Opinion
H12CP14015462
02-05-2016
In re Zion M. [1]
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mary-Margaret D. Burgdorff, J.
Before this court is the termination of parental rights petition, filed by the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (" DCF") on October 27, 2015 in the interest of Zion M., born on December 7, 2005 to Daiana T. (" mother"). Father, Rafael M., is deceased. Mother was served by way of in-hand service on October 22, 2015. Mother was advised and appointed counsel and a guardian ad litem. The child was appointed an attorney. The Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable. The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction and there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child.
This matter was tried to the court on January 14, 2016. Mother was not present at the commencement of the trial but did appear approximately one hour later. Mother's attorney and guardian ad litem were present for and participated in the trial. DCF was represented at the trial by an assistant attorney general. The child was represented by counsel. The attorneys were given the opportunity to cross examine the witness as well as call witnesses and present evidence. Mother was given ample opportunity to confer with her attorney and her guardian ad litem during the course of the trial. The court heard testimony from Dr. Carvalho, who performed the psychiatric evaluations of mother, mother's clinicians from InterCommunity Health Services and The Village for Children and Families, a social worker from The Moylan School and the DCF social worker. After conferring with her attorney and guardian ad litem, mother also testified. Fourteen exhibits were admitted into evidence as full exhibits by agreement of the parties. These included mother's competency evaluation reports in their entirety, the social study and addendum in support of termination of parental rights petition, the social study in support of the permanency plan, records from Catholic Charities and InterCommunity Health, Therapeutic Family Services records, mother's certified criminal history, Manchester police report, Enfield police report and mother's court ordered preliminary and final specific steps.
A motion for judicial notice was filed by DCF and was granted by agreement. The court, therefore, takes judicial notice of the following:
1. The minor child was placed in the care and custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-101g on March 13, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.; 2. Filing of ex parte motion for order of temporary custody on March 17, 2014, granted ex parte by the court (Burgdorff, J.), in the interest of the minor child, Zion T.; 3. Filing of neglect petition on March 17, 2014, alleging that the minor child was neglected in that he was being denied proper care and attention and that he was being permitted to live under conditions injurious to his well-being; 4. Finding of the court (Burgdorff, J.) on March 17, 2014 finding that the child, Zion T., was in immediate physical danger from his surroundings, that continuation in the home was contrary to the welfare of the child, that temporary care and custody of said child be vested in the department, and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the needs for the removal of said child were made by the State; 5. Preliminary hearing held on March 21, 2014, whereby the court (Dannehy, J.), confirmed service of the petition on the respondent mother, advised the respondent mother of her rights, sustained the order of temporary custody and reviewed, approved and ordered preliminary specific steps for the respondent mother and whereby the respondent mother entered a pro forma denial of the allegations in the petition; 6. Hearing held on August 6, 2014, whereby the court (Gilligan, J.) ordered the respondent mother to undergo a competency evaluation at the request of mother's attorney; 7. Hearing held on November 13, 2014 whereby the court (Dannehy, J.) ordered a guardian ad litem be appointed for minor child; 8. Hearing held on January 20, 2015, whereby the court (Dannehy, J.) issued orders designed to assist in the restoration of mother's competency, approved the permanency plan of reunification with respondent mother, found that the plan was in the best interest of the minor child and found that the department made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan; 9. Hearing held on January 13, 2015, whereby the court (Dannehy, J.) found the respondent mother to be incompetent but restorable based on the finding of Vinneth Carvalho, M.D. and appointed a guardian ad litem for the respondent mother; 10. Hearing held on June 8, 2015, whereby the court (Dannehy, J.) adjudicated the minor child neglected, committed the minor child to the care and custody of the department, found that the commitment of the minor child is in his best interest, reviewed, approved and ordered final specific steps for the respondent mother, and vacated the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor child; 11. Hearing held on June 8, 2015, whereby the court (Dannehy, J.) found the respondent mother to be incompetent and non restorable based on the findings of Vinneth Carvalho, Ph.D., mother's noncompliance with treatment, and the mother's continued use of PCP; 12. Filing of the petition for termination of parental rights on October 14, 2015 in the interest of the minor child, Zion T., alleging that the respondent mother has failed to rehabilitate; 13. Hearing held on November 12, 2015, whereby the court (Burgdorff, J.) confirmed in-hand service of the TPR petition on the respondent mother, advised the respondent mother as to her rights, and whereby the respondent mother entered a pro forma denial as to the allegations in the TPR petition; 14. Hearing held on December 1, 2015, whereby the court (Dannehy, J.) approved the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption, found that the plan was in the best interest of the minor child; and found that the Department has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan.
