Opinion
No. H12-CP98-005777-A
December 15, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These are actions brought by Department of Children and Families ("DCF" or "Petitioner") seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother of Lizandra B. (hereinafter referred to as "Lizandra B."); Marc A.B. (hereinafter referred to as "Marc A.B."); and Marines Q. (hereinafter referred to as "Marines Q.") and the parental rights of the biological fathers of the three children. The biological Father of Lizandra B. is Marcelino B. (hereinafter referred to as Marcelino B.), the biological Mother of these children is Xiomara G. (hereinafter referred to as "Xiomara G."), the biological Father of Marc A.B. was unknown (see below) and the biological Father of Marines Q. is Edwin Q. (hereinafter referred to as "Edwin Q"). 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.
On March 22, 2005, Joel Q. was named by Mother as the Father of Marc A.B. The putative father was said to reside in Puerto Rico and although service had been on John Doe earlier, service by publication was confirmed for Joel Q. The biological mother and biological fathers were all served with notice of the petition of termination of parental rights. The petition for termination of parental rights was filed on February 8, 2005.
The grounds for the petition for the Termination of Parental Rights of Mother and Fathers, Marcelino B., (John Doe), Joel Q. and Edwin Q. are failure to rehabilitate and of the Father, Joel Q. are abandonment and lack of ongoing parent-child relationship.
The Mother and Fathers, Marcelino B. and Edwin Q. were represented by their own counsel throughout these proceedings. The children's counsel participated in all stages of the trial. The trial of this matter was held on August 15, 2005, August 17, 2005, September 12, 2005 and September 16, 2005. The court heard testimony from a number of witnesses of DCF, Mother and Father, Marcelino B. There were twenty-seven full exhibits.
At the completion of the trial the court notified all counsel that the court would accept briefs as the time allotted for argument may not have been satisfactory to the parties.
The court carefully considered all of 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 findings on the termination petitions.
I FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Background
On May 22, 1998, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of Lizandra B. On May 26, 1998, DCF filed Neglect Petitions and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody regarding Lizandra B. An Order of Temporary Custody was granted on May 26, 1998 and was sustained on June 5, 1998.
On August 20, 1998, Lizandra B. was adjudicated neglected/uncared for and committed to DCF. On August 10, 2000, disposition was modified to Protective Supervision until May 10, 2001. On November 16, 2000, a bench Order of Temporary Custody was granted and sustained on November 24, 2000 with regard to Lizandra B. On February 2, 2001, Lizandra B. was committed to DCF.
On November 16, 2000, DCF filed Neglect Petitions and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody on behalf of Marc A.B. The Order of Temporary Custody was granted on November 16, 2000 and subsequently sustained on November 24, 2000. On February 2, 2001, Marc A.B. was adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF.
On December 27, 2001, DCF filed a Petition of Neglected/Uncared for, and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody on behalf of child Marines Q. An Order of Temporary Custody was granted on December 27, 2001. After a contested OTC trial on February 22, 2002, the Court ordered Marines Q. to be returned to Mother's care under Protective Supervision until December 27, 2002.
On September 18, 2002, the Department invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of Marines Q. and on November 21, 2002, the child was committed to DCF.
The allegations of these petitions were Neglect and Uncared for in that:
The children were denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally. They were permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well being, and they were uncared for in that the children's home could not provide the specialized care which the physical, emotional or mental condition of the children required.
B. Mother, Xiomara G.
Xiomara G. was born on November 30, 1978 in Caguas, Puerto Rico to Minerva S. and Marino G. She did not complete her high school education and moved to the United States in May 1985. Minerva S. had cancer and was seeking an operation. Xiomara G. reports that due to her mother having had that operation, she and her siblings were placed in foster care for two months before her older sister came to care for her. Xiomara G. reports that when she was 13 years old, she tried to kill her younger brother by grabbing him by the neck and hitting him. She entered the Juvenile Justice System as a result of this and was put on probation. She violated her probation by not going to school and assaulting a schoolmate. She was then placed in Altobello Hospital in Meriden due to emotional problems. She reported that the doctors told her that she could not live with her family or her younger brother. After being discharged from the hospital, she was placed in a foster home until her Mother completed required counseling and eventually she was able to return home.
At age 15 Xiomara G. was emancipated from her parents' care. She went to live with her older sister, Ida, in Hartford, until she was 18 years old. She described herself as being abused emotionally, sexually and physically during her adolescent years. She reported being hit a lot by her father, being sexually abused by a brother's friend who lived in the home and being raped at age 11 by a 17-year-old male. Her Mother made a police report and tried to kill the male by chasing him with a machete. The perpetrator was incarcerated for 8 years. She reported going into the hospital at least 13 or 14 times as result of her rape.
Mother was evaluated on March 7, 2001 by psychologist Dr. Nelson R. and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and dysthymic disorder. Dr. Nelson R. recommended that Mother attend individual psychotherapy to address these issues as well as her prominent hostility and suspiciousness towards others. Additional information in the case record indicates that Mother was treated for depression in 1995, including treatment for aggression. She showed mood lability, and a suicide attempt in 1998, which led to hospitalization. Mother does not feel the need to seek out a psychiatrist to address her mental illness nor the need to take medications. She has had a pattern of domestic violence with both Marcelino B. and Edwin Q.
On June 30, 2001, Dr. Richard S. completed a psychiatric evaluation of Mother. He reported Mother to have significant intellectual limitations and a track record of poor parenting skills. He also reported her repeated hospitalizations and noted that she had severely impaired reasoning, lack of effective control, problem solving skills and insight. He recommended that Mother participate in individual counseling and suggested that medication might offer some benefit although he did not expect that medication would be substantially more effective in the future than it had been over the past 10 years.
Mother told her previous DCF social workers that she did not need to seek out a psychiatrist to address her mental illness nor did she require medication for her depression. She saw a psychiatrist after the birth of Marc A.B. and was diagnosed with dysthymia and anxiety disorder. In 1999 she presented to the E.R. complaining of memory problems and hallucinations.
