Opinion
Nos. H14-CP03-007395 A, H14-CP03-007396 A
May 24, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On July 20, 2005, the Department of Children and Families, hereafter "DCF," filed petitions for the termination of the parental rights of the mother, Jacqueline C., and the fathers, Raphael M., father of Myren, and Anthony G., father of Jazmarie, to these two children. The petition alleges as to Jacqueline that her children had been neglected or uncared for and she had failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of her children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives. Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i)). As to each of the fathers, the allegations are that: (1) each has abandoned his child, in that each has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child. Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A); and (2) that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship with respect to each father that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral or educational needs of the child, and to allow further time for the establishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D). Each of the parties was served with the termination petitions and received notice. Neither of the fathers appeared and each was defaulted for failure to appear. From the military service affidavits provided, the court further finds that neither father is now in the military or naval service of the United States. Jacqueline C. did appear with counsel and testified at trial. For the reasons set forth below, the court terminates the rights of these parents to their children, Myron and Jazmarie M.
A. Past History
Myron was born to his mother when Jacqueline was not yet sixteen and Jazmarie was born when her mother was seventeen. Jacqueline transferred guardianship of her children to her mother by probate court order in October 2002. Both children were removed from the care of the maternal grandmother by an order of temporary custody on July 23, 2003 (Tanzer, J.). Underlying the petitions were allegations of leaving the children with inappropriate caretakers and an inability to meet their specialized needs. On October 22, 2003, the court sustained these allegations and the children were adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF.
In July of 2004, the court ruled that further efforts to reunify the children with the mother or their fathers were no longer appropriate, although efforts continued for their maternal grandmother, with whom they were reunified on November 26, 2004. Despite such efforts, the reunification was unsuccessful, in part due to their grandmother's worsening health and the demands their care placed on her. They were again removed on April 13, 2005 and placed with the same foster family where they had previously resided. On July 20, 2005, these present termination petitions were filed.
B. Jacqueline C., the mother
As previously found, Jacqueline was very young when her first child was born and she was still a minor when her second child was born as well. She did not complete high school, completing her education through the tenth grade. She hopes to begin work on her high school equivalency diploma soon. At the time the children were first removed form her care, specific steps to enable her reunification with them were set for Jacqueline and signed by her on August 4, 2003. Some she fully complied with and others she has been unable to accomplish.
The specific steps required that her to do the following: keep all appointments set by or with DCF; cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem; participate in parenting and individual counseling to address treatment goals; accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF, submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations made regarding treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention; submit to random drug testing; cooperate with recommended service providers; cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing, sign releases; secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income; no substance abuse; no further involvement with the criminal justice system and cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole; consistently and timely meet and address the child's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs, including, but not limited to, keeping the child's appointments with her medical, psychological, psychiatric or educational providers; immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household; and visit with the children as often as DCF permits.
She has always regularly visited her children when permitted and has had contact with DCF. She did have a substance abuse assessment in 2003 and was informed that she needed treatment. Regrettably, she has not had any such treatment and not therefore come to terms with her substance abuse issues.
An additional difficulty has also been her inability to maintain adequate housing and income. In the past she resided with her mother, who also found it difficult to maintain her housing. Presently she resides with her sister in a setting to which the children could not be returned. In addition, she has, since the date of the children's removal from her care, had a pattern of being involved with partners who are violent towards her and hurt her both physically and emotionally. The court concludes, as reported by the court-appointed psychologist evaluator, Dr. Ines Schroeder, that she "has been unable to learn ways of defending herself from abusive men . . ." She also has not gained any awareness of her own contribution to the removal of the children, the threat such men pose to her as well as her children, and her failure to regain custody.
Psychological evaluation dated 11/14/2005, Petitioner's exhibit 2B.
Very significant also is her lack of improvement in parenting her children and in addressing her own unmet needs. In the years since her children has not been in her care, she has made no more than minimal gains in being able to improve her skills and ability. Her children both have specialized needs. Myren is considered to be medically fragile as he has asthma, the management of which requires constant vigilance. Both children also suffer from deficits occasioned by the lack of stimulation in their early environment. While Jacqueline articulates reasons why she did not complete her parenting classes and at present continues in them, she has not been able to comprehend what is necessary for her children in the years that they have been out of her care. It is also apparent from the records and the psychological evaluation performed that she has made no significant progress to better herself as a parent to be able to manage her challenging children effectively.
In order to terminate parental rights, DCF must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory element requiring "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 provided such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing . . . that such efforts are not appropriate." Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1). On July 15, 2004, the court made a finding that further efforts to reunify with mother and the fathers were no longer appropriate (Santos, J.). Under the statute, a finding that reasonable efforts were made is not required if the court has determined, as in this case, that reasonable efforts are no longer appropriate. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1); In re Gary B., 66 Conn.App. 286, 290-91, 784 A.2d 412 (2001). Nevertheless, the court finds that DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify with Jacqueline with her children.