The court also takes judicial notice of the entire record of the prior non delinquency proceedings including pleadings, petitions, social studies, status reports, evaluations, court memoranda and specific steps as well as the dates and contents of the court's findings, orders, rulings and judgments.
The trial court may take judicial notice of relevant court actions. In re Amanda A., 58 Conn.App. 451, 452-53, 755 A.2d 243 (2000).
The statutory ground stated in the termination of parental rights petition against mother alleges that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for, and that mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position in the life of the child (General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I). The petition also alleges that reasonable efforts were made to locate the respondent mother, that reasonable efforts were made to reunify the child with mother, and that mother is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.
These proceedings are governed by General Statutes § 17a-112 et seq. In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must first prove by clear and convincing evidence, in the adjudicatory phase, a ground for termination alleged in the petition as of the date of the filing of the petition or the last amendment. Practice Book § § 32a-3(b) and 35a-7; In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 163, 962 A.2d 81 (2009); In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63, 597 A.2d 842, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 901, 600 A.2d 1028 (1991). Only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition. In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984); In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 232, 242, 753 A.2d 409 (2000). If a ground for termination is proven, the court must next consider the disposition stage. Therein, 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 child's best interest. In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). As is permitted under our law, the evidence as to both adjudicatory and dispositional phases was heard at the same trial. Practice Book § 35a-7(b). As noted above, the termination of parental rights petition was filed on October 14, 2015, which is the adjudicatory date as of which the court must make its determinations as to reasonable efforts and the statutory grounds for termination.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The court has carefully considered the petition, the criteria set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes, the applicable case law as well as all of the evidence and testimony presented, all orders and prior findings, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and the evaluation of their testimony with the documentary evidence according to the standards required by law. On the basis of the evidence presented and for the reasons stated below, this court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence and finds that DCF has met its burden of proof with respect to the termination petition as to the mother of Zion T., and that termination of the mother's rights is in the best interest of Zion and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent mother.
Mother
Mother's history with DCF dates back to 2012 due to allegations of physical and emotional neglect of Zion due to mother's history of unresolved mental health and substance abuse issues. Mother has a history of showing up at Zion's school demonstrating odd behaviors and appearing disoriented. In January 2014, DCF received a referral from Zion's school due to his excessive absences and tardiness as well as mother's failure to pick him up timely from school on several occasions. In addition, Zion was not receiving appropriate mental health treatment while in mother's care. On February 25, 2014, mother arrived at the school and appeared to be under the influence of substances. School staff reported that they had observed mother on numerous occasion to be incoherent and struggling with mental health issues. As noted above, a 96-Hour Hold was invoked by DCF on March 3, 2014. A motion for Order of Temporary Custody and a Petition of Neglect was filed by DCF on March 17, 2014. The OTC was sustained on March 21, 2014 and Zion was adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF on June 8, 2015.
Mother is presently thirty-one years of age. She has been residing in Hartford since 1989. Mother obtained her high school diploma from Price Technical School in 2003. She registered for a medical assistance program but did not complete the program. She registered at Capitol Community College for Pharmacy Assistance but did not complete her studies. Mother's work history includes housekeeping from 2013 to 2014, employment with the City of Hartford as a Community Work Volunteer from 2011 to 2013, and the Hartford Democratic Committee in 2012. She also reported working for an after school program at Montessori Magnet School from 2009 to 2010, at Our Piece of the Pie in 2007 as an administrative assistant, and Connecticut Valley Girl Scouts from 2007 to 2008. She also reported that she tutored math and reading at Betances School for grades three to five and worked at Greater Hartford Council in 2001. She is not employed at the present time. Her income consists of Section 8 rental assistance, medical insurance and food stamp assistance. She presently has housing.
