Opinion
W10CP16017261A W10CP16017262A W10CP16017263A W10CP16017264A W10CP16017265A
01-26-2018
IN RE APPLELONIA H.[1] In re Samuel H., In re Zoila H., In re Naydean H., In re Galatian H.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Spellman, J.
On May 25, 2017, Joette Katz, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, filed petitions pursuant to C.G.S sections 17a-112 et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Savannah H. to the minor children Applelonia H. (d.o.b. 8/10/09), Samuel H. (d.o.b. 04/28/11), Zoila H. (d.o.b. 04/26/12), Naydean H. (d.o.b. 08/20/13) and Galatian H. (d.o.b. 08/25/15). The petition also seeks to terminate the parental rights of Samuel G., (putative father of Applelonia H., Samuel H. and Zoila H.), Luis M., putative father of Naydean H. and Santiago P. and Hugo C., the two putative fathers of Galatian H. None of the parents is a member of any American Indian Tribal Nation. The court is not aware of any other proceedings pending in any court regarding the custody of the two children. This court has jurisdiction.
None of the four putative fathers appeared at any point in these proceedings. Service as to all four was found in the underlying neglect proceedings and they were defaulted for failure to appear. Notice by publication of the termination of parental rights petition was found as to each of the four putative fathers and they were all defaulted for failure to appear on June 14, 2017.
The mother of the five children, Savannah H., contested the termination petitions.
The grounds alleged in the petition as to each of the four putative fathers are grounds " A" (that the children have been abandoned in that the parent failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child), " B1" (that the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parent has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in their lives) and " D" (that there is no ongoing parent-child 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 that to allow further time for the development of such a relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child).
The grounds alleged in the petition as to the mother of the five children is " B1" (that the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parent has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives).
The case came before this court on December 8, 2017. The mother and the children were represented by competent counsel. At commencement of trial, the respondent mother was advised of her rights in accordance with In re Yasiel R., et al., 317 Conn. 773 (2015).
The court heard a full day of testimony. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the court accepted into evidence as full exhibits petitioner’s exhibits " A" through " U" with the exception of " S" which remained marked for identification. Respondent mother’s exhibit " 1" was marked for identification and exhibit " 2" was admitted as a full exhibit. The petitioner called as witnesses Diana Lagrega, a social work supervisor with the Department of Children and Families, Laurie Mazzamurro of Alaveh Family Services, and Tina Duvall and Maxine Hill of United Services. The respondent mother testified on her own behalf. All counsel had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing before the court. The court had the opportunity to observe all witnesses and evaluate their credibility. The court has also reviewed all exhibits.
After considering the testimony of all witnesses and examining the documents in evidence, the court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:
On or about July 24, 2016 a referral was made to the Department of Children and Families regarding the respondent mother yelling at and humiliating the children and using physical discipline and having lack of supervision over the children. A home visit was conducted in response at which it was learned that the mother had recently relocated from Florida. She admitted to using physical discipline, using objects such as a belt. Applelonia presented with a belt mark on her thigh and the mother admitted to hitting her with a belt. Samuel presented with marks on his forearm due to being hit with a cell phone charger by the respondent mother’s live-in boyfriend Casper M., who later admitted to causing this injury.
It was learned at time of the home visit that Galatian had never been seen by a pediatrician since his birth when he was hospitalized for over a week due to not being able to breathe as an infant. The respondent mother did not follow recommendations for aftercare.
The respondent mother for some reason does not feel bonded to her child Zoila. This was noted at time of initial home visit and admitted by respondent at time of trial. At the initial home visit the respondent mother was observed to have very little patience with all the children and admitted that she struggles to parent them. She failed to provide supervision when they were outside playing on stairs and she was short tempered with them.
On July 31, 2016, a subsequent referral was accepted after Willimantic Police received 911 calls by concerned citizens noting three young children, (later determined to be Samuel, age 5, Zoila, age 4 and Naydean, age 2), were walking down Main Street in Willimantic unsupervised. The respondent mother had left the children in the care of Mr. M. who had consumed alcoholic beverages and fell asleep while the respondent mother had relied on him to take care of the children.
During the pendency of these proceedings the respondent mother made the decision to marry Mr. Gaspar M., who had admitted to striking her son Samuel with a cell phone charger and who had fallen asleep after drinking when he was supposed to be caring for her young children at which time they walked the streets unsupervised.
