Opinion
K09CP14013854A
03-04-2016
In re Rayne S
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Filed March 9, 2016
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Honorable John C. Driscoll, J.
THE COURT: Writing in docket K09-CP14-013854-A, the matter of Rayne S. for decision which is as follows.
By this petition dated June 12, 2015, and filed with the court on June 17, 2015, the commissioner of the department of children and families, hereinafter referred to as DCF or department, is seeking to terminate the parental rights of the respondent Mother, C.M. and the respondent father, S.S. in their child, R.S. who was born June 18, 2014.
Each parent was served in hand, appeared, was advised of their rights and appointed an attorney. R.S. was represented by separate counsel.
There was no proceeding in another court affecting the custody of R.S. nor does the Indian Child Welfare Act apply. This court has jurisdiction.
The matter proceeded to trial at which trial the court heard testimony from five witnesses, Dr. Kelly Rogers, the court ordered psychologist evaluator, Sarah Laisi, a parent education provider, Nancy Kavanaugh from the department of children and families, Diego Gleyzer, a provider from Madonna Place and Annette Viall, father's therapist. The court also considered 29 exhibits which were entered into evidence.
And having heard the evidence and considered all the evidence including the demeanor of the parties, the court concludes the following by clear and convincing evidence.
R.S. was born to the respondent mother and father on June 18, 2014. On June 20, 2014, an order of temporary custody was granted by Judge Cosgrove at the request of the department of children and families, and temporary custody was vested in the department. This was based on a predictive neglect claim based upon the fact that an older sibling, D.S., had been in a legal risk home since January 2014. That these parents refused to attend a considered removal family conference to discuss D.S. That physical abuse of D.S. had led to father's arrest and incarceration and that father was subsequently incarcerated again for violating a protective order. That the child D.S. said his father abused him. That neither parent was taking responsibility for the injuries to D.S., and claimed domestic violence between mother and father was minimized by both. That there was inconsistent participation and services and no improvement in parenting. That mother had cut off all of her maternal family supports and was relying exclusively upon father, and further mother had cognitive limitations. That mother could not or would not protect a child from father who had serious anger management issues.
The predictive neglect was alleged by the department. The order of temporary custody was granted.
The parents appeared and were appointed counsel and contested the matter of the order of temporary custody but waived their right to have the hearing within ten days.
The OTC hearing was consolidated with the hearing on the neglect petition and was held and concluded on July 17, 2014, before Judge Mack.
On July 18, 2014, Judge Mack rendered a decision in which he found by a fair preponderance of the evidence that were R. to be returned to mother and father, R. would be permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to her well-being.
The court further found that R. would be denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally were that child to be returned to her parents, and an adjudication of neglect was entered.
The court was of the very strong opinion that father was attempting to rewrite the brief history of his family to place himself in a more favorable light, but were the court to accept fathers s view of the family history, R. would be placed in a situation of danger.
Father had previously acknowledged injuring R.'s older brother D. but later retracted that acknowledgement.
The court found that neither parent was fully cooperative with the department in terms of providing releases for services to allow the department to check on their attendance, cooperation and progress and found that there were two incidents of concern with respect to father.
The first occurred when D. was eighteen months old in January of 2011. And then another incident occurred in 2013 when D. was three years of age.
Father was arrested for risk of injury to a minor and reckless endangerment in 2011. After admitting at that time to intentionally dropping D. into a bathtub head first in six inches above the waterline of that tub because he was angry with D.'s mother, father has subsequently recanted that admission. Father was incarcerated as a result of his conviction on those charges.
The second injury occurred February 26, 2013, after D. sustained an injury to his face and reported to various people that daddy did it. The Connecticut Children's Medical Center SCAN team determined that explanations by the parents were at variance with D.'s injuries; that's D.'s injuries.
Father was arrested and incarcerated until August 2013 as a result of a conviction of violation of probation at that time.
R. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the department of children and families on July 18, and the specific steps previously issued by Judge Cosgrove were confirmed. R. has been in the care and custody of the department since June 20, 2014.
As noted, this petition was filed on June 17, 2015. The department makes two allegations with respect to both parents.
They claim that they made reasonable efforts to reunify R. with mother and father or that mother and father are unwilling or unable to benefit from such efforts. Further, the department claims that R. was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and that each parent has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time considering the age and needs of the child they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.
