Opinion
M08CP16012711A M08CP16012712A
08-06-2018
IN RE LUKE D.[1] In re Isabella D.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Glenn Woods, J.
This case presents a petition by the Department of Children and Families ("DCF" or "department") requesting the court to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother, Violet D. (Mother), and the respondent father, Lucan D. (Father), to the children, Luke D., DOB June 7, 2013 and Isabella D., DOB October 7, 2015.
On March 15, 2017, DCF filed a petition to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of the respondent parents. The parents were properly served on March 20, 2017.
On May 3, 2016, DCF filed an Order of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petitions on behalf of Luke and Isabella. The OTC was granted on May 3, 2016 and later sustained on May 24, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the children were adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF. On March 15, 2017, a termination of parental rights petition (TPR) was filed by DCF regarding Luke and Isabella. On March 23, 2017, the court approved a permanency plan of TPR and Adoption. On December 12, 2017, Mother consented to the TPR of Isabella. On March 22, 2018, Mother consented to the TPR of Luke.
This matter was tried before the court as to the respondent father on April 10, 2018 and April 13, 2018. Father was represented by counsel. Counsel had the opportunity to examine and call witnesses. The petitioner, who bears the burden of proof in this matter, introduced fifteen exhibits and called five witnesses. Father introduced no exhibits and called no witnesses. The court had the opportunity to observe the appearance, demeanor, attitude, dress, and general hygiene of Father and to observe his reactions to the evidence presented. Further, the court closely observed the state’s witnesses and determined the validity and credibility of their testimonies.
The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction over the matter; that there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child; and that the parties do not claim these proceedings implicate the Indian Child Welfare Act. The court has carefully considered the petition, all of the evidence and testimony presented, and the arguments of counsel, according to the standards required by law. On the basis of the evidence presented and the reasons stated below, the court finds in favor of the petitioner and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent parents.
The court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence, as of the date of the petition. See Practice Book § 35a-7(a).
I
FACTS
A
Procedural History
Luke D. was born on June 17, 2013. Isabella was born on October 7, 2015. On April 30, 2016, Luke was allegedly sexually assaulted by Father. Luke is currently placed in a legal risk non-relative pre-adoptive foster home. This is Luke’s second placement since he and his sister, Isabella, were removed on May 3, 2016. His first placement, from May 3, 2016 to July 6, 2016, was a non-relative foster home. Isabella is currently placed in a non-relative DCF licensed legal risk pre-adoptive foster home.
On May 3, 2016, Motions for an Order of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petitions were filed by DCF in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Middletown on behalf of Luke and Isabella. The Order of Temporary Custody was granted on May 3, 2016 and later sustained on May 24, 2016. Luke and Isabella were adjudicated neglected on October 14, 2016. On March 15, 2017, a termination of parental rights petition (TPR) was filed by DCF regarding Luke and Isabella. On March 23, 2017, the court approved a permanency plan of TPR and Adoption. On December 12, 2017, Mother consented to the TPR regarding Isabella. On March 22, 2018, Mother consented to the TPR regarding Luke. This matter was tried to the court as to Father on April 10, 2018 and April 13, 2018.
B
Father
Father was born on February 5, 1993 in Harlem, New York to Elvira Matos and Fernando Davila. Father has a history of child protective services involvement in both Connecticut and New York due to abuse and neglect by his mother. For seven years, he lived in residential placements through DCF. He was placed in a variety of settings, including Boys’ Village (February 28, 2003-July 23, 2003), Hillcrest Center (July 23, 2003-September 8, 2006), Hillcrest Brookside (September 8, 2006-September 13, 2008), CHMA-Pando Home (June 13, 2008-October 14, 2008), and Connecticut Children’s Place (October 14, 2008-March 25, 2010). On March 26, 2010, he was reunified with his mother with services in place. Father attended ACES High School and completed the eleventh grade. After being removed from Middletown Adult Education in 2013 due to anger issues Father reengaged in Middletown Adult Education to obtain his GED but he has yet to do so.
