Opinion
No. H12-CP04-009643-C
June 12, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Actions have been brought by Department of Children and Families ("DCF" or "Petitioner") seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological fathers of Aniya C., Alyssia S. and Tia S. (hereinafter referred to as "Aniya C., Alyssia S. and Tia S." or "the children"). The biological mother of these children is Jennifer F. (hereinafter referred to as "Jennifer F." or "Mother"), the biological father of Aniya C. is Pierre C. (hereinafter referred to as "Pierre C." or "Father") and the biological father of Alyssia S. and Tia S. is Rafael S. (hereinafter referred to as "Rafael S." or "Father"). The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting the custody of these children and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.
The Petitioner is concerned in this action only with the Termination of Parental Rights with regard to the Father of Aniya C., Pierre C. Therefore, in the conclusion of this Memorandum, the Court will not be referring to the children, Alyssia S. and Tia S., to Mother, Jennifer F. or to Father, Rafael S. However, the Court finds it necessary for an overall view of this action with regard to Aniya C., to include a more comprehensive history.
On 9/16/04 a 96-hour hold was invoked on behalf of the children, on 9/17/04 an Order of Temporary Custody was granted on behalf of the children and on 9/23/04 the Order of Temporary Custody was sustained on behalf of the children.
On 11/15/04, the children were adjudicated neglected and uncared for and were committed to DCF by the Superior Court at Middletown. On 7/1/05, the Department filed Termination of Parental Rights on the following grounds: Ground A — Abandonment, with regard to Rafael S. and Pierre C.; Ground B-1 — Failure to Rehabilitate with regard to Jennifer F., Rafael S. and Pierre C.; and Ground D — Lack of Ongoing Parent/Child Relationship with regard to Rafael S. and Pierre C. DCF has stated that it will not be pursuing the Ground of Abandonment with regard to Pierre C.
The Court found that service had been made on all respondents in accordance with prevailing law.
In accordance with the notice to respondent Pierre C., the trial for Termination of Parental Rights as to Father, Pierre C., was set on 3/2/06 to commence on 5/5/06 at 9:30 a.m. In addition on 4/18/06, the Court found that continued efforts toward reunification were no longer appropriate as to Mother, Jennifer F. and Father, Rafael S. by clear and convincing evidence.
The trial commenced on 5/5/06 at which time Father, Pierre C., was present. At the time of the trial, DCF submitted eleven exhibits as follows:
A CPS Report Protocol dated 4/20/06 (Ex. A).
Social Study for TPR dated 6/17/05 (Ex. B).
Addendum to Social Study dated 3/2/06 (Ex. C).
Addendum to Social Study dated 5/3/06 (Ex. D).
Social Study for MMC/MRP dated 2/23/06 (Ex. E).
CV — Asha P. (Ex. F).
Letter from Asha P. dated 2/27/06 (Ex. G).
Letter from Asha P. dated 12/12/05 (Ex. H).
Letter from Asha P. dated 9/13/05 (Ex. I).
Psychological Evaluation dated 4/24/06 (Ex. J). CT Page 10884
Criminal Record Pierre C. (Ex. K).
The Respondent Father submitted three Exhibits as follows:
Parenting Certificate dated 4/6/06.
Inmate Performance Evaluation dated 3/15/06.
Inmate Performance Evaluation dated 3/29/06.
DCF presented seven witnesses:
Regina S. — Social Worker Treatment Unit Middletown DCF
Michelle E. — Social Worker Invest. Middletown.
Wendy B. — Social Worker Middletown.
William S. — Social Worker Manchester DCF.
Connie F. — Maternal Grandmother.
Asha P. — Child Therapist.
Dr. Bruce F., Psychologist.
The Respondent Father, Pierre C. testified on his own behalf.
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 petition.
I FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Background/Present Situation
Jennifer F. has had a history of transience since age 16, often relying on friends and family. She has been unable to maintain employment for more than four months' duration. She involves herself with people with whom she has protective orders due to their physically abusive behavior toward her. Jennifer F. has failed to be a supportive Mother to her daughters who have experienced sexual abuse. She was observed to treat Alyssia S. and Tia S. more like her peers rather than her children and demonstrated favoritism toward Aniya C. Jennifer F. fails to see the impact of her lifestyle of homelessness, unemployment, volatile relationships, and substance abuse and its impact on her children.
Mother has not made progress addressing issues identified by DCF. She appears to lack understanding of the need for the services and the benefit they can provide if they are utilized properly. It is very unlikely that she will be able to address the needs of her three children who will need continued counseling and support due to the traumatic events they have experienced.
Pierre C. has not provided care, financial or emotional support for his child. He has an extensive criminal history, including incarceration. He has a history of domestic violence with Jennifer F. including an assault on Jennifer F. in which he stabbed her and Jakese S. with a knife in the presence of Alyssia S. and Tia S. and his then three-year-old daughter, Aniya C. He was incarcerated on Assault and Risk of Injury charges.
DCF has been involved with this family since May 2004. The case opened on a report that the maternal step-grandfather, William Y., admitted to molesting Alyssia S. and Tia S. for over three years while Jennifer F., Mother, and said children were residing in his home.