Further, the department claims that mother and father are the parents of a child under the age of seven years who is neglected or uncared for and whose parents have failed, are unable or unwilling 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 parents could assume a responsible position in the life of the child, and the parents' parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the commissioner of the department of children and families. Those were the claims of the department. And as noted, R. is under the age of seven having been born June 18, 2014.
R. has an older biological sibling, and the parents--R's parents are the parents of D. The respondents' rights to their son D. were terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the commissioner of the department of children and families based upon the consent of the respondents which occurred on October 6, 2014.
With respect to the other aspects of the department's claim, the court is guided by the analysis of In Re Elvin G. and In Re Victor D., Elvin G. being at 310 Conn. 485, 78 A.3d 797, and In Re Victor D. being 161 Conn.App. 604, 128 A.3d 608.
The court found that two of the witnesses before the court were experts. Dr. Rogers, an expert in clinical and forensic psychology, child custody evaluations, and he was the court appointed evaluator. He was also determined to be an expert in child protection matters. The second expert was Sarah Laisi who was found to be an expert in parenting education.
The central issues for the parents were their parenting education deficits, their inadequate and unstable housing, their uncertain income, domestic violence, father's anger issues and mother's lack of independence.
Mother was to take part, per specific steps, in parenting and individual counseling. She was not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine. She was to cooperate with services through United Community and Family Services, Kids Advocates and Safe Futures. She was to sign releases to allow the department to check on her attendance, cooperation and progress towards services. She was to obtain a legal income and maintain adequate housing and attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program.
Father was to cooperate with the department's home visits, keep all appointments set by or with DCF, take part in counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals and parenting and individual counseling, submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommendations for treatment, cooperate with drug testing, not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol and medicine, cooperate with United Community and Family Services for individual counseling and for group counseling for trauma treatment, cooperate with Kids Advocates and the SCADD drug treatment program, sign any necessary releases to get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal income, and to attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program, and to have no new involvement with the criminal justice system.
And both parents were to visit their child as often as possible as permitted by DCF. These steps were set by Judge Cosgrove on June 20th, 2014, and were affirmed by Judge Mack on July 18th, 2014. And the parents were given the option to seek modification in court which modification was not sought.
With respect to the steps, the court finds that some of the steps were met or not necessary for the parents. There was no suggestion of illegal drug use or alcohol abuse by mother. There was no suggestion that father was abusing drugs and alcohols or alcohol for a significant degree.
Major concern was one of parenting education, domestic violence, the need for counseling and the income and housing concerns.
Father has been diagnosed in the past with post-traumatic stress disorder and intermittent explosive disorder. Father had an extremely troubled childhood.
He himself as a child was in the care of DCF for a period of time. That he received services while growing up from St. Raphael's Hospital, Newington Children's Hospital, The Joshua Center, Elmcrest, ABC Counseling, United Community and Family Services, Catholic Charities, Southeastern Mental Health Authority and another provider in Plainfield.
He received residential treatment at Lake Grove in Massachusetts based upon inappropriate sexual activity with younger relative children and violation of probation. He was arrested as a juvenile for sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. He was arrested as a--accused of sexually assaulting two of his half-siblings ages 6 and 9 and was in residential treatment for fifteen months and required to register as a sex offender.
He advised the department that his mother was horrible and that she burned him with cigarettes, beat him with coat hangers, tried on two occasions to drown him. He claimed that he was sexually abused as a child. He clearly suffered a traumatic childhood.
He has yet to address the trauma of his childhood. Father has cooperated with individual counseling services, and whenever the service began to touch on father's childhood and the trauma, he would refuse the referral or drop out of the program and demand a new counselor.
Dr. Rogers who testified as an expert and whose opinion the court can and does give added weight to found that father was very angry, self-serving and a volatile individual preoccupied with his victimization. That he had low concern for others or the law, and impulse control issues. That he was capable of violence and it was likely to persist, that domestic violence was likely to recur, and he would be unlikely, and as with mother, to shield a child from parental domestic violence.
Mother and father have been a committed couple for or since February of 2004. They lived together without benefit of marriage for a long time but have recently married.
To the extent that they were willing to report or had to report on domestic violence, there is an acknowledgment that there has been domestic violence in their relationship.
Father completed a course in 2013 that purported to have told him how to control his anger. Subsequent to that date, he was barred from any visitation in the department of children and families from March 2014 to January 2015 due a history of making threats to the department and his display of anger.