Father has never been in the military. He does not have a work history and is currently unemployed. He receives SSI benefits due to his mental health.
Father met Mother in a residential program when she was thirteen years old. They married when Mother was eighteen years old. Their marriage resulted in the birth of their three children, Luke, Lucan and Isabella. During their marriage they had five protective orders between them from September 27, 2013 to May 4, 2015; one was a full no-contact order from April 10, 2015, to May 4, 2015, stemming from a domestic dispute that resulted in Father’s arrest on April 10, 2015. On December 17, 2015, Father and Mother separated, and on August 18, 2016, they were legally divorced.
Father is diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features. He has also been diagnosed with PTSD. On June 15, 2015, despite encouragement from DCF to remain consistent with his mental health treatment and medication Father said he was not taking his medication. After being transferred from River Valley Services to Gilead Services, Father attended his appointments and cooperated with services. Gilead Services reported improvement in Father. After December 20, 2015, when Father’s services were transferred to New Haven, he did not sign releases for DCF to access his information.
Father started smoking marijuana at age fifteen to help his depression. He smoked synthetic marijuana from 2011 to 2014. On August 6, 2015, Father participated in a substance abuse evaluation and drug screen at The Connection. While at The Connection, Father was inconsistent in his attendance at group sessions. He stopped attending group sessions and drug screens after December 17, 2015, once he moved to New Haven, and never completed the program.
Father is a convicted felon with a lengthy criminal history. He was arrested for a home invasion on May 12, 2016. On October 12, 2016, he was arrested for Sexual Assault in the First Degree and Risk of Injury to a Child and has been charged with sexually assaulting his son, Luke, on May 1, 2016. He is currently incarcerated at Garner Correctional Institute awaiting trial.
Father’s history of criminal convictions includes Assault Third Degree, Violation of a Protective Order, Violation of Probation, Breach of Peace Second Degree, Interfering with an Officer/Resisting Arrest, and Burglary in the Second Degree.
On May 1, 2016, the same day that Father was interviewed by police regarding the alleged sexual assault of his son, Father was discovered by police lying face down and unconscious in a wooded area at 146 Springdale Avenue in New Haven with four medicine bottles at his side. Evidence at trial indicated that police determined that Father unsuccessfully attempted to commit suicide.
C
Luke D.
Luke D. was born on June 17, 2013. He lived with his parents until their separation on December 20, 2015. He then lived primarily with his mother and had periodic contact with his father until his removal on May 20, 2016.
Luke’s pediatrician and dentist are located at Community Health Center in Middletown, Connecticut. Luke is up to date with his immunizations.
On April 30, 2016, Luke was sexually assaulted, allegedly by Father. Despite a safety plan that Mother agreed to with DCF that she was not to leave the children alone with Father, Mother was not present during the incident, leaving Luke and Isabella in Father’s care at that time. Once Mother was made aware that something was wrong with Luke she took him to the emergency department at St. Raphael’s Hospital in New Haven. Luke was transferred to Yale New Haven Hospital. Luke was examined with the use of a sexual assault evidence collection kit. Luke’s swab test came back positive for Chlamydia and he was treated with an antibiotic. Due to his trauma Luke was referred for mental health treatment by the Detection Assessment Referral Team (DART) at Yale.
On May 25, 2016, Luke participated in a Multi-Disciplinary Examination (MDE). The MDE recommended a well-child visit at three years old and a follow up with behavioral health or a pediatrician as needed. The MDE recommended Luke to be monitored for symptoms consistent with PTSD, that he be referred for play therapy, and continue with Birth to Three.