Alyssia S. and Tia S. told Mother that maternal step-grandfather had touched them inappropriately after Mother and said children moved from the home in April 2004. Mother moved in with a friend in Middletown. This apartment was not adequate to house two mothers and four children. Both Alyssia S. and Tia S. were evaluated at the Children's Sexual Assault Unit at St. Francis Hospital. Mother has mental health and substance abuse issues. She maintained contact with Pierre C., Father of Aniya C., while he was in prison for Violation of Probation and Violation of Protective Order against her. Pierre C. was released in August 2004 and Mother continued her contact with him. She allowed him to stay at the apartment with her on a regular basis. Mother was encouraged to take Alyssia S. and Tia S. to sexual assault counseling at the inception of this case. She was also encouraged to find an apartment and employment. Mother first tested positive for marijuana on 7/27/04.
In September 2004, Jakese S., Mother's paramour at the time, and Pierre C. engaged in an altercation at Mother's apartment. Pierre C. first assaulted Mother while the children were present and then he fought with Jakese S. During the altercation, Pierre C. stabbed Jakese S. multiple times and was later arrested by police. Mother left the apartment after the incident and went to reside with maternal grandmother, Lynne Y. Mother allowed maternal grandfather, Frank F., to take Alyssia S. and Tia S. while she kept Aniya C.
Mother was homeless and engaged in domestic violence with Pierre C. She did not have a means by which she could be contacted and Aniya C. could not protect herself while she was with Mother.
On 9/16/04, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on behalf of Alyssia S., Tia S., and Aniya C. On 9/17/04, neglect petitions and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) were filed on behalf of the above-named children. On 9/17/04, the OTC was granted. The 10-day hearing was scheduled for 9/23/04, and the OTC was sustained. On 11/18/04, said children were adjudicated neglected children and committed to the care and custody of the commissioner of DCF until further order of the court. On 3/2/06, the permanency plan stating Transfer of Guardianship to Lynne Y. was approved in court.
Aniya C. has been placed with her sisters, Alyssia S. and Tia S., in a DCF Relative Licensed Foster Home since 9/16/04. Aniya C. attends a full-time daycare and is transported to and from the daycare by her foster parent on a daily basis. Said child and her sisters are in good health and are still adjusting to their placement.
Pierre C., Father, was previously incarcerated for approximately six months at the Robinson Correctional Institution for violating his probation and a protective order that was issued against him for the protection of Mother, Jennifer F. Father was incarcerated from 2/20/04 to 8/20/04 and subsequently his whereabouts were unknown for seven months. Since 4/15/05 Father has been incarcerated at Gates Correctional Institution after a sentence of 22 months on charges of Assault 2 and he is scheduled for release in February 2007.
According to Father, he has participated in three services since his incarceration, completing a parenting class, an anger management class, and he is currently enrolled in a domestic violence class. To DCF's knowledge, Father began participating in these services officially in February 2006 and has at least completed his parenting course, as evidenced by a certificate authenticating his participation. He was unable to participate in services before 10/27/05 because he had not yet been sentenced.
On 4/12/06, Father participated in an administrative case review, via telephone, to review said child's treatment plan. During this meeting Father stated that he had completed his parenting and anger management classes and he was enrolled in a domestic violence class. He also mentioned that he currently works in the prison kitchen, a claim that was previously confirmed by his counselor.
On 4/20/06, DCF received a phone message from Asha P. (hereinafter "Asha P." or "child's therapist"), LMFT, of Creative Counseling Associates, LLC, reporting that said child had a "breakthrough" on 4/19/06. Previously said child was only able to say that "Jakese was dead," however, she was now able to say that "Jakese got better and went home." The child's therapist also spoke about Father and stated that Aniya C. said that "he doesn't love me" and the counselor informed her that this was not true. Said child did not want to read Father's letters or know what was in them, however she did see one of the handkerchiefs he sent to her and said that she wanted it put back into the file. The child's therapist reported that during the next scheduled session, said child regressed and did not want to speak about Father or see any of the letters.
On 4/24/06, Father participated in a psychological evaluation with Dr. Bruce F. from 9 a.m.-1:30 p.m. Aniya C. also participated in the evaluation, however she did not engage interactively with Father, as ordered by the court on 3/2/06.
B. Mother, Jennifer F.
Jennifer F. was born on July 30, 1973 to Lynne and Frank F. The family resided in Connecticut. Her parents were divorced when she was two years old and Jennifer F. stated that the only time she saw her father was when she would walk to and from school. Frank F. remarried and his new wife is Connie F. Lynne F. remarried William Y. who is incarcerated for sexual assault on Alyssia S. and Tia S. Jennifer F. has a sister, Annie I.
Jennifer F. lived with her mother, Lynne Y. until about the age of 16 when she left because they did not get along. Jennifer F. stated that she completed the eleventh grade but did not finish high school . She obtained her GED in 1992.
Jennifer F. reported that she has been treated for bipolar disorder since age thirteen and that her father is also bipolar. She admits that she started using marijuana and alcohol at age sixteen.
