Opinion
Nos. H12-CP03-009098-A, H12-CP03-009099-A, H12-CP03-009100-A
December 13, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These are actions brought by The Department of Children and Families ("DCF") seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological fathers of Margarita S., Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. (hereinafter referred to as "Margarita S., Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R." or "children"). The biological mother of the children is Yolanda S. (hereinafter referred to as "Yolanda S." or "Mother"); the putative father of Margarita S. is John Doe (hereinafter referred to as "John Doe" or "Father"); the biological father of Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. is Esteban R. (hereinafter referred to as "Esteban R." or "Father"). The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting Margarita S., Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R.'s custody and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.
On 5/30/03 petitions for Neglect/Abused and Neglect/Uncared for were filed by The Department of Children and Families, State of Connecticut in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters on behalf of Margarita S., Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. respectively.
The allegations of the petitions were Neglect/Abused and Uncared for in that the children had been abandoned, that they were denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, that they were permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being, that they were uncared for in that they were homeless, and had a condition which is the result of maltreatment such as sexual molestation.
Thereafter, the children were adjudicated neglected/abused and uncared for, the children were committed to the care and custody of DCF and commitment was ordered maintained until further order of the court.
On 3/6/06 a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed as to Mother and Father, Esteban R. for Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. and on 9/18/06 as to Mother and Father, John Doe with regard to Margarita S. Father, Esteban R. did not appear on 4/6/06, plea date, and a default for failure to appear was entered. On 5/8/06 a Case Status Conference was held. Mother appeared and trial dates of 9/20/06 and 9/21/06 were set. Trial was set for Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. only and a Permanency Plan of Long-Term Foster Care was put forward by DCF.
On 9/20/06 the Petitioner filed a motion for review of Permanency Plan as to Margarita S. The Permanency Plan for this child was amended from LTFC to TPR and adoption. The court approved the PP for TPR and adoption and Mother withdrew her objection to the previous PP of LTFC.
Thereafter, on 5/20/06, the Petitioner filed a motion to amend the notice and order for hearing on termination of parental rights as to John Doe only, a motion to amend the social study for TPR dated 4/30/06, a motion for order of notice for John Doe, and an oral motion to remove Armando S. as Father of Margarita S., all of which were granted by the court.
Mother appeared at the trial on 5/20/06, was advised of her rights and consented to a termination of her parental rights as to all four children. The court found such termination was in the best interest of the children by clear and convincing evidence and found that reasonable efforts had been made by the Petitioner to achieve the approved Permanency Plan of TPR and adoption as to Mother. The court found that the Mother knowingly and voluntarily consented to the termination with the assistance of competent counsel. The trial dates of 9/20/06 and 9/21/06 were marked off and a plea date of 10/17/06 was set for pleas for Father, Esteban R. and Father, John Doe. On 10/17/06 a default trial date of 12/7/06 was set as neither Father, Esteban R., nor Father, John Doe appeared on 10/17/06. On 12/7/06 the court was convened and again, neither Father appeared.
The biological Mother and biological Fathers were all served with notice of the petition of Termination of Parental Rights.
At the time of the trial, 12/7/06, the State submitted three exhibits which consisted of a Social Study for the Termination of Parental Rights dated April 3, 2006 (Ex. A.), an Addendum to the TPR Social Study dated September 19, 2006 (Ex. B.) and an Affidavit dated April 28, 2006 (Ex. C.) and rested. No further evidence was offered. No witnesses were called, although present, as no objection was taken as to exhibits presented and no cross-examination was requested.
The grounds of this petition for the Termination of Parental Rights as to the Fathers are abandonment and no ongoing parent-children relationship. The grounds as to Mother were dropped and the ground of consent was substituted at the time of trial.
The court carefully considered all the evidence presented at trial. The court applied the burden of proof applicable to the termination of parental rights petitions. Only evidence relevant to the adjudication date was considered as a part of adjudication proceedings on the termination petitions.
I FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Background/Present Situation
On 5/30/03, a petition of neglect and uncared for was filed by the Department of Children and Families, State of Connecticut in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters on behalf of Natanael R., Miriam R. and Kiara R.
