Opinion
No. K09-CP07-011016-A
November 14, 2007
Memorandum of Decision On Petition for Termination of Parental Rights of Father
This matter comes to the court as a transfer from the Probate Court for the District of Norwich of a petition filed by Katherine B. on June 29, 2007, alleging that there is no ongoing parent(father)/child relationship as defined in C.G.S. Sec. 45a-717(g), and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of the parent(father)/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child and, therefore, seeking the termination of Aaron L.'s parental rights. This transfer occurred in accordance with C.G.S. Sec. 45a-715(g). It was received by this court on October 12, 2007. Service of notice of this trial in accordance with Practice Book, Section 35a-19(c)(2), was made upon Aaron L. by abode service but he failed to appear for trial. He was defaulted. The court finds that there is no proceeding in any other court affecting the custody of this child. This court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
The Probate Court ordered a study to be conducted by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in accordance with C.G.S. § 45a-619, which was completed on September 11, 2007 and received by the court on September 14, 2007. It is Child's Exhibit #A in this trial.
The court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.
Russell B. was born on March 4, 2007, to Katherine B. (hereinafter, "mother"), age 24, and Aaron L., (hereinafter, "father"), age 27. They met in the spring of 2006, and dated for a period of approximately nine months. During that time mother became pregnant with Russell and the relationship broke up before Russell was born. Mother ended the relationship in January or February 2007, due to father's verbal and physical abuse of mother and upon learning of his criminal record.
Father married one Marianne L. in 2001 and was married for approximately three years, living in Connecticut. Marianne had two children, a boy and a girl, by a previous marriage. No evidence was offered as to whether or not he was or is divorced from Marianne, but on December 2, 2003, he was charged in Connecticut with two counts of Sexual Assault in the First degree and two counts of Risk of injury to a minor, both charges arising out of assaults upon Marianne's then twelve-year-old daughter. A plea agreement was apparently negotiated because at the time of sentencing the two Sexual Assault First Degree and one count of Risk of Injury were nolled and a substitute information charging one count of Illegal Sexual Contact in violation of C.G.S. Sec. 53-21(a)(2), a Class B felony, was substituted, and father was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, suspended after he served thirty months, and ten years probation. He is now a registered sex offender, having been placed on the registry on October 21, 2005. A condition of his probation, of which eight years is still remaining, is that he have no unsupervised contact with a minor.
Father is described by Russell's maternal grandfather as a controlling person who attempted to alienate his daughter (mother) from her family and friends. Mother reports the same, but adds that he caused her to stop taking her medication which caused her behavioral and mental health to deteriorate. Mother is diagnosed as having a Bipolar Disorder and receives treatment from the University of Connecticut Health Center.
Father was evasive about his criminal history and lied about the circumstances of his conviction. Father's sister, Sarah G., reported that her brother has a short temper and is physically and mentally abusive. She reported that when she was a teenager, father molested her and beat her. In fact, she told Rusasell's mother that he had molested, raped and beaten her. Their parents would not let her seek prosecution. She was sixteen and he was eighteen, and that is when he left home. Father's version is that he was accused of sexually exposing himself to his sister. Interestingly, father reports, "My father locked me in my room when my sister was home." He does not explain what concerns his father had were he to be left alone with his sister and he was not "locked in [my] room." Sarah also reported that father told her that he "touched" his step-daughter and had her "touch" him. This is the same girl the violation of whom led to father's imprisonment after conviction of a Class B felony. Sarah fears for Russell's safety if he were to be left in father's care. Father violated a condition of his probation by leaving the state without permission to travel to New Hampshire where Sarah lives, and is now required to wear a location detecting devise as part of his probation, often referred to as an "ankle bracelet."
Child's Exhibit B.
Ibid.
FTR, 11-9-07 @ 10:20:24, Testimony of mother. [FTR (For The Record) is the recording facility of the court reporter which digitally records the testimony of a witness while noting the time of the utterance by hour, minute and second during that day's trial and which can be replayed by the court in chambers at any time.]
FTR, 11-9-07 @ 10:20:34. Testimony of mother.
Child's Exhibit A.
FTR, 11-9-07 @ 10:26:47. Testimony of mother.
