Opinion
W10-CP11-016089-A W10-CP11-016090-A
06-24-2016
In re Yasiel R. [1]; In re Sky R
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Barbara M. Quinn, Judge
On November 21, 2012, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, hereafter " DCF", filed petitions for the termination of the parental rights of Ashley P. and Otoniel R. to their two children, Yasiel and Sky R. The first trial on the termination petitions took place on November 12, 2013. Both parents attended the trial, but did not contest the evidence and exhibits against them, and on November 13, 2013 the petitions were granted. Subsequently, Ashley P. timely appealed the court's decision on the grounds that the court had not canvassed her about her decision to allow the case to proceed with no challenge by her. On August 8, 2015, the Supreme Court agreed and her appeal was sustained. The matter was remanded for a second trial as to the DCF claims against her. The children's father did not appeal and his rights were terminated in November 2013.
The termination petitions filed allege that Ashley P. has failed to rehabilitate so that she could parent her children. Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). They also allege that her rights to other children have been terminated and that these children are under the age of seven and she has failed to rehabilitate so that she could parent them within a reasonable time, given their ages and needs. See Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(E).
The court finds from the record that there are no other custody proceedings affecting Yasiel and Sky and that it has jurisdiction. Ashley attended all days of trial commencing on March 23, 2016 and concluding, after break in time, on June 13, 2016. Her counsel, during DCF's case in chief, vigorously contested the petitions and cross examined the witnesses. On June 13, 2016, after DFC rested its case, Ashley P. followed suit and rested her case, without calling any witnesses or presenting any defense. The court canvassed her about her decision to acquiesce and her understanding of the rights she was relinquishing by not proceeding. The court found that her decision to do so was knowingly and voluntarily made with the advice and assistance of competent counsel.
After duly considering all the clear and convincing evidence and for the reasons set forth in detail below, the court grants the petitions and finds both that Ashley has not rehabilitated so that she could parent these special needs children and that it is in their best interests to terminate their mother's rights to them. The second ground alleged is proven as well.
DISCUSSION AND FACTS
This is a case about what it means to rehabilitate and care for children with special needs. As our law states: " personal rehabilitation as used by the statute refers of the restoration of the parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [Section 17a-112] requires the trial court to analyze the rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child . . . [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 needs of the child at issue." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873, re-argument denied, 251 Conn. 924, 742 A.2d 364 (1999). In this inquiry, the background and parenting history of an individual is relevant. From the credible, reliable and probative evidence presented, the court finds the following facts:
1. The Mother, Ashley P.
A. Background
Ashley's early life experiences reflect a sad and chaotic history of multi-generational neglect and abuse. She experienced significant losses and trauma while in the care of her family of origin. Ashely was in and out of DCF care herself beginning when she was seven. When she was eleven, she was sexually abused by her mother's boyfriend, an event she never reported until she was already a teenage mother herself.
During her childhood and early adolescence, Ashley was moved between a number of foster homes and group homes frequently and had great difficulty in managing her anger. She became involved with the father of her oldest child while in the 10th grade and did not finish high school. She describes herself as a " bad kid" during this time and only focusing on drugs and getting high.
Ashley has continued the same patterns of behavior she had observed in her own childhood. Her untreated mental health issues, trauma and abuse meant she formed relationships with abusive men, fell into regular illegal use of drugs and was a neglectful parent herself. Ashley became a mother when she was but a child herself at age fifteen. Her education had already been disrupted. She did not complete high school or obtain her general equivalency diploma. Her relationship with the father of her child was full of domestic violence. This relationship ended quickly.
She then began a relationship with the father of her next two children, when she was seventeen. This relationship, which continued sporadically for three years, was also marked by domestic violence and drug use. Ultimately, all three of her children were removed from her care, due to her drug use and neglect of them. Her rights to them were terminated in June 2007, when she was not quite twenty-one years old. They were and are in the care of her maternal grandmother, and were adopted by her.