The court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that Jacqueline's children were previously adjudicated neglected and that she has failed to rehabilitate so that she could be expected to parent them within a reasonable period of time, given their lives and needs. Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
C. The fathers of the children 1. Raphael M., the father of Myren M.
Myren's father has not seen his child since 2004 and has not maintained contact with DCF to inquire about his son's welfare. He has not sent cards letters or gifts or done anything affirmatively to recognize his son or behave in any manner as a parent to him. The court finds, from the clear and convincing evidence, that he has abandoned his child, as that term is statutorily defined. Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A). Although other grounds were alleged as to him to support the petition for termination, only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition. In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984); In re Karrlo K., 44 Conn.Sup. 101, 106, 669 A.2d 1249 (1994), aff'd, 40 Conn.App. 73, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996). The court will therefore not address the remaining ground alleged.
2. Anthony G., the father of Jazmarie.
Anthony G. has not seen his daughter since February of 2005, and prior to that time, while she was in the care of her maternal grandmother, only visited twice. He did not contact the child's grandmother to determine how she was faring, send letters cards or gifts or take any steps to be a parent to her. He did not do so while she was in DCF's care more recently. He also has not supported this child. The court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that he has abandoned his child, as that term is statutorily defined. Connecticut General Statutes § CT Page 9758 17a-112(j)(3)(A). Although other grounds were alleged as to him to support the petition for termination, only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition. In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984); In re Karrlo K., 44 Conn.Sup. 101, 106, 669 A.2d 1249 (1994), aff'd, 40 Conn.App. 73, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996). The court will therefore not address the remaining ground alleged.
D. The minor children
Myren has moderate chronic asthma and is given medication through an inhaler and a nebulizer machine. He also has some eye difficulties and suffers from eczema. Otherwise, he has done well and is now meeting his developmental milestones. At the commencement of the termination petitions, he was in kindergarten and receiving special education services to address some development and school readiness delays and he was required to repeat kindergarten. He has done well in the care of his foster family as has his sister, who remains a challenging young child to care for as well. Each of the children at the time of the psychological evaluation in November of 2005 recognized and still has a connection to their mother, but unfortunately as the court has concluded, she is not in a position to be a stable and adequate caretaker for them. The psychologist testified and the court finds that they need permanency in their lives soon to be able to grow and flourish. The plan is for the children to be adopted and a pre-adoptive family has been identified for them.
E. Written Findings: Connecticut General Statutes Sections § 17a-112(k) and § 45a-717(I) (1) The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided and made available to the parents and children by DCF.The court concludes from the evidence that while services were offered to Jacqueline C., she did not benefit from services. She attended a substance abuse evaluation, which recommended treatment she never had. She was offered visitation and case management services. She visited regularly with her children but has not been able to improve her parenting so that that she could care for her two special needs children. As to the fathers, while each was offered case management and other services, neither of them has taken advantage of the services offered nor participated in these proceedings. Neither has kept in contact with DCF or visited with his child. The court concludes that such services as were offered were timely.
(2) Reasonable efforts made by DCF to reunite the children with their parents pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.The Court finds that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite these children with their mother and their former guardian. It also made reasonable efforts as to their fathers. The court finds that the reunification efforts, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, were reasonable.
(3) Court orders 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 orders.DCF complied with all such orders. Jacqueline could and did not fully comply with the specific steps ordered and the services offered. The two fathers never were available for services and no orders were entered as to them.
(4) Feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to their parents, any guardian of her person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of children for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.While both children recognize and had a bond with their mother, according to the evaluator who saw them all together in November of 2005, they are also well placed in their foster home and have developed significant emotional ties there. They have not been in the daily care of their mother for a very long time, considering their ages. The plans are for adoption.
(5) Ages of Children. Myren is now six and will be seven on August 8 of this year. Jazmarie is 5, her birthday was on March 26th. (6) Efforts the parents have made to adjust their respective circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the children's best interest to return them to such home in the foreseeable future, including:
(A) the extent to which the parents have maintained contact with the children, and;
(B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or custodian of the children.
As noted, the mother has not made sufficient adjustment to her situation in order to have the children returned to her. She cannot parent these children adequately, given her difficulties and past history. Neither of the fathers has ever been involved in the lives of these children and have done nothing to adjust their circumstances to be fathers to these two children.
(7) Extent to which the parents have been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by their economic circumstances.The court finds that no person or circumstance prevented these parents from having a meaningful relationship with their children. The fathers have chosen not to participate in DCF services and not to visit with their children. The mother has been unable to make adequate progress, given her children's needs for permanency and sense of time.
F. Best Interests of the Children.
The court has considered the multiple factors which are involved in whether or not to terminate parents' rights to their children. These include the children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environment; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of their relationship with the biological parents; the degree of contact maintained with the biological parents as well as their bond to their 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). The court has considered the children's intrinsic needs for stability and permanency as weighed against the potential benefit of maintaining their connection with their biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998).
The clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that termination of respondents' parental rights is in these children's best interest. Despite having found that there is a bond between the children and their mother, termination can nonetheless be in children's best interests and the court so finds. See In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. at 105-07; In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 536, 857 A.2d 963 (2004). Knowing their need for a permanent and secure home with loving and nurturing caretakers, the court finds that it is in Myren's and Jazmarie's best interest that their parents' rights to them be terminated.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, the parental rights of Jacqueline C. to Myren and Jazmarie are TERMINATED. Raphael M.'s parental rights to Myren M. and Anthony G's parental rights to Jazmarie are hereby also TERMINATED. Furthermore, DCF is appointed the statutory parent for both children. DCF shall file a thirty-day report on the status of child with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in New Britain on or before June 23, 2006 and such further reports as required by statute.