He also made or was alleged to have made a threat involving the police in March of 2014, and his contact with the department had to be monitored by a security guard. Clearly, the interventions of 2013 were incomplete or not long lasting.
Father, as noted, was incarcerated twice for his behavior towards R.'s older brother D. Father has consistently blamed the department of children and families and the police for his concern. He has also blamed a former roommate for the injuries. His story has been inconsistent and has changed in many regards but for his self-excuse. That is he has consistently said he did nothing wrong.
He has been incarcerated twice with respect to inappropriate behavior toward D.
Dr. Rogers found that it was highly likely that similar behavior would recur with father. Dr. Rogers was aware that father has completed programs at the Madonna Place and was not surprised that father could complete the program and opined that it was a good program, but he said that it was not enough to fully satisfy father's anger issues and had grave concerns about future domestic violence.
As noted, father has not cooperated with any treatment that addresses the trauma of his childhood. Father has not fully cooperated with any referrals or intakes. They attempted to set up a men's trauma group, but he refused the referral. He was in a program at the United Community and Family Services from which he was discharged in November of 2014 by UCFS who indicated that he could return only if he accepted a higher level of care which he did not.
Instead, father began to attend mental health services through an individual therapist at Catholic Charities, Ms. Viall, who testified that she holds father accountable and holds him responsible, and that he is improving in therapy. She could not or would not provide a single incident of corroborative proof of father accepting responsibility, indicated in fact that they did not discuss the injuries to D. or she would not push father on that. The court does not find persuasive her claims of addressing father's individual needs for trauma treatment and domestic violence programs.
Father has not satisfactorily completed or complied with individual counseling.
Father claims that he has an income. He does not claim it is a legal income. He acknowledges that it is all under the table, and he did provide some ATM records which showed external deposits which he said were as the result of his under the table work as a construction laborer. Most importantly father has not secured or provided adequate housing which will be addressed in the context of the court's discussion of mother.
Father worked for a long time with another expert, Sarah Laisi, the expert in parenting education. She found that father was receptive, clearly loved his child and showed some decent skills, but that R. has special needs, and in terms of needs for support and development has greater needs than the average child. That father did not appear to recognize and address R.'s developmental issues, and ultimately opined that father had not demonstrated the ability to parent R. and to understand and meet her needs despite many, many sessions together.
Mother has cognitive limitations and is entirely relying upon father. Mother was referred for therapy, and was asked to visit, and has attended approximately 50 percent of her therapy sessions and 50 percent of her visits claiming that she is working and unable to attend.
She provides no prior notice to the department or the service provider to attempt to coordinate her work schedule with her visits or her counseling. She just skips them. Mother works exclusively in housekeeping at local hotels. She is now in her fourth such employment; regularly does not provide to the department proof of employment for the hours that she works.
The court finds that mother is working regularly and working hard. The court is cognizant of the fact that it is difficult for a parent to maintain a full-time job and meet the other service requirements and obligations set by the court, but expects the parent to make an effort to coordinate schedules and to work with the department. Mother has made no such effort.
Mother had been referred to Safe Futures prior for domestic violence counseling prior to and after R.'s birth in June of 2014. Mother declined to cooperate with the program and enter the program until February 2015, and after that date would not cooperate with the department in allowing the department to confirm regular attendance and progress.
Mother has been diagnosed with a borderline intellect, cognitive issues, and an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and a depressed mood.
Dr. Rogers as an expert found that mother had a borderline range IQ and a number of problematic accommodations, that she was a polarized concrete thinker, that her decision making was flawed and she was relying on others and was making herself exclusively reliant upon father, that she could not understand the effect of domestic violence and the impact of father's violence on their child, that mother was not open to change and unlikely to change.
Sarah Laisi as an expert in parent education found the same that mother missed several of the sessions, that when she was there she clearly loved R. but was unable to meet her needs, that despite telling the parents multiple times what was necessary to meet R.'s delayed development status that mother was unable to absorb the demonstrations and the recommendations.
Ms. Laisi as an expert opined that mother could not or would not meet R.'s needs. She said both parents had unrealistic expectations of R. and what it would take to care for her full time, that they often arrived without supplies or appropriate snacks, that in one case when R. had finally started taking table food, Sarah Laisi had to tell the parents four consecutive times over the course of a month to bring table food for the child before the parents remembered and complied.