Jennifer F. went to live with Bebel V. and became involved with Bebel V.'s son, Rafael S. She was 18 or 19 years old when she became pregnant with Alyssia S. She stated she left Bebel V.'s house after six months because they were not getting along. She then moved in with her mother, Lynne Y., in Middletown but several months later she moved back to Bebel V.'s house because of disagreements with her mother. Jennifer F. stated that she then became pregnant with Tia S. and after her daughter's birth she found her own apartment in Traverse Square, Middletown where she met Pierre C. in 1998. They had a six-year relationship that was on and off.
Jennifer F. was evicted from Traverse Square and went to live with her mother, Lynne Y. and her husband in Rocky Hill. She moved with her mother and stepfather to East Hartford and stayed there for about three or four months before moving with them to Manchester. Jennifer F. became pregnant with Aniya C. and stayed in Manchester until Aniya C. turned a year old.
Jennifer F., mother and stepfather were evicted and she went to a Red Cross Shelter in Middletown for about five months and then to a shelter in New Britain for about four months she had a "nervous breakdown." Jennifer F. moved back with her mother and stepfather at 30 Lisa Drive, Manchester and was kicked out in April 2003. She then moved into a two-bedroom apartment with Jennifer D. and her son.
Jennifer F. has no money or means to obtain her own residence and has resided with and relied on relatives for years. Jennifer F. worked for Dunkin' Donuts for a few months at a time in each of the towns she lived. She quit with each move. Jennifer F. worked at a convalescent home for almost a year prior to having her children. Since the case opened, Jennifer F. worked for 7-Eleven for four months from January — April 2005. She was hired by Shaw's in early June 2005. She has no military experience.
Jennifer F. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of 13 years and thinks that she was on medication. She spent some time in detention centers and in Elmcrest. She was arrested at age sixteen for Breach of Peace. Jennifer F. has no criminal record in the state of Connecticut.
C. Father, Pierre C.
Jennifer F. reported that Pierre C. was born on 11/28/74. She stated that he was incarcerated for Violation of Probation and Violation of Protective Order against her and was released in August 2004. Jennifer S. stated that she planned on reuniting with Pierre C.
Pierre C. has been in and out of prison from 1994 to 2004 due to charges including Breach of Peace, Assault 2nd and 3rd Degree, Sale and Possession of Narcotics, Violation of Probation and Violation of a Protective Order. When this case first opened, Pierre C.'s whereabouts were unknown. A warrant was issued for Pierre C. by the Middletown Police for an assault on Jennifer F. and the stabbing of Jakese S. in the presence of children. He has been incarcerated at the Hartford Correctional Institution since 4/15/05.
D. Child, Aniya C.
Aniya C. is a bright, inquisitive three and a half-year-old girl. She enjoys her daycare and playing with her siblings and neighborhood children. She has been living in foster care with her maternal grandmother since September 2004 and has adjusted well.
Aniya C. has been impacted by the problems of her parents in that her safety and wellbeing have been compromised by her Mother's choices. She has been exposed to individuals who have been arrested on narcotics and gun charges, she has witnessed domestic violence between her Mother and her Father as well as her Mother's boyfriends and she saw one of her Mother's boyfriends, Jakese S. stabbed by her Father. This has impacted Aniya C. to the point that she has told her maternal grandmother that her Father is a "wolf" and that "he killed someone."
DCF social worker, Regina S. reported that when Aniya C. lived with her Mother, she constantly had a pacifier in her mouth, would use foul language, and was not potty trained. When Aniya C. would speak, no one could understand her. The social worker has noticed changes in Aniya C. since her placement in relative foster care. She is almost potty trained, has stopped using a pacifier and does not use foul language. She can count, knows her numbers, colors and talks in complete sentences. Aniya C. has become a loving child and has said "I have two good grandmas, Grandma Connie and Grandma Lynne." She is much more social and has corrected her Mother when she has made mistakes.
Aniya C. is in counseling with Asha P. On 5/19/05 the child's therapist stated that visitation with Pierre C. would be too traumatic for Aniya C. at this time.
Aniya C. also has dental issues due to lack of appropriate care by her Mother. She has been slow in some areas such as potty training because her Mother never trained her but otherwise she appears to be doing fine. She is blossoming in the care of her maternal grandmother.
E. Relatives
Jennifer F.'s mother, Lynne Y., is the relative caregiver for three children. She is willing to adopt all three girls.
Jennifer F.'s father, Frank F. and his wife, Connie, have unsupervised visitation with all three girls every other weekend. Social worker, Regina S., reported that the girls really like being with Frank and Connie F., noting that they have been a positive influence and have taught the girls a lot. On 6/17/04, Connie F. reported that Jennifer F. would beg them for food and money two or three times a week. She stated that the girls use foul language and thinks that they hear it from their Mother. She said that Aniya C. broke a dish in her house and when Connie F. corrected her, Aniya C. said, "You shut up you dirty bitch."
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 Pierre C.'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 Aniya C., Alyssia S. and Tia S. and Crystal C. with the parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts." C.G.S. Sec. 17a-112(j)(1). "Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998). DCF has been involved with this family since May 2004.