The allegations of the petition were that the children had been abandoned, that they were denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally, that they were being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being, that the children had been abused and had a condition which is the result of maltreatment such as sexual molestation, and were uncared for in that they were homeless.
On 8/19/03, the court found the children were neglected and committed the children to the Petitioner as neglected children.
The ground of the petition for the Termination of Parental Rights of Yolanda S. was failure to rehabilitate. The grounds with regard to John Doe, Father of Margarita S. are abandonment and lack of on-going parent-child relationship. The grounds with regard to Esteban R., Father of Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. are abandonment and lack of on-going patent-child relationship.
The children for whom the petitions are filed have been victims of sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly. They have experienced numerous bouts of homelessness and the failure of their Mother to keep them protected from sexual predators. The identity of Margarita S.'s Father is unknown, and he has never been involved in her life. Esteban R., father of Miriam R., Natanael R., and Kiara R., has been absent from the lives of his children and has failed to provide for their most basic of needs.
Since 3/3/06, Margarita S., Miriam R. and Kiara R. have remained in the same DCF licensed foster home where they were placed on 6/26/03. Natanael R. lived in the same home with them until he disrupted from the home on 11/30/05. A relative resource who would like to adopt all four children has been identified. The resource is already licensed for foster care and adoption in the State of Ohio. DCF supports this plan.
B. Yolanda S., Mother
Yolanda S., the oldest of three children, was born on 8/3/77, in Caguas, Puerto Rico, to Awilda R. and Nelson L. She was given the last name of her mother's boyfriend, Armando S. Awilda R. told her daughter, Yolanda S. that Nelson L. had raped her when she was visiting friends in Philadelphia, PA, and that Yolanda S. was conceived during that rape. Yolanda S. has two brothers, Luis R. (age 25) and Victor V. (26). Luis R. continues to live with Awilda R. on New Britain Avenue in Hartford. Luis R. is the substantiated perpetrator of sexual abuse against Miriam R., Yolanda S.'s daughter. He was last known to be living in Springfield, MA where he was incarcerated for selling controlled substances.
Yolanda S.'s early life was fraught with sexual abuse at the hand of her grandfather and her mother's boyfriend, Jose R. When she was a few months old her mother relocated from Puerto Rico to Springfield, MA. She was removed from her mother when she was 6 or 7 by the Massachusetts authorities and sent to live with her grandparents in Puerto Rico. Yolanda's grandfather began raping her when she was 7 years old and continued until she was removed at the age of 12 by the Puerto Rican authorities. She was returned to live with her mother and her mother's boyfriend Jose R. Yolanda S. was sexually abused by Jose R. until she was 14 years old and finally ran away one night when he was beating her up. Yolanda S. stated that her mother never protected her and was always mean to her. At age 14, Yolanda S. was sleeping in parks in Springfield, MA, when a black male raped her. She reported that this attacker is Margarita S.'s Father. She reported the incident to the police but the man was never caught.
Massachusetts authorities intervened again and removed Yolanda S. from her mother's care. She lived at an aunt's home in Caguas, PR where Margarita S. was born. Yolanda S. was eventually placed with Margarita S. in a foster home in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Massachusetts child and family authorities tried to get Yolanda S. to go to counseling but she did not want to go as she wanted the pain and anger to stay with her.
Yolanda S. met Esteban R. when she was 16 years old and when she left foster care at the age of 18, she went to live with him. Esteban R. was nice to her in the beginning but he started to drink excessively and became abusive. In 2001 Esteban R. assaulted Yolanda in front of her children and Margarita S. was shaking with fear. The next morning Mother gathered her children together and moved to a battered women's shelter. She eventually bounced around from shelter to shelter before locating an apartment. Since Yolanda S. left Esteban R. she has been unable to retain housing or employment. She was living in her own apartment at 250 Homestead Avenue, Hartford, but was evicted on 8/16/02 and moved into her mother's home where daughter, Miriam S. was abused.