Mother has a criminal history involving Assault 3 in April 1995; Larceny 6 in October 1995; Assault 3 in September 1996; Breach of Peace in October 1996; Disorderly Conduct Threatening, Assault 3 in September 1997; and violation of Protective Order in October 1997. She was incarcerated at York Correctional Center from September 1998 to January 1999 for possession of narcotics.
C. Father, Marcelino B.
Marcelino B. was born on June 6, 1972 in Brooklyn, New York to Marcelino B. and Paula N. He is the older of two children and was raised in Puerto Rico. He has been incarcerated three times: in 1993 for three years for possession of firearms and narcotics; in 1999 for 15 months; and in November 2002 for drug sales activity. DCF was attempting to reunify Lizandra B. with him when he was arrested for this third time.
Marcelino B. denies any issues of domestic violence with Mother, stating that she falsely accused him. He reports a history of substance abuse, which is reportedly in remission.
He presently is staying at his Mother's apartment, since his ex-girlfriend, Vernice R. ended their relationship in late spring 2004. He had reported to DCF that he had continued in that relationship until the summer of 2004 but Vernice R. reported that he was lying and that he was not living with her. She said that he asked her to make it appear as though they lived together, so that he could gain custody of Lizandra B.
D. Father, Edwin Q.
Edwin Q. was born in Puerto Rico on September 15, 1971 to Miriam G. and Benjamin Q. He attended school up to the eighth grade in Hartford. He has reportedly been involved in gang activity in Hartford and has been incarcerated for his drug sales activity. He has a history of domestic violence with Mother reported by Mother and by Klingberg Family Centers Visitation Program.
Edwin Q. presented his sister, Madeline L., as a resource for his child, Marines Q. DCF began investigating this relative so Marines Q.'s guardianship could be transferred to Madeline L. Madeline L. subsequently changed her mind, stating that she did not want to be caught in the middle of Mother and Father's fights since they were living together at her mother's apartment. Shortly after that in February 2004, Father was arrested again for drug sales activity. He is currently serving a six-year prison term for this offense.
E. Child, Lizandra B.
Lizandra B. was born on November 30, 1997 in Hartford, CT. She was born at full gestation and is healthy. Since her placement history began in 1998, Lizandra B. has been in two regular foster homes and with her paternal aunt, Rosa B.
Lizandra B. currently attends the second grade at Burns Elementary School and has been placed with her aunt since November 2004. She receives individual counseling at The Village for Families and Children to address her issues related to the lack of permanency in her life. In February 2005, she expressed to her therapist her fears about being forced to leave her aunt's home to go to live with her Mother, stating that she wanted to live with her aunt forever.
There have been some issues with this placement. Burns School made a DCF referral in February 2005, alleging physical abuse of Lizandra B. during a parent-teacher conference by a man who was pulling Lizandra B.'s hair. During the course of the investigation, it was determined that the man was Lizandra B.'s Father, who reportedly accompanied the aunt to the school conference. He reportedly stopped pulling her hair when he saw that the security guard was watching him. On March 16, 2005, Klingberg Family Center Visitation Center reported to DCF that Lizandra B. had disclosed more reports of Father hitting her on the arms and legs. On that same date, she also reported to the DCF social work case aid who transported her to her weekly visits with Father, that Father hits her, that her aunt knows about it but her response is that Father can do it because he is her Father. Lizandra B. also reported Father's threats "to kick my butt if I tell DCF." These same threats were reported by Lizandra B. to DCF in the summer of 2004.
Although there were no physical marks or bruises on Lizandra B., her paternal aunt was informed to follow DCF regulations, which stipulated that Lizandra B. could not be punished physically and that the emotional damage caused by Father's threats was unacceptable. Although her aunt has not hit her, Lizandra B. reported that her aunt is aware of Father hitting her.
Rosa B. has expressed to DCF that she is willing to adopt Lizandra B. but that Father opposes having his parental rights terminated.
F. Child, Marc A.B.
Marc A.B. was born on March 8, 1999 in Hartford, CT. Mother had not provided the identity of child's father. She later reported that his father was a man named Joel, then she reported that the father was Marcelino B. A paternity test was conducted which proved that Marcelino B. was not the father.
Marc A.B. is a healthy six year old, who has lived with his foster family for five years and identifies them as his family. He attends kindergarten and is identified by school staff to be very bright and a fast learner. His foster parents are currently considering the option of adopting him.
G. Child, Marines Q.
Marines Q. was born on February 27, 2002 in Hartford, CT. During Mother's prenatal treatment, St. Francis Hospital reported concerns about Mother's ability to provide good care for this child. The social worker from the St. Francis Hospital Protection Team wrote an affidavit stating that Marines Q., who was a newborn at the time, would be in imminent risk for neglect if placed in Mother's care.
Since her removal from her parents' care, Marines Q. has lived in two regular foster homes.
In November 2004, she was placed with maternal relatives where she has adjusted well. She still has medically complex issues related to her failure to thrive diagnosis.
H. Relatives
DCF has assessed various relatives to care for the children:
Marines Q.'s paternal aunt, Madeline L. began the DCF foster care licensing procedure from which she later withdrew.
Ana L., a friend of Mother, was assessed to care for all three children. She was not licensable.
Joel A. and Magda R. are Mother's maternal relatives who are now caring for Marines Q. They have expressed an interest in adopting her.
Rosa B., Lizandra B.'s paternal aunt, is now caring for Lizandra B. She has expressed that she would like to adopt her.
I. Present Situation
After 3/14/05, when assignment of the Xiomara G. case was given to a DCF social worker, the social worker met with the three children and the foster parents. Lizandra B. has been in placement since 5/26/98; Marc A.B. has been in placement since 11/16/00; and Marines Q. has been in placement since 12/27/01.
Lizandra B. has adjusted well and is thriving while living with her paternal aunt, Rosa B. Traci G., a therapist at The Village of Children and Families reported Lizandra B.'s progress since living with her aunt and recommended this as a long-term plan for Lizandra B.
The DCF social worker has met with paternal aunt, Rosa B. and she has stated that she is committed to Lizandra and would like to adopt her. She reported that she loves Lizandra B. as her own daughter. Lizandra B. is very bonded to her paternal aunt and cousin.
Lizandra B. attends the Burns Elementary School and is doing better. However, she will be repeating second grade in the fall 2005. She is medically up to date and there are no concerns at this time.