The presenting problems with this family were medical neglect, physical neglect, substance abuse, lack of parenting skills and mental health issues.
Pierre C. is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services in that he has been incarcerated or whereabouts unknown for most of the duration of this case and has been unavailable to participate in the services necessary for reunification.
In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan.
A. Grounds for the Termination: Abandonment — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) as to the biological Father, Pierre C. as to Aniya C.
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 wellbeing 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 R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).
Ground A — Abandonment as to Aniya C. by biological Father, Pierre C.
1. Aniya C. has been abandoned by her Father in the sense that the parent failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.
2. Aniya C. was born on 8/11/01 and is almost five years old. She has been in foster care for the past nine months. Pierre C. has had no contact with her since she has been in foster care.
3. Prior to her removal, Father reported sporadic contact with his daughter. He was incarcerated for a Violation of Probation from 2/20/04 until he was released on 8/20/04. The last face-to-face contact between Father and Aniya C. was during a domestic violence incident on 9/13/04 when he assaulted Mother, Jennifer F. by punching her in the face and neck and stabbing Jakese S. with a knife several times in the side. Aniya C. witnessed this incident. This is the last memory she has of her Father.
4. From 9/13/04 until 4/15/05, Father was whereabouts unknown as he was avoiding the police to evade arrest. 5. Since his current incarceration as of April 2005, he sent one letter for his daughter, Aniya C., which was received by DCF on 6/8/05. Pierre C. does not provide financial or emotional support for his child.
6. Father knowingly engaged in criminal behavior, which resulted in his current incarceration for Risk of Injury to a Minor and Assault in the Second Degree. This has caused him to be unavailable to his child for an extended period of time.
7. Father has an arrest history dating back to 1994 for Breach of Peace, Threatening 2, Criminal Trespass, Possession of Narcotics, Sale of Illegal Drugs, Assault 2, Custody Escape, Risk of Injury, Resisting Arrest, Assault 3, Violation of Probation, and Failure to Appear.
8. Pierre C. is not a resource for his child.
B. Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) — as to biological Father, Pierre C. as to Aniya C
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 a 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 . . . 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, 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).
The respondent was advised by the court and the petitioner on numerous occasions that he needed to address his substance abuse, criminal conduct, home environment, domestic violence, mental health and employment problems. However, he has not been successful in overcoming these problems.
1. Pierre C. has failed to rehabilitate as evidenced by his failure to participate in services listed in court-ordered specific steps.
2. On 9/27/04 the following steps were ordered by the court for Pierre C.:
(a) Keep all appointments set by or with DCF;
(b) Keep your whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the children;
(c) Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals: Parenting and Individual Counseling;
(d) Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment;
(e) Submit to random drug testing;
(f) Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing;
(g) Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents;
(h) Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers;
(i) Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income;
(j) No substance abuse;
(k) No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system;
(l) Consistently and timely meet and address the children's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including, but not limited to, keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers;
(m) Make all necessary child-care arrangements insuring that the children are adequately supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers;
(n) 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 children;
(o) Maintain the child within the State of Connecticut during the duration of this case, except for temporary travel out of state with the authorization of DCF or the Court in advance;
(p) Cooperate with the children's therapy;
(q) Visit the children as often as DCF permits.
3. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of Ground A as to Aniya C. by Pierre C. are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
4. Pierre C. has been incarcerated or whereabouts unknown for the duration of the case and has been unavailable to participate in the services necessary for reunification.
5. Aniya C. was born on 8/11/01 and is almost five years old. Pierre C. has had sporadic contact with his daughter throughout her life. He has had no contact with Aniya C. for the past nine months that she has been in foster care. Aniya C.'s last memory of her Father is that in which he was punching her Mother and stabbing another man. Aniya C. resides with her maternal grandmother with whom she has a close relationship. She plans to adopt Aniya C.
D. Grounds for Termination: No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) as to biological Father, Pierre C.
This ground alleged by DCF requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means "the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child."
This statutory definition, as it has been interpreted in case law, requires a finding that "no positive emotional aspects of the relationship survive." In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459, 470, 586 A.2d 597 (1991). It is inherently ambiguous when applied to non-custodial parents who must maintain their relationship with their children through visitation." Id., 459; In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 531, 613 A.2d 748 (1992). Although the ultimate question is usually whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent, the existence of a loving relationship or a "psychological parent" relationship with one other than the natural parent does not, of itself, establish the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination. In re Jessica M., supra, 473-75.
Unlike the other nonconsensual grounds to terminate parental rights, the absence of a parent-child relationship is considered a "no fault" ground for termination. To establish this ground requires the trial court to make a two-pronged determination. First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists; and second, the court must look to the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop. The absence of a parent-child relationship can be demonstrated in situations where a child has never known his or her parents so that no relationship ever developed between them, or where the child has lost that relationship so that despite its former existence, it has now been completely displaced. In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).
