In re Zianae W.

Full title: IN RE ZIANAE W

Court: Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield Juvenile Matters at Bridgeport

Date published: Dec 28, 2005

2005 Ct. Sup. 16883 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

Opinion

No. F04-CP03-005851-A

December 28, 2005

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ARTHUR C. HADDEN, JUDGE.

On July 15, 2005 the petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (DCF) filed a petition pursuant to Section 17a-112 of the Connecticut General Statutes to terminate the parental rights of Dana W. and John Doe to their minor child, Zianae W. In its petition DCF seeks to terminate the parental rights of the mother, Dana W. and the father, John Doe, on the grounds of abandonment, failure to rehabilitate and no on-going parent to child relationship.

The court finds that notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the provisions of the Practice Book. The court further finds that the Superior Court, Juvenile Matters Division, has jurisdiction over the pending matter and that no action is pending in any other court affecting custody of the child. "The termination of parental rights is defined as the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and his [or her] parent . . . [As such, it] is a most serious and sensitive judicial action." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jonathan M., 255 Conn. 208, 231, 764 A.2d 739 (2001); In re Bruce R., 234 Conn. 194, 200, 662 A.2d 101 (1995). The termination of parental rights is governed by statute. C.G.S. § 17a-112. In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must prove a ground alleged in the petition, as of the date of filing the petition or the last amendment, by clear and convincing evidence. In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63, 597 A 2d 842 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 901, 599 A.2d 1028 (1992); In re Teresa S., 96 Conn. 18, 29, 491 A.2d 355 (1985); Practice Book § 32a-3(b), 35a-7. Only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition. In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984); In re Karrlo K., 44 Conn.Sup. 101, 106, 669 A.2d 1249 (1994), aff'd, 40 Conn.App. 73, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996). Termination of parental rights trials proceed in two stages: the adjudication and the disposition. The adjudicatory stage invokes the issue of whether the evidence presented established by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more of the statutory grounds as of the date the petition was filed or last amended. In re Juvenile Appeal (84-AB), 192 Conn. 254, 264, 471 A.2d 1380 (1984). "Pursuant to Practice Book § 35a-7 in deciding the adjudicatory phase of the hearing for the termination of parental rights, to trial court's inquiry is limited to the events and facts preceding the filing of the petition for the termination of parental rights [or last amendment]." In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 357, 776 A.2d 487 (2001). However, "[i]n the adjudicatory phase, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time." In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000) (emphasis in original); see In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App 742, 748, 789 A 2d 1024 (2002). If at least one pleaded ground to terminate is found, the court proceeds to the disposition stage. The court must consider whether the facts, as of the last day of trial, establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the child's best interest. Procedurally, the evidence as to both adjudicatory and dispositional phases is heard at the same trial without first determining if the state has proven a statutory ground for adjudication before consideration of the dispositional question. In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 688-89, 741 A.2d 873 (1999); In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. at 258; State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 155, 172-73, 425 A.2d 939 (1979); In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 102, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000); In re Emmanuel M., 43 Conn.Sup. 108, 113 648 A.2d 904, (1993), aff'd, 35 Conn.App. 276, 278 648 A.2d 881, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915, 648 A.2d 151 (1994); In re Nicolina T., 9 Conn.App. 598, 602, 520 A.2d 639, cert. denied, 203 Conn. 804, 525 A.2d 519 (1927).

On June 11, 2003 an Order of Temporary Custody and a neglect petition were filed in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. The Order of Temporary Custody was granted on June 11, 2003 and subsequently sustained on June 18, 2003. On January 13, 2004, Zianae W. was adjudicated as an uncared for child and committed to the Department of Children and Families.

I. FACTS

The credible evidence admitted at trial established the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:

A. MOTHER-DANA W.

Dana W. is an eighteen-year-old, single mother of one child. Mother was sixteen years old at the time of the birth of her child, Zianae W. Both mother and child were the subject of an Order of Temporary Custody in June of 2003 and both mother and child were committed to the Department of Children and Families in January of 2004. At that time mother and child were placed together in a relative licensed foster home. In May of 2004 and again in August of 2004 mother ran away from foster homes, leaving the child behind. Following a reunion of mother and child, Dana W. was advised in September of 2004 that she and the child could be placed at the St. Agnes Home. Mother refused that placement and subsequently signed a Department of Children and Families "Refusal of Services" form despite having been advised that such action would lead to the separation of mother and child. Since that time the child has resided with foster families. Mother has not maintained a stable place of residence and, at present, refuses to report where she resides to the Department of Children and Families. Mother has maintained sporadic contact with the child.