On 2/16/05, DCF received a report alleging physical abuse and neglect on behalf of Marcelino B., Lizandra B.'s Father. An investigation was completed due to the above allegation. DCF did not substantiate physical neglect because there were no marks or bruises on Lizandra B. Although abuse was not substantiated, Rosa B. was cited for violating DCF's regulations regarding physical discipline. Even though the aunt did not hit Lizandra B., she knew about the abuse and allowed it. A service agreement was completed and signed by Rosa B. in which she is not to allow unsupervised visits between Lizandra B. and Marcelino B.
Marines Q. has adjusted well and is stable living with her maternal cousins, Magdaivellis R. and Joel A. Marines Q. continues to be under medical treatment for problems regarding feeding. On 2/14/05, Dr. Francisco S. completed an endoscopy due to failure to thrive. Marines Q. needs a follow-up visit with Dr. S. in six months. The foster mother will be scheduling this appointment. On 4/19/05, Dr. M., from the Connecticut Children Medical Center (CCMC), completed a physical. Marines Q. had gained weight and the physician is pleased to see how she is progressing. On 5/20/05, Marines Q. finished the pre-school program until the fall of 2005. On 4/29/05, a PPT meeting was held at the school and the team determined that Marines Q. no longer qualifies for speech services. She is no longer a special education student. The DCF worker spoke with the surrogate parent Clo B. and she reported that Marines Q.'s teacher had glowing reports regarding her progress.
Marines Q.'s father, Edwin Q., continues to be incarcerated with the possibility of serving 6-8 years in prison for drug sales. Although he has had visits in prison with Marines Q., there have been scheduling errors made by the prison. The last scheduled visit was December 16, 2004, however, the DCF staff member supervising the visit had to end the visit because Marines Q. screamed, cried inconsolably, refused to be with her father, and appeared very fearful. Another visit was conducted in February 2005, and Marines Q. reacted in the same manner as the previous visit.
The DCF social worker met with maternal cousin, Magdaivellis R. and she reported that she is willing to adopt Marines Q. She stated that she loves Marines Q. like her own daughter and that they have a positive relationship. Marines Q. calls Magdaivellis R. her "mama." She has two cousins in the home and they play together and interact appropriately.
Marc A.B. also remains stabilized and is happy to be placed with his foster family. He identifies his foster family as his psychological family and becomes upset when there is discussion about him leaving. He attends Kindergarten and does well in school. The foster mother reported that Marc A.B. is reading all of his sight words and homework is done quickly and accurately. The foster mother has also reported that Marc A.B. is a very smart boy and is very challenging at times. However, she manages him appropriately and she stated that he is not out of control. He informed the DCF social worker that he does not want to leave his foster home.
The DCF social worker met with Marc A.B.'s foster parents, Francisco P. and Miriam P., who are willing to adopt him. Miriam P. has expressed that she would like for Marc A.B. to attend counseling due to his anger. She reported that when he is upset he throws objects and kicks the doors in the house. She is fearful that this would continue into his teenage years and that he would become unmanageable. The DCF social worker will be following up with a referral for counseling services. Miriam P. reported that she is willing to attend and that it would benefit the entire family.
All three children continued to have weekly supervised visits with their Mother at Klingberg Family Center. DCF received ongoing reports regarding the supervised weekly visits. The reports stated that the visits are going well, and that there were no concerns at that time.
Xiomara G. has reported to the DCF social worker that she is a bouncer at a local nightclub and that she is paid in cash. Since 3/14/05, when the DCF social worker was assigned this case, until 6/1/05, Xiomara G. has reported two different home addresses. She originally reported that she would be moving in with her mother in the Hartford area. She provided the social worker with her mother's phone number. On 4/8/05, the social worker called Xiomara G. at her mother's home. Her mother reported that her daughter, Xiomara G. was residing with her other daughter, Glorimar G. On 5/24/05, Mother reported living at 592 Maple Ave Hartford, CT and provided her sister, Glorimar G.'s phone number. The social worker inquired regarding services and Xiomara G. stated that she has completed all services and that she no longer required any services. The social worker offered Mother assistance with services in meeting the court-appointed specific steps and Mother stated that she did not need any services.
DCF has offered the following services to Xiomara G.: Klingberg Intensive Family Preservation, individual counseling and parent aide services. DCF offered the following services to Edwin Q.: Institute for the Hispanic Family, Wheeler Clinic for substance abuse evaluation, parenting and individual counseling. The following services were offered to the Father, Marcelino B.: Alcohol Drug Rehabilitation Center (ADRC) for substance abuse evaluation, individual counseling and Abundant Life Family Center reunification Program.
The parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from services in that Mother, Xiomara G. continues to live a transient lifestyle, depending on others for housing, a history of poor judgment with men, aggressive and explosive behaviors and she is not in treatment for her mental health issues. Despite the services offered, Xiomara G. has not demonstrated progress from these services.
Father Edwin Q. has failed to follow through with the recommended treatment for anger management, individual counseling and parenting classes. He has not maintained involvement in his child's life. He has not rehabilitated from his criminal lifestyle in that he is currently incarcerated for drug sales activity.
Father Marcelino B. has failed to follow through with demonstrating that he can provide a structured and stable living environment for his daughter. He continues to depend on others for housing.
On 4/4/05, Xiomara G. provided the DCF social worker with a relative resource, Aida G. DCF contacted Aida G. regarding her interest as a relative resource for Marc A.B. DCF completed criminal checks and scheduled a home visit to assess the appropriateness of this relative resource.
On 4/11/05, Aida G. contacted DCF to report that she was no longer interested in being a relative resource for Marc A.B. She reported that she has ongoing family problems with Xiomara G. and that this would not be in Marc A.B.'s best interests given his Mother's aggressive and oppositional behaviors.
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 Xiomara G.'s, Marcelino B.'s, Edwin Q.'s and Joel Q.'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 the children with their 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).
The court has found in a prior proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from any reunification efforts.
