Opinion
No. T11-CP04-011822-A
October 18, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On September 27, 2006, after a trial, this court (Crawford, J.) denied a petition for the termination of the parental rights of the mother filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"). Such court also issued several orders, including the following:
. . . 4. DCF is no longer required to make reunification efforts with father.
5. DCF will continue monthly visitation with father.
6. DCF will file at CPS within 30 days a new permanency plan with the goal of reunification with mother. Such plan shall consider the following:
(a) The agreement concerning monthly visitation between father and child,
(b) resumption of visits with mother, at a minimum, equivalent to father's, and possibly return to the schedule at the time of the suspension. This should be considered with professional assistance.
On October 27, 2006, DCF filed a motion to review the permanency plan and to maintain commitment. The permanency plan goal set forth in such motion was reunification with the mother. DCF also alleged that it had made reasonable efforts to achieve such plan.
DCF appealed the decision of this court denying its petition, and such appeal is currently pending before the Appellate Court.
On October 15 and 17, 2007, this court heard
1. such DCF motion for review of such permanency plan;
2. the child's motion, joined in by DCF, to terminate visitation by the father;
3. the mother's motion for visitation; and
4. the father's motion for change of venue.
The court rules on such motions as follows:
1. As to the DCF motion for review of the permanency plan:
DCF has complied with the order of this court set forth above. The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve such plan.
In accordance with its statutory obligation to do so, on or before November 2, 2007, DCF shall file in this court (CPS)(1) the annual motion to review its permanency plan (such plan to set forth the goal(s) DCF believes to be in the best interest of Selena) and (2) the required social study, and such motion shall be scheduled for hearing after the thirty-day period for objections to the plan has expired. See, generally, Practice Book § 35a-14.
"Permanency plan" is defined in Practice Book § 26-1(i) as follows:
"Permanency plan" means a plan developed by the Commissioner of Children and Families for the permanent placement of a child in the commissioner's care. Permanency plans shall be reviewed by the judicial authority as prescribed in General Statutes §§ 17a-110(b), 17a-111b(b), 46b-129(k) and 46b-141.
General Statutes § 17a-110(b) provides:
Not later than January 1, 2000, the Department of Children and Families shall adopt regulations, in accordance with chapter 54, to establish standards for permanency plans which shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Assessment of kin, foster parents or other potential adoptive parents for adopting a child; (2) preparing children for adoption; (3) collaboration between family foster care services and adoption services; (4) transracial and cross-racial adoption; (5) open adoption; and (6) foster care and adoption subsidies. General Statutes § 17a-111b(b) provides:
The Commissioner of Children and Families or any other party may, at any time, file a motion with the court for a determination that reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with the child are not required. The court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion not later than thirty days after the filing of the motion or may consolidate the hearing with a trial on a petition to terminate parental rights pursuant to section 17a-112. The court may determine that such efforts are not required if the court finds upon clear and convincing evidence that: (1) The parent has subjected the child to the following aggravated circumstances: (A) The child has been abandoned, as defined in subsection (j) of section 17a-112; or (B) the parent has inflicted or knowingly permitted another person to inflict sexual molestation or exploitation or severe physical abuse on the child or engaged in a pattern of abuse of the child; (2) the parent has killed, through deliberate, nonaccidental act, another child of the parent or a sibling of the child, or has requested, commanded, importuned, attempted, conspired or solicited to commit or knowingly permitted another person to commit the killing of the child, another child of the parent or sibling of the child, or has committed or knowingly permitted another person to commit an assault, through deliberate, nonaccidental act, that resulted in serious bodily injury of the child, another child of the parent or a sibling of the child; (3) the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated within three years of the filing of a petition pursuant to this section, provided the commissioner has made reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with the child during a period of at least ninety days; (4) the parent was convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of sexual assault, except a conviction of a violation of section 53a-71 or 53a-73a resulting in the conception of the child; or (5) the child was placed in the care and control of the commissioner pursuant to the provisions of sections 17a-57 to 17a-61, inclusive.