Her involvement with partners engaged in drug abuse and domestic violence did not end after her rights to her three oldest children were terminated, but occurred yet again with the father of the two children who are the subject of these petitions, Yasiel and Sky R. Her neglectful parenting, which including leaving the children for extended periods of time with others due to drug use and criminal activity, continued.
B. Ashley's History with Yasiel and Sky
A year after her rights to her three oldest children were terminated, she became involved with Otoniel R., the father of the children who are the subject of these termination petitions. He was then fifteen years old while Ashley was twenty-one. Otoniel R., upon learning of her pregnancy, moved in with her. Initially, their relationship was a good one, but over time he became controlling and abusive to her, as had the other fathers of her older children. Following Yasiel's birth when Otoniel was sixteen, Ashley reported that Otoniel became increasingly violent. Before she could end their relationship, she became pregnant again, with her youngest daughter, Sky R. in 2010.
Despite their problems, they both tried to parent these two children. But ultimately, drug use and other problems overwhelmed them. About a year after Sky's birth in 2010, Ashley and Otoniel moved to Virginia, in the home of his mother. The incidents of domestic violence between Otoniel and Ashely continued and increased in severity.
The situation came to an abrupt end when Ashley was forcibly returned to Connecticut by a bounty hunter, after missed court appearances in Connecticut, due to Ashley's pending criminal charges. She was incarcerated in Connecticut for several days until her mother posted her bond. She and her mother drove to Virginia to retrieve the children.
Once back in Connecticut, Ashley lived with her own grandmother, the children's maternal grandmother, and her three older children, whom her grandmother had adopted, until she secured an apartment for herself a few months later.
Such stability as she tried to provide for her children ended through yet another criminal arrest, for her ongoing drug use and misguided attempts to secure income through illegal drug sales. A drug raid by the police found drug paraphernalia and indicia of drug sales at her apartment where it could have been reached by her small children. She was arrested and incarcerated in August 2011. Ultimately Ashley was convicted of three separate felony charges and remains on probation to the present time.
DOC conviction record and summary, Exhibits 13 and 14.
Yasiel and Sky were cared for by Ashley's mother and grandmother for the next month to six weeks. On September 21, 2011, the two children were dropped off at the DCF office as neither of their relatives was able to deal with these young children's challenging behaviors. They were inconsolable, having yet once again been abandoned by their family.
Exhibit 6, Addendum of Social study, dated March 17, 2016.
Yasiel and Sky were adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF on February 8, 2012. As noted, the termination petitions were filed in November 2012. The children reached their present pre-adoptive home in February 2013 and have remained there without interruption since that time. They have not been in the primary care of either of their parents since August 2011.
Due to her mental health issues and lack of education, until the past few years, Ashley has had a sporadic employment history. At the present time and to her credit, however, she has been continuously and gainfully employed since 2013. Nonetheless, DCF must prove and the court must find from the clear and convincing evidence that Ashley, at the time of the filing of the termination petition in November 2012 and up to the present time, has not rehabilitated so that she could parent her children.
C. Ashley's Attempts to Rehabilitate
Ashley was provided with specific steps at the time of the OTC hearing and at the neglect adjudication. Those steps were designed to provide her with guidance concerning what she needed to do to rehabilitate. They addressed parenting counseling and drug use as well as to not become involved with the criminal justice system; and if so, to follow her conditions of probation. As of the date of the filing of the termination petitions and the first trial, although she had made some attempts to deal with her issues and had been provided with considerable services by DCF over the course of time since her earlier involvement with DCF, she had then not rehabilitated as a parent with respect to the special needs of her children, so that she could parent them within a reasonable period of time, given their age and needs. She had completed some parenting courses and drug treatment programs successfully. Significantly, she did not then nor has she yet engaged in any individual therapy to deal with her significant history of trauma, although DCF continued to recommend this for her and refer her to
Exhibit 3.
Ashley had been provided with many services over the years of DCF involvement, including drug treatment and recovery services, counseling, drug screens, parenting education, visitation, and transportation and case management services. providers. She remains persuaded that she does not need this assistance.
While loving with her children during visits, she remained unable to accept responsibility for their removal or to understand how her actions had significantly negatively impacted them.