Yolanda S. dropped out of school in the 7th grade. She had two weeks left to complete her GED but decided to leave Massachusetts with Esteban R. instead. She has never been married and has been employed in three different jobs during her lifetime.
Yolanda S. has no criminal history and no military history. She suffers from asthma.
Yolanda S. continues to reside with her former boyfriend, Sebastian J., at 1642 Broad Street in Hartford. Although this relationship has been strained at times, Yolanda S. views Sebastian J. as a support to her, providing her with a place to live. She does have pending applications for housing, but she is not focusing on this process at the present time. Her priority is getting her children situated. She has indicated that it is her intention to consent to the termination of her parental rights with regard to all four of her children. Although this was a difficult decision for her to make, she does believe that it in the best interests of her children to be adopted by her first cousin, Elizabeth R. and her husband Edwin. Mother has told the children that she is supportive of this plan and the children are looking forward to being adopted by Elizabeth and Edwin. Mother would consider relocating to Ohio to maintain contact with her children but would remain in Connecticut if Natanael R. needed to remain in the state. She visits the children consistently and ongoing contact would likely be in their best interests. Elizabeth and Edwin R. are willing to allow ongoing contact if they adopt the children.
C. Estehan R., Father of Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R.
Esteban R.'s whereabouts are currently unknown. Yolanda S. reported that he was born in Loiza, PR on 8/26/63, to Gregorio R. and Esperanza T. The parents had 19 biological children all of whom live in Loiza, PR. but Yolanda S. does not know any of them. She believes that Father dropped out of school in the 5th grade as he was very poor growing up and his family didn't have enough money for shoes or clothes. She doesn't believe that any of Father's brothers or sisters finished school.
Esteban R. was married to another woman during the 8 years he was with Yolanda S. He came to the United States with his wife and then met Yolanda S. with whom he lived for 6 years in Hartford, CT. Yolanda S. believes that Esteban R. is still married but she doesn't know the name of his wife. Esteban R. has no known health problems, no military or criminal history. He was drinking very heavily when Yolanda S. left him. She last saw him in 2001 and believes that he is living in Loiza, PR. DCF located Esteban R.'s last known address which was in Hartford.
D. John Doe, Father of Margarita S.
The identity of Margarita S.'s biological Father was not disclosed by Mother and he remains unknown. The court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to ascertain his identity and whereabouts. The court further finds that the unknown Father has never been available to this child so that he would develop a relationship with her. No father has ever come forward to claim any paternity. No one has made any effort to contact DCF to determine the whereabouts or welfare of this child.
E. Margarita S., Child
Margarita S. is currently 13 years old. She spent the summer at the YWCA Camp Talcott in NY and did very well. She participates in counseling at the Village for Families and Children with Denise S. who had begun working with Margarita S. at the Center for Children's Advocacy. Margarita S. has a history of sexual abuse. She is currently on probation due to making a verbal threat to a teacher in the 2004-2005 school year. She has been compliant with her probation. Margarita S. is very parentified, having often found herself in the role of managing her younger siblings' behavior. She previously told DCF that she was not willing to be adopted, therefore, DCF did not file to terminate parental rights on her behalf when filing for her siblings. Margarita S. now wishes to be adopted by her maternal cousins who live in Ohio and DCF has filed a petition to terminate parental rights on her behalf.
F. Miriam R., Child
Miriam R. was born on 9/14/96 in Hartford, CT and has just turned 10 years old. She was delayed in her milestones, not walking until 18 months and when she would talk she was hard to understand. Miriam R. is anemic. Her medical records indicate that from age 2 she had speech and possible hearing difficulties that were not addressed by her Mother. In January 2004, at DCF's request Miriam R. was tested by the Hartford Board of Education for speech delays. She was deemed as an at-risk student but not in need of special education services.
Miriam R. was also administered a psychological evaluation in February 2005 that noted her full scale IQ at 83. The evaluation noted that Miriam R. has clinically elevated scores in anxiety, depression, and atypicality. She had at risk scores for somatization, attention and learning difficulties. Overall, Miriam R. shows a tendency to internalize her feelings reporting that "I'm sad all the time; I do everything wrong; things bother me all the time; I look ugly; I have trouble sleeping every night; I'm tired all the time; I feel alone many times."