Luke is currently placed in a non-relative pre-adoptive foster home. This is Luke’s second placement since he and his sister were removed on May 3, 2016. Luke’s first placement was in a non-relative/legal risk foster home with his brother, Lucan. This home adopted Lucan. Luke’s second and current placement was on July 6, 2016. Luke has adjusted to this home and is doing well. He looks to his foster parents to meet his emotional and physical needs. The foster parents are very nurturing and attentive to Luke. They attend all of his medical appointments and are committed to adoption of Luke should he become legally free for adoption. Luke has an appropriate attachment to his foster parents and is doing well in their home. He is thriving in the structure of the home. Mother met the foster family on July 5, 2016. She has been able to maintain communication with the family through emails and phone calls. Father has no communication with the family.
In July of 2016, Luke began therapy at the Community Child Guidance Clinic (CCGC) on a weekly basis. His sessions changed to every other week. Luke did not display his aggressive behaviors at CCGC, but after visits he became dysregulated and acted out aggressively. Luke also disclosed memories of abuse to his foster parents. This is being addressed in therapy.
On August 20, 2017, Luke transitioned to Kaleidoscope Therapeutic Daycare. Luke began at Kaleidoscope by being very dysregulated and unable to sit through an activity. Kaleidoscope noted that all of the transitions and inconsistencies in his day were adversely affecting him. As the weeks progressed Luke calmed down and he was able to focus. He was able to interact with other children appropriately and used tools to calm himself.
It was also reported that Luke was showing sexually reactive behaviors. Luke was singing sexually suggestive songs, touching staff inappropriately and touching himself in an inappropriate and harmful manner. He was directed by the social worker at Kaleidoscope regarding what was appropriate touching of himself and others.
On November 13, 2017, a social worker at Kaleidoscope reported that Luke said he was hearing voices on a regular basis. The social worker noted that anxiety can cause delusions, hallucinations and paranoia. The social worker believed that this was a result of Luke being extremely anxious and experiencing pronounced symptoms related to PTSD.
Luke has exhibited behaviors causing some concern. While with children in an early childhood education program he would bite, hit, pull hair and make a screeching sound when frustrated. At times he has had difficulty staying on task. He continues to be aggressive in his play by throwing things, pushing things over, and taking things from other children. He is very energetic. However, since being in his current foster home he has become easier to redirect and he thrives off structure. Luke is doing well academically. He knows his alphabet and he is able to count and recognize numbers.
Luke is able to put on his clothes and shoes; he can feed himself. Luke can climb, run, jump, throw, and kick a ball. He plays with age appropriate toys.
D
Isabella D.
Isabella D. was born on October 7, 2015 in Middletown, Connecticut to Violet D. and Lucan D., Sr. Isabella is the youngest of the three children born to her parents. Isabella’s pediatrician and dentist are located at Community Health Center in Middletown, Connecticut. She is up to date with her immunizations. Although she has had many ear infections her hearing is normal. Isabella has no cavities and has all of her teeth. In December 2016 Isabella was found to have normal eye sight but she had pseudoesotropia, a condition in which the alignment of the eyes is straight despite appearing to be crossed. No recommendations were made and no follow up was needed.
On May 25, 2016, Isabella participated in a Multi-Disciplinary Examination (MDE). MDE recommended a Birth to Three referral to address her gross motor skills and for treatment of a diaper rash.
Isabella eats three meals a day of table food, cut up. She has two to three snacks a day and drinks two cups of whole milk a day. She goes to bed at night between seven o’clock and eight o’clock. She wakes up in the morning between six o’clock and seven o’clock. Isabella takes one nap a day for between sixty and ninety minutes.
Isabella is currently placed in a non-relative DCF licensed legal risk pre-adoptive foster home. This is Isabella’s only placement since she and her brother, Luke, were removed on May 3, 2016. Their brother, Lucan, was previously placed in this foster home on June 24, 2015. This foster family adopted Lucan. On July 6, 2016, Luke moved into another foster home. Isabella has adjusted well to this home. She is attached to both of her foster parents and looks to them to meet her emotional and physical needs. The foster parents are very nurturing and attentive to Isabella. They attend all of her medical appointments and are committed to adoption of Isabella should she become legally freed for adoption.