Although on July 3, 2003, a finding was made that efforts to reunify were no longer appropriate, the court will review services that have been provided to Mother and Fathers to assist them in their ability to parent their children, to address their mental health, unstable housing and for other services that may be appropriate. The court is desirous of presenting the extent to which DCF has gone to provide services and yet the parents have been unable to demonstrate to DCF that they can provide their children with a safe, stable and secure home.
1. On 5/26/98, 11/16/00 and 12/27/01, the court made a finding that reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of said children were not possible.
2. DCF has been involved with this family since June 1994, due to medical neglect and the Mother having left her children with inappropriate caretakers, which caused burns and several facial injuries to her 16-month-old son, Eduardo F. as a result of abuse. Mother also has presented a lack of parenting skills, unstable housing and a history of domestic violence with her paramours.
3. The presenting problems with this family are Mother's mental health issues, domestic violence, lack of parenting, a chaotic and transient lifestyle and extensive criminal involvement.
4. The following services were offered to the Mother: Klingberg Intensive Family Preservation, individual counseling and parent aide services.
5. The following services were offered to the Father, Edwin Q.: Institute for the Hispanic Family, Wheeler Clinic for substance abuse evaluation, parenting and individual counseling.
6. The following services were offered to the Father, Marcelino B.: ADRC for substance abuse evaluation, individual counseling and Abundant Life Family Center Reunification Program for Hispanic Families.
7. Mother named Marcelino B. as Marc A.B.'s father. A paternity test proved that he is not the biological father, thus, no services were offered to Father of Marc A.B. since his identity was unknown until recently.
8. The parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services in that Mother continues to live a transient lifestyle, depending on others for housing, a history of poor judgment with men, aggressive and explosive behaviors and, is not in treatment for her mental health problems. Despite services offered, she has not demonstrated progress from these services.
9. Father Edwin Q. has failed to follow through with the recommended treatment for anger management and individual/parenting counseling and has not maintained involvement in the life of the child. He has not rehabilitated from his criminal lifestyle, being currently incarcerated for his drug sales activity.
Father Marcelino B. has failed to follow through with demonstrating that he can provide a structured and stable living environment for his daughter in that he is currently without permanent residence.
10. Mother reported that Marc A.B.'s father was Marcelino B. A paternity test was conducted in December 1999 indicating that Marcelino B. is not the father. She later identified Joel Q. as the Father of Marc A.B.
In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan.
B. Grounds for Termination: Abandonment — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) as to putative Father, Joel Q.
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 well-being 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 Marc A.B. by putative Father, Joel Q.
1. Since November 16, 2000, when Marc A.B. was placed in the care and custody of the petitioner, Joel Q. has not visited his child.
2. During said time, Joel Q. has not sent cards, gifts or made phone calls to his child.
3. Father has not supported the child, physically, emotionally or financially.
4. Father has made no financial contributions to his child's maintenance.
C. Grounds for Termination: No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) as to putative Father, Joel Q.
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 ground for termination of no ongoing parent-child relationship. 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 Marc A.B. by putative father, Joel Q.
1. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of Ground A as to Marc A.B. by Joel Q. are hereby incorporated by reference.
5. The child has no memory of his Father in that he has never seen his Father.
6. The lack of visits demonstrates that the Father has little interest in the child and does not have the capacity to develop a parental relationship with the child.
7. The child does not have a connection or bond with his Father. The child would not recognize his Father as parent in that he would not seek comfort from or go to his Father to have his needs met.
8. The child is significantly bonded with his foster parents. The child seeks comfort from his foster parents and goes to them to have his needs met.
9. The Father does not have the knowledge, skill or capability of dealing with child on a day-to-day basis.
There is no ongoing parent-child relationship between Joel Q. and Marc A.B. The Father has failed to appear at any of the court proceedings or participate in services. There is no evidence to suggest that Joel Q. will ever want to assume a responsible position in Marc A.B.'s life within a reasonable time.
The father of Marc A.B. was unknown until Joel Q. was named by Mother on 3/22/05. Although Marc A.B. carries the last name of Marcelino B., a paternity test results revealed that Marcelino B. is not the father of Marc A.B. The Petitioner contends that Joel Q. has not made contact with Marc A.B. nor has he come forward and presented a plan for this child.
D. Grounds for Termination: Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(ii) — as to biological Father, Edwin Q. and biological Mother, Xiomara G.The Commissioner has alleged as grounds 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 that . . . 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, CT Page 16382 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).
The termination of parental rights is the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents, so that the child is free for adoption. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-707(8). When petitioning to terminate parental rights without consent, DCF must allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence one or more of the specific grounds set forth in Connecticut General Statutes Section 17a-112(c) et. seq. In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263, 293 (1992).
Ground B-1 as to Lizandra B., Marc A.B. and Marines Q. by Xiomara G.
Respondent-Mother
The Petitioner contends that Xiomara G.'s unresolved mental health problems, lack of parenting skills and inability to provide adequate housing contributed to the neglect of her children. The Petitioner further contends that Xiomara G. has continued to be transient, and has failed to resolve any of the issues that contributed to the removal of the children from her care.
Xiomara G. presented evidence that she participated in parenting classes at Klingberg Family Services. She completed a group-parenting program and it was reported that she successfully grasped the skills that were taught in the program. She testified that she engaged in individual counseling in 2002. She also testified that she did not receive further individual counseling because the Petitioner failed to make the referral for her to be evaluated by a psychiatrist.
Xiomara G. also testified that between November 2001 and September 2005, she has lived at five different addresses. For about seven months during 2002, she maintained her own apartment with her youngest child until the child was removed from her care. The records also show that at other times, she vacillated between the homes of various family members. She testified that she is currently employed and resides in a three-bedroom apartment, which she shares with her mother.
When asked if she is willing and able to take custody of the children, Xiomara G. stated that she needed more time, about 2 months. She further testified that if she has to engage in additional counseling or get her own apartment to regain custody of the children, she would do so.
At and prior to the time of commitment of Lizandra B., Marc A.B. and Marines Q., contributing factors in the neglect of these children were Mother's mental health problems, lack of parenting skills and inability to provide a stable home for said children due to Mother's transience and involvement in relationships characterized by domestic violence.
From the time of the first DCF involvement on 5/26/98 through the present, Mother has been informed by the Court and by DCF that she needs to attend parenting services, individual counseling, and provide adequate housing for the children.
