Opinion
M08CP13011996A
11-30-2015
In re Stephany C. [1]
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Olear, J.
INTRODUCTORY FINDINGS
The commissioner of the department of children and families (the " department" or the " petitioner") seeks, pursuant to termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions, the termination of the parental rights of (i) Yazmin M., the respondent mother (mother); (ii) Walkin, C., the putative father of Stephany (Walkin); (iii) Ricardo C., the father of Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Ricardo, Jr., (Ricardo or father); and (iv) John Doe, a putative father of Stephany. The TPR petitions were filed on February 6, 2015, as amended on October 13, 2015 to cite in John Doe.
The court has jurisdiction and there is no known action pending in any other court affecting custody of these children.
The proceedings relative to the termination of parental rights are governed by General Statutes § 17a-112 et seq. In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must first prove, in the adjudicatory phase, a ground for termination alleged in the petition, as of the date of filing the petition or the last amendment, by clear and convincing evidence. In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63, 597 A.2d 842 (1991); Practice Book § § 32a-3(b), 35a-7. However, " [i]n the adjudicatory phase, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time." (Emphasis in original.) In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000).
If a ground for termination is proven, the court must next consider the disposition stage. In the disposition stage, the court must consider whether the facts, as of the last day of trial, establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children's best interest. The evidence as to the adjudicatory and dispositional phases was presented in the same proceeding. See In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 688-89, 741 A.2d 873 (1999); In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), supra, 194 Conn. 258.
II
FACTUAL FINDINGS
Based on the credible and relevant evidence offered at trial and a review of the judicially noticed court orders, memoranda and findings the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the following facts.
The court has also taken judicial notice of court records including court memoranda and orders made in this case for their existence, content and legal effect. See Colin C. Tait & Eliot D. Prescott, Tait's Handbook of Connecticut Evidence § § 2.3.4(d), 2.4.1 and 2.4 2. (4th ed. 2008).
A. Procedural History and Preliminary Facts
On March 25, 2013, the department filed a neglect petition regarding the children alleging, inter alia, mother's failure to address her past trauma history and her significant mental health needs as well as domestic violence between mother and Walkin and between mother and Ricardo. On September 3, 2013, the department invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on all of the children. A motion for Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) was filed and granted on September 5, 2013. The OTC was sustained on September 13, 2013. Preliminary specific steps were ordered on September 13, 2013.
On October 24, 2013, Walkin was defaulted for failure to appear on the neglect plea date. On December 10, 2013, mother and Ricardo entered a plea of nolo contendre as to the allegation that the children were neglected for being denied proper care and attention. On December 10, 2013, all of the children were committed to the custody of the department until further order of the court. They remain committed. Final specific steps for mother and Ricardo were ordered by the court on December 10, 2013.
On June 4, 2015, the court approved a permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption.
The trial on the TPR petition was conducted on October 13, 14, and 15 and November 25, 2015. Mother and Ricardo appeared and were represented by counsel at the TPR trial. Walkin and John Doe did not appear for the trial and the court has defaulted them due to their failure to appear. Juvenile proceedings being, essentially, civil proceedings, the default against the respondent Walkin and John Doe effectively admits the truth of the petitioner's material allegations. This admission satisfies the petitioner's obligations. Nonetheless, this Court will review and make findings with respect to those putative fathers of Stephany based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner.
The family has been involved with the department since 2006. Stephany, Maria and Odalis were removed on a ninety-six-hour administrative hold on October 6, 2006. A motion for OTC and a neglect petition were filed. The OTC was granted on October 10, 2006. The OTC was vacated on October 19, 2006 and the children returned to the home of mother and Ricardo. On January 3, 2007, the children were adjudicated neglected and placed under protective supervision with mother and Ricardo for six months.
On June 17, 2007, the department invoked another ninety-six-hour hold on the same three children. On May 1, 2008, the children were committed to the custody of the department. On March 19, 2009, the disposition was modified to protective supervision for a period of six months; the protective supervision was permitted to expire at the end of such six-month period.
From and after December 8, 2009, the family was involved with the department and both parties were involved with the criminal justice system due, in large part, to domestic violence in the home and mother's mental health needs being unaddressed.
Additional procedural facts are set forth below as warranted.
B. Mother
Mother was born on April 16, 1980 in Mexico. Her parents separated when she was nine. She witnessed domestic violence between her parents. Mother reported having completed her education in Mexico; it is unknown what United States grade equivalent has been completed by mother. She also reported that she has been working intermittently since age seven. Mother left Mexico at age sixteen and illegally entered the United States in California. She has recollections of having been sexually assaulted by the man who brought her over the border.
On or about the year 2000, mother moved to New Jersey. She met Walkin while residing in New Jersey and soon became pregnant by him. She was with Walkin for approximately two years. Walkin was physically and verbally abusive of mother and she was forced by him into prostitution.
Mother reported to the psychologist, Ines M. Schroeder, Psy.D. (Dr. Schroeder) who performed the court ordered evaluation of mother, Ricardo, the children and the foster parents, engaging in drunken brawls with Walkin, having been locked in a room for over a week and physically and sexually abused during such imprisonment, and upon release from that room, again being beaten and raped by Walkin. She was able to escape. He was arrested. Mother went to the hospital and there learned of the pregnancy. She claimed to have still loved him and struggled with her mixed feelings. Exhibit 28, p. 18.
She and Stephany left New Jersey to escape from Walkin in 2002. She moved in with family in Fort Myers, Florida. She met Ricardo and had one child by him, Maria, in Florida. Sometime in 2005, mother, Ricardo, Stephany and Maria moved to Meriden, Connecticut. The other three children were born in Meriden, Connecticut.
Mother, as an undocumented immigrant, has a history of difficulty finding work. She was been consistently working since March 2014. She reported that she has a " good" social security number.
Mother has been an inaccurate reporter of her history of alcohol abuse. She denies a history of alcohol abuse, but her history is replete of instances where she has engaged in domestic violence--both as a perpetrator and as a victim--while under the influence of alcohol. She has denied drinking during pregnancies, but then acknowledges drinking while pregnant with Maria and Odalis.