Isabella is a happy child who smiles easily, loves to be cuddled and loves attention. She is achieving age appropriate developmental milestones. She is an active child who has an interest in her toys and in playing with her brother. She can feed herself, scribble on paper when she is coloring, climb, run, jump, throw and kick a ball, and play with age appropriate toys. Isabella has shown an independent interest in books and has been able to sustain play with an object.
Isabella began attending daycare at Bright Beginnings Too full time on May 5, 2016. She is doing well in the daycare program and is on target developmentally. The daycare program reports that Isabella is able to express herself and plays well and in an appropriate manner with her friends. Isabella knows how to spell her name, can sing the alphabet, and can count to fifteen. Her speech is very clear. She is one of the younger children in her classes, but does much better than some of the older children in her classes. Isabella is walking up and down stairs and is able to kick a ball.
II
ADJUDICATORY PHASE
A
Reasonable Efforts
In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that DCF "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent ... unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing ... or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required ..." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1).
DCF has involvement with this family dating back to 2013. Father had been referred to DCF on three occasions concerning physical abuse of his sister-in-law who was age nine at the time. Mother previously gave her second-born child, Lucan, to DCF for adoption as she felt no bond to him and could not care for him. Both parents have significant mental health and trauma history. Father is a convicted felon. On May 1, 2016, DCF received a report that Father allegedly physically harmed and sexually assaulted Luke. Father has been unable to keep the children safe.
During his prior DCF involvement the department had encouraged Father to remain consistent with his mental health treatment, medication to improve his day-to-day functioning and control his anger. Father was unable to keep all of his appointments with the department. On April 30, 2015, he was unable to participate in a considered removal meeting as he was incarcerated in a medical unit which prevented his participation in the meeting. On May 2, 2016, he was unable to participate in a considered removal meeting as he was in the Intensive Care Unit at Yale New Haven Hospital. Father did not participate in an Administrative Case Review on December 16, 2016. When Father moved to New Haven in December 2015, he did not maintain contact with DCF and cancelled an appointment on January 7, 2016.
On July 30, 2015, an Intimate Partner Violence Family Assessment Intervention Response Program (IPV-FAIR) was presented to offer domestic violence, parenting and fatherhood assessment and services to both parents in the home. IPV-FAIR was unable to complete many sessions regarding co-parenting due to Father moving out of the home in September 2015, and on December 17, 2015, when the parents separated. Father was unsuccessfully discharged on January 12, 2016, as services discontinued when he moved out of the service area.
Father did not remain consistent with his mental health treatment and his medication. On June 15, 2015, while receiving services through River Valley Services, Father stated that he was not taking his medication because it made him sleepy. In December 2015, Father’s services were transferred to New Haven. However, Father did not sign releases for DCF to access his necessary information. He has been periodically incarcerated since May 16, 2016. He is presently incarcerated and reportedly receives mental health services through the Department of Corrections. He refused to sign a release for DCF to speak to his social worker.
Father was ordered to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and receive treatment due to his past history of abusing marijuana. In October, November and December of 2015, Father was inconsistent in his attendance of group meetings as he missed six out of fifteen scheduled meetings. Father did not attend meetings after December 17, 2015, as he moved to New Haven and later was incarcerated for the alleged sexual assault of his child.
Pursuant to court orders to maintain adequate housing and a legal income in order to receive supportive housing, Father needed to complete his domestic violence education, consistently engage in mental health services and comply with medication regime. On December 17, 2015, after ending his relationship with mother, Father moved to New Haven. On January 7, 2016, Father cancelled a home visit with a DCF social worker. He never returned a call to the agency to reschedule the home inspection.
On April 29, 2016, despite being informed not to leave Father alone with the children due to his mental health, Mother left Luke and Isabella with Father and his family for the weekend. On April 30, 2016, Father is alleged to have sexually assaulted Luke. Criminal charges against Father are pending. Father is not able to have contact with his minor children as he is incarcerated with a full no contact protective order in effect towards Luke.