The Court and the Petitioner advised the respondent on numerous occasions that she needed to address her mental health issues, transient lifestyle, domestic violent relationships, parenting deficits and lack of income. However, Mother has not been successful in overcoming these problems.
On 2/21/02, Mother was ordered to complete expectations by the court. Mother has not consistently followed through with these expectations and following are examples of Mother's failure to adhere to the same.
On 6/12/01 and 1/13/03, Mother received treatment plans that provided that she would cooperate with DCF's recommendations and services and that she would attend treatment. However, Mother has not followed through with these services.
The petitioner referred Mother to a parenting class on 9/01 but she only attended twice. In July 2002, the Institute for the Hispanic Family reported that Mother completed a parenting program. She also completed an anger management group and an educational substance abuse program.
On August 2000, DCF learned that Mother had been in individual therapy at St. Francis Hospital and was prescribed medication. Mother discontinued her medication against medical advice. On December 6, 2000, DCF attempted to make a new referral for Mother but she refused to be in individual therapy. In January of 2001, Mother reported that her former therapist, Dr. Peter H., indicated that she did not need therapy. In February 2001, Dr. H. denied having made that comment but instead stated that Mother "should not be in the business of having children." He recommended psychiatric and psychological evaluations to be followed by treatment recommendations. Mother's mental health problems were documented through psychological and psychiatric evaluations in 2001. Mother was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, dysthymic disorder and personality disorder with borderline and paranoid features. The evaluations recommended therapy. On 8/27/01, Mother was referred to individual therapy by DCF Social Worker, Cynthia P. Mother received therapy from a bachelor's level caseworker although her need was for the services of a licensed practitioner. Mother reportedly refused more intensive services and stated to DCF that she did not need any additional services. Mother's bachelor level therapist also reported that there was no need for further therapy, even though there were reports of domestic violence from Klingberg Family Services. However, Mother reported severe stress and repeated incidents in which she had difficulty managing her anger. Presently, Mother is not in mental health treatment.
DCF referred mother to Klingberg Intensive Family Preservation services on February 20, 2002, after the court returned infant Marines Q. to Mother's care. Services were initiated on March 20, 2002 and ended on June 6, 2002. The goals were for Mother to meet the basic needs of Marines Q., to look for appropriate housing and to learn and use anger management skills. Mother completed the program and was referred to Klingberg Parent Aid Program. This service began in July 2002 and ended in October 2002 due to child Marines Q. being removed from Mother's care after being diagnosed with failure to thrive.
Mother did not follow recommendations as she did not participate in individual counseling with a licensed practitioner.
Mother has not demonstrated that she has benefited from the services provided over the years to address her issues of transience, domestic violence and impaired parenting. She continues to depend on others for housing, stating that she is staying with maternal grandmother, sisters or cousins, and has presented an altered lease. She seems to have continued in a relationship with Edwin Q. as evidenced by her presence at his home. His sister reported them living together. DCF staff transported Mother to his home after her weekly visits with the children, at least until he was incarcerated in February 2004 for drug sales activity.
On February 21, 2002, the Court ordered Mother not to reside with Edwin Q. due to their extensive history of domestic violence. During an unannounced home visit by DCF on March 14, 2002, Mother was seen leaving with Edwin Q. in a car he had purchased for her.
From January 2000 to March 2002, Mother had 20 different residences and moves to Maine and Springfield, Massachusetts with her two children Lizandra B. and Marc A.B. This occurred while her DCF case was still open and she did not notify DCF. During February and March 2000, DCF followed up on Section 8 housing for Mother but by May 14, 2000, Mother was living with maternal grandmother, Minerva S., who has a long history of child protective service issues and mental illness. In September 2000, DCF Social Worker, Yolanda L. learned that Mother was moving from place to place with different relatives. During a September 19, 2000 and a September 28, 2000 visit, DCF learned that Mother was on the street and allowing maternal grandmother to supervise the children. In early October 2000, Mother left Connecticut to live in Maine with a cousin and DCF attempted to get an assessment of Mother's living arrangements in Maine. By November 2000, Mother returned to Connecticut and on November 16, 2000 the court granted an OTC for child, Marc A.B. and a bench OTC for Lizandra B. During the first six months of 2000, Mother moved seven times, and then again moved in with her mother.
DCF referred Mother to CRT for Section 8 housing and she was approved for a Section 8 certificate but never complied with the other requirements of the program and never received the certificate. In 2001, Mother's continued unstable housing was documented. In March 2001, Mother confirmed to DCF Social Worker, Yolanda L., that she moved to Springfield, Massachusetts and was living with her grandmother. In December 2001, Mother was still unable to maintain housing and was reportedly residing with maternal grandmother. In August 2002, Mother informed DCF that she was planning on moving to an apartment although her income was insufficient to pay the rent. Edwin Q. reportedly helped to pay the rent.
Until Marines Q.'s birth, Mother continued having unstable housing and in early 2001 she planned to move in with her mother, despite DCF's and court's concerns about maternal grandmother. In 2002, DCF case records indicate that she had lived at at least four different addresses. In October 2003, Mother reported to the social worker that she was living with her sister but that worker could not come to the home because her sister did not like DCF. In March 2004, she reported having her own apartment with a roommate which later proved to be untrue based on the altered copy of a lease she presented.
Mother has not provided any information to DCF about her income and therefore DCF cannot verify what her income is or its source.
DCF is unable to confirm Mother's status with Probation as she has not given consent for DCF to obtain information from that agency.
Ground B-1 as to Marines Q. by Edwin Q. Respondent-Father Edwin Q.
The Petitioner claims that Edwin Q. has failed to rehabilitate and therefore his parental rights should be terminated. The Petitioner claims that he has been unable to provide a stable and safe home for Marines Q. due to his criminal activity, frequent incarceration, anger management problems, unstable housing, illegal income and failure to participate in counseling. Edwin Q. has also failed to avail himself completely of the services offered by the Petitioner. However, he presented evidence during the trial to demonstrate that he has participated in alcoholics and narcotics anonymous during his current incarceration.
In the past, Edwin Q. has agreed to engage in individual counseling, parenting classes and random drug screens. However, he prematurely stopped participating in those services. He still has unresolved anger management problems, domestic violence issues, and is still involved with the criminal justice system.