On August 8, 2016, the Department of Children and Families received a same day report from a worker for Intensive Family Preservation regarding her intake with the family. The disclosure indicated a potential of the respondent mother to wake up one day, snap and kill her own minor child Zoila. The respondent mother admitted to slapping the minor child Zoila, treating her poorly and never wanting her. The child, according to the mother and perhaps not surprisingly was " always throwing up." The respondent mother reported that she no longer wanted Zoila in her home, had no feelings for the child, and felt the child would be better off someplace else where she would no longer be mistreated. Ms. H. stated that when pregnant with Zoila she had an appointment to get an abortion and Zoila’s father beat her up to keep her from going. The respondent mother reported that Zoila was hospitalized twelve times in Florida saying her face would swell up for unknown reasons. A 96-hour hold was invoked and the child Zoila was placed in a licensed foster home. All of the children were observed to have an unkempt appearance. Zoila had a bruised round lump on her forehead. There were no toys or play things for the children. The following day, the respondent mother expressed relief that this child was no longer in her home. Concerns and observations about respondent mother’s parenting of all 5 children included physical abuse, medical negligence, and lack of emotional and physical connection to the children. On that following day, a 96 hour hold was invoked on behalf of the other 4 children. When they left the home, the respondent mother did not say goodbye to them and the children did not cry.
There is a child protective services history in the state of Florida which includes allegations of domestic violence between the respondent mother and Samuel G., (putative father of Applelonia H., Samuel H. and Zoila H.), and allegations of physical abuse of the children.
On August 11, 2016, the petitioner filed a motion for an order of temporary custody and petitions of alleged abuse and neglect. On August 16, 2016, the respondent mother appeared in court and was advised of her rights. Counsel was appointed for her, service of process was found and the order of temporary custody was sustained.
On October 19, 2016, the respondent mother entered into a nolo contendre plea as to the neglect petition and after being fully canvassed, that plea was accepted by the court. The respondent mother put on the record that she agreed to a disposition of commitment. Disposition was deferred due to an incorrect birth date in notice by publication to one of the putative fathers and to allow corrective republication. Final specific steps were ordered as to the respondent mother. After corrective publication, disposition was entered on November 23, 2016, when the court (Boland, J.) found all five children neglected and that it was in their best interest to commit the children to the custody of the Commissioner of DCF.
Respondent mother’s compliance with specific steps has been inconsistent at best and much delayed. She was referred to Northeast Clinical to work on exploring effects of her own childhood and how it has impacted her parenting and the minimal amount of nurturing she has provided to the children. She attended for October through December 2016, at which time she stopped attending, indicating she did not want to talk about her past anymore. The Department referred the respondent mother to Positive Parenting Program (Triple P). She worked with this program until December 2016, at which time she stopped attending.
In March 2017, DCF referred the respondent mother to Accelerated Resolution Therapy, with Dr. Suzanne Ciaramella.
In April 2017, a referral to Parenting Support Services through United Services was made.
The respondent mother, who had her first child at age 15 and had her 5th child, Galatian, shortly after turning 21, was removed herself as a child from her parents care. Her father had substance abuse issues and was physically violent with her on at least one occasion. She witnessed domestic violence between her parents. She only completed 8th grade and has yet to receive a GED. To her credit, she seems to have avoided substance abuse herself. She suffers from depression and often does not want to get out of bed nor clean her house. She was a victim of intimate partner violence at the hands of Samuel G. for 9 years. She reports that during that time Samuel G. was physically, verbally and emotionally abusive to her children as well. She moved to Connecticut in May 2016 to be with Mr. Gaspar M. During the pendency of these proceedings she married him.
As noted in footnote 2, Mr. Gaspar M. was in a caretaking role and fell asleep while intoxicated when the respondent mother’s children were found roaming the streets of Willimantic unattended. He was also criminally charged for hitting the respondent mother’s child with a cell phone charger. He also has a child with her older sister and he was charged with sexual assault of the respondent mother’s sister. These charges were reportedly dropped when the sister did not appear to testify.
The months of serious delays in seeking treatment are very concerning. While counsel for the respondent mother argued that such delays are not unusual and perhaps to be expected when depression is such a significant issue for a respondent, the lives of the children go on while the parent attempts to rehabilitate to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in their lives. More significant than the delay in participating in treatment is that there is clear and convincing evidence that the respondent mother has not achieved personal rehabilitation that would encourage such belief.
As noted earlier, in March 2017, DCF referred the respondent mother to Accelerated Resolution Therapy, with Dr. Suzanne Ciaramella. The respondent mother’s efforts with this provider have been focused on addressing her own trauma. A report from Dr. Ciaramella is in evidence and addresses the pathology of the respondent mother’s personal trauma in some detail. While this indicates some progress in addressing her own trauma, it is significant to note that the report states she expresses both regret that it took her so long to engage in such therapy and an acknowledgment that she has much to learn about all of her children and the work that would be required to repair bonds and damage done from the time they were in her care and experienced maltreatment. Also of significance is that Dr. Ciaramella did not observe the respondent mother as a parent at all.