Father attempted one time to have contact with Russell by calling mother but the child was only a week or two old and mother resisted. The visitation did not take place. Were that contact to happen unsupervised, father would be in violation of probation. Father noted that if he makes progress in treatment he can petition the court to change the order of probation forbidding unsupervised contact with minor under sixteen years old so that he can have contact unsupervised with a biological child. No such modification currently exists and no psychological evaluation has been done to validate such a modification. There is no evidence that father is in any type of treatment beyond his self=reported attendance at a group counseling meeting one time a week called Life Skills Group, a condition of his probation. If that is happening at all there is no evidence as to the makeup of the group, the subject matter under consideration, the comprehension factor, the regularity of attendance, or any other pertinent information. It is clear that somebody who repeatedly sexually assaults his sister and his step daughter needs considerably more than a group meeting if any progress toward treatment is to be realized, and there is always the issue of whether, under any circumstances, this individual is treatable at all to the extent that children would be safe around him. Although father told Russell's attorney/GAL that he would authorize her to communicate with this group therapy leader and his probation officer, he never followed though and she can communicate with neither. The prohibition against contact with a minor as it currently stands will be in place for the next eight years. Father indicated to the DCF social worker preparing the report for the Probate Court that he would participate in a psychological evaluation but has done nothing to even inquire about, let alone participate in, such an evaluation. He indicated that he sent fifty ($50) dollars to mother as support for the child, but in fact it was only to reimburse her for the money she spent so that he could get a phone and internet line into his apartment. He has not supported the child at all. In fact, when mother told him she was pregnant father was out of work and made no effort to obtain employment for approximately six months, all while asserting that he would financially support mother and the baby. As of August he was again unemployed, having been discharged from Burger-King. He acknowledged to Russell's counsel that he has made no effort to see the child. Mother is supporting this child without assistance other than Husky health insurance. She and Russell live with her mother and father. Mother recognizes that if father's parental rights are terminated he will not be obligated to support the child and accepts that. She feels that termination of his parental rights is in the child's best interest. She feels this way because he is a sexual and a physical predator. She has found him to be extremely controlling and psychologically abusive. She feels that it is highly likely that he would physically and sexually abuse her son and there is no doubt in her mind that he would psychologically abuse him and seek to control him and manipulate him as much as he possibly could. Mother noted that during her pregnancy father was extremely emotionally and psychologically abusive to her, placing her in great danger of miscarriage. In fact, she delivered Russell at 29 weeks gestation weighing 3 lbs. 2 oz. at Yale New Haven Hospital. He spent the next three weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Child's Exhibit B.
FTR, 11-9-07 @ 10:10:48. Testimony of DCF social worker Jopson.
FTR, 11-9-07 @ 10:19:36. Testimony of mother.
Child's Exhibit B.
Child's Exhibit # B.
FTR, 11-9-07 @ 10:20:58. Testimony of mother.
Mother has a good support system with her parents, and is attempting to qualify for Social Security Disability because her bipolar disability affects her ability to work full-time. If she does not qualify, she will work part-time and her parents will continue to help her. She is dedicated to the wellbeing of her child whom she clearly loves and wishes desperately to protect from one she perceives to be of great danger to her child.
Mother has alleged in her petition that there is no ongoing father/child relationship as defined in C.G.S. Section 45a-717(g), and to allow further time for the establishment of such relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. This child was born on March 4, 2007, seven months ago. There is no ongoing father/child relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child. Father is a sexual predator of children and has been so at least for the last nine years. He is a convicted felon serving a period of probation following his incarceration and that probation will be in place for the next eight years presuming no serious transgressions of the terms of probation. He has already violated the terms to the extent that a graduated sanction has been imposed, and that because he left the state without permission to go to the state where his sister, one of his victims, lives. His actions have precluded him from meeting the continuing day-to-day physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child, and will so precluded him for the next eight years without constant supervision of visitation for the next eight years. To wait eight years for the establishment of a father/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of Russell. Mother has proven by clear and convincing evidence that there is no ongoing father/child relationship.
In making a determination of whether to grant or deny a petition for termination of the parental rights of a parent the court must first consider the grounds alleged and it has done so above, finding that mother has proven the allegation by clear and convincing evidence. The court must now consider whether the granting of the petition would be in the best interest of the child. Six statutory factors must be considered before reaching a conclusion. The timeliness, nature, and extent of services offered, provided, and made available to the father and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent. No services have been accepted by father which might at least establish the appropriateness of reunion. Father is a convicted sexual predator of children. DCF recommended a complete psychological evaluation to determine the appropriateness of reunion. Father did nothing. As has been the case with father, assent by lip service was given, but no action was taken. Father has not been forthcoming with anyone about any aspect of his psychological condition or the consequences of his predatory way. To expect him to do so at this time is unrealistic.
C.G.S. Sec. 45a-717.
The 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 only court order applicable in this case is the order of the criminal division of this court that father is to have no unsupervised contact with any child for the next eight years. It is unknown whether father has complied with that order, but it is known that he attempted to have contact with Russell.
The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his parents, any guardian of his 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 child has no emotional feelings for his father. He is an infant who has never seen his father. The child's emotional ties are with his mother and his maternal grandparents.
The age of the child. Russell was born March 4, 2007.
The efforts the parent has made to adjust his circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return him to his 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 made no adjustment to his circumstances, conduct or conditions to facilitate a reunion. He has so alienated society by his actions as a sexual predator of children that society has barred him from child contact for eight years.
The 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. Father has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Russell because of his felonious behavior as a sexual predator of children, now prevented by the criminal court as a condition of his probation that he have no unsupervised contact with any child. The "unreasonable act" was his own act, not that of anyone else.
Father has proven himself to be an abusive, manipulative, sexual predator of children. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of father's parental rights is in the best interest of Russell. While the court notes that the DCF report indicates that the department cannot make a recommendation as to the termination of father's parental rights, having decided such on the recommendation of a DCF principal attorney because father indicated that he wanted to be part of Russell's life and wanted to provide support, the court disagrees with this neutral posture, finding that such a posture in not in the best interest or safety of the child and is unwarranted by the facts surrounding this case.
FTR, 11-9-07 @ 10:10:01. Testimony of DCF social worker Jopson.
Having found by clear and convincing evidence that there is no ongoing parent child relationship between father and child, that termination of father's parental rights is in the best interest of the child, the court hereby orders that the parental rights of Aaron L. as they relate to Russell B. are terminated and Katherine B. is now the sole parent and guardian of the person of Russell B.
Judgment is entered accordingly.