Edwin Q. is currently incarcerated on a drug-related offense. He was visiting with Marines Q. once a month up to the time that she and her foster family moved to Puerto Rico in mid-August 2005. During the trial, Edwin Q. presented his sister as a placement resource for Marines Q. However, shortly thereafter she voluntarily withdrew her application.
The Court and the Petitioner advised the respondent on numerous occasions that he needed to address his domestic violence issues, his criminal life activity and lack of income.
On 11/21/02, Father was ordered to complete expectations by the court. Father has not consistently followed through with these expectations, noted as follows:
Father did not attend any of the eight scheduled ACRs.
The petitioner referred Edwin Q. to a substance abuse evaluation, parenting classes and individual counseling at The Institute for the Hispanic Family. He agreed to start individual counseling sessions, a parenting program and random drug urines as he was diagnosed with opioid abuse. He discontinued the parenting program around May 2002. His counselor agreed to work around his work schedule. Father stopped attending on June 17, 2002 without notifying his counselor. His counselor reported that Father's anger management issues were still unresolved.
In 2002, DCF referred Father to a domestic violence assessment with NOVA (or an equivalent service.) Father did not follow through with any of these services.
On June 17, 2002, the Hartford Police documented that Father instigated a fight with Mother's former boyfriend and lashed out at Mother. Father grabbed her by the neck, pushed her, pulled her hair and ripped her clothing off in the parking lot of an apartment building. Mother's abrasions were observed and Father was arrested. On July 30, 2002, the court ordered that Mother and Father not reside together. Father continued residing with Mother at his mother's home as evidenced by a DCF home visit in February 2004, and as reported by Father's sister, Madeline L.
Father has not signed releases for DCF to follow up with providers.
Father has been incarcerated since February 2004 due to his drug sales activity. Prior to that, he did not have his own housing in that he stayed with his mother. Father stated to DCF that he worked temporary positions but failed to show any proof of this.
DCF does not know the status of Father's substance abuse because he did not cooperate with drug testing.
Father has had criminal involvement since 1987 with fifteen arrests for drug-related charges. In 1990 he served a 10-year prison sentence for selling drugs. On August 17, 2001, Father was arrested with 249 bags of heroin with intent to sell for which he pleaded guilty. Heroin was found at his mother's home, where Xiomara G. was also living at the time. In March and April of 2003 he was arrested again for possession of narcotics. His last arrest was in February 2004 for drug sales. Mother told DCF Social Worker Case Aid, Waleska A., that he has been sentenced to six years in prison.
Father visited with his daughter once a week at Klingberg Visitation Center during the time periods when he has been out of jail. Since his last arrest in February 2004, DCF provided supervised visits between Father and child in prison.
E. Grounds for the Termination: Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(ii) as to biological Father, Marcelino B.
In support of the petition, DCF has offered the following:
The Court and the Petitioner advised the respondent on numerous occasions that he needed to address his substance abuse and housing issues.
On 7/29/02, Father was given the expectations by the court. He has not consistently followed through with these expectations.
Father has not attended any ACRs scheduled at the DCF office.
Father did not cooperate with DCF, nor did he keep any appointments set by DCF as reported on a court study dated 6/16/99. Since 2002, Father began to keep the appointments set by DCF. During the times when he has not been incarcerated, Father cooperated with DCF visits.
Father had never parented the child to any appreciable extent. He did not disclose his whereabouts until July 2002, stating that if Mother knew his address she would harass his girlfriend. He reported that he had been living with his ex-paramour, Vernice R. for 3 years. He reported that he stayed there until 10/04, however on 10/4/04, Vernice R. reported to DCF that Father had not lived with her for about 2 to 3 months. On 10/13/04, Father reported that he lived with his mother but in the afternoon of the same date, he reported that he lived with his sister, Rosa B.
Father did not comply with the expectation to receive individual counseling until 9/2/04. Father initially agreed to participate in individual in-home counseling to address parenting and his criminal life involvement. DCF made arrangements to cover the cost and to coordinate this service. This in-home service was to include Father's paramour and her two children for preparation of the transition of Lizandra B. to their household. Father refused in-home counseling even though its purpose was thoroughly explained to him. DCF was able to determine that the reason Father was refusing this service was because he had terminated his relationship with his paramour and was in fact already separated from her.
After this, DCF arranged for another therapist at Voices, Inc. Mareelino B.'s first appointment was scheduled for 10/7/04. This appointment was rescheduled for 10/14/04. The provider has not submitted a report regarding Father's status with this visit.
DCF referred Father to an intensive family reunification program for 12 weeks. Father was not receptive to services.
From 1998 to 1999, Father did not comply with a substance abuse assessment. Father submitted to a random hair test on 8/2/04 at ADRC. The result was negative for substance abuse.
Father has been cooperative with court-ordered evaluations.
Father has a pattern of dependency on others for housing. DCF was not always certain of his housing information in that it had been inaccurate in the past. Father reported that he works for a temporary agency but has not showed proof of income or employment.
Based on a substance abuse evaluation and hair test results completed in 8/5/04 at ADRC, Father was not abusing substances at that time.
Father has a history of criminal involvement since 1992 as result of arrests and incarcerations for Assault 3, and Possession and Sales of Narcotics. It seems that Father has not had further involvement with the law since his last six-month incarceration in 2002.
From 1998 to 1999, Father did not request a visit with Lizandra B. In 2001, he had supervised visits with her at Klingberg Visitation Center. He was reported to have been appropriate during the visits. After his release from prison in 2003, he had supervised visits at the DCF office on Wednesdays from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. DCF made arrangements with him for the transition/reunification visits to be at his home. Throughout the summer of 2004, Father misinformed DCF stating that the visits were being held at his paramour Vernice R's home or at his sister's home.
Respondent-Father Marcelino B.
It is the contention of the Petitioner that Marcelino B. has failed to provide a safe and stable home for Lizandra B. due to his criminal activities. In prior proceedings, the court has instructed Marcelino B. to address his criminal behavior, engage in counseling, and obtain legal income and stable housing. He still does not have stable housing — he is presently living with his mother. However, he has reported that he is working for a temp agency that assigns him temporary employment on a consistent basis.