The three witnesses who did observe the respondent mother as a parent as well as the exhibits regarding the services they provided show by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in their lives. Essentially, the respondent mother’s belated participation in offered services showed some effort to learn things that would help her to develop parenting skills, but she was not able to use anything she may have learned in visits with the children. In other words, she expressed a desire to understand but was not able to implement anything she may have learned.
Both of the witnesses from united services had great credibility in the eyes of the court and testified that all five children need more in the way of relationship with mother. They worked with the respondent mother from April to July 2017. A witness from Ahavah family services testified as to nine supervised visits. When mother was observed to have difficulty supervising all five children she was offered the option of visitation with smaller groups, which she declined. During one of these visits, Samuel escaped and when the mother did not respond a representative of United Services had to follow to retrieve him.
It should also be noted that Mr. Gaspar M. had permission to participate in these services and did not. He is employed out of state as a contractor and when not working he is home 24/7 and the respondent mother currently works at Walmart. As Mr. Gaspar M. is home for extended periods the possibility of his being in a caretaker role given his previous abuse and neglect of children is of concern.
While respondent mother did bring food and sometimes activities to the visits, she struggled to parent them all at once. The respondent mother admitted to same, to her physical discipline of the children and to difficulty in putting what she has attempted to learn in services into practice.
When the mother testified on her own behalf, she admitted that Applelonia had become " parentified." As the oldest child, Applelonia was forced into filling the vacuum created by the respondent mother’s inability to care for all 5 children. The respondent mother admitted that she expected too much from Applelonia the whole time. She testified that Samuel was a " mommas boy." As to Zoila, she tragically felt no attachment at all. In regard to Naydean and Galatian the respondent mother admitted to not knowing much about the younger children. She acknowledged signing specific steps in October 2016 and not beginning services until April 2017.
" A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ... In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [under § 17a-112(j) exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 788, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008). The adjudication as to the four putative fathers is a very clear decision.
As to Luis M., the putative father of Naydean H., the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that he has seen Naydean maybe twice in her life, that he has not made attempts to contact her, never made inquiries about her well-being and that the child Naydean H. would not recognize him if she saw him. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that grounds " A" (that the children have been abandoned in that the parent failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child), and " D" (that there is no ongoing parent-child 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 that to allow further time for the development of such a relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child) have been proven in regard to putative father Luis M.
In regard to Santiago P. and Hugo C., the two putative fathers of Galatian H., the court finds that Santiago P. was contacted at the considered removal meeting and has made no subsequent contact at all. He has made no inquiries about the well-being of the child, not visited the child nor acknowledged the child in any way. The putative father Hugo C. has never met Galatian, never made inquiries about his well-being, has in fact had no contact with the child at all. As to both of the putative fathers of Galatian H., the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that grounds " A" (that the children have been abandoned in that the parent failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child), and " D" (that there is no ongoing parent-child 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 that to allow further time for the development of such a relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child) have been proven in regard to these putative fathers.
In regard to the parental rights of Samuel G., (putative father of Applelonia H., Samuel H. and Zoila H.), it has previously been noted that this relationship involved domestic violence. While Samuel G. reportedly provided $50 every other week to the respondent mother to help support children at some point in time, this stopped at the time the children came into care in Connecticut. He has since failed to make inquiry as to children’s well-being, nor to have any contact at all. The three children that he is the putative father of never ask for him. He was contacted at time of considered removal meeting and there has been no subsequent contact. He has not responded to court process. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that grounds " A" (that the children have been abandoned in that the parent failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child), and " D" (that there is no ongoing parent-child 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 that to allow further time for the development of such a relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child) have been proven in regard to Samuel G.
The grounds alleged in the petition for termination of the parental rights of Savannah H. are that the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives.
The children have been found to be neglected in prior proceedings. While Savannah H. has made admirable efforts to rehabilitate herself in regard to addressing her own trauma, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives.
[I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [his or her] ability to manage [his or her] own life, but rather whether [he or she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation omitted.) In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 480, 771 A.2d 244 (2001). In re Leilah W., 141 A.3d 1000, 1013-14 (Conn.App. 2016).
The instant case is somewhat unusual in that the respondent mother is not a drug user and has no criminal history. Her own personal history of trauma is significant. Her life has been further complicated by becoming pregnant at 15 and having five children by age of 21, all with biological fathers who have effectively abandoned both her and the children. She is depressed and often does not want to get out of bed. She delayed taking advantage of services offered for reunification for months and then, when she did utilize services, was not able to put into practice the parenting skills she needed to learn. While making progress on her own personal trauma, there is, as one witness testified, so much more to be done, and in the meantime, the children have a different timeframe than hers and they need permanency. The mother, who has made poor choices in partners in regard to all of the putative fathers, has now married the man who was charged with sexually abusing her own sister and with abusing one of her own children and endangering all of them when he was in a caretaking role.
" Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than any rehabilitation ... Successful completion of the petitioner’s expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat the petitioner’s claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation ... [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue ... Thus, even if a parent has made successful strides in her ability to manage her life and may have achieved a level of stability within her limitations, such improvements, although commendable, are not dispositive on the issue of whether, within a reasonable period of time, she could assume a responsible position in the life of her children." (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259-60, 881 A.2d 450 (2005). In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 95, 961 A.2d 1036, 1054 (2009).
By clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that the mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives.
" A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ... In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [under § 17a-112(j) ] exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 788, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008).
" In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 46, 907 A.2d 126 (2006), aff’d, 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (2008).
" The best interests of the child include the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of [his or her] environment ... In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent’s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k) ]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Joseph L., 105 Conn.App. 515, 529, 939 A.2d 16, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 902, 947 A.2d 341, 342 (2008). " The seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ... There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence." (Citation omitted.) In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 97-98, 961 A.2d 1036, 1055 (2009).
In addressing the best interest of the children, it is noted that the children have been in foster care since August 2016. They were all committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of DCF on November 23, 2016. Applelonia, Zoila and Naydean reside together in a non-relative foster home. This foster home is willing to be a permanent resource for the girls, and the girls have thrived there. Samuel and Galatian are also placed in a non-relative foster home that is willing to be a long term resource.
The children need permanency. They deserve to be given a healthy environment where their needs will be met and they will not be exposed to violence and physical abuse.
Clearly it is in the children’s best interest that parental rights be terminated.
The court makes the following seven written findings:
1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with respondents, the court finds that DCF offered services including
A) Supervised visitation Case management
B) Transportation
C) Intensive family preservation services
E) Triple P
F) Positive parenting services
G) Individual therapy at united services for Samuel
H) Birth to Three for Galatian
I) Individual therapy referral for respondent mother at Northeast Clinical
J) ART therapy referral for respondent mother with Dr. Suzanne C.
K) Foster care placement for the children Medical, dental and behavioral health services for all children.
2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe families Act of 1997, as amended, the court finds that DCF made more than reasonable efforts.
3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered and all putative fathers failed completely to comply with the ordered steps. The respondent mother delayed for many months to comply and then made efforts that did not result in sufficient rehabilitation as more particularly described herein.
4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child’s 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 tics, the court finds that Applelonia, the oldest child was ‘parentified,’ she has torn loyalties and wants to be with mother. Samuel is struggling with torn loyalties and would like to be with mother. Zoila was perhaps the biggest victim in this case as her mother rejected her. The mother testified that she didn’t know much about the two youngest children. All children have thrived in foster care.
5) As to the age of the children:
Applelonia H. d/o/b 08/10/09 age 8
Samuel H. d/o/b 04/28/11 age 6
Zoila H. d/o/b 04/26/12 age 5
Naydean H. d/o/b 08/2013 age 4
Galatian H. d/o/b 08/25/15 age 2
6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parents circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children 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 the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child, the court finds as follows: None of the putative fathers made any effort to adjust their circumstances, conduct and conditions to make it in the best interest of his child to return to his care in the foreseeable future. Although making admirable efforts towards addressing her own personal trauma, the respondent mother has made minimal progress in her ability to improve her judgment, decision making and conduct to make it in the best interest after children to return to her care in the foreseeable future.
7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act of any person or by the economic circumstances of the parent, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parent or third parties.
With respect to the best interests of the child contemplated by C.G.S sec. 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of all four putative fathers and the respondent mother is in the best interest of each child.
In finding that termination of the respondents’ parental rights would be in the children’s best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child’s interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment; their length of stay in foster care, the nature of their relationships with foster parents and biological mother and their genetic bond to parents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167 (1999); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App., 807, 816 (1999). The court has also balanced the children’s intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 313-14 (1998).
It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental rights of Savannah H. to the minor children Applelonia H. (d.o.b. 8/10/09), Samuel H. (d.o.b. 04/28/11), Zoila H. (d.o.b. 04/26/12), Naydean H. (d.o.b. 08/20/13) and Galatian H. (d.o.b. 08/25/15), the parental rights of Samuel G. (putative father of Applelonia H., Samuel H. and Zoila H.), the parental rights of Luis M. (putative father of Naydean H.) and the parental rights of Santiago P. and Hugo C. (the two putative fathers of Galatian H.) are hereby terminated. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed statutory parent for the children.
The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of these children as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.
The Clerk of any Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of these children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 81 Columbia Avenue, Willimantic, of the date when said adoption is finalized, Judgment may enter accordingly.