Judicial interpretation has imposed a requirement that a child have "present memories or feelings" for the parent, and "at least some aspects of these memories and feelings are positive" to overcome this ground. In re Jessica M. supra, 217 Conn. 475; In re Juvenile Appeal (84-6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 195 Conn. 801 (1984). The existence of positive feelings usually depends on the viewpoint of the child. In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 35, 534 A.2d 897 (1987). As the Appellate Court recently noted, "the feelings of the child are of paramount importance." In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 602 (1999). "Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only." Id.
Ground D (No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship) as to Father, Pierre C. as to Aniya C.
1. There is no on-going parent/child relationship with respect to the Father that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met, on a continuing day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional, moral, or educational needs of the child.
2. Paragraphs 1-8 of Ground A as to Aniya C. by Pierre C. are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
3. Paragraphs 1-5 of Ground B1 as to Aniya C. by Pierre C. are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
4. Pierre C. was released from prison in August 2004 and had contact with Aniya C. until 9/13/04 when he assaulted Jennifer F. and stabbed Jakese S., in front of his daughter. Pierre C. was whereabouts unknown until 4/15/05 as he was avoiding the police due to an arrest warrant. He has had no contact with his daughter since her removal on 9/16/04.
5. Pierre C. has been incarcerated since 4/15/05 and his anticipated release date is February 2007.
6. Pierre C. has requested visitation with his daughter in prison. Aniya C.'s therapist has stated that it would be too traumatic for her. Aniya C.'s last memory of her Father was that of him stabbing a man and punching her Mother in the face and neck.
7. Aniya C. is a young child. She is bonded to her maternal grandmother and thrives in her home, seeking comfort and attention from her. She has no present positive memories of her Father. She told her grandmother that her Father killed someone and her maternal step-grandmother that her Father is a "wolf" and "he killed someone."
Summary of Adjudicatory Findings
This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence that Pierre C., the biological Father has failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of his having neglected Aniya C., and has failed to maintain a parent-child relationship with her.
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 Pierre C.'s parental rights, as he did not consent, 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."Pierre C. did not participate in any services due to his voluntary criminal behavior resulting in incarceration and being whereabouts unknown when not incarcerated.
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 but due to Pierre C.'s incarceration and his whereabouts being unknown the efforts have been almost impossible to effect.
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 the court orders addressed to Father was signed as court-ordered specific steps on 9/17/04. Pierre C. was not present in court and has not complied with his steps. Through his voluntary criminal behavior, Pierre C. has not made himself available to participate in services which are required for reunification, in a reasonable time for the best interest of the child. Pierre C. has been whereabouts unknown or incarcerated for the duration of the case. CT Page 10900
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 Father. The child is bonded and has significant ties with her relative caregivers, with whom she has lived since 9/16/04.5. "The age of the child."
Aniya C. will be five years old in August 2006.
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."Pierre C. has made little effort to adjust his circumstances to permit his child to safely return to his care. He has failed to maintain regular contact with his 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 Pierre C. to maintain a meaningful relationship with his child; neither economic circumstances nor the unreasonable actions of any person have prevented him from having such a relationship.
B. Best Interest of the Children
Aniya C. has been placed with her sisters, Alyssia S. and Tia S., in a DCF Relative Licensed Foster home since 9/16/04. She attends a full-time daycare and is transported daily to and from the daycare by her foster parent. Said child and her sisters are in good health and are still adjusting to their placement.
Father, Pierre C. was previously incarcerated for six months, from 2/20/04 through 8/20/04, at the Robinson Correctional Institution for violating his probation and a protective order that was issued against him to protect Mother, Jennifer F. DCF is unclear as to how much contact Father had with said child during his incarceration; however Mother reportedly maintained contact with him during his imprisonment. Father reportedly visited with said child after his release from prison from 8/20/04 to 9/11/04.
On the night of 9/11/04, Father engaged in a physical altercation at Mother's residence in which he assaulted Mother by punching her in the neck and head, and stabbed Jakese S. multiple times. During the assault, Aniya C. and her sisters were present in the home and witnessed the incident. Father fled the scene of the crime and a warrant was issued for his arrest stemming from charges of Assault 2 and Risk of Injury to a Minor. Father was eventually arrested in April 2005 and incarcerated. Father has not participated in his court specific steps as his whereabouts were unknown until his arrest. Father made no attempt to contact DCF or said child during this time, although he reported having ongoing contact with Mother. He was sentenced to 22 months incarceration and is scheduled for release in 2/07.
On a few occasions Aniya C. has made comments regarding the incident on 9/11/04 to several people. The first recorded occasion of said child referring to the incident was reported to DCF on 1/26/05 by Lynne Y., foster mother, who informed DCF that said child, on at least two occasions, mentioned that she saw her Father "stab Jakese around his head and there was lots of blood." Said child began therapy with Asha P., LMFT, of Creative Counseling Associates, LLC on 4/04/05 to address the trauma she experienced as a result of the incident.
On 4/05/05, Mother informed DCF that during one of her visits, said child pretended to cook food and serve it to her. When said child handed Mother the knife, she had it in the position as if to stab someone.