Miriam R. attends the Simpson-Waverly School in Hartford and is repeating the 4th grade this year. She is shy and reserved, preferring quiet activities such as reading and art projects.
Miriam R. was placed with her siblings since her removal from her Mother in May 2003. Natanael R. requested to be removed from his foster home of 2 years in November 2005. DCF removed him after he reported that he was tired of his sisters and others hitting him. He bares the scars on his face from years of Miriam R. scratching him. Miriam R. follows the authority of her older parentified sister, Margarita S. Miriam R. is more reserved than her two sisters, Miriam R. and Kiara R. Kiara R. is more outgoing and they share a more relaxed sibling relationship. Miriam R. and Kiara R. rarely fight, they sometimes play together and they share the same bed.
If asked, Miriam R. reports that she wants to return to the care of her Mother. However, on very few occasions has Miriam R., of her own accord, asked to return to her Mother's care. She is not upset by her Mother's missed visits, she does not ask to see her Mother more frequently and she does not talk to her on the phone although she has that option. She also refers to her foster parent as "mom." Miriam R. is very excited about the prospect of being adopted by her cousin in Ohio.
G. Natanael R., Child
Natanael R. was born with a clubfoot and chronic asthma on 10/10/97 in Hartford, CT. He had surgery to correct his clubfoot when he was 1-year-old and then again at 2 1/2 years old. In July 1999 DCF received a referral of medical neglect of Natanael R., as he had maggots inside his cast along with a bleeding and infected wound. Mother reported that she didn't know that anything was wrong with Natanael R. Natanael R. was developmentally on target with walking and talking.
Yolanda S. reported that Natanael R. was hyperactive in school and difficult for her to deal with at home. He was identified as a special education student when he repeated Kindergarten in January 2004.
Natanael R. has had two school administered psychological evaluations, the first in December 2003 and the second in November 2005. Initially Natanael R.'s full scale IQ was assessed to be 66, however in the November 2005 report his full scale IQ was assessed to be 76 which placed him in the 5th percentile of his peers.
In November 2005, Natanael R.'s social/emotional status was also assessed. His responses were primarily aggressive and negative. He reported that he didn't like people who treat him "mean." He identified his mother, father, family, and teachers as "mean." He is afraid of "nothing" but "cries" when he is alone because he is "scared." Projective testing was indicative of a child who expresses feelings of loneliness, emptiness, unfulfilled wishes and insecurity. In Natanael R.'s stories many of the heroes were "afraid" and "worried." Anger and aggression were also present in his stories. The December 2003 evaluation stated many of the same problems with Natanael R.
Natanael R. was placed in the same foster home as his three sisters in June 2003. Beginning in September 2005, he began telling his school social worker that he didn't want to return to his foster home after school. He consistently became disruptive and would refuse to get on the bus to return to the foster home. He made reports that were validated by his sisters but later unsubstantiated by DCF that the foster parents' adult children were hitting him with belts. In November 2005 Natanael R. requested to leave the foster home and was placed at the Community Solutions Safe Home. Within a week of living at the safe home, he had to be hospitalized. He has been placed at Stony Lodge Hospital in Ossining, New York since 12/7/05 and has repeatedly hit, bitten, kicked and punched staff and peers. He has torn up his room and common areas at the safe home and the hospital. He has bitten the ends of his fingers until they bled. Natanael R. was placed at the Riverview Hospital on 5/16/06 and receives special education services through the Riverview School. He is not ready for discharge, and has visual and auditory hallucinations. He is a very fearful child but is also very warm and engaging. DCF brings his sisters to see him at Riverview approximately once a month; his Mother visits him weekly and participates in therapy. He speaks on the phone with his cousins in Ohio every other day and would like to live with them when he leaves the hospital.