Beginning in July 2016, Father minimally participated in services related to the court-ordered specific steps for the parents at Child First to enhance his bond with the children. The family also cancelled many visits with Child First due to doctor appointments. As a result, Child First reported that Father did not make the changes suggested to benefit his parenting.
Father does not have a work history. He is currently incarcerated and receives SSI benefits and HUSKY benefits.
As part of his court-ordered specific steps, Father was ordered not to get involved with the criminal justice system. Father is a convicted felon with a long criminal history dating back to 2012. In addition, he was arrested on May 12, 2016, for Home Invasion, Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (two counts), Assault of a Public Safety Officer, interfering with an officer/resisting arrest, Breach of the Peace in the Second Degree, and Larceny in the Sixth Degree. On July 19, 2016, Father was convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree and Assault of a Public Safety Officer.
On October 12, 2016, Father was arrested for Sexual Assault First Degree and Risk of Injury to a Child. He is currently incarcerated at Garner Correctional Institution.
In contravention of court-ordered specific steps to cooperate with the children’s therapy, Father has not attended Luke and Isabella’s medical appointments, nor has he attended Luke’s therapy appointments since he moved out of the family home in December of 2015. He has been periodically incarcerated since May 12, 2016. On October 12, 2016, a full protective order protecting Luke from his Father was issued and remains pending. Since being incarcerated for the alleged sexual assault of Luke, Father has not requested visits with Isabella.
In addition to the aforementioned extensive reasonable efforts provided by DCF, Father received transportation, bus passes, couples counseling with mother, supportive housing, a security deposit, substance abuse evaluation and treatment and probation services.
Father has failed to address the parenting issues preventing him from caring for his children. He has not been able to rehabilitate to an extent that would support a timely reunification.
Father has not been cooperative with the department in the past and has been unable to assume a responsible position in the life of his children in a reasonable period of time. Father has been minimally involved with his children in the past. He has failed to rehabilitate despite receiving services. He is unwilling to benefit from said efforts and has not gained insight into his issues despite his involvement in services. Father has been incarcerated periodically since May 16, 2016. He has not been able to maintain himself safely and responsibly in the community.
The children are in need of a competent caregiver who will provide them permanency.
In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent. See General Statutes § § 17a-112(j) and 17a-112(j)(1). Our courts have consistently held that in determining the meaning of "reasonable efforts to ... reunify"; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); "[t]he word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department’s efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof ... [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." (Internal quotations marks omitted.) In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 668, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010); see also In re Chevol G., 125 Conn.App. 618, 621, 9 A.3d 413 (2010). "[T]he department must prove either that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts. Section 17a-112(j) clearly provides that the department is not required to prove both circumstances. Rather, either showing is sufficient to satisfy this statutory element." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 205, 15 A.3d 194 (2011); see also In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 191, 16 A.3d 1244 (2011).
Father has not been cooperative with the department in the past and has not been able to remain free from incarceration. He will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his children within a reasonable period of time. He has been minimally involved with his children in the past. He has been periodically incarcerated since May 2016. He has not been able to maintain himself safely and responsibly in the community.
The children need a permanent and competent caregiver to provide for their care, safety, and wellbeing. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1) in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-111b(a), that Father has been unable or unwilling to benefit from the department’s reasonable reunification efforts to reunify the children with him. Said reunification efforts would have addressed the aforementioned ongoing concerns of the department.
The court finds the department has made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent father with the children.