On 4/10/05, Aniya C.'s maternal step-grandmother, Connie F., informed DCF that during a trip to get some ice cream, said child observed some children with their parents getting ice cream and told Connie F. that "My daddy is a wolf, he killed a man." Connie F. tried to address the issue with said child and inform her that her Father did not kill anyone; however Aniya C. reportedly was adamant about what happened and repeated that her father killed someone.
On 5/19/05, DCF spoke with Aniya C.'s therapist, Asha P., regarding the possibility of said child visiting Father in jail. The child's therapist reported that such a visit would be too traumatic for said child and that she had not yet spoken about Father in the sessions. The therapist stated that she introduced a toy butter knife with other toys in a session and said child identified it as a butter knife when asked, but shut down when other questions were asked about it.
On 6/23/05, DCF received a phone call from the child's therapist reporting that during the child's session of that week she brought up the subject of her Father. She reported during that session that she did not want to see Father. The child's therapist mentioned that Father had written a letter to her and Aniya C. said she did not want to see it.
On 8/9/05, DCF spoke with the child's therapist who mentioned that she received the letters Father wrote to Aniya C. from Middletown DCF and reported that she did not feel comfortable sharing the letters with Aniya C. and that Lynne Y. feels the same way due to Aniya C.'s feelings regarding contact with Father.
On 9/1/05, DCF spoke with the child's therapist who reported that at the most recent counseling session on 8/27/05, Aniya C. took two male dolls and had them have a fight, one went to the hospital and the other doll was arrested. The child's therapist reiterated that she did not recommend that DCF give said child any items, including letters, from her Father as this might be too "traumatic" for her. She stated that Aniya C. does not make mention of Father, but instead talks about "Michael M." having a knife. She believes that the incident was so traumatic for said child that she uses the character of Michael M. to represent Father. She also reported that this particular counseling session was the first time that Aniya C. showed her fear of Father, especially as that fear related to his release from jail.
On 9/12/05, Mother reported to DCF that Aniya C. told her that "Daddy is mean, he made you cry mummy and he made you bleed and Daddy Jakese is dead." Mother reported that said child spoke to her about Jakese S. but never brought up Father's name. On the same day, DCF spoke with Lynne Y. who mentioned that Aniya C. refers to Father as "Michael Myers" and her sisters do not mention either Father or Jakese S.
On 10/17/05, DCF social worker, Camille S. asked Aniya C. about Father and she responded by saying that he killed someone. On 12/05/05, DCF spoke with the child's therapist who reiterated that said child was still not ready to see, speak, or receive correspondence from Father.
On 1/31/06, DCF social worker Tiffany S. supervised a visit between Mother, Aniya C., and her sisters at the DCF office. During the ride to the office, said child's sisters spoke about their father who resides in Germany and Aniya C. quickly mentioned that her father "killed Jakese."
Father has sent written letters to his daughter through DCF in an attempt to contact said child. DCF has held said letters in accordance with the recommendation made by the child's therapist. DCF is in possession of approximately 17 letters from Father, with 16 of them addressed to Aniya C. and one addressed to her sister, Tia S. The letter addressed to Tia S. is a card for her birthday. The first letter is postmarked 8/5/05 and the latest letter received by DCF was on 2/27/06. According to reports, Father last had physical contact with the child on the night of 9/11/04 when he physically assaulted Jakese S. at Mother's home.
The main barrier that is preventing DCF from allowing Aniya C. to visit with Father has been her fears of him with regard to the traumatic incident on 9/11/04. Her therapist clinically recommended that the child not see Father due to the negative impact it might have on her mental wellbeing. In the therapist's professional opinion, the child would be re-traumatized and would completely decompensate if she were forced to see Father when she was not ready, especially since she has expressed that she does not want to see him at this time. The therapist has provided DCF with letters on three separate occasions (9/13/05, 12/12/05 and 2/27/06) discussing her clinical impressions and offering her recommendations. As a result, DCF has suspended all visits and contact with Father. Dr. Bruce F. interviewed Father.
Pierre C. and Aniya C. and spoke on the telephone with therapist, Asha P., in accordance with a court-ordered Psychological Evaluation. The evaluation was entered with the court as Exhibit J. The doctor testified on the trial and some excerpts of that testimony are included as follows:
Q [ AAG] You did an interview of Mr. C. and you took history from him and did you note whether or not he had any working history?
A. He told me that basically he had only worked at regular jobs for short periods of time on a part-time basis usually, but mostly had supported himself through selling drugs.
Q. There has been testimony with respect to a stabbing incident in September 2004, and of domestic violence with Aniya C.'s mother. In the history that you took from Pierre C., did you note a longer history of violent behavior and just what notable incidents of violent behavior did he note to you?
A. He had explained to me that he had a relationship that started when he was 17 years old with a previous girlfriend. He had two children with her, there had been some domestic violence incidents with her. And he had been arrested for domestic violence with her.
Q. How does this employment history, and this history of violent behavior that you obtained from him relate to your prognosis from Pierre C.?
A. Well, the way that it relates to my prognosis is that when I am evaluating him as a person, and making predictions about future behavior, I'm particularly looking at his likelihood of functioning as a supportive parent. And in both of those areas, I would be very concerned about his ability to function as a parent.