Natanael R.'s relationship with his siblings centers on conflict. He is the only boy and the typical complaint from his sisters is that Natanael R. "bothers me." He has scars on his face and arms from where his sisters have scratched him. Since his placement in November 2005, he has reported that he misses his sisters and his mom. He calls his biological Mother and his former foster parent mom. His former foster parent has not called or visited him since he left her home.
Throughout the years, Natanael R.'s relationship with Yolanda S. has also been marked by conflict. He has intermittently refused visitation with his Mother, has run away from his Mother, refused to enter the room where his Mother was and has refused to get in the car to go on visits with her. He stated that he doesn't want his Mother to hit him. Conversely, when asked about his hopes for the future, Natanael R. reports that he wants to live with his Mother.
H. Kiara R., Child
Kiara R. was born on 3/12/98, in Hartford, CT. She was hospitalized at birth because she was jaundiced and then again at the age of 2 1/2 years with asthma. Mother reported that Kiara R., enjoys getting her own way and that she is bright having reached all her developmental milestones early.
Since Kiara R.'s removal from her Mother in May 2003, DCF has had concerns about her abilities. She was placed in a Headstart program for the 2003-2004 school year, in an effort to socialize her and prepare her for school. When she entered Kindergarten in 2004, she was unable to recognize her shapes and colors and was academically behind her peers. She eventually made enough gains to be promoted to first grade but would begin her 1st grade year substantially behind her peers in most academic areas. DCF has requested a PPT and testing to evaluate Kiara R.'s abilities. Kiara R. is currently in the 2nd grade at Wish Elementary School in Hartford.
Socially, Kiara R. is well liked among her peers but she is difficult for her teachers to redirect. She has tantrums, resists encouragements, and in general does not respond to the demands of a classroom setting.
Kiara R. has never disclosed a history of sexual abuse. She has a lively personality and often bickers with his sister, Miriam R.
Kiara R. openly discussed her relationships with her family. She says that she loves her Mother, referring to Yolanda S., and that she would like to return to her. She also refers to her foster mother as mom. However, she does not ask to see Mother, she does not talk to her on the phone although she has the option, and she does not inquire about missed visits when Yolanda S. does not show. Kiara R. would like to live with her cousins in Ohio, however, she also has a significant attachment to her foster mother of three years.
I. Relative — Elizabeth R., Maternal Cousin
At the time of the Social Study dated 3/3/05, no appropriate relative resources had been identified. Mother notified DCF on 7/12/06 that her first cousin, Elizabeth R., who resided in Cleveland, Ohio, was a licensed foster parent in that state. She also stated that Elizabeth R. and her husband wanted to adopt the four children. Elizabeth R. contacted DCF that same day and also expressed her interest in adopting the children. Yolanda S. and Elizabeth R. grew up together but had lost touch over the years. Elizabeth R. was unaware that Yolanda S.'s children were in foster care until a relative from Puerto Rico put them in touch with one another.
Shortly after Elizabeth R. contacted DCF, she sent letters of introduction and photos to each of the children. Phone contact was initiated and the family has traveled to Connecticut twice to meet the children. They brought gifts and food for the children when they came to Connecticut to visit. Meeting the children reinforced the family's desire to adopt them. The family presently maintains phone contact with the children.
The relative family consists of mother, Elizabeth R., who is Yolanda S.'s first cousin, Elizabeth R.'s husband, Edwin R. and their two teenage children, Edwina and Enrique. The family was initially licensed for foster care in 2001, and is presently licensed as a Treatment Foster Home (specialized foster home)/Adoptive home through Cleveland Christian Homes in Ohio. The family was interested in expanding their family through adoption prior to learning that Yolanda S.'s children were in DCF care. The relatives have maintained regular contact with DCF and have not wavered from their commitment to adopt the children. They are aware of the sexual abuse history of the children, and are also aware of Natanael's mental health issues. They have visited him at Riverview Hospital, and have communicated with his therapist.
DCF is initiating interstate compact requests to place the children with this family in Ohio as their adoptive resource.
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 Fathers, Esteban R. and John Doe'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 child[ren] with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts." C.G.S. § 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).