Marcelino B. contends that he has rehabilitated; he has had no further involvement with the criminal justice system since his release from jail in 2003. He has consistently visited with Lizandra B. He did comply with a DCF request for a drug screen and the results came back negative. He also participated in parenting classes.
It is not apparent from the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights that DCF has asserted grounds of either Abandonment or Lack of Ongoing Parent-Child/Youth Relationships. Only the grounds of Failure to Rehabilitate were alleged as to Father, Marcelino B.
ADJUDICATORY SUMMARY Summary of Procedural History
Lizandra B. was born on November 30, 1997. On May 26, 1998, an Order of Temporary Custody was sustained on behalf of Lizandra B. and on August 20, 1998, the Court adjudicated said child neglected and committed her to the custody of the DCF.
Marc A.B. was born March 8, 1999 and on November 16, 2000, an Order of Temporary Custody was granted on behalf of said child. On February 2, 2001, said child was adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF.
On December 27, 2001, Marines Q. was born and an ex parte Order of Temporary Custody was issued and subsequently revoked on February 22, 2002 after a contested OTC trial. The court returned Marines Q. to Xiomara G.'s custody under an order of Protective Supervision. On September 18, 2002, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on behalf of said child; and on November 21, 2002, said child was committed to DCF.
The children have lived in foster care since their commitment to DCF, except for a few months when Lizandra B. resided with her paternal aunt as a relative placement.
The Petitioner has afforded the parents reasonable efforts, since the children were removed from their care, to accept and engage in counseling, therapy, parenting classes, and substance abuse assessment. The parents have failed to either engage in services or have failed to successfully complete the services engaged in.
In February 2005, the Petitioner filed petitions for Termination of Parental Rights with respect to all three children.
Adjudicatory Findings
With respect to the statutory grounds for Termination of Parental Rights, the Petitioner has proven that all these children have been previously adjudicated neglected.
This court has found that the Commissioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent parents, namely Xiomara G. and Edwin Q. have 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 children, these parents could assume a responsible position in the life of the children and that the parent, Joel Q., has abandoned and maintained no parent/child relationship with the child, Marc A.B.
Respondent, Marcelino B., has been offered services and has engaged somewhat in those applicable to the varied situations over a seven and a half year period.
Marcelino B. and Lizandra B. share a very strong bond. Lizandra loves her Father very much, and she wants to live with her paternal aunt.
Respondent, Marcelino B. has cooperated with many of the requests of DCF, including completion of a parenting course, maintaining employment, maintaining continuous visitation rights with his daughter, Lizandra B., complying with hair and urine drug tests, obtaining suitable living arrangements although not necessarily for inclusion of his daughter, although she is living very satisfactorily with his sister, Rosa B., and stabilizing his personal life since a short period of incarceration. He was released from incarceration about two years ago and currently is not on parole or probation.
Lizandra B. has been in foster care since 5/26/98, with the exception of the period from 8/10/00 to 11/16/00 when Protective Supervision was in place with Mother. Upon the second commitment on 2/2/01, the court ordered both children, Lizandra B. and Marc A.B., to remain together in the then current foster home. DCF was ordered to investigate Father, Marcelino B.'s sister, Rosa B., as possible placement for both children. As of 4/26/01, DCF had not investigated paternal aunt, Rosa B., for placement.
On 1/31/02, a permanency plan of reunification with Father, Marcelino B., was presented by DCF and an ICJR for 5/30/02 was ordered by the court to make efforts to reunify with Father, Marcelino B. On 3/22/02, DCF again presented a permanency plan of reunification with Father, consideration was to be given Mother also within 6 months. Paternal aunt, Rosa B., was to be considered as a possible placement if Mother had not made appropriate progress within that time.
On 7/30/02, the court ordered DCF to continue to make efforts for reunification with both Mother and Father of Lizandra B. The court further made stern warnings to Mother that if she failed to follow through with the court's requirements, the child, Lizandra B., could be placed for adoption or the Father, Marcelino B., could be awarded custody as he was getting his act together more quickly than Mother. On 12/18/02, the permanency plan of reunification with Father was filed by DCF.
On 7/3/03, a permanency plan of Transfer of Guardianship to Ana L. was approved by the court as to Marc A.B. and Lizandra B. Objection was filed by Father as to Lizandra B. The court found that efforts for reunification were no longer appropriate for Mother or Fathers, Edwin Q. and Joel Q. On 11/25/03, DCF ruled out Ana L. as a placement for the children. On 12/2/04, Lizandra B. was placed with paternal aunt, Rosa B., where she remains to the present. On 2/8/05, Termination of Parental Rights was filed on all the children. Objections were filed as to all plans of Termination of Parental Rights.
On 5/5/05, the permanency plan of Termination of Parental Rights was approved, commitment was maintained, a case status conference was set for 6/1/05 and trial dates were set for the TPR trial.
Marceilno B. still does not have his own housing; he currently resides with his mother. He states that he is employed by a temp agency. He has reluctantly participated in services; some services he has not fully completed. However, he has testified that he wants Lizandra B. to remain in Rosa B.'s care. He said that Rosa B. can provide Lizandra B. with the proper care that she needs.
Lizandra B. has stated that she wants to live with her aunt, Rosa B. Lizandra B. shares a strong bond with her father. She loves him very much, and it is important to her that he remains constant in her life. Rosa B. has stated that she wants Marcelino B. to continue to be involved in Lizandra B.'s life and he has testified that he wants Lizandra B. to live with Rosa B. and he would like to help her care for Lizandra B.
If Marcelino B.'s parental rights are terminated and Lizandra B. later learns of this fact, it may cause behavioral problems as she gets older. Lizandra B. is already in therapy for behavioral issues, and knowledge of a termination of her Father's parental rights may increase the severity of her condition.
The Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent-parents, namely Xiomara G. and Edwin Q. have 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 children, the parents could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. The Petitioner has also proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Father Joel Q. has abandoned and exhibited a lack of ongoing parent-child relationship in regard to Marc A.B. The Petitioner has further proven that these grounds have existed for over one year.
