Mother contacted Preschool Intervention Program which informed DCF of Mother's whereabouts. In May 2004, Mother left maternal grandmother's home again and moved in with her boyfriend, Javier R., and did not notify DCF. DCF became informed after calling maternal grandmother's home. In September 2004, Mother's whereabouts were unknown again to DCF and providers. In October 2004, Mother informed DCF that Javier R. left her and that she is living with her mother and cousin.
c. Visit the children as often as DCF permits.
Since the time Nayelis I. was removed from Mother's care, DCF made arrangements for weekly supervised visits and parenting education to be incorporated with the visits. This referral was made on April 28, 2004, with a visitation schedule set for Wednesday from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to begin on May 7, 2004. Transportation to and from the visits were provided to Mother. The Program reported that Mother would still be sleeping when the van went to pick her up for the visit. The Program decided to purchase an alarm clock so that Mother would wake up on time, but the issue continued. Mother then reported that maternal grandmother had stolen her alarm clock to buy drugs. On May 12, 2004, Mother had a scheduled visit with Nayelis I. which she cancelled because she was ill, although she did not cancel her visit with her newborn son, Alex, scheduled one hour later at the DCF office. Mother's visits have always been reported as inconsistent having last attended in September 2004. She reports that she has not attended since then because of her problems with her boyfriend.
d. Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals.
In April 2003, DCF referred Mother to Interval House Domestic Violence Program for individual counseling and case management for her domestic violence issues. Mother only attended the first appointment on May 27, 2003. She was discharged from Program on July 21, 2003, due to lack of progress and lack of motivation toward receiving services. In August 2003, DCF made a second referral to Interval House which Mother agreed to attend. On August 15, 2003, Mother was discharged again for her non-compliance with attendance.
In June 2003, Mother was referred to parenting class at The Institute for the Hispanic Family. On August 14, 2003, Mother was discharged for non-attendance.
DCF continued trying to engage Mother with counseling but Mother did not follow through with recommendations. On February 26, 2004, Mother admitted that she had not contacted Interval House as she had agreed to. DCF attempted a different referral to individual counseling at The Institute for the Hispanic Family. The initial evaluation was completed on May 17, 2004. Arrangements for counseling were made with Mother but she did not follow through. On July 9, 2004, Mother again agreed to return to The Institute for the Hispanic Family for counseling, but she never did.
e. Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF, and make progress toward the identified goals.
In May 2003, Mother agreed to a referral to CREC Parent Aid Program, which would provide Mother with a parent aide in her home once a week to address her on her parenting skills, organization, and housing. The Program coordinator reported that Mother lacked progress and commitment and would not be present for her scheduled appointments, as well as not following service recommendations. Assistance with obtaining housing was attempted but Mother would not show up for the appointments. This provider recommended more intensive parenting and case management services. Mother agreed to referral to Family Life Education and the parent aide services ended in October 2003.
Family Life has provided a family support worker to Mother for their teen and young parent support program. Mother attended a high school support group on Wednesdays from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. and her family support worker would provide services at Mother's home. Mother has not returned to services since early June 2004 and the goals for housing have not been accomplished.
f. Recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment.
Mother's service providers were Preschool Intervention Program which provided weekly parenting education/services and visitation services; and Family Life Education which has kept Mother's case open even though Mother has not attended since June 2004. All other service providers closed Mother's case.
g. Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid future domestic violence incidents.
Mother reported that she had obtained a restraining order for Jose M., father of her third child, who was reportedly making death threats from jail. Mother is demonstrating that she continues having relationships with men which are perpetuated by domestic violence, as admitted by her on October 19, 2004 regarding the domestic violence with Javier R., father of her unborn child.
h. Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income.
Mother is homeless. She continues to be transient, living at times with maternal grandmother, with Javier R., presently again with maternal grandmother and a cousin. On July 9, 2004, DCF again offered Mother assistance with a referral to a transitional housing program for women in Bristol, CT. She again refused assistance and stated that if she would change her mind she could contact a DCF social worker. Presently, she reports that she is looking for an apartment. Mother is unemployed and does not have an income.
i. Other: Seek birth control counseling.