From May 2003 to the present, Father, Esteban R.'s whereabouts have been unknown. DCF has made the following efforts to locate him: White pages search for Connecticut yielded no Esteban matches. White pages had no matches for Esteban in Puerto Rico. Zabasearch in Connecticut yielded 4 matches; 2 had no listed phone numbers and were not contacted, one wrong number and one person stated he was not the Esteban R. in question. DMV search yielded a suspended license with a 2001 address of 1659 Main Street, Hartford, CT. This address does not currently exist. Housing and Civil/Family court have no listings for Esteban R. Small claims court yielded one Esteban R. but no address where he could be located. Connecticut Department of Corrections has no Esteban R. as Father has no criminal history. The Connecticut Department of Social Services has no address for him.
Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are not 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 child with his parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parents are 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).
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 biological Fathers, Esteban R. and Putative Father, John Doe.
This ground is established when the children have 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 children. 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 children, but rather, whether the parent has maintained any reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the children'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 children; (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the children; (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 P., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).
Ground A — Abandonment as to Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. by biological Father, Esteban R.
Esteban R. has not seen his children since 1999. Since May 2003, when Natanael R., Kiara R. and Miriam R. were placed in the care and custody of the Petitioner, Father has not visited with his children, despite the fact that they would have visited him on a weekly basis.
During said time, Father, Esteban R. has not sent cards, gifts or made phone calls to his children.
During that time, he has not paid child support on behalf of the children and has never acknowledged his children's birthdays or other special events.
For more than one year, Father has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of his children as evidenced by his lack of involvement in visits, medical appointments, school functions, and failure to inquire and follow-up on the children's situation.
Ground A — Abandonment as to Margarita S. by putative Father, John Doe.
1. The child was born on December 16, 1992.
2. Since the child's birth, the Father has not come forward to establish paternity.
3. Since the child's birth, the Father has never seen the child.
4. Since the child's birth, the Father has not maintained any contact with DCF.
5. Father has not recognized the child on special occasions through sending cards or gifts.
6. Father has not contacted the Petitioner to find out how the child was doing or to ask to visit with the child.
7. Father has not supported the child, physically, emotionally or financially.
8. Father has not come forward with a plan with regard to the child's care, welfare, safety and permanency.C. Grounds for Termination: No Ongoing Parent-Children Relationship — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) as to Biological Father, Esteban R. and Putative Father, John Doe.
This ground alleged by DCF requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no ongoing parent-children 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 children and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-children relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the children."
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 children has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent, the existence of a loving relationship or a "psychological parent" relationship with one other than the natural parent does not, of itself, establish the no ongoing parent-children relationship ground for termination. In re Jessica M., supra, 473-75.
Unlike the other nonconsensual grounds to terminate parental rights, the absence of a parent-children 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-children relationship exists; and second, the court must look to the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the children's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop. The absence of a parent-children 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 when the children 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 children. In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 35, 534 A.2d 897 (1987). As the Appellate Court recently noted, "the feelings of the children 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 On-Going Parent-Child Relationship as to Miriam R, Natanael R. and Kiara R. by biological Father, Esteban R.
1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 of Ground of Abandonment as to Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. by biological Father, Esteban R. are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
2. The children have negative memories of Esteban R. in that they recall him hitting their Mother.
3. Father has not seen his children since 1999.
4. The lack of visits by Father demonstrates that he has no interest in the children.
5. The children do not have a connection or bond with their Father. The children do not recognize their Father as their parent in that they would not seek comfort from him nor go to him to have their needs met.
6. For more than one year, there has been no on-going parent-child relationship and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the children.
Ground D — No On-Going Parent-Child Relationship as to Margarita S. as to Putative Father, John Doe.
1. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of Ground of Abandonment as to Margarita S. by John Doe are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
2. The child has not been able to develop any parent-child relationship with her Father in that she does not know her Father nor has she ever met her father.
3. The lack of visits by Father demonstrates that he has no interest in the child.
4. The child does not have a connection or bond with her Father. The child does not recognize her Father as her parent in that she would not seek comfort from him nor go to him to have her needs meet.