Mother, Dana W., admitted using marijuana during her pregnancy. At birth Zianae W. had a positive toxicology for marijuana. Mother has admitted marijuana use while in foster care and has been resistant to substance abuse treatment. Mother's conduct establishes that she is unable or unwilling to recognize that her substance abuse issues directly affect her ability to parent her child appropriately.

B. FATHER-JOHN DOE

The father of Zianae W. is unknown. Dana W. initially report that Benny G. was the father, however, genetic testing established that he was not the biological father. Subsequently, Lester C. came forward and indicated that he could be the father, however, genetic testing, once again, established that he was not the biological father of Zianae W. Dana W. has refused to provide any further information regarding the father of her child.

C. CHILD — ZIANAE W.

Zianae W. is a two-year-old female child of uncertain heritage. She was born full term to a teen-aged mother, following a pregnancy with no prenatal care. At birth Zianae had a positive toxicity for marijuana. No known father has been a part of the child's life. Despite frequent moves and changes in her life, Zianae has developed normally. In general, she has enjoyed good health.

Zianae was placed in her first foster home on June 11, 2003. She lived in that home for four months until she was placed with a relative. Her mother joined her in the home until May of 2004 when the mother left the home and abandoned the child. Subsequently, mother and child were reunited in another foster home, however within three months mother again ran away leaving the child behind. At that time the child was reported to be insecure and confused.

In September of 2004 Zianae was placed in a DCF Legal Risk home. In July of 2005 Zianae was placed in another DCF Legal Risk home and she continues to reside there with her foster parents. Zianae has a strong, affectionate relationship with her current foster parents. The child refers to her foster parents as "mom and dad" and these foster parents have expressed an interest in adopting Zianae.

II. FINDINGS A. Finding regarding the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by a child-placing agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.

Dana W. has been offered substance abuse treatment, visitation, reunification services, parenting education and counseling services since the birth of Zianae. She has either failed to engage in such services or failed to complete the appropriate programs. It would appear that mother has failed to gain any insight into her situation and has not benefitted from her limited participation in the offered services. Mother was discharged from her substance abuser program for noncompliance with program requirements. She has not located or established suitable housing or a legal income. She was discharged from the Reunification Program. While the Department of Children and Families has repeatedly offered visitation with Zianae, mother's visits with the child are sporadic and superficial.

Zianae's father is unknown and mother has refused to disclose any information that might assist in identifying the father.

B. Finding regarding whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

In addition to the findings of paragraph A of this decision, it should be noted that the Department of Children and Families referred mother to the following programs and services:

The Child Guidance Center Parenting Academy for parenting classes;

Connecticut Renaissance Substance Abuse Program;

Regional Network for Out-Patient Substance Abuse Program for individual drug counseling and drug treatment;

Exchange Club Parent-Aide Program;

Counseling by the Department of Children and Families; and

The Child Guidance Reunification Program.

DCF also maintained contact with the mother and attempted to arrange and facilitate visitation with the child. In addition, the Department of Children and Families attempted to arrange for placement of the child with various relatives.

As noted previously, the father of Zianae is unknown and mother has refused to disclose any information that might assist in identifying the father.

C. Finding regarding the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or child-placing agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order. CT Page 16888

On June 11, 2003 Judge Hudock ordered the mother to complete the following Specific Steps:

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF;

Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem;

Keep whereabouts known to DCF and your attorney;

Visit the child often as DCF permits and demonstrate appropriate parent/child interaction during visits;

Participate in parenting classes and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals;

Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF and make progress toward the identified goals;

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment;

Successfully complete substance abuse treatment and follow recommendations regarding aftercare treatment, including relapse prevention. Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of that testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.

Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before the court;

Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income;

No substance abuse;

No involvement or further involvement with the criminal justice system.