Mother has not followed recommendations for birth control. On May 4, 2004, she gave birth to a third child who is now committed to DCF. Hospital staff reported that birth control was offered to her but she refused it.
On October 2004, she reported that she was four months pregnant with her fourth child.
Ground B1 — Failure to Rehabilitate After Adjudication as to Nayelis I. by Edson I.
1. At and prior to the time of commitment of Nayelis I., contributing factors in the neglect of Nayelis I. were Father's inability to provide a stable and safe home for said child due to his long-standing career of criminal activity which caused him to be consistency in and out of prison during Nayelis I.'s life.
2. Child was adjudicated neglected on 7/14/03 and committed to DCF.
3. From the first DCF involvement of 4/7/03 through the present Father has been informed by the Court and DCF that he needs to address his substance abuse issues and anger management, secure stable housing and legal income and participate in individual counseling.
Despite Father's knowledge of his responsibility to his child, Father chose to continue to be involved in criminal activity causing him to be incarcerated and away from his daughter for long periods of time.
To date, Father has failed to address his substance abuse issues and has failed to maintain contact with his daughter.
On 7/14/03, the Court ordered father to implement the following specific steps, inter alia, and he has failed to comply as follows.
a. Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced and with visits by the child's court appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.
Father kept his appointments with DCF while he was incarcerated, and later discharged to Berman inpatient substance abuse treatment program and Sillman Halfway House. Father was notified of the ACR appointments. He has not attended any of the two ACR's scheduled since he was discharged from prison.
b. Keep your whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney and attorney for the child.
Father only kept his whereabouts known while he was in inpatient treatment at Berman Treatment Center and at the Halfway House. When he was discharged from the Halfway house he reported that he had moved in with his mother in New Britain, CT.
On May 26, 2004, Father attended a court-ordered psychological evaluation with a woman whom he introduced as his girlfriend. She reported to DCF social worker that Father has been living with her and her children.
c. Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals.
Father attended and completed a parenting class while incarcerated. The plan DCF made with Father was that upon his completion of outpatient substance abuse treatment, he would attend individual counseling, however, he did not comply with treatment.
d. Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.
The Department of Corrections transferred Father to inpatient substance abuse treatment at Berman Treatment Center. He completed this from 1/9/04 to 2/24/04. From there he was transferred to Sillman Halfway House. DCF social worker met with Father on 3/5/04 at the halfway house were he agreed to attend a substance abuse assessment and individual counseling. On 3/5/04, DCF referred Father to the Wheeler Clinic for his substance abuse evaluation and drug screen. This assessment was completed on 3/9/04. The recommendations were for Father to begin attending relapse prevention groups. He attended only one group on 3/29/04 and never returned to the groups in which he requested participation at the Plainville facility. These groups run for 12 weeks, from 12:00 p.m. — 1:30 p.m. Father was discharged from the program in April 2004 for lack of attendance at treatment. Father agreed to a second referral to the Wheeler Clinic. DCF social worker made the second referral on 5/27/04. He was scheduled to attend on 6/24/04 but he never attended.
e. Submit to random drug testing; time and method of the testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.
Father has not submitted to drug testing.
f. Recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment.
Preschool Intervention Program for visitation services and parenting education services closed for Father. Wheeler Clinic for substance abuse treatment closed Father's case.
g. Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income. Father has not produced any evidence of having a legal income.
Father is currently residing with a girlfriend.
h. No substance abuse.
DCF does not know the status of Father's substance abuse.
i. Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child.
Father has not kept DCF informed of his household changes.
j. Visit the child as often as DCF permits.
While Father was incarcerated, DCF provided monthly supervised visits in prison. During his stay at Berman Treatment Center and Sillman Halfway House, DCF continued providing weekly supervised visits.
On April 5, 2004, Father agreed to have his visits at Preschool Intervention Program after he was released from the halfway house. Visits were scheduled at Preschool Intervention Program on Thursdays from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to begin on April 8, 2004. Father began attending the visits but wanted to bring in his girlfriend. DCF social worker explained to him that this was not only a visit but also a parenting program for him to improve his parenting skills and to also assess his parenting abilities. Father lied to the staff stating that DCF had approved his girlfriend's participation. He would become upset every time this was clarified again with him. On May 26, 2004, he requested for the visits to be changed to Mondays because he had gotten a job. Preschool Intervention Program was unable to provide the change due to a schedule issue so the DCF social worker arranged for an after-hour visit which would not interfere with his schedule. Father then reported that he has lung cancer which has spread to his stomach and he has not attended the visits nor has he contacted DCF to inquire about Nayelis I.