5. The child is significantly bonded with her foster parent. The child seeks comfort from her foster parent and goes to the foster parent to have her needs met.
6. No parent-child relationship exists and to allow further time for the establishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.
Summary of Adjudicatory Findings
This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that biological Father, Esteban R. and Putative Father, John Doe have legally abandoned and have not maintained an ongoing parent-child relationship with Miriam R., Natanael R., and Kiara R., and Margarita S., respectively.
Mother consented to the termination of her parental rights in open court. She filed written consent. This court found that the Mother voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of her rights, having received the advice and assistance of competent legal counsel and having understood the consequences of her actions. Her consent was accepted by this court.
The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes and the Practice Book.
The court took jurisdiction in this matter; there is no pending action affecting custody of the children in any other court.
The petition has been amended to allege as the sole ground for termination of the Mother, her consent to the termination.
The court having read the verified petition, the social study and the affidavit, made the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.
Adjudication
The Mother has consented to the termination of her rights to her children and the consent was accepted by the court.
No findings are necessary to be made pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112 with regard to the Mother due to her consent.
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 children's best interest. If the court does find that termination is in the children's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.
A. CG.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 Esteban R.'s and John Doe's parental rights, as they did not consent, but rather default pleas was entered by the court, the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k). In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).
These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
1. "The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with the parent."DCF was unable to provide services to facilitate the return of the child, since Father John Doe has not come forward to identify himself and to establish paternity and Father Esteban R. has been whereabouts unknown.
2. "Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Children Welfare Act of 1980, as amended."
DCF has made reasonable efforts to obtain the identity of Father John Doe and was unable to exercise reasonable efforts with regard to Father, Esteban R.
3. "The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order."The court has not issued Specific Steps since Father John Doe has not come forward to identify himself and to establish paternity and Father Esteban R. has been whereabouts unknown and has never shown an interest in court orders.
4. "The feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to his parents, any guardian of such children's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the children for at least one year and with whom the children has developed significant emotional ties."Since the Father John Doe has not come forward, Margarita S. was unable to form any bond with her father but she appears bonded with and has significant emotional ties with her current caretakers. Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. have little, if any, positive feelings toward their Father, Esteban R.
5. "The age of the children."
Margarita S. is 14 years old; Miriam R. is 10 years old; Natanael R. is 9 years old and Kiara R. is 8 years old.
6. "The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return to such children's home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the children as part of an effort to reunite the children with the parent provided that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the children."Fathers John Doe and Esteban R. have not adjusted their circumstances to permit the children to return to their care.
7. "The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the children, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent."Neither Father John Doe nor Father Esteban R. has been denied a meaningful relationship with their children due to economic circumstances nor any unreasonable actions of any other person.
B. Best Interest of the Children
Termination of Parental Rights is in the best interest of Margarita S., Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. as to all parents. Mother has expressed that she will consent to having her parental rights terminated as to these children because she is not in a position to take on the responsibility of caring for her children.
Given the age of the said children, and the children's need to have their individual emotional and educational needs met, their need to have a permanent and stable home, their need to be raised in a nurturing and stable home, Father, Esteban R. and putative Father, John Doe, cannot, within a reasonable period of time, assume a responsible position in their lives.
The Fathers have shown a lack of interest or ability to care for said children to the extent that they have no ongoing relationship with the children.
Termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children so they can have permanency in their lives and so they can be legally free for adoption by their relatives, Elizabeth and Edwin R. See FACTUAL FINDINGS above.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Margarita S., Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R.'s best interests for Termination of Parental Rights to enter with respect to Yolanda S., their biological Mother, John Doe, putative Father of Margarita S. and Esteban R., biological Father of Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R.
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 Margarita S., Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R.'s best interests to terminate the parental rights of Yolanda S., the biological Mother of the children, Esteban R., the biological Father of Miriam R., Natanael R. and Kiara R. and John Doe, the putative Father of Margarita S. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to all four children are hereby terminated.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for the children for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for the 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.