Mother has a chronic and significant mental health history. She has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and depression. She has also been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by Tina Schiappa, Ph.D. Dr Schiappa, credibly, opined that mother did not have a good understanding of the children's needs and did not recognize the negative impact on the children of her mental health difficulties and of the domestic violence perpetrated in the presence of the children. Dr. Schiappa recommended intensive parenting services and individual therapy. This recommendation was made even with the acknowledgement that mother had already engaged in a long course of dialectic behavioral therapy (DBT) (which was put in place by the department after the children were removed in 2007).
Mother was referred to Dr. Schiappa for a court ordered psychological evaluation. The report dated February 28, 2014 was admitted as Exhibit 26.
Mother's and Ricardo's relationship has been tumultuous since its inception. While still living in Florida, mother learned that Ricardo had begun a relationship with her to forget about a recently ended relationship and they briefly separated. After reuniting, Ricardo continued to drink heavily and he accused her of infidelity. They separated again. Mother became suicidal and ingested Tylenol and alcohol even though she was five months pregnant with Maria. She was hospitalized. The couple again reconciled.
Shortly after moving to Connecticut, mother and Ricardo's relationship soured again. They fought often and the police were called and the department notified (due to the children being in the home during the domestic violence incidents) on several occasions. One incident in November 2006 is particularly noteworthy: the genesis of the altercation appears to have been Ricardo's statement to mother that he would not watch the children while mother was at work and that led to a physical altercation in front of Stephany. Mother then admitted to having destroyed everything of Ricardo's that was in the home; she sliced his clothing and the television screen with a knife in the presence of Stephany, Maria and Odalis.
The children were removed in June 2007 after further domestic violence incidents and upon mother being found by the police in a locked bedroom with a curling iron cord around her neck. She was sent to the hospital for an emergency evaluation.
In early June 2008, mother referred to Ricardo as a " dangerous man" after a domestic violence incident.
Exhibit 3-A, p. 7 of 12.
After the children were returned to her care in 2009, the couple rekindled their relationship. The domestic violence reignited.
The court has not recounted herein all of the incidents of domestic violence set forth in the Exhibits. They were numerous, often violent and frequently in front of the children It is clear that there were other incidents--the number and severity of which is unknown--as the mother has acknowledged that the police were not called for every incident.
During an incident in July 2012, mother, while screaming and yelling, and in front of the children, wrapped a cord around father's neck. The police arrived and mother reported wanting to kill herself. She was taken to the hospital.
A protective order was put in place in September 3, 2013 requiring Ricardo to stay away from the home. Mother allowed father back into the home and another domestic violence incident ensued. Ricardo reported mother initiated the physical violence, but he admitted to pushing her. The girls then pushed mother away from Ricardo Ricardo asked Stephany to call the police and when she did not do so, he asked her to go to the neighbors for help. Ricardo ultimately called 911 himself. He was arrested. The children were then removed under the ninety-six-hour hold.
After the children were removed in 2013, mother moved to New Jersey for a brief period. While there, she did not engage in any recommended services. She returned to Connecticut.
Mother continues, despite the services she has received, to minimize the frequency and the severity of the domestic violence. She told Dr. Schroeder that she did not feel that they argued too frequently.
Exhibit 28, p. 20.
Mother, inaccurately, indicated to Dr. Schroeder that her only suicide attempt was in 2007. In addition to the others set forth herein, there was another occurrence on April 28, 2014 at the Meriden police station. On that date, while mother was being processed on a warrant for disorderly conduct, she made a grab for the processing officer's Taser and, in English, said " shoot me." The officer attempted to calm her down, she again reached for the Taser--apparently believing it was a gun--and said she did not want to live anymore. She was restrained and handcuffed. Mother attempted to ram her head into the wall and then tried to slam the back of her head violently on the ground. Additional officers were required to assist in restraining mother to prevent her from harming herself. She was admitted to MidState Medical Center.
For the Record (FTR) October 13, 2015 320:26 p.m./Transcript of 10/13/15, pp 115-18.
Exhibit 22.
The parties have again separated and now report communicating only about the children.
Based on their history of separation and reunification and on Ricardo's statement that he would have mother watch the children while he worked if he was reunified with the children (as more fully set forth below), the department has indicated a concern that the mother and Ricardo would possibly reunify if the children were to be returned to them. The court shares the concern.
Mother has a criminal history. Some of the arrests arose from domestic violence incidents with father. She also has an arrest for risk of injury involving three of her children which occurred during a motor vehicle stop when it was determined that Stephany (age eight) and Maria (age five) were unrestrained in the car (only Odalis, age three, was properly restrained).
See Exhibit 18.
Mother was also arrested for driving without a license and insurance and having an unregistered car.
In March 2014, mother began attending Church of God Ebenezer in New Britain, Connecticut. She engaged in training to be a pastor. Mother claims that she attended and benefitted from counseling, including domestic violence counseling, at the church and her claim was backed up by testimony from the pastor of the church who provided the counseling--however, the pastor/counselor (i) was not aware of mother's mental health diagnosis; (ii) is not a certified therapist or counselor; and (iii) did not know mother was on the department's registry for neglect and did not inquire about mother's history prior to allowing mother to interact with the children of the parish. The pastor who provided the therapy testified at trial. She testified that she would not change her opinion that mother benefitted from therapy even though mother did not disclose that she was often the perpetrator of the violence; that, after engaging in such counseling, mother tried to grab the Taser of an officer during an arrest to kill herself; that mother did not consistently take her medication; and that mother was inappropriately telling the children not to listen to the foster parents. The court did not find the pastor's testimony to be convincing or credible.
The pastor has reported that mother began attending in August 2014.
The pastor stated that she was late arriving to court because she had to attend a medical appointment She testified while wearing pajamas and a robe. She was reportedly openly hostile to court personnel.
Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.
C. Fathers--Walkin and John Doe
The whereabouts of Walkin are unknown. The department attempted to locate him. Mother reported having no information on his location.
Walkin was reported to have seen Stephany on her birth. He has not seen her since.
As set forth above, he was extremely abusive to mother.
Despite their past history, mother reported to Dr. Schroeder that she recently made an effort to locate Walkin via social media and that she did so to see if it was possible for him and Stephany to develop a relationship. The contact was not encouraging; he is alleged by mother to have blamed her for keeping Stephany from him. Mother reported not contacting him again.
Exhibit 28, p. 18.
As paternity of Stephany has not been determined, the department has cited in and provided notice to John Doe as a possible biological father of the child. Findings with respect to John Doe are made in the adjudication and dispositional sections of this memorandum.
Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.
D. Father--Ricardo
Ricardo was born on April 28, 1980 in Mexico. He was raised in an intact family consisting of his parents and seven siblings. He completed his education in Mexico.
As with mother, what that entails is unknown.
When he was fifteen he immigrated to Florida; his entry into the country was unauthorized. He met mother in Florida and they moved to Meriden, Connecticut after Maria was born.
Despite being undocumented, Ricardo has been consistently employed. He works long hours and often times leaves for work at around 6:00 a.m.
He currently lives in a one bedroom in an apartment.
Ricardo denies having a substance abuse problem and denies use of illegal drugs. Mother has, however, at various times reported that he has used illegal drugs and has arrived home late at night with white powder on his nose. He admits to drinking alcohol. It is clear that many of the domestic violence incidents between mother and Ricardo involved the over indulgence in alcohol by one or both of them. He underwent a substance abuse evaluation and drug screening. No treatment was recommended.
To address the past domestic violence in the relationship, Ricardo participated in the twelve-week NOVA program. After completion thereof, no further counseling was recommended.
Ricardo's criminal history is due to the domestic violence in the home.
Exhibit 19 details the criminal convictions of Ricardo.
Ricardo has family in Stratford, Connecticut. He refused to provide the department with their contact information, thereby precluding any vetting of them to determine if they would be a possible placement for his children.
Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.
E. The Children
Stephany, as set forth above, has no relationship with her biological father. She looks to Ricardo as her father.
She witnessed many incidents of domestic violence between Ricardo and her mother. She has witnessed her mother and Ricardo verbally and physically assaulting each other. She has seen Ricardo with blood running down his face after an assault by mother. To say that Stephany's home life was chaotic and unhealthy would be understatement. She has reported that she believes it was the right choice of the department to intervene and remove her and her siblings from the home.
Exhibit 28, p. 6.
Mother did not attend to or address Stephany's medical and dental needs. After placement she had restorative work done on fifteen of her teeth.
Stephany, as of the close of evidence, was a special education student in the seventh grade at Lincoln Middle School who functions at the level of a fourth or fifth grade student. She received a special educational services multiple disabilities classification due to her low full scale IQ of 69 and language impairment. Mother has not attended any of Stephany's PPTs.
Stephany was removed from the foster home of her siblings sometime in mid-2015. The removal was precipitated by Stephany engaging in disruptive and threatening behavior, including an attempt to strike her foster mother, and because of her dreadful hygiene. Maria reported that Stephany mistreated her and sometimes pushed her and her siblings; she was afraid they would get hurt by Stephany. While at the foster home, Stephany was not bathing and she would leave her soiled feminine hygiene products on the floor of the shared bathroom. One of Stephany's therapists, Megan Giesen, a clinician at the school based Community Health Center (CHC), has noted that Stephany will push people away with her bad hygiene.
Exhibit 14-A, p. 6.
Stephany has been diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder of infancy or early childhood, inhibited type (RAD), post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression, major NOS. She has borderline cognitive functioning. Dr. Schroeder testified, credibly, that a child with RAD has difficulty formulating and maintaining relationships which leads to pulling people in and then pushing them away. Her behavior in the foster home which led to her removal is consistent with her diagnosis--she struggles with the intimacies of being in a family and forming strong and stable attachments. She acts out when facing the closeness of being in a family which leads to her being removed from the family and that fulfills Stephany's own prophecy of no one liking her.
" Stephany has intense and volatile feelings which she expresses through disrespect, oppositional attitude or acting out."
Exhibit 28, p. 67.
After removal from the foster home she shared with her siblings, she was placed in a therapeutic foster home with a foster mother who was willing to engage in specialized therapy with Stephany to address the RAD. The department located a therapist who could work with Stephany in the foster home. However, Stephany, true to her pattern, upon getting comfortable in the foster home, engaged in her disruptive and aggressive behaviors which led the foster mother to determine she was no longer able to safely manage and maintain Stephany in the home. It was then determined there was no ability to pursue the RAD therapy in a home setting. The department determined that Stephany could not safely be placed in a foster home and she was placed on the waiting list for the Susan Wayne Center in Putnam, Connecticut, a small group home facility that works with children having an IQ of less than 70 and where she can engage in the RAD therapy. Her placement was anticipated to occur shortly after the close of evidence.
Maria, like Stephany, witnessed many incidents of domestic violence while in the care of her parents. She has reported having witnessed mother having a rope around her neck in an apparent suicide attempt and attempting to strangle Ricardo with a cord.
After her removal, Maria presented as sad and was crying a lot. Due to the constant changes in her family--Ricardo being in and out, being removed on more than one occasion by the department, being in multiple placements--she was having trouble stabilizing. She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder. Since her removal, Maria has been receiving therapy with Stacy Hankey through CHC at Benjamin Franklin School. Maria now presents as a happier child.
While with her parents, Maria's dental needs were not being met. Upon coming into care she had restorative work done to nine of her teeth
Odalis is a very talkative girl who is reported to have become a happier child since her removal. She too recalls having witnessed the domestic violence in the home.
Odalis was born with a cleft lip and cleft uvula. She had the initial surgery required to repair the same performed while with her parents, but the parents then failed to take her for follow up visits. She had not been seen by the providers since 2010. Odalis was recommended to have braces and bone graft surgery. In the summer of 2014, she had the braces put on and on December 5, 2014 she had the bone graft surgery. She is now being followed by an orthodontist and by craniofacial physicians. She can be self-conscious as a result of her appearance as it was prior to all of the corrective surgery and the straightening of her teeth.
The parents also failed to attend to her dental needs; when she came into care she needed restorative work done on seven teeth, including the need for two crowns.
Since her removal from her parents' care, Odalis has begun to receive therapy from Ms. Hankey. She has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. She has difficulty trusting others.
She is a regular education student at Ben Franklin School who enjoys school.
Paloma is very talkative and can be difficult if things do not go her way. She attends the Ben Franklin School and has a 504 plan in place to address her hearing impairment. Mother has not attended any of Paloma's 504 meetings.
Paloma has been diagnosed with congenital, permanent hearing loss in both ears. She is being followed by Connecticut Children's Medical Center Audiology & Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) every six months. She was provided with a hearing aid on June 26, 2014. Due to the hearing loss, she is considered to be medically complex.