Q. Given that history that you described, what does that do to your prognosis for rehabilitation for him?
A. Well, I think it's possible for him to eventually rehabilitate enough to live in society on his own, but in the foreseeable future to rehabilitate in terms of being a parent who a child could live safely with, I think his prognosis in the immediate foreseeable future is poor.
Q. Now if you were given information that he completed anger management and domestic violence programs, does that at all impact on your recommendations that essentially DCF should not be working any further for reunification in this case?
A. In this particular situation, my evaluation is extremely fresh. I just interviewed Pierre C. very recently. And any classes that he completed were certainly not reflected in any of the attitudes or behavior he described to me. So my opinions about his prognosis and my concerns about any contact with the child would remain unchanged.
Q. You gave an MMPI to Pierre C. Without going over the total results, were there any scales that were extremely elevated that were concerning to you?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. Which scales?
A. The test you're referring to is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. It's a personality test that's probably the most widely used objective personality test in the world. It's been used for 60 years and highly regarded. And often when people take it in a forensic setting, they will be on their guard, and so the profile may not indicate much in the way of potential problems. In Pierre C.'s case, there were several scales that were significantly elevated. Two of those were measures of anger and hostility. That's one. And the other one was a measure of extreme suspicion and mistrust of others. There were two additional scales measuring anxiety and depression that were also elevated. If you take those — all those scale elevations together, they portray a person who is not comfortable with themselves, has a lot of underlying anger and resentment, is likely not to trust people, and is likely to have problems in relationships with people in an on-going way. And in addition, I found that the scale elevations and the overall description that they create, are very consistent with the history that he gave me.
Q. You mention in page 6 of your report that Pierre C. showed a significant history of impulse control problems. What's that based on? That statement in your report?
A. Much of what he told me is his own history. Much of it is not documented objectively, but just based on his own history, he showed many problems; involvement in all kinds of criminal activity, a disregard for the safety and rights of others, lack of concern for children, for the wellbeing of individuals, not thinking out his actions in advance. All of those going to that heading of impulse control problems.
Q. Okay, now turning to your evaluation of Aniya C., okay. Aniya C. made certain statements as to her father. Could you describe just in context, how these statements came up? I mean did you elicit them from her? I mean how did it — that she made these statements?
A. It was my understanding that she had not seen her biological father in a couple of years or so. But I asked her if she knew who Dad was, or knew who Pierre C. was, and she immediately recognized who that was, and spontaneously made some statements about him, that he was mean, and that he had killed a man and told me the man's name. And I recognized that name from the written records as to the subsequent boyfriend of the child's Mother.
Q. What was her affect and her body language when she was making those statements?
A. I don't recall that when she made those statements to me she was showing particular distress, but this is something that she's gone over with — I know a number of times with her counselor and other people so that I think the immediate impact of talking about that was not evident to me in the child's demeanor.
CT Page 10907
Q. In your opinion does Aniya C. have any parent child relationship with her father?
A. In my opinion, no.
Q. And does she have any present positive memories of her father?
A. Not that I could detect in any way.
Q. You were saying that the prognosis for Pierre C. to rehabilitate to the point of being able to parent a child was poor for the immediate future. If you were to give any prediction of the amount of time necessary for such rehabilitation, would you be able to give some type of an estimate?
A. I saw no sign of even the preliminary steps that would allow me to say, all right, based on this progress, the fact that he's incarcerated, or may have taken some classes in prison, did not show any effect on the attitudes that were displayed in the interview. So I would say having not arrived at step one of rehabilitation, it would certainly be years.
Q. And you gave, based on your evaluation of Pierre C., and your evaluation of Aniya C., and your discussion with the child's therapist, do you have an opinion as to the effect the contact with Pierre C. would have on Aniya C. at this point in time?
A. My opinion would be that the child would resist that contact to the best of her ability being 4 years old. If the contact was forced upon her, she would be re-traumatized, and by being re-traumatized basically two things would happen. Number one, she would show all the typical symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder which she had already displayed when she went to the foster home. Those would include things like bed wetting, being afraid at night, having night terrors, needing to sleep with somebody, being over sensitive to anything that reminded her of the original incident — could also produce other behaviors. But those are the primary ones, and I know from talking to the therapist that she had already displayed those previously. Somewhat settled down in the safety of the foster home, but I have no doubt that if she was re-traumatized, all of those symptoms would come back in force causing her to deteriorate psychologically. Then the second thing that would happen from forcing the contact was that because she's only 4 and a half years old, she's been though, you know, many things that no child should experience. She's already got difficulty, you know, trusting people. And whoever she has established some trust in so far, which might include the DCF social workers, her counselor, her foster mother, if she were forced to have this prison visiting, she would lose her trust in all of those. She would know that despite their best intentions none of those people are in any way able to protect her. They pay no attention to the thing she says, and they don't really care about her. And at age 4 that could be very damaging to a child who has made so much effort to start trusting people again.
Q. [ Attorney for Child] So it'd be safe to say that you'd conclude that there should be no reunification efforts made for the child with Pierre C., correct?