Zion is mother's only child. Zion's father, Rafael M. passed away from cancer on June 9, 2009 when Zion was 3 1/2 years old.
Mother has past diagnoses of bipolar disorder, anxiety and depression. She has a history of psychiatric hospitalization in 2012. She has a history of abusing cocaine, marijuana and PCP. Mother has a history of high noncompliance with recommended treatment including taking recommended antipsychotic medication. Mother has failed to actively engage in services and has failed to gain insight into her mental health and substance abuse needs, and has failed to understand how these issues impact her ability to care for Zion. Mother has a history of being discharged from her treatment provider for inconsistent attendance. Mother was discharged from psychiatric and counseling services at the Institute for Hispanic Families on December 31, 2014 due to inconsistent attendance. Mother failed to attend an intake appointment on February 5, 2015 in an attempt to have her re-engage in services. She did attend the rescheduled appointment on February 26, 2015 but refused to take a urine screen. She failed to attend therapy sessions on March 5, 2015, April 8, 2015, May 3, 2015 and a medication management session on April 13, 2015. As a result, she was again unsuccessfully discharged from treatment on June 22, 2015 due to inconsistent attendance. Mother was inpatient at InterCommunity Recovery Center in April 2015 due to a relapse using PCP and marijuana. She was discharged from that program after seven days of intensive treatment due to her inability to adjust to the restrictions of living in a residential program with a structured environment. She was not able to follow instructions and was consistently confrontational with the staff and other clients.
Mother was partially compliant with Therapeutic Family Services in May 2015, but missed three visits in June 2015. She consistently attended in July and August 2015. On July 9, 2015, mother reported to her worker at Therapeutic Family Time she was worried about her recent relapses and disclosed that she used drugs with friends over the weekend. She was not recommended to transition to the Reunification Readiness Assessment Program because she was not compliant with her mental health and substance abuse treatment services. She failed to attend a closing meeting on August 14, 2015.
Mother did start a parenting program in September 2014, but failed to complete the program. Mother testified that she is attending services at Wheeler Clinic on her own but had not informed DCF of the details of those services.
Mother has been noncompliant both in meeting with DCF and in cooperating with home visits. She did comply with a home visit in April 2015 and a provider meeting and administrative meeting in May 2015. However, she did not allow a home visit in June 2015, missed a home visit on July 22, 2015, and failed to meet with DCF in July and August 2015 to discuss her treatment needs. She failed to sign the necessary release form so that referrals could be made to re-engage in mental health treatment. She did not allow a home assessment to be conducted in August or September 2015. She missed a provider meeting on August 14, 2015. She failed to attend a DCF meeting on October 21, 2015, and an administrative case review on November 12, 2015. Mother continues to be inconsistent in her contact with DCF. Further, she continues to minimize her mental health and substance abuse issues to DCF. She continues to be inconsistent with her treatment and continues to abuse substances that exacerbate her mental health condition. DCF has been unable to assess mother's current involvement in mental health and substance abuse services, or her home, based on her ongoing unwillingness to cooperate with DCF.
Mother's criminal history includes an arrest on October 11, 2015 for driving under the influence and failure to maintain lane. Mother admitted to smoking marijuana but refused a urine test. While at the police station, mother was discovered to have a bag of cocaine on her person. She was then charged with possession of narcotics. She was evaluated and determined to be showing indications of PCP intoxication. On October 31, 2015, mother was involved in a domestic incident due to a physical altercation with mother's ex-boyfriend and was charged with breach of peace. Mother's ex-boyfriend is the same man who was identified as the perpetrator in a physical incident involving Zion on July 13, 2015, involving Zion being spanked.
Mother has been inconsistent in attending her supervised visitation with Zion. She missed visits in January, March, April, May, June and July 2015. She did not visit with him from August 2015 to November 2015. She failed to attend several visits in December 2015. During the visits she did attend, she struggled in positively engaging with Zion and managing his behaviors. She engaged in inappropriate and