General Statutes § 46b-129(k) provides:
CT Page 17395
(1) Nine months after placement of the child or youth in the care and custody of the commissioner pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement, or removal of a child or youth pursuant to section 17a-101g or an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, whichever is earlier, the commissioner shall file a motion for review of a permanency plan. Nine months after a permanency plan has been approved by the court pursuant to this subsection, the commissioner shall file a motion for review of the permanency plan. Any party seeking to depose the commissioner's permanency plan shall file a motion in opposition not later than thirty days after the filing of the commissioner's motion for review of the permanency plan, which motion shall include the reason therefor. A permanency hearing on any motion for review of the permanency plan shall be held not later than ninety days after the filing of such motion. The court shall hold evidentiary hearings in connection with any contested motion for review of the permanency plan. The commissioner shall have the burden of proving that the proposed permanency plan is in the best interests of the child or youth. After the initial permanency hearing, subsequent permanency hearings shall be held not less frequently than every twelve months while the child or youth remains in the custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families. The court shall provide notice to the child or youth, and the parent or guardian of such child or youth of the time and place of the court hearing on any such motion not less than fourteen days prior to such hearing.
(2) At a permanency hearing held in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection, the court shall approve a permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child or youth and takes into consideration the child's or youth's need for permanency. The child's or youth's health and safety shall be of paramount concern in formulating such plan. Such permanency plan may include the goal of (A) revocation of commitment and reunification of the child or youth with the parent or guardian, with or without protective supervision; (B) transfer of guardianship; (C) long-term foster care with a relative licensed as a foster parent or certified as a relative caregiver; (D) adoption and filing of termination of parental rights; or (E) such other planned permanent living arrangement ordered by the court, provided the Commissioner of Children and Families has documented a compelling reason why it would not be in the best interest of the child or youth for the permanency plan to include the goals in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of this subdivision. Such other planned permanent living arrangement may include, but not be limited to, placement of a child or youth in an independent living program or long-term foster care with an identified foster parent.
(3) At a permanency hearing held in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection, the court shall review the status of the child, the progress being made to implement the permanency plan, determine a timetable for attaining the permanency plan, determine the services to be provided to the parent if the court approves a permanency plan of reunification and the timetable for such services, and determine whether the commissioner has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan. The court may revoke commitment if a cause for commitment no longer exists and it is in the best interests of the child or youth.
(4) If the court approves the permanency plan of adoption: (A) The Commissioner of Children and Families shall file a petition for termination of parental rights not later than sixty days after such approval if such petition has not previously been filed; (B) the commissioner may conduct a thorough adoption assessment and child-specific recruitment; and (C) the court may order that the child be photo-listed within thirty days if the court determines that such photo-listing is in the best interest of the child. As used in this subdivision, "thorough adoption assessment" means conducting and documenting face-to-face interviews with the child, foster care providers and other significant parties and "child specific recruitment" means recruiting an adoptive placement targeted to meet the individual needs of the specific child, including, but not limited to, use of the media, use of photo-listing services and any other in-state or out-of-state resources that may be used to meet the specific needs of the child, unless there are extenuating circumstances that indicate that such efforts are not in the best interest of the child. General Statutes § 46b-141 is not applicable to this child protection proceeding.
2. As to Selena's motion, joined in by DCF, to terminate visitation by the father:
Selena's therapist and the DCF worker currently assigned to the family convincingly explained why at this time it is not in Selena's best interest for the father to have visitation with her. For example, the therapist testified that Selena states "very clearly in her own words" that she feels unsafe and is not comfortable with the father, and that she remembers incidents of verbal and domestic abuse caused by the father. It is more probable than not that forcing Selena to continue to visit with the father would impede the progress she is making with the therapist on eliminating her sometimes disturbing negative behavior, including but not limited to severe temper tantrums lasting up to thirty minutes, which negative behavior she has made progress in controlling after months of work with such therapist, and after her failure to do so with prior therapists. Such motion to terminate visitation thus is granted.
3. As to the mother's motion for visitation: This court denies such motion. See General Statutes § 17a-10a.
On December 16, 2004, this court (Graziani, J.) found that further efforts by DCF to reunify the mother with Selena were no longer required. In its September 27, 2006, decision, this court (Crawford, J.) did not specifically address whether such finding was vacated, and whether DCF was again required to make such reasonable efforts, including but not limited to facilitating visitation by the mother. To date the mother has not moved to modify such December 16, 2004, finding. Notwithstanding any initial comments by the court during the hearing, after further review and consideration by the court of the prior decision, the court determines that the December 16, 2004, finding by Judge Graziani that further efforts by DCF to reunify the mother with Selena were no longer required remains in effect.
4. As to the father's motion to change venue: Such motion is denied. DCF intends to file another petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father. Pursuant to Practice Book § 33a-3, venue for such petition is in a regional court different from the regional court to which the father sought to have this case return for further proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. Additionally, during the pendency of an appeal, the original file remains at CPS. The court thus denies the father's motion to change venue.