A. If I was asked that, yes, that's what I would say.
Q. And right now based on what you've learned about her present circumstance where she is, who she's involved with, you mentioned something about trust there on — would it be detrimental for this child to have anything to do with the father of this time?
A. Yes, that's my opinion.
Q. [ Attorney for Father] Now factoring in her age, she was 3 when this happened, she's 4 and three quarters now, and she's been in therapy for about a year, I guess, we've heard a lot about how she's been so traumatized by this incident and hasn't had any contact with her father since April of '05 that we're aware of or May of '05. As she ages, from when this incident occurred, could her perception of these events be somehow heightened, or could she be more traumatized by not having any contact with her father, and in fact, when she thought this other man was dead who's not dead, could things have built up in her mind to be something more horrible than perhaps they could have appeared to her.
A. I mean it's possible — however, what we know of children's memory from the studies of children's memories at young ages is that incidents that have a big emotional impact on them — they tend to remember them pretty well. Now, you know, they remember them to the best of a three year old's ability to understand. You know, we can see that she has some distortions. The man didn't die. The best the most probable explanation is that she is describing this incident to the best of her ability, that it made a big impact on her. And I know from talking to the therapist, I have some idea of what she said when she first arrived there, and how her conversations and explanations about the incident have progressed.
Q. I know you said in your report — you didn't recommend that she have cards or letters from her father. Her father has written a number of cards and letters to her. Is there anyway that you can see that the child's — could perhaps incorporate a positive view of her father if they — and I'm thinking of this developmentally because she's so young, but — and her memory may be of just that one moment but could she — we've been told she's been fearful of her father, could she come to see another side of her father and see that she doesn't have anything to be afraid of with him? Could that work be done?
A. I guess it's conceivable that something like that could take place, but that — anything like that has to take place within a context. In other words, to force the child to go through these painful memories and all the rest of it, there would have to be a good reason for it. And in my mind, it would have to be based on, first of all, a foundation of, for example, of the two of them living together, and the father providing parenting, and other things that were really important and nurturing to this child so that you're trying to build upon that foundation and get past this something that accidentally happened. I don't think that's the case here. And so to try to force this child to see the good side of her father, you know, that would be, I think, very beneficial for the father. It would be detrimental for the child though.
Q. The explanation of that incident where he expressed concern about the man that was using drugs that was in the apartment and wasn't supposed to be there. Is there any way that — if he's saying to you that I did this because I was upset for my children's — for my child's safety that this man was there — is there any way that you can reconcile that with the fact that what he did was violent, in going there, and the fight that ensued, and the injuries to this other person. Is there anyway that could reconcile if he was coming from a place of being very upset about the safety of his child albeit he used poor judgment — is there anyway that you can — not justify it, but understand the level of his anger about —
A. Oh, I understand. I absolutely understand that he was angry. And I even have a general idea why he was angry, however, I'm going by my most detailed account of what happened is just by his description And from his description, he basically came into the house, found the mother locked in the bathroom with this child, broke into the bathroom, then had this confrontation with the man. Then went back to the bathroom, punched the mother twice in the face. Then went to the kitchen, got a knife and stabbed the boyfriend. And the children were — I don't know exactly where they were, but they were around. So regardless of his feelings, and why he did it, that's still exposing the children to some bad things.
Q. Dr. I know that you said in terms of how Aniya C. reacted to this, that you feel this would be traumatic for her to revisit this at this point in time until she's ready. Could you project ahead to the future when this child is a little bit older as to whether she would be able to — she has any type of ability to have contact with her father, would she be able to resume any type of a normal relationship with him.
A. Well, you say resume as if they had a normal relationship before. I didn't really hear any evidence of that. So there's nothing to resume, but if he wanted to have a relationship with her, I know from research and from my own practice, that sometimes when people reach adulthood they have curiosity and interest in biological parents. And they go looking for them. In situations like this, those reunions, a great majority of them work out poorly, and are detrimental to the people that go looking, however, that doesn't mean that she won't do it. She may go looking for him.
Q. Is it possible to project how long it would take this child to address the trauma that she's experienced, that she's — from her therapist, we're hearing the child is exhibiting?
A. Well, the therapist reported that she's seen the child, I believe, for about a year.
The child has made very slow painstaking progress. In the beginning she couldn't even really relax enough to play with this woman. But gradually she has come — made some progress, the therapist has been able to, for example, talk to her about the incident, enough to explain to her that the man didn't die. She's made progress so that she's sleeping a little bit better at the foster home, although by sleeping better, I mean instead of sleeping in grandma's bed with her for security, she can now sleep in her own bed but in the grandmother's room. The bed has to be there. So it's slow progress. That's a very severe trauma and it could take a few years to get over it fully.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the children's best interests for Termination of Parental Rights to enter with respect to her biological Father, Pierre C.
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 Aniya C.'s best interests to terminate the parental rights of Pierre C., the biological Father of the child. Accordingly, it is ordered that his parental rights to Aniya C. are hereby terminated.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for this child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and permanent placements for this 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.