B
Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights
Each statutory basis set out in § 17a-112(j)(3) is an independent ground for termination. See In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263, 293, 618 A.2d 1 (1992). "During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must determine whether one or more of the ... grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in § 17a-112[ (j)(3) ] exists by clear and convincing evidence. The commissioner ... in petitioning to terminate those rights, must allege and prove one or more of the statutory grounds ... Section [17a-112(j)(3) ] carefully sets out ... [the] situations that, in the judgment of the legislature, constitute countervailing interests sufficiently powerful to justify the termination of parental rights in the absence of consent ... Because a respondent’s fundamental right to parent his or her child is at stake, [t]he statutory criteria must be strictly complied with before termination can be accomplished and adoption proceedings begun." (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485, 500-01, 78 A.3d 797 (2013). "[T]he failure to comply with specific steps ordered by the court typically weighs heavily in a termination proceeding." In re Devon B., 264 Conn. 572, 584, 825 A.2d 127 (2003). Mother consented to termination of her parental rights on December 12, 2017 and March 22, 2018. Therefore, she is not subject to a determination by the court of the grounds for termination of her parental rights. As to Father, the court finds that the department has sustained its burden of proof as to the following grounds.
Ground (B)(i)- Failure to rehabilitate with a child who has been found by the Superior Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding
Pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B), "a trial court can terminate parental rights if the court finds that ‘the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court ... to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ... and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to [General Statutes § ]46b-129 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 ...’ " In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 503, quoting General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). The issue in the present case is whether the respondent father has achieved such a degree of personal rehabilitation. In considering personal rehabilitation under the provisions of § 17a-112(j), "[t]he critical issue is whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 261, 763 A.2d 71 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934, 767 A.2d 104 (2001). Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a respondent to a constructive and useful role as a parent. See In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 203, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).
In the instant case the parenting problems of Father have been unaddressed mental health issues, domestic violence, inadequate parenting skills, employment issues and inadequate housing. In January 2016, Father failed to cooperate with the department when it requested to visit his residence.
Father failed to complete in home support services and substance abuse treatment services. In December 2015, after Father’s mental health services and probation were transferred to New Haven, he did not sign releases for DCF to access his information.
Father has a mental health diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features and a previous diagnosis of PTSD for which he received treatment. Nevertheless, he continues to demonstrate poor decision making with regards to domestic violence toward mother and to care and attention toward his children.
Father has not been cooperative with the department in the past and has not been able to remain free from incarceration. He will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his children within a reasonable period of time. He has been minimally involved with his children in the past. On May 12, 2016, Father was arrested for Home Invasion, Carrying a Dangerous Weapon, Assault of a Public Safety Officer, Breach of The Peace and Larceny. On October 12, 2016, Father was arrested for Sexual Assault First Degree and Risk of Injury to a child for the alleged sexual assault of his son, Luke. He is currently incarcerated. Father has not been able to maintain himself safely and responsibly in the community.
Father has not rehabilitated to a point where he will be able to assume a responsible position in the lives of Luke and Isabella.
Ground E- Failure to rehabilitate with a child under seven years
Luke D. was born on June 17, 2013, and Isabella was born on October 7, 2015. Both are less than seven years old.
Luke D. and Isabella D. are neglected children in that on May 1, 2016, DCF received a report that Father allegedly physically harmed and sexually assaulted Luke. Despite being involved with DCF and service providers, he has been unable to keep his children safe.
The facts identified by the court in Ground (B)(i) are incorporated in Ground (E) and show Father’s failure to achieve a sufficient degree of permanent rehabilitation as to allow him to assume a responsible position in the lives of the children.
Specific steps that were ordered by the court on May 3, 2016, to facilitate the return of Luke D. and Isabella D. to Father’s care have not been complied with.
Father has not made efforts to comply with his specific steps. Father has not visited with Luke since he allegedly sexually assaulted Luke on April 30, 2016, due to a full no-contact protective order. He has not requested any contact with Isabella since his incarcerations. Father is currently incarcerated and his charges remain pending.
Father’s parental rights to his other child, Lucan D., DOB August 29, 2014, were terminated on October 14, 2016, pursuant to a termination of parental rights petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.
Father will not be able to assume a responsible position in the lives of his children within a reasonable time period.
Luke and Isabella need permanent and stable living arrangements and nurturing and consistent parenting which will meet their medical, emotional, and physical needs in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner.
The court finds that Father has failed to rehabilitate within the meaning of the statute.
The children have not benefitted from their parents being in their lives. Mother consented to termination of her parental rights. Father has refused to abide by the specific steps ordered by the department. The department, however, complied with said steps in that it offered services to both Mother and Father so that they could be reunited with their children. Mother and Father have not been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with their children by any unreasonable act other than their failure to put their children’s interest ahead of their own and remaining free from incarceration.
Neither parent will be able to assume a responsible position in the life of the child within a reasonable period of time. The children have been removed from their parents’ care. Therefore, they are in need of a competent caregiver to provide them with appropriate care. To allow further time for Father to rehabilitate so he could possibly assume a responsible position in the children’s lives is not in the best interest of the children.
III
DISPOSITION
The court finds that the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of § 17a-112(j)(3) and termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Before deciding whether or not to terminate their parental rights, the court is required to make findings on seven criteria set out in § 17a-112(k). "In arriving at [the decision of whether to terminate parental rights], the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors" outlined in § 17a-112(k). In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 362, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995). "[T]hose 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 47, 907 A.2d 126, cert. granted on other grounds, 280 Conn. 947, 912 A.2d 480 (2006), aff’d, 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (2008). The court concludes that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the parental rights of the respondent parents. See In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 107, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000) (concluding that there was sufficient evidence, namely evidence of best interests of subject children, for court to terminate parental rights of respondent). Pursuant to statute, the court makes the following findings regarding the department’s petition to terminate the respondents’ parental rights, as of the last day of evidence. See Practice Book § 35a-9.
A
General Statutes § 17a-112(k) Criteria
(1) "The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent ..."
The department has made reasonable efforts to work towards reunification of Luke and Isabella with their father. The department offered services to Father that were timely, relevant and appropriate to address his needs.
The department offered Father substance abuse evaluations and treatment, mental health services and evaluations, anger management services, parent mentoring services, domestic violence services, and transportation to assist Father in rehabilitating himself in an effort to reunify with the child in a timely manner. Father has not availed himself of all services offered.
Father has made himself minimally available for services. He has refused to accept services made available to him by the department. Despite his limited involvement in services, he has not gained insight into his issues.
The court finds that the timeliness, nature, and extent of services offered by DCF to the respondent parents to be fair and responsible.
(2) "[W]hether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended ..."
The department made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq. (Conn.Sup. 2015). The department has been making responsible efforts for Father since April 10, 2015. Father was referred for substance abuse evaluations and treatment, mental health evaluations, anger management services, parent mentoring services, domestic violence services, and transportation. Due to his refusal to accept most services offered, Father never availed himself of these services. These services were appropriate and offered on a timely basis.
Luke is five years old. He has not seen Father since he was removed following an incident in which Luke was allegedly sexually assaulted by Father. Luke is doing well in his current foster home. Isabella is two years old. She has not seen Father since she was removed following an incident in which Luke was allegedly sexually assaulted by Father. Father has not requested to visit with Isabella. Isabella looks to her current foster parents for her needs to be met. She is very bonded with both foster parents and she will reach out to them for comfort or just to be held when needed. She has thrived in her foster home.
(3) "[T]he terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order ..."
The Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Middletown ordered specific steps for Father on May 3, 2016. On October 14, 2016 the court waived specific steps for Father. Father has failed to comply with his obligations under these steps.
(4) "[T]he 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 ties ..."
The court finds that the children have developed a close bond and emotional ties with their foster parents. The children seek their foster families to meet all of their needs, to keep them safe, and for stability. The children are comfortable in the environmental surroundings of their foster homes.
(5) "[T]he age of the child ..."
Luke was born on June 17, 2013 and is five years old, as verified by his birth certificate. Isabella was born on October 17, 2015 and is two years old, as verified by her birth certificate.