Father's last contact with Nayelis I. was on June 21, 2004 during a visit which DCF provided to Nayelis I. and her paternal grandmother.
Ground D — No ongoing relationship as to Father, Edson I. CT Page 4327
1. Paragraphs 1-5 of Ground A as to Nayelis I. by Edson I. are hereby incorporated by reference.2. The child has no present memories of the Father in that the child has not seen the Father since June 21, 2004.
3. During the few visits between Father and child, the Father evidenced little interest in the child, showed no warmth or affection for the child and no capacity to develop a relationship with the child.
4. The lack of visits by Father demonstrates that he has little interest in the child and does not have the capacity to develop a parental relationship with the child.
5. The child does not have a connection or bond with her Father. The child does not recognize her Father as her parent in that she would not seek comfort from or go to her Father to have her needs met.
6. The child is significantly bonded with her foster parents. The child seeks comfort from her foster parents and goes to them to have her needs met.
7. Father does not have the knowledge, skill or capacity of dealing with the child on a day-to-day basis.
Summary of Adjudicatory Findings
This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that Father, Edson I. has legally abandoned Nayelis I.; (2) that there is no parent-child relationship between Edson I. and Nayelis I.; (3) that Edson I., Father, and Nairoby S., Mother, have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Nayelis I.
III DISPOSITION
Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights, applying the appropriate standard of proof the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial, establish, by clear and convincing evidence, after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest. If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.
A. C.G.S. § 17a-112(k) Criteria
The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.
Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Edson I.'s and Nairoby S.'s parental rights, as they did not consent [but rather nolo contendere pleas in writing were filed and accepted by the court], the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k). In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).
These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
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."
Nairoby S. and Edson I. have been provided with ample services to facilitate the return of their child. The services, as described above, were appropriate, were offered on a timely basis and were made available to the parents.
2. "Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended."
DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.
3. "The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order."
The terms of court orders addressed to the parents are described above; the parents have not fulfilled their obligation under those orders.
4. "The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his parents, any guardian of such child's 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."
The child has little if any positive feelings toward her parents but appears bonded with and has significant emotional ties with her current foster parents, with whom she has lived since June 1, 2003.
5. "The age of the child."
Nayelis I. is two years old.
6. "The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to such child's 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 that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child."
The parents have made little effort to adjust their circumstances to permit their child to safely return to their care; they have failed to maintain regular contact with the child or with DCF.
7. "The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child 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."
DCF has encouraged the parents to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child; neither economic circumstances nor the unreasonable actions of any person have prevented the parents from having such a relationship.
B. Best Interest of the Child CT Page 4330
Nayelis I. was born on 9/18/02, is a healthy toddler who has been out of her parents' home and care since 4/10/03. She is in need of a family that will attend to her needs as the Mother and Father are unable or refuse to do. The current foster home is willing to adopt said child should her parent's rights be terminated. Nayelis I., given her young and impressionable age, requires parents who are attentive and who possess parental competencies, capable of meeting her present and ongoing physical, emotional and educational needs. She requires parents who are emotionally stable, capable of providing consistent guidance and structure on a long-term basis. Nayelis I. has not seen her Mother for over a month and has not seen her Father for five months. Her Mother and Father have been non-compliant with the court and DCF expectations so that the child could be reunified with them.Termination of parental rights is in the best interest of Nayelis I. so she can have permanency in her life. The child has bonded to her foster family who have provided care for her since she was an infant.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interest for a termination of parental rights to enter with respect to Edson I. and Nairoby S., biological parents.
IV CONCLUSION
The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Nayelis I.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Nairoby S., the biological Mother, and Edmond I., the biological Father, of Nayelis I. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Nayelis I. are hereby terminated.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for the child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for the child.
The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as are required by state and federal law and which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of this child.
BY THE COURT,
WOLLENBERG, J.