The parents appear open to suggestion but are unable or unwilling to comply. It appears that in mother's case it is that she is unable to comply and she relies on father's lead and is unwilling to accept recommendations of the parenting educator unless father does, and father directs mother and does not accept the recommendations and is unwilling to comply.
With respect to both parents, a major issue has to do with the family home. The parents moved into a home which they shared with a grandmother and aunt and grandmother's boyfriend. Grandmother and the aunt moved out. Parents remained behind with the boyfriend. The parents acknowledged that the boyfriend, the older gentleman in whose home they are living is an alcoholic, was recently arrested for operating under the influence and is living in a home from which his own children were removed over ten years ago because, in part, of his alcoholism and the substandard condition of the home.
Ms. Laisi noted that she had appeared there to provide transportation to visits, and for at least five months windows in the home were broken and unrepaired. Ms. Laisi and Ms. Kavanaugh both testified to the substandard condition of the home. Ms. Kavanaugh said that there was a question of whether there was even hot water in the home, that the parents acknowledged that there was a mold issue and that there was some broken windows and that the room that would be set aside for the baby was inadequate for the baby as it required sheet rocking and several repairs which had not been done for months.
Despite the recommendation of the department that the parents move, despite the claim of both parents to have an income, they've made no effort to vacate this premise.
Ms. Kavanaugh advised the parents that supportive housing was receiving applications for a short period of time and that it was critical that they contact her to cooperate on applying for a subsidized apartment through supportive housing. The parents neglected to respond. Their home is inadequate for a child and they've made no effort to correct that circumstance.
So the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents have failed to meet their specific steps in that they have not successfully addressed their need for individual counseling. Neither has successfully addressed the need for parenting education. They are unable or unwilling to cooperate with individual counseling and parenting counseling. They have not obtained an adequate home, and mother has not maintained consistent visitation and sufficient visitation with the child.
As noted, Rayne is under the age of seven and has an older sibling for whom the parents' rights were terminated, so the department has established that the parents have failed to rehabilitate. The department has established by clear and convincing evidence, particularly the expert evidence of the clinical psychologist and the parenting educator that despite the fact that the parents love their daughter, despite their desire to parent their daughter that they are unable to meet their daughter's needs and unlikely to be able to meet them.
The court has no reasonable expectation or encouragement that the parents would meet the child's needs in the immediate future or within a reasonable time even with supportive services, such services as have been provided to date.
Having adjudicated based upon grounds B1 and E, the court turns to the consideration of the best interest of R. and considers the seven statutory factors findings which will be made in writing on the judicial branch approved form.
R. is a developmentally delayed special needs child. The mother and father love R. and wish to parent R. but as found by the court are unable or unwilling to meet R.'s needs.
R. is entitled to a stable, secure home that is capable of meeting her needs. Mother and father do not have an adequate home for her and have been living in substandard inadequate conditions for months, have made no effort to relocate or find an appropriate home.
The parent educator and the clinical psychologist both opine that the parents cannot meet the needs of a child, particularly a special needs child.
R.'s attorney says that R. needs permanency and advocates for the termination of parental rights and adoption of the child.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that that plan is in R.'s best interest, that this is a tragic case as we have two parents who love their daughter dearly but are unable or unwilling to make the changes necessary to parent R. and meet her needs.
She needs to be free for adoption to be adopted by the family that has been raising her since she left the hospital following her birth.
Accordingly, having found the statutory conditions for termination of parental rights exist, specifically that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and father with R., that mother and father are unable or unwilling to cooperate with those efforts to reunify, that grounds B1 and E were established by clear and convincing evidence and that it is in R.'s best interest to terminate parental rights and free her up for adoption, the court orders that the parental rights of mother C.M. and father S.S. in and to their daughter R.S. who was born June 18, 2014, are hereby terminated.
The department of children and families is appointed statutory parent for purposes of securing the adoption of R. with first consideration to be given to her current foster parents.
The clerk of the probate court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of R. shall notify in writing the deputy chief clerk of the superior court for juvenile matters at Waterford of the date when said adoption is finalized as shall the department.
And with respect to any outstanding permanency plan, the court finds that out of home placement remains in the best interest of R. Reasonable efforts to reunify and effectuate the permanency plan were made. Continuing efforts of reunification are no longer required. And the court approves the plan for termination of parental rights and adoption as of today's date.
So, with respect to future dates, there is a thirty-day letter due from the department on or before April 4, 2016.
Thank you.