Mother has attended some of Paloma's medical appointments. Despite her attendance, she has not learned or accepted Paloma's hearing loss. She has, while attending audiology appointments, stated on several occasions that she would remove Paloma's hearing aid because it will cause more harm, despite having being told that Paloma needs the hearing aid and that her hearing has worsened over time.
Paloma has a history of elevated lead in her blood levels and she is being monitored by CHC and the Meriden Department of Health. As of September 2014 her levels were normal and she continues to be checked every six months.
Her dental needs also went unaddressed by her parents. Since coming into care she has had thirteen cavities filled and she needed restorative work consisting of five crowns, two extractions and an abscess drained. For the period of September to November 2013, Paloma was seeing the dentist weekly to have the necessary work performed.
She has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. She has from time to time hit her peers at school. The school made a referral to counseling for Paloma as a result of her behavior.
She has acknowledged seeing her parents engaged in domestic violence and frequently mentioned seeing her parents being covered with blood and the police being in the house. Dr. Schroeder opined that given Paloma's age at the time of removal, it is likely that Paloma has few recollections of life with her biological parents, other than highly charged emotional moments (i.e., witnessing fighting).
Her therapist at CHC, Ms. Hankey, supported the cessation of visits between mother and Paloma in the summer of 2015 due to Paloma stating that her mother always yells at her and visits made her sad. Later in the summer, visits between mother and Paloma resumed.
Ricardo, Jr. (sometimes referred to herein in as Jr.) was very shy when he came into care. He is developmentally on target and presents as a happy, talkative boy. He is enrolled in the Easter Seals Head Start program.
He too has a history of elevated lead levels. In September 2014 his levels were found to be normal and he is now checked every six months.
Through a play therapy with Child First, he acknowledged his exposure to domestic violence. He used action figures to represent his siblings, biological parents and a dog in the house. He placed the girls in a bed with sheets over their heads and the parents were presented with mother pushing Ricardo. Jr. placed himself in the garage closing the door as he explained that he was scared.
Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.
F. Specific Steps
As to Mother: Final specific steps were ordered by the court on December 10, 2013 to address mother's presenting issues of her unaddressed mental health needs, continuing domestic violence and deficient parenting together with familial financial instability and the unaddressed medical, dental and mental health issues of the children so as to facilitate the return of the children to her care. As the department seeks to terminate mother's parental rights due to her failure to rehabilitate under General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), the court makes the following findings with respect to her compliance with the steps.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced and visits by the child's court-appointed attorney or guardian ad litem .
Mother has been compliant with this step.
Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the children know where you and your children are at all times. Mother has been compliant with this step.
Participate in counseling and make progress toward identified goals. Mother's general treatment goals were parenting and individual. The specific goals were to provide safe home setting for the family and to learn methods of deescalate (sic) violence and stress. Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment. Mother's recommended providers were Intensive Family Preservation .
Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) was in the home prior to the 2013 removal of the children. Some progress was made, but as the children were removed it was not successfully completed.
Mother completed an intensive course of DBT prior to the filing of the neglect petition in 2013.
She attends counseling with M. Victoria Ramos, Psy.D. of CHC. Mother does not actively participate in the same, in part because she does not have a trusting relationship with Dr. Ramos due to the department's ability to monitor her treatment. Mother also does not feel she needs therapy or other mental health treatment. She openly acknowledges attending counseling sessions only because she must in order to satisfy the department. It is clear once the department is no longer involved with mother, that mother will cease attending therapy with a qualified therapist. The court finds mother is not actively engaged in or desirous of benefitting from her mental health treatment.
Dr. Ramos offers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), the type of counseling recommended to address mother's mental health issues.
Mother engaged in and completed the prescribed number of parenting education classes offered by CR1. Despite her attendance at the same and the efforts of the CR1 clinician, mother's parenting deficits continued to be evident during the supervised visits.
Additional findings in this regard are made below.
Cooperate with court ordered evaluations or testing .
Mother complied with this step and attended the evaluations by Dr. Schiappa and Dr. Schroeder.
Accept in-home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them .
This step is not applicable since the commitment of the children.
Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
There are no concerns about mother abusing substances.
Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified treatment goals, and for use in future proceedings with this court. Sign the release within 30 days with attorney approval. Sign releases allowing your child's attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child's medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
Mother has complied with this step.
Get and maintain adequate housing and a legal income. Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the children .
Mother has obtained and maintained employment. She has an apartment with adequate space and in adequate condition.
Except for the time when mother allowed father to return home in violation of the safety plan and the protective order, mother has kept the department aware of who is residing in her home.
Get and/or cooperate with a restraining order/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents. Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program .
Mother did not comply with the safety plan or the protective order when she allowed Ricardo to return to the home.
Mother and Ricardo both report that their relationship is over and, as there is no paramour or other cohabitant in mother's home, there is currently no domestic violence in her household.
Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole .
Mother did not comply with this step. She had continued involvement with the police. There were the incidents involving domestic violence in the home and also an arrest for threatening a member of her landlord's household. Mother denies the threatening allegation and produced a witness to rebut the allegation. The witness produced was not present at the time of the incident and not found by the court to be particularly credible.
Cooperate with your child(ren)'s therapy .
Mother has not made any attempt to talk to the children's therapists, but she was not required to cooperate with the same.
Visit the child as often as DCF permits .
Mother for a time consistently visited with the children. The visits were at the department's offices from the December 2013 removal until 2014. In 2014, the visits were held in the community. Visits were returned to the department's offices in the summer of 2015 at the request of the supervising clinician. The request was made because mother continued, despite being warned, to act inappropriately during visits and the worker feared she would not be able to stop a visit in the community should it be necessary to do so without additional support being readily available. Mother was again advised of the expectations she was to meet and by end of the summer she acknowledged the same and signed a safety plan that required her to act appropriately. Visits were then returned to the community.
During the visits, mother had difficulty utilizing the parenting techniques taught during the parenting education sessions. She inconsistently disciplined the children. She gave into the children's tantrums, particularly those of Paloma and Jr. Mother used bribery or guilt in a poor attempt to motivate the children to behave. She continued to show favoritism to Jr.
Mother became concerned when Stephany told her that her period was late. Rather than permitting the department to address the same with Stephany's medical provider, and despite being told not to do so, mother brought a pregnancy test to a visit and gave it to Stephany (age thirteen) to surreptitiously take during a visit.
Mother cannot desist in talking to the children about inappropriate and adult matters. She continually gives the children confusing messages by telling them that they shall be returning home with her soon, that the foster parents do not love them and telling them not to listen to the foster parents.
As to Ricardo : Final specific steps were ordered by the court on December 10, 2013 to address Ricardo's presenting issues of alcohol abuse, continuing domestic violence and deficient parenting skills, together with familial financial instability and the unaddressed medical, dental and mental health issues of the children so as to facilitate the return of the children to his care. As the department seeks to terminate Ricardo's parental rights due to his failure to rehabilitate under General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), the court makes the following findings with respect to his compliance with the steps.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced and visits by the child's court-appointed attorney or guardian ad litem .
Ricardo has been compliant with this step.
Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the children know where you and your children are at all times .
Ricardo did not give the department his address for a few months after he left the family home. Since then he has been compliant with this step.
Participate in counseling and make progress toward identified goals. Ricardo's general treatment goals were parenting and individual. The specific goals were to provide safe home setting for the family and to learn methods of deescalate violence (sic) and stress. Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment. Ricardo's recommended providers were Intensive Family Preservation and Chrysalis--DV [treatment] .
Father was recommended to engage in anger management and domestic violence classes. He attended and completed the NOVA program for domestic violence.
Ricardo completed his treatment with his therapist at Perspectives Counseling Center in July 2014 and no further recommendations for treatment were made.
Ricardo engaged in parenting education through CRI where they taught him some parenting techniques and about proper nutrition. Ricardo was unwilling or unable to consistently apply the skills modeled and taught to him. After completion of the educational sessions, he continued to demonstrate inappropriate parenting skills: he would turn his back on Paloma while she was tantruming and expect the clinician to deal with it; he continued to show favoritism to Jr. and had difficulty interacting with Odalis, in particular. The CRI worker credibly testified that Ricardo said he would have difficulty managing all of the children. The clinician (and the court) agree with that assessment.
At one time Ricardo complained that the CRI social worker did not understand his culture. The worker did not see the issue as cultural, but as a parenting issue.
The issue that gave rise to the comment was that the social worker suggested that Ricardo engage all of the children in a structured activity, like a soccer or baseball game. Ricardo said the children would rather run around the park. Exhibit 32, narrative of July 7, 2014.
Accept in-home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them .
IFP was in the home prior to the filing of the applicable neglect petition, there has been no referral for an in-home program since the issuance of the steps.
Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
He has complied with this step.
Cooperate with court ordered evaluations or testing .
Ricardo complied with this step.
Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified treatment goals, and for use in future proceedings with this court. Sign the release within 30 days with attorney approval. Sign releases allowing your child's attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child's medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
Ricardo has complied with these steps.
Get and maintain adequate housing and a legal income. Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the children .
Ricardo has been consistently employed. He has not, however, presented any viable plan for child care while he is at work. He suggested that he and mother could watch the children while the other works or as an alternative he said he would get a new girlfriend to watch the children while he was working. The suggestion that he and mother could share the parenting is an indication that, despite having raised concerns at times about mother's mental health, he does not comprehend the depth of her issues and the impact that her mental health issues has on the children. The suggestion that he would just get a new girlfriend demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the needs of his children.
Exhibit 32, narrative of July 7, 2014.
His housing is not adequate for the family. He currently rents a one-bedroom apartment. The department social worker testified the department did not assist Ricardo in finding a bigger apartment as once the department was no longer involved, Ricardo's income would not be sufficient to support a three-or four-bedroom apartment. Ricardo is not eligible for housing assistance.
Get and/or cooperate with a restraining order/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents. Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program .
There has not been an order or safety plan in effect for some time. As set forth above, he did not earlier comply with a protective order and those findings are incorporated herein. Ricardo has completed domestic violence counseling.
Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole .
He has been compliant with this step since he has been out of the home.
Cooperate with the child(ren)'s therapy, if recommended .
Ricardo has not displayed an interest in the children's therapy. He has not made any inquiry about their progress in therapy. He has not been recommended to participate in the children's therapy.
Visit the child as often as DCF permits .
He has substantially complied with this step.
III
ADJUDICATION
A. Location and Reunification § 17a-112(j)(1)
In order to terminate parental rights, unless the court grants the petition due to the consent of the respondent parent, the department 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." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1). " The court need not make that finding, however, if the evidence establishes that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts." In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 47, 887 A.2d 415 (2005). See also In re Jaiden S., 120 Conn.App. 795, 993 A.2d 1017, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 923, 998 A.2d 167 (2010). The department is not required to prove both. In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 191, 16 A.3d 1244 (2011).
" The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof." Id. at 48. " Although [n]either the word reasonable nor the word efforts is . . . defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn . . . [r]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." (Internal quotation marks omitted; citation omitted.) In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 619, 926 A.2d 690 (2007); In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 255, 763 A.2d 71 (2000). The court must look to events prior to the date the petition was filed or as of the date of the most recent amendment of the petition to determine whether reasonable efforts at reunification were made. In re Kyara H., 147 Conn.App. 855, 870-71, 83 A.3d 1264, cert. denied, 311 Conn. 923, 86 A.3d 468 (2014).
The court finds the department made reasonable efforts to locate and identify the mother, Ricardo and Walkin. As paternity for Stephany has not been confirmed, John Doe has been cited in as a party.
The court, after considering the credible testimony and exhibits introduced at trial, finds by clear and convincing evidence the department made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and Ricardo with the children under the specific facts and circumstances of this case. The department made appropriate referrals and offered services to mother, Ricardo and the children, including, without limitation, case management services, administrative case reviews, transportation, supervised visitation, counseling services by CHC and Perspectives Counseling Center, intensive parenting education, and referrals for substance abuse evaluation and treatment. The department was unable to make any efforts to reunify Stephany with Walkin as his whereabouts are unknown.
The court further finds by clear and convincing evidence mother, Ricardo, Walkin and John Doe are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. The court does not find that it is appropriate for the department to make further efforts.
B. Termination of Walkin's and John Doe's Parental Rights Under Ground A
The department claims Walkin and John Doe have abandoned Stephany. Abandonment focuses on the parent's conduct. A lack of interest in the child is not the sole criterion in determining abandonment. " Section [17a-112(j)(3)(A)] does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child. A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child. Maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern." In re Deana E., 61 Conn.App. 185, 193, 763 A.2d 37 (2000).
Since her birth, Stephany has had no contact with Walkin. He has never demonstrated, let alone maintained, any interest in the welfare of his child. He has never provided financial support and never made any inquiry as to her well-being. The evidence is clear and convincing that Walkin has abandoned Stephany.
John Doe has never seen Stephany. He has made no inquiry as to her well-being of her. He has provided no support for the child. He has shown no interest in her health or welfare. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that John Doe has abandoned Stephany within the meaning of the statute.
The court finds the petitioner has satisfied her burden and Ground A as to Walkin and John Doe has been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
C. Termination of Mother's Parental Rights to all of the children and of Ricardo's Parental Rights to Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Ricardo, Jr. under Ground B(i)
The petitioner alleges that mother's and Ricardo's parental rights to the children should be terminated because each respondent has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).
On December 10, 2013, all of the children were adjudicated neglected. The severity and chronicity of the domestic violence between mother and Ricardo, together with their failure to attend to the children's medical, dental and emotional needs, led to subsequent removal of the children and their commitment to the department Thus, the critical issue for this court under this ground is whether mother and Ricardo have each achieved a sufficient degree of rehabilitation as would allow the court to find that she/he would be able to care for the children within a reasonable time considering the age and needs of the children.
" Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [The statute] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time . . . [The statute] requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [she] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child's life." In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384-85, 784 A.2d 457 (2001) (quoting In re Eden F., supra, 250 Conn. 706). " [E]ven if a parent has made successful strides in her ability to manage her life and may have achieved a level of stability within her limitations, such improvements, although commendable, are not dispositive on the issue, of whether, within a reasonable period of time, she could assume a responsible position in the life of her children." In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 760, 936 A.2d 638, (2007) quoting In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 260, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).
" [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 385. " Terminating a parent's rights is not ordered to punish a parent who has not tried to rehabilitate; it is ordered so as not to punish a child by denying her a safe, permanent home with proven competent care-takers because her biological mother has tried hard but continues to be incapable of providing such a home for her." In re Samantha B., 45 Conn.Supp. 468, 477, 722 A.2d 300 (1997), aff'd, 51 Conn.App. 376, 721 A.2d 1255 (1998).
In assessing rehabilitative progress, the question is not simply how far the parent has come, but has the parent come far enough to encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, the parent can assume the role as parent in the life of the child. In re Stanley D., supra, 61 Conn.App. 230. See also In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 479-80, 771 A.2d 244 (2001). " What constitutes a reasonable time is a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis." In re Stanley D., supra, 61 Conn.App. 231 (quoting In re Michael L., 56 Conn.App. 688, 694, 745 A.2d 847 (2000)). Further, the court may, in considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may assume or resume within a reasonable time a useful role in the child's life, rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the termination of parental rights petition. In re Stanley D., supra, 61 Conn.App. 230.
With the above standards as the court's parameters, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that mother has failed to achieve such a degree of rehabilitation so as to encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, she could resume a role as a parent for her children. At the time of the neglect adjudication, mother's presenting problems arose from her unaddressed mental health needs, domestic violence and inadequate parenting skills.
She has a history of failing to benefit from attendance at her mental health therapy sessions and programs. That pattern continues.
She has on many occasions denied the need for mental health treatment. She attends counseling with Dr. Ramos but is not benefitting therefrom. She acknowledges doing so only to satisfy the department's requirements. Without her investment in the treatment she will derive no benefit therefrom.
Further, mother has not recognized the impact the domestic violence she has suffered and instigated has had on her own life and that of her children. She continues to minimize the domestic violence in her life. Until she can address her own issues, she will not be capable of attending to the needs of her children.
The court finds it deeply disturbing that mother would reach out to Walkin in an effort to establish a relationship between him and Stephany. It is emblematic of her failure to understand Stephany's mental health needs and to contemplate how introduction to an absent (and abusive) father could affect her.
The " failure to acknowledge the underlying personal issues that for the basis for the department's concerns indicates a failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation." In re Shane M., 318 Conn. 569, 589, 122 A.3d 1247 (2015).
Further evidence of her failure to rehabilitate by learning to appropriately parent her children is amply demonstrated by her inability to consistently apply the parenting techniques modeled and taught to her by CRI. Mother was incapable of consistently setting limits and boundaries and she continued to show favoritism to Jr. and Paloma. She continues to show that she lacks insight into the children's emotional needs and to the impact her own actions have had on them. Mother uses guilt and bribery to manage the children. She is described as " emotionally manipulative of the children."
Exhibit 28, page 63.
Ricardo has completed the domestic violence programs required of him and there is no evidence that he has engaged in any domestic violence incidents since then.
Father made minor gains in his parenting skills as a result of the parenting education provided by Ms. Negron, but he has not changed his fundamental belief that his primary role is as a provider and not as a primary caretaker. He has admitted he does not want to be the primary caretaker of the children.
Ricardo has not put forward a viable plan for parenting his children. While it is laudable that he continues to be employed, he fails to understand that he must be certain that his children would be cared for by an appropriate caregiver during his absence. His blasé comment that he would find a new girlfriend to assist him in caring for his children is indicative of his failure to grasp the seriousness of his children's mental health and medical needs and how crucial it is that they be cared for by a consistent, caring and nurturing caregiver. His alternative plan of having mother provide the care is not appropriate given mother's mental health issues and her parenting deficits as outlined herein. It is clear that Ricardo cannot manage the children on his own and that he does not grasp the impact that his actions had on the children.
His failure to attend the children's medical appointments to learn firsthand about their physical and emotional needs has hampered his ability to care for children as well.
He presents as a passive parent who is uncomfortable or unwilling to set limits on his children. Ms. Negron has found that he lets the children " run rampant on visits without providing any control or structure." He would oftentimes lose sight of the children while they were running through the park and he would ask the social worker where the children were. He is inconsistent with his disciplining of his children. He continues to show favoritism to Jr. and continues, particularly to pay much less attention to Odalis. Ricardo argues that he showers more attention on Jr. due to his age, but Ricardo has received education on how to interact and engage with all of the children and he failed thereafter to modify his behavior or to otherwise indicate that he understands that the girls also need his attention.
Exhibit 15A, page 10.
Ricardo's counsel argues that he has complied with his steps. That is not enough. " [T]he completion or noncompletion [of the specific steps], however does not guarantee any outcome. Accordingly, successful completion of expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat a department claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation." (Internal citations omitted.) In re Shane M., supra, 318 Conn 587.
The neglectful treatment of the children by mother and by Ricardo--not attending to their medical and dental needs, the frequent and violent incidents of domestic violence conducted in the presence of the children requiring the intervention of law enforcement--have resulted in the children being traumatized and damaged.
Yet despite the many services offered and partaken, neither mother nor Ricardo has demonstrated any that she/he appreciate the harm inflicted on the children. The court finds they continue to lack insight into the children's many needs.
Mother has not sufficiently addressed her own mental health needs to make it at all clear that she can manage herself. When confronted with an inevitable crisis with one or more of the children, the court can find no reasonable basis to believe that mother will be able to timely provide and maintain the appropriate care.
Ricardo historically has yielded to mother for managing the care of the children. There is every indication he would continue to do so--or even more troubling farm out such care to a " new girlfriend."
The linchpin to a determination of rehabilitation necessarily includes a finding that the parent can begin parenting within a reasonable period of time. Mother and Ricardo are each resistant to the intrusion of others. The evidence is clear that once the department is out of the lives of the parties, they will not continue to engage in required therapy and services for the benefit of the children.
Dr. Schroeder testified that mother is not in a position to provide care for the children. The court found her testimony to be credible and persuasive and agrees with the same.
Father argues that housing is the only issue and that the department did not do enough to assist him. The court disagrees. The court finds that he is unable and unwilling to acknowledge and address the needs of the children, to assume the role of the primary caregiver and to provide them with the stability, structure and nurturance that they need.
To allow for the additional time that mother and Ricardo need to be able to adequately and appropriately provide care for the children runs counter to our court's long recognized preference for permanency. The question is not simply one of rehabilitation; it is whether the particular needs of the child can be met within a reasonable timeframe. See, In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384-85.
Stephany, Maria and Odalis were removed from the care of mother and Ricardo twice prior to 2013. All five of the children were removed in 2013. At this juncture they have all been in the custody of the department for approximately the last twenty-six consecutive months. The children need stable and nurturing parents who can promote their development. The evidence is clear that mother and Ricardo are, each, not ready or able to do so.
Taking into consideration the findings made above, including with the age and needs of the children and their time spent in the care of the department, the court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, mother and Ricardo have each failed to rehabilitate to a degree as to allow for any reasonable assurance that the children could safely be reunified with her/him in any reasonable period of time.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence, the petitioner has met her burden and Ground B(i) the " failure to rehabilitate" ground for termination of mother's parental rights to all of the children and Ricardo's parental rights to Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Ricardo, Jr. has been proven.
D. Termination of Walkin's and John Doe's Parental Rights under Ground D
The petitioner also seeks to terminate the parental rights of Walkin and John Doe on the ground that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship between them (individually) and Stephany.
The petitioner must establish as to such respondent: (1) that no ongoing parent-child relationship exists; and (2) that the allowance of further time for the establishment of such a relationship would harm the interests of the child. In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 525, 777 A.2d 695 (2001).
It is clear that there is no ongoing relationship between Stephany and Walkin. He has not seen her since her birth. He is a stranger to her. She has no memories of him. Given her age and her significant mental health needs it would be harmful to allow for any time for Walkin to be located, come forward and develop a relationship with her.
John Doe has never seen Stephany. He has no relationship with her and is a stranger to her. She has no memories of him. There is clearly no ongoing relationship between the child and John Doe. To permit the time necessary for locating him and allowing for the development of a relationship would be detrimental to her well-being given her age and needs.
The court finds the petitioner has met her burden and Ground D is proven by clear and convincing evidence as to Walkin and John Doe.
To conclude, the petitioner has established, by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds exist for the termination of mother's, Walkin's, Ricardo's and John Doe's parental rights to Stephany, Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Ricardo, Jr.
Having determined, the court must further consider whether clear and convincing evidence has been presented that it is in the best interests of the children, and each of them, that the parental rights of the respondents be terminated.
IV
Motion to Revoke Commitment
Mother filed a separate motion for each child seeking a revocation of the respective child's commitment to the department. For the mother to prevail, the mother must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the cause for commitment no longer exists and only if mother meets such burden, then the department to maintain the commitment must prove, again by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that placement with the natural parent is not in the best interest of the child(ren).
See General Statutes § 46b-129(m), Practice Book 35a-14A and In re Patricia, 93 Conn.App. 25, 887 A.2d 929, cert. denied, 277 Conn. 931, 896 A.2d 101 (2006).
Mother has not addressed her mental health issues and she only superficially engages in therapy. She resisted the efforts of the service providers for the parenting education and did not fundamentally improve her parenting. She continues to emotionally manipulate the children. She does not grasp the seriousness of Paloma's hearing loss or of Stephany's mental health needs. The court has considered all of the credible evidence presented and finds mother has not met her burden and proven that the cause for commitment no longer exists.
The court need not make further findings and accordingly each of the motions are denied.
V
DISPOSITION
" During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child." In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103, 758 A.2d 863, cert. den., 255 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000). " In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a-112(k)]." In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528, 777 A.2d 695 (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833, 733 A.2d 298 (1999)). The court considers each of the findings with respect to mother, Ricardo, Walkin and John Doe in determining whether to terminate their respective parental rights. The court makes the following seven written findings.
(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with the respondents, the court finds the department offered timely and appropriate services to mother, Ricardo and the children. The services offered and timeliness thereof has been addressed above and the court incorporates those findings herein. The court finds the services the department offered were intended to address the presenting issues of the respondents that had led to the latest removal of the children. The department was unable to offer services to Walkin and John Doe as their whereabouts are unknown.
(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended. The court finds that the department made reasonable efforts to reunite mother, Ricardo and the children and incorporates by reference the findings made above. Reasonable efforts for Walkin and John Doe were not possible.
(3) As to 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 court finds specific steps were ordered for mother and Ricardo. While mother complied with many of the steps, she has not been able to benefit from the services sufficiently to permit her to be safely reunified with the children within any reasonable period of time. Ricardo also complied with the majority of the steps; however the court does not find compliance alone equates to rehabilitation and he likewise has not sufficiently rehabilitated to allow for him to be reunified with the children within any reasonable time. The court incorporates by reference the findings made above herein. No applicable court orders were entered for Walkin or John Doe.