Ashley refused to engage in any therapeutic services or evaluations recommended by DCF during the pendency of the petitions until her criminal matter had been resolved. She did participate in random drug screens and some drug treatment. From the time of the neglect adjudication in 2012 until the termination trial November 13, 2013, she was only minimally engaged in services. After the conclusion of her criminal matters in May 2013, she did engage in services required by the terms of her probation, but had consistently been resistant to any individual therapy.
As a result of her refusal, she was not evaluated by the clinical psychologist as the time that psychologist evaluated the children with their father in March and May of 2013. However, Ashley was seen by Dr. Mary Cheyne in October 2013. She also observed her with Yasiel and Sky. At that time, Dr. Cheyne was not asked regarding reunification of Ashley with her children, but in 2016, she stated that had she then been asked, she would not have recommended it. She testified that Ashley needed to do a great deal of personal work to address her issues of trauma and mental health issues. She did not believe, given the challenging behaviors of the children at that time, that Ashley could parent them " in the way they were going to need at that time." She recommended assertiveness training for Ashley as well as individual therapy. Specifically, she thought that trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy would be helpful as well as eye movement desensitization reprocessing (EMDR).
Exhibit 12, evaluation report.
D. Yasiel's and Sky's Needs
The law requires that Ashley's rehabilitation is viewed from the children's needs for care. The children, after their delivery to DCF by their great-grandmother, have exhibited such challenging behaviors that they have had five disrupted foster care placements. At the time they came into care, Yasiel was two and a half and Sky was eighteen months old. At that time and continuing until their current placement, the children's challenging behaviors have included sexual acting out, extreme and " enormous" tantrums, hitting, biting, and unprovoked screaming as though they are being severely injured. They have had night terrors, bedwetting and anxiety. They showed general and complete dysregulation of their functioning. As noted by their own providers, they require consistent, thoughtful and careful parenting with constant reassurance and support. Structure and predictability in their environment are paramount needs. Each of them, and in particular Sky, has significant attachment needs. It is difficult for them to trust adults. The amount of attention they require is at times overwhelming. As one of their providers testified, " to be able to parent them well takes an extraordinary, above average functioning parent."
The foster mother testified as to the care the children need. The children have stabilized since they have been in their home for the past three years, and are now seven and six years old respectively. They still require enormous amounts of attention and focus to remain regulated and functioning well. They cannot be distracted from the things they wish addressed and their need for adult focus and attention is immediate, an exhausting challenge on a day-to-day basis for any parent. Structure and predictable routines are essential and are provided by their foster parents. Each of the children has done remarkably well in his or her schooling and functioning since arriving in this current placement three years ago.
There is no evidence that Ashley has understood the level of focused and attentive parenting Yasiel and Sky now require. There is no evidence, even after all these years, that she has addressed her own personal issues to be a stable and nurturing parent so that she would be in a position to be able to meet those needs. While she is employed, she lives in an apartment with her mother and grandmother and her three older children whom her grandmother adopted. She had not articulated a detailed plan for her two youngest children, believing that upon their return, she would see what they needed. She has not inquired about their needs at any point. She has never appreciated the impact of her own neglectful parenting on them during their youngest years, their fears and need for secure attachment to the adults in their lives.
II. Termination of Parental Rights
A. Termination Grounds
The legal issue before the court is whether DCF has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of Ashley P. should be terminated. " In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); (2) termination is in the best interest of the child; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2); and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a-112(j)(3)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 148-49, 962 A.2d 81 (2009).
The court finds, from all the clear and convincing evidence, that Ashley's children were adjudicated neglected and that she has not rehabilitated, given her children's ages and special needs, so that she could meet their needs and parent them now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. And in a real sense, the reasonably foreseeable future, as measured from the time of the filing of the termination petitions, is now here. There has been no change up to the present time. The second termination ground alleged (See Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(E)) has two additional required findings, that these children are under the age of seven at the time of the filing of the petitions and that Ashley's rights to other children have been terminated. The court has found from the record that Ashley's rights to her three older children were terminated in 2007. At the time of the filing of the termination petitions, Ashley's children were both under the ages of seven. The court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that the second ground has been proven as well.