Despite these specific orders of the court, mother, Dana W. has missed appointments with the Department of Children and Families and with service providers; been out of contact with DCF for significant periods of time; failed to attend approximately 50% of the arranged visitations with Zianae; tested positive for marijuana use while in treatment with the Connecticut Renaissance Substance Abuse Program; initially failed to comply with substance abuse treatment and after eventual completion of said treatment, failed to comply with the requirement for submission to random urine testing; failed to obtain and maintain adequate housing; and failed to obtain and maintain a legal income. Mother has complied only with the orders to sign appropriate releases and avoid involvement with the criminal justice system.

As previously noted the father of Zianae is unknown and therefore no specifics steps were ordered concerning father.

D. Finding regarding the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of the 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.

Zianae has demonstrated no emotional bond with mother. The child has been placed in four foster homes. In three of those foster homes Zianae was placed with her mother. Mother, Dana W., however, left these homes and left the child behind. During the limited visitation between mother and child, the child is described as uninterested and unresponsive to mother. The relationship between mother and child is superficial. In contrast, the child displays great affection for her current foster parents. Those foster parents have expressed an interest in adopting Zianae.

Zianae has no relationship with her biological father. She has begun to use the word "Daddy" in regard to her current foster father.

E. Finding regarding the age of the child

Zianae was born on June 10, 2003 and she has been in foster care since birth. This two-year-old child needs a sense of permanency. Given the mother's failure to take advantage of casework services and her failure to have consistent contact with her child, it is not appropriate to allow the mother further time to rehabilitate. Such a delay would be detrimental to the development of the child.

F. Finding regarding the efforts the parents made to adjust such parents' circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return the child to the parents' home in the foreseeable future, including but not limited to: 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 the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child

The mother has made minimal effort to change her circumstances for the benefit of the child. Mother has lived an unstable lifestyle since the birth of her child. She has left or run away from foster homes, leaving the child behind. She has failed to maintain a regular visitation schedule with the child. Mother's efforts at substance abuse treatment, like her visitation efforts, have been sporadic. Mother failed to take advantage of The Child Guidance Reunification Program and was discharged unsuccessfully from that program. Mother has no stable housing nor reported legal income. Mother has refused to provide information concerning the child's father and the father remains unknown.

G. Finding regarding 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

The mother has never been prevented by any person or agency from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child. Mother has chosen to leave DCF care, chosen to discontinue the services provided by DCF and chosen to virtually abandon the child. The father is unidentified and unknown.

III. CONCLUSION

The clear and convincing evidence presented compels the findings that:

1. each parent has abandoned the child in the sense that the parents failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child;

2. each parent, after the child had been found in a prior proceeding to have been uncared for has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable amount of time, considering the age and needs of the child, that they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child; and

3. each parent has no ongoing parent-child relationship with the child that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having continuing, day to day basis the physical, emotional, moral or educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.

Based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Dana W. and John Doe is in the best interest of the child. Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for Zianae. She is now in a foster home where she is very well cared for by foster parents who wish to adopt her. Zianae is benefiting from the permanency and stability of that placement. Both parents have not achieved rehabilitation or made sufficient improvements in their abilities to care for their child and are not in a position to provide day to day care for the child. The father has never been identified nor come forward. Given mother's failed attempts in services and at treatment programs, there is little, if any, likelihood of her improving to the point where she could be a responsible parent in the future. In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his environment; his length of stay in foster care; the nature of his relationship with foster parents and biological parents; the degree of contact maintained with his biological parents; and his genetic bond to respondents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). The court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with his biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity). Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that termination of respondents' parental rights is in the child's best interest. Zianae is entitled to a resolution, without delay, of the period of uncertainty as to the availability of respondents to serve as her parents by terminating respondents' parental rights. After considering the child's sense of time, her need for a secure and permanent environment, the need to avoid future placements, and the totality of circumstances, the court concludes that termination of parental rights of respondent mother and father is in the children's best interest. It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Dana W. and John Doe are hereby terminated as to the child Zianae W. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child. With regard to the permanency plans for the child, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as to the child and finds that such plans are in the best interest of the children. The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans. A permanency plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law. Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered.