Opinion
K09CP15014338A
01-20-2017
In re K.V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS
John C. Driscoll, Judge
This case involves the parental rights of the father of a now fifteen-year-old child. Amber M., the child's mother (" mother"), filed this petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of Antonio V., the child's father (" father"), in the New London Regional Probate Court on June 16, 2015. Service was made upon father. On June 3, 2015, an investigation and report by the department of children and families (" department" or " DCF") was ordered by the probate court. An attorney was appointed for the child. On August 12, 2015, the child's attorney moved to transfer the matter to the superior court for juvenile matters, which motion was granted by the probate court on August 20, 2015. Following the transfer mother, father, and the child all were appointed separate counsel in the juvenile court. On November 30, 2015, the assigned DCF worker reported that father failed to respond to the department so a full study could not be done.
Father contested the petition and the parents were given a Yasiel R . advisement immediately prior to the commencement of the trial. The court took judicial notice of its decision in a termination of parental rights case involving two other children of father, also a probate transfer case, though with a different petitioner mother. The court's decision terminating father's parental rights in that case was affirmed. See In re Payton V., 158 Conn.App. 154, 118 A.3d. 166, cert. denied, 317 Conn. 924, 118 A.3d 549 (2015).
The case was tried to the court over the course of three days. The court heard testimony from mother, father, father's current wife, father's probation officer, and the child's individual therapist. Three exhibits were entered into evidence by the petitioner, and the court took judicial notice of the court's prior trial court decision and appellate decision referenced herein above, as well as the documents attached to mother's petition. Following the close of evidence, the court brought to the attention of counsel that maternal grandfather was listed as a co-guardian of the child, but was given no notice of the proceedings. On August 26, 2016, the maternal grandfather co-guardian came to court and filed an appearance as a self-represented party, was advised of his rights, and indicated that his sole interest in the case was to support the petitioner's request for termination of parental rights. He, indicated that he did not wish a transcript of the prior proceedings, to question any witnesses, or to produce any evidence of his own. He also indicated that he had no interest in seeking financial support for the child from father. The matter was continued for further argument on September 22, 2016, on which date the court took the papers.
The court finds the following by clear and convincing evidence. K.V. was born to mother and father on December 4, 2001. The parents have been in almost continuous litigation regarding custody, visitation and support throughout the child's life. The salient facts of the circumstances underpinning mother's petition are noted in the court's decision in the cases of Maddy and Payton V., of which the court took judicial notice. K.V. also was present at father's home at the time of father's assault of the child's half-brother, Maddy, and her exposure to the incident was the same as her half-sister, Payton. K.V. has not seen her father since March, 24, 2012. Father was convicted and incarcerated for assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child. Following his release from incarceration, mother sought restraining orders to prohibit contact by father with her or K.V., and ultimately, on July 9, 2015, the family court (Carbonneau, J.) issued a full no contact order which remains in effect until December 4, 2019.
Mother is seeking a termination based upon § 45a-717(g)(2), subsections (A), (B), (C), and (F). This last ground was determined previously by this court to be inapplicable, and no evidence or argument was advanced sufficient to cause the court to change it ruling. The claim related to serious bodily injury, § 45a-717(g)(2)(F), is dismissed.
The claims of abandonment and no parent-child relationship are also dismissed based upon In re Carla C., 167 Conn.App. 248, 143 A.3d 677 (2016). Mother has obtained restraining orders and protective orders against father regularly since 2002, culminating in the afore-mentioned full no contact restraining order. The court is not persuaded by the testimony of either mother or father. Their mutual animus was apparent, and their individual protestations of good faith and exclusive desire to meet the best interests of their daughter are not credible. What is clear is that father has sought continuously to enforce his parental rights and mother has been opposed to father's ongoing involvement. Also, what is clear is that father has complied with court orders for the past four years and had no contact with his daughter. The only reliable witness, the child's therapist, affirms that the child does not want to see her father, but the child wishes to reserve the right to engage at her choice. Further, the therapist attempted to engage father and daughter in mutual counseling without success, that K.V. was disappointed that father skipped sessions without notice. Disappointment is not and consistent with a lack of any positive feeling or memory. These two grounds, § § 45a-717(g)(2)(A) land 45a-717(g)(2)(C), are dismissed as not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
However, the final asserted ground is established by clear and convincing evidence. K.V. was present and in the same room as her half-sister, Payton, at the time of the incident which gave rise to In re Payton V., K.V. is in privity with Payton, so the adjudicatory issues are the same. Therefore, the § 45a-717(g)(2)(B) ground is proven by clear and convincing evidence by way of collateral estoppel. See In re Jah'za G., 141 Conn.App. 15, 60 A.3d 392, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 926, 64 A.3d 329 (2013).
Dispositionally, the court must consider the best interests of the child and the six factors set forth in § 45a-717(h).
1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by a child-placing agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent
DCF was involved initially, but did not file a petition because the child was effectively placed in mother's sole physical custody. The department saw no child protection issues with that placement. The department attempted to provide the court with an evaluation, but was unable to secure father's cooperation. The worker noted that mother and child desired a termination of parental rights, that the no contact order was in place, and that father's parental rights to three other children had been terminated previously.
2. The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or child-placing agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order
No court orders issued with the exception of several family court restraining orders and criminal court protective orders which were being honored by the parents, though father had sought to modify the family restraining order, without success. Father is on probation, and his probation officer affirmed that father is in compliance.
3. 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 for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties
The child has no relationship with her father. K.V. is an anxious child and any mention of her father causes her distress. She has been in therapy since the age of four years old on a periodic basis. She does not want to see, contact, or discuss her father while still a minor. She expresses fear of her father, and carried her copy of the restraining in her backpack. The child does not spontaneously reference father. The child remains in mother's custody, and is bonded with her. The child also has a positive bond with her co-guardian grandfather.
4. The age of the child
K.V. Is now fifteen years old, born December 4, 2001.
5. 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 such child 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
Father engaged in individual counseling through parole services. He also completed an anger management course while incarcerated. Father has not acknowledged the nature and severity of his physical abuse, and has consistently tried to misrepresent or minimize it. His interventions were described as inadequate by Dr. Rogers. Mother has arranged for individual therapy for the child, and K.V. has anxiety issues, which continue to need treatment. Her therapist did indicate that her current treatment is mostly related to issues surrounding school adjustment concerns. Father has had no contact with his child since March 24, 2012 by virtue of court orders, as a result of father's severe physical abuse of K.V.'s half-brother.
6. 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
Father claimed that the child has been coached by mother. The child's therapist did not find coaching. There is no question that mother and father are in complete disagreement about almost everything, but there was no persuasive evidence that mother has acted to the child's detriment.
There was also no persuasive evidence that father has acted in opposition to court orders for the past nearly five years. He wants the opportunity to reconnect therapeutically with his daughter at an appropriate time, and to be spared the indignity of losing his parental rights. He believes he has paid the price for his crime, though he does not acknowledge full responsibility for it. He believes this is more about mother than his child.
Dr. Rogers' findings are very persuasive. Dr. Rogers found father not to be fully credible. He noted that father had been engaged in individual counseling through parole services, and had completed an anger management program, so remedial efforts had been made. Dr. Rogers opined that father has a poor handle on his anger and anger expression. He testified persuasively that father has never acknowledged the nature of the abuse, and minimizes it greatly, as also found by this court. Dr. Rogers opined that father would be likely to act similarly in the future.
Emotionally, it would be damaging as well. K.V., despite years of therapy, will not discuss father without distress. She has not seen or spoken to her father since March 24, 2012. A restraining order prohibits father from contacting the child, which order father sought to modify without success. Father can have no contact with K.V., per a protective order, until 2019. The child does not consider father to be presently in her life, but expresses fear that he may become so. Her therapist, as an expert, opined that any contact would be detrimental to the child. To allow this so father can try to force himself back into his child's life would be emotionally damaging to her. Dispositional considerations shift to the child's best interests, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it would be in K.V.'s best interests to grant her express desire to terminate father's parental rights.
Wherefore, after due consideration of the child's need for an emotionally secure, permanent placement, and the totality of the circumstances, and having considered all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist to terminate father's parental rights, and that it is in the child's best interest to do so, the court orders:
That the parental rights of respondent father, Antonio V., are hereby terminated as to his child, K.V., born December 24, 2001;
That the petitioning mother, Amber M., shall be the sole parent and remain co-guardian of the child with maternal grandfather;
That a written report of the plan for the child shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be filed with the court as required by law.