B. Reasonable Efforts
General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1) requires DCF to initially show by clear and convincing evidence that it " has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and reunify the child with the parent . . . unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts. The court concludes, from the totality of the evidence, that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite this family, providing services and visitation. But it is apparent that in all these years Ashley was unable to benefit from these services. The court finds, from the totality of the circumstances and the clear and convincing evidence, that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Ashley with her two children.
C. The Seven Statutory Criteria
The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of Ashley P.'s parental rights have been proven. The court is also required to make written findings as to the seven factors delineated in Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-112(k).
(1) The Timeliness, Nature, and Extent of Services Offered or Provided to the Parent and the Child by an Agency to Facilitate the Reunion of the Child With the Parent.
As set forth above, the court finds that Ashley, when not incarcerated, never progressed in her use of the many services she received to deal with her own issues so that she could begin to learn to cope with the special needs of her children. She has made only marginal progress since 2011 when her children first left her care. This is far too long, given the age and needs of her children for stability and permanency.
(2) Whether the Department of Children and Families has Made Reasonable Efforts to Reunite the Family Pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as Amended
Reasonable efforts were made, through the provision of drug treatment services, parenting education and offers of individual therapy as well as visitation and case management services.
(3) The Terms of Any Court Orders Entered Into and Agreed Upon by Any Individual or Agency and the Parent, and the Extent to Which the Parties Have Fulfilled Their Expectations
Specific steps were ordered for Ashley and she has not managed to comply with them.
(4) The Feelings and Emotional Ties of the Child With Respect to the Parents, Any Guardians 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
Yasiel and Sky had a reasonable visiting relationship with their mother. But she is not able yet to provide for their needs. They have a close and supportive relationship with their foster parents with whom they have been for over three years. These foster parents have been able to provide them with structure and routine to address their challenging behaviors.
(5) The Age of the Child
Yasiel turned seven in February 2016 and Sky became six in March of this year.
(6) 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 to his Home in the Foreseeable Future Including But Not Limited (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 With the Guardian or Other Custodian of the Child
Even though her children have been out of her care since 2011, Ashley is not yet ready to parent them as they require for stability and growth. While she is employed and self-supporting, she has no realistic plan to care for them and has not learned of their specific needs. She has had only sporadic contact with DCF since the appeal of this case, not apparently understanding she could do so until recently. On the last day of the trial, although she could not bring herself to consent to the termination, she seemed, through her counsel, to indicate her belief that this was best.
(7) The Extent to Which a Parent Has Been Prevented From Maintaining a Meaningful Relationship 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
There has been no such conduct. Ashely has been employed for some time and has adequate resources. The father of these children has been totally uninvolved for years. All of the findings indicate that termination is appropriate in this case.
D. Best Interests of the Children
Is termination of their parental rights in the best interests of Yasiel and Sky? It is very clear that these children need and deserve a permanent home. Time is seen differently by children. Yasiel and Sky have spent most of their young lives in foster care. They cannot delay any longer their need for permanency as " long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development . . ." (Citations omitted.) In re Eden F., supra at p. 709. Furthermore, the court notes that " [b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence" when resolving issues related to permanent or temporary care of neglected children. In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992).
The court's primary concern is providing stability and permanence for Yasiel and Sky while paying heed to their sense of time. See In re Katia M., 6 A.3d 86, 124 Conn.App. 650, 666-67, cert. denied 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010). These children need stability, appropriate care and permanency. Their foster parents are able to provide such care. After considering these children's ages and the totality of circumstances, the court concludes from the clear and convincing evidence, that termination of their mother's rights to them is in their best interests. Their father's rights have previously been terminated.
ORDERS
It is HEREBY ORDERED that the parental rights of Ashely P. to Yasiel and Sky R. are terminated. The permanency plan filed in March 2016 is hereby approved and the court finds that the Commissioner has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan, which is for termination. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the children. The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of these children as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law. Judgment may enter accordingly.