(6) "[T]he 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 has not maintained consistent contact with the children. He has been unavailable to the children for much of his life due to his incarceration and a lack of interest or lack of concern for the children. Father has failed to complete the parenting, anger management, domestic violence, mental health screening and substance abuse evaluation services he has been offered. He has failed to adjust his circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make the case that it in the best interest of the children to be safely returned to his care. Father has made minimal progress as he has failed to comply with all the services offered to assist in his rehabilitation and reunification. Father is currently incarcerated.
Due to the aforementioned circumstances, Father has not been maintaining frequent contact with the children.
Father is currently involved with services through the Department of Corrections. Prior to this, he was involved with mental health treatment, domestic violence services, and parenting services. However, despite all these efforts, Father is not in a position to have visits with this children and have them reunified into his care.
(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 visitation, communications or contributions
In April 2016, Father allegedly sexually assaulted Luke and the criminal case remains pending. Father is not able to have contact with Luke per a no-contact protection order. Father remains incarcerated. He has not requested any visitation with Isabella. There have been no gifts, clothing, or support given to Luke and Isabella for holidays and/or special occasions by Father.
(B) The maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child
Father has always kept his whereabouts known to the department. However, he has not always maintained regular contact with DCF to discuss his case.
(7) "[T]he extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent ."
The court finds that Father has not been prevented from having a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent, the unreasonable act of any other person, or by economic circumstances. Father was offered and referred to programs to address mental health, substance abuse, parenting, and domestic violence issues.
Father has an extensive criminal history. He has refused to begin, resume or complete available services. These services were offered at no cost to Father. It is a result of Father’s own actions that he has not had a meaningful relationship with his son.
B
Best Interests of the Child
The court is at a point in the dispositional phase of the proceeding where it must determine whether termination of the parental rights of the respondent parents is in the best interest of the child. See In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992) ("[o]ur statutes and caselaw make it crystal clear that the determination of the child’s best interests come into play only after statutory grounds for termination of parental rights have been established by clear and convincing evidence"). The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, pursuant to § 17a-112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court must find, "by clear and convincing evidence that ... (2) termination is in the best interest of the child ..."
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of the respondent mother and the respondent father is in the best interest of the child. In making this decision, the court has considered the children’s age, development, well-being, need for continuity and stability, sustained growth, length of stay in the foster home, nature of the relationship with the foster families and biological family, and the degree of contact maintained by the biological parents. See In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).
The court has also balanced the children’s need for stability and permanency against the distant and uncertain benefit of maintaining a connection with their parents. Mother consented to termination of her parental rights to Isabella D. on December 12, 2017, and to Luke D. on March 22, 2018. The court has noted throughout this decision that neither parent has demonstrated a willingness or any ability to provide consistent, competent, safe, and nurturing parenting to the children. Father has never cared for or supported the children, or met their needs on a consistent basis since they were babies. Father has not successfully taken advantage of available services in order to improve his circumstances so he can assume a responsible role in the children’s lives. Father has been unavailable for services due to lack of interest and concern for the children, as well as to incarceration. Father has not been able to put the children’s interests ahead of his own interests.
The children need a permanent and stable living environment in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner. There is no reasonable possibility that Father will be able to serve a meaningful role as a parent within a reasonable period of time. The children seek their foster parents out for daily comfort and support. The court finds that the children are bonded to their foster families and enjoy a significant degree of mental and emotional stability in their care.
The best interest of the children will be served by terminating the parental rights of the respondent parents so that the children can be provided with the love, care, permanency, and the stability that they require.
IV
ORDERS
Based upon the foregoing findings, and having considered all of the evidence and statutory requirements, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent parents, Violet D. and Lucan D., with their children, Luke D. and Isabella D. Further, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for the termination of the parental rights of the respondent parents. Finally, the court also finds, by clear and convincing evidence, upon all of the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in the children’s best interest to terminate the parental rights of the respondent parents. Accordingly, the court hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent parents, Violet D. and Lucan D.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent of the children. Finally, the court orders DCF to file a status report within thirty days of the filing of this decision.
SO ORDERED.