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 Xiomara G.'s and Joel Q.'s parental rights, as he did not consent, and Father was defaulted, 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 provided to the parent to permit reunification of the child with the parent.
The Petitioner offered each parent individual counseling, parent aide services, Klingberg Intensive Family Preservation, inter alia. Xiomara G. was also instructed to obtain and maintain adequate housing. She successfully participated in the Klingberg parent education program. She also engaged in some individual therapy and was prescribed medication, which she discontinued against medical advice. Although Xiomara G. did engage in individual therapy, she failed to receive treatment from a licensed practitioner as recommended by her psychological and psychiatric evaluations performed in 2001. Additionally, Xiomara G. has failed to maintain adequate and stable housing. Within the last five years, she has changed residence an extraordinary number of times.
Similarly, the respondent-Fathers, Edwin Q. and Joel Q., have also failed in engage in counseling, individual therapy, and have failed to obtain stable housing.
2. Whether the Petitioner has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.The records show that the Petitioner offered the parents services, which Fathers, Edwin Q. and Joel Q., have refused to engage in.
Respondent, Xiomara G. has been the recipient of services and engaged in the same as set out in paragraph 1 above.
3. The terms of applicable court orders entered into and agreed to by any individual or agency, and the extent of fulfillment by all the parties.
Xiomara G. failed to comply with the specific steps signed and ordered by the court. The Father of Marc A.B. has never received any specific steps according to DCF records. Edwin Q. also agreed to participate in services but has failed to comply.
4. The feeling and emotional ties of the child with respect to the parents and foster parents.
Xiomara G. has weekly visits with all children. However, since Marines Q. has relocated to Puerto Rico in mid-August, she has not visited with the respondent-Mother. Marines Q. is very bonded with her foster family. Lizandra B. recognizes Xiomara G. as her Mother. However, Lizandra B. is very bonded to her paternal relatives. Marc A.B. is not bonded with Xiomara G. However, he is very attached to his foster family and wants to continue living with them. Marc A.B. calls his foster mother "Mommy."
Edwin Q. had supervised visitation with Marines Q. while incarcerated and before Marines and her foster family relocated to Puerto Rico. Marines Q. has developed a strong bond with her foster family, who are also relatives of Xiomara G.
Marc A.B does not know his father. He has never had contact with his father nor has his father made contact with Marc A.B., according to the Petitioner's records.
5. The age of the children.
Marines Q., Marc A.B. and Lizandra B. are 4, 6 1/2 and 8 years old, respectively. It is time these three adorable children got stability and permanency in their lives. The children need safe, stable, nurturing and permanent homes.
6. Efforts the parents made to adjust their circumstances.
Xiomara G. has made some efforts over the last five years to adjust her circumstances. However, she still does not have stable housing and has testified that she presently is not able to take custody of the children. Marc A.B.'s Father has not come forward and presented a plan for his child.
Edwin Q. is currently incarcerated on drug-related offenses. Prior to his last arrest, he did not have adequate housing, and failed to follow through with recommended services.
7. The extent to which any of the parents were prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with any of the children by unreasonable act or conduct of any [person or agency].There was no evidence presented to demonstrate that any of the parents were prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with any of the children.
B. Best Interest of the Children
The father of Marc A.B. has not been present in Marc A.B.'s life for the last six years, and it is clear that he is unable to assume a responsible position in this child's life within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of Marc A.B. There is no evidence that Joel Q. has been prevented from developing a relationship with Marc A.B. Therefore, it is in the best interest of Marc A.B. that his parental rights should be terminated.
Although Xiomara G. and Marc A.B. have maintained contact though supervised visitation, he is not bonded with the Mother. Mother has testified that she is not able to take custody of her children now — she needs more time. Xiomara G. has had the last five years to put herself in a position to regain custody of her children, yet she needs more time. Marc A.B. has been waiting for a stable home for the last five years. It is not fair and it is not in his best interest to keep him waiting any longer for his Mother to ready herself.
For the past five years, Marc A.B. has been in a wonderful foster home where he is loved and nurtured by his foster parents and his foster brothers and sisters. He calls his foster mother "Mommy," and looks to her for comfort. His foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt him into the family. It is in Marc A.B.'s best interest that a Termination of Parental Rights be entered as to Xiomara G.
With respect to Marines Q., a Termination of Parental Rights should be entered as to Xiomara G. and Edwin Q. For a little more than a year now, Marines Q. has been in the care of her current foster mother. She has bonded well with this family and the foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt her. This family is providing a safe, nurturing, and loving home for Marines Q.
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 Lizandra B.'s best interests to terminate the parental rights of Xiomara G., the biological Mother of the child; that it is Marc A.B.'s best interests to terminate the parental rights of Xiomara G., the biological Mother of the child and Joel Q., the Father of the child and; that it is in Marines Q.'s best interests to terminate the parental rights of Xiomara G., the biological Mother of the child and Edwin Q., the biological Father of the Child. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Lizandra B., Marc A.B. and Marines Q. are hereby terminated.
The court, having considered all the statutory considerations and all the facts and circumstances presented with regard to the biological Father of Lizandra B., Marcelino B., finds that although he has not achieved a degree of personal rehabilitation that would allow him to assume a full parental position in his daughter's life at the present time, he has continued in a very positive way to maintain efforts towards such personal rehabilitation that convince this court that it is highly likely that a responsible position can be achieved.
While it is to be noted that Lizandra B. has been in foster care for most of her eight years of life, the relationship of Father and daughter has constantly progressed. This child has relied on this relationship with her Father, and not to be overlooked, the Father's sister, Rosa B., to sustain her progress to becoming a mature young lady. These relationships inspire her to grow in a proper manner and continue to be satisfied in a family situation that will allow her to combat any outside pressure brought into her life by threatening forces beyond her control. To disrupt this would be a disaster to her young life and unacceptable to this court.
The court has reviewed the progress Father has made with his rehabilitation in the face of some adverse situations. Many of these efforts and achievements have been recited above. Termination of parental rights of Marcelino B. are, without question, not in the best interest of Lizandra B. and evidence presented has not been sufficient to permit such a finding.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for these children as applicable for the purpose of securing adoptive families and permanent placements for these children.
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 these children.