The department complied with its obligations under the specific steps.
(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.
Stephany has no emotional ties with Walkin or John Doe.
The children love their mother. They are bonded with her, but the bond is not in many ways a healthy bond. Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Jr. also love and are bonded with their father.
Despite the finding of a bond between mother and the children, the court, nonetheless, as set forth below, concludes it is in the best interest of the children to terminate parental rights. See In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 926 A.2d 690, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 923, 933 A.2d 724 (2007).
Stephany has a tenuous bond with mother. She has vacillated in her desire to be reunified with mother, to remain in care or to be adopted. She has reported to Dr. Schroeder and others that she does not want to be adopted and that she wants to return home. As of the close of evidence, Stephany was not in a long-term placement. Due to her significant mental health needs she has been unable to form lasting attachments to caregivers.
The department believes Stephany will be adoptable after completion of her RAD therapy. The guardian ad litem does not agree.
The social worker testified that if the TPR petition is not granted, and if Stephany believes she can be reunified with mother, it will serve as a barrier to treatment. Dr. Schroeder credibly testified that if Stephany learns that reunification is not possible, it will free her up to make healthy attachments. Dr. Schroeder further testified that if mother's parental rights to Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Jr., are terminated, and Stephany is returned to mother, that mother may be able to meet her needs--but only if family therapy is put in place and meaningfully attended and if mother accepts responsibility for what happened and comes to understand Stephany's emotional and cognitive issues. The court has considered all of the credible evidence and weighed the likelihood of those conditions being satisfied and the need for Stephany to achieve permanency and determined that mother does not have the willingness or capacity to successfully parent Stephany in the reasonable future.
Maria and Odalis have each stated that she wishes to be adopted. Odalis also, however, reported to Dr. Schroeder that she wanted to live with her parents.
Maria could not, when asked, recall positive memories of living with her parents, but reported to Dr. Schroeder being upset due to being separated from them.
Exhibit 28, p. 10.
Maria and Odalis when asked to draw a family drew (or attempted to draw) the biological family. Paloma instead drew a house and noted that the foster parents and their son resided in the house.
Jr. was removed at a young age. He demonstrates love and affection for his parents during visits.
Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Jr. are bonded with the foster parents. They refer to them as mami and pa or papi and look to them to meet their day to day needs. The children trust the foster parents to provide them with care and nurturance. They do not enjoy that same trust with their parents.
The court incorporates by reference the findings made above.
(5) As to the age of the children: Stephany is thirteen, Maria is ten, Odalis is nine, Paloma is six, and Jr. is four.
(6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to: (A) the extent to which the parents have maintained contact with the children as part of an effort to reunite the children with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions: the mother has maintained contact with the children. While she has not attended their PPTs, 504 meetings or attended parent teacher conferences, she has regularly maintained contact with the department and makes inquiries as to the well-being of the children.
Ricardo has attended the visits. He has not attended school meetings or medical appointments. He has regularly maintained contact with the department.
Mother has made an effort to adjust her circumstances, conduct and conditions, but she has not been able to address her mental health or to take responsibility for her actions and omissions which lead to the removal of the children so as to make it in the best interest for the children to be returned to her care.
Ricardo, despite making efforts, has not adjusted his circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children, particularly considering the trauma they have previously suffered and their resultant needs, that they return to his care.
Walkin and John Doe have made no effort to adjust their respective circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children that they be placed in the care of any of the fathers. They have not visited or communicated with or made inquiry about the children;
And, (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the children: The mother and Ricardo have maintained regular contact with the department.
Walkin and John Doe have had no contact with the department. The children have never been in the care of Walkin or John Doe and there is no indication that it would be in their best interest to ever be placed in their care.
The foster parents have reported distancing themselves from mother and Ricardo since last Christmas. The foster mother felt that mother was attempting to dictate orders to them. Mother had been invited to and attended Maria's birthday, but her attitude and behavior were so objectionable she was not invited to attend Jr.'s birthday party.
Mother has not yet been able to adjust her circumstances, conduct and conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to be returned to her care and giving mother a reasonable period of additional time would very likely not bring her performance as a parent to an acceptable level.
Ricardo has made efforts, but he has not made sufficient progress for the court to find that he could assume the role of the primary caregiver for the children and to make it in the best interest of the children that they be returned to his care and giving him additional time would likely not bring his performance as a parent to an acceptable level.
The court incorporates herein the findings above made.
(7) As to 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: the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parent(s) or third parties nor does the court find economic circumstances of the respondents preventing a meaningful relationship with the children; the mother does maintain a meaningful relationship with the children.
In addition to considering the evidence presented in this case, the court has also considered the totality of the circumstances surrounding the children including the children's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability, continuity of their environment, length of stay in foster care, the nature of each child's relationship with the foster and biological parents and the degree of contact maintained with the biological parents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). The court has also balanced the children's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with the biological parents. Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998). The court has also considered that the attorney and the guardian ad litem for Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Jr. advocated for the termination of the parents' parental rights. The court notes that the guardian ad item and the attorney for Stephany do not believe it would be in Stephany's best interest to terminate the parental rights of mother.
Based upon all of the foregoing, the court by clear and convincing evidence finds termination of the parental rights of mother, Walkin and John Doe as to Stephany and (ii) mother and Ricardo as to Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Jr. is in the best interest of such children.
The court notes mother raised, for the first time, in her post-trial brief a constitutional issue--the appropriate burden of proof in a termination of parental rights proceedings. As the issue was not raised at trial and as the other parties filed simultaneous briefs, the other parties did not have a chance to respond or address the issue. The court declines to address the issue, other than noting that the facts found by the court have been found by clear and convincing evidence that satisfies both of the standards identified by mother in her brief. Further, the court makes no response to mother's request to the Appellate Court set forth in Section 5 of her brief.
VI
ORDERS
It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of mother to Stephany, Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Ricardo, Jr., are hereby terminated.
It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Walkin and John Doe to Stephany are hereby terminated.
It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Ricardo to Maria, Odalis, Paloma and Ricardo Jr. are hereby terminated.
The commissioner of the department of children and families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for these children.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ordered
It is worth noting that Dr. Schroeder is bilingual and all interviewees were able to speak with her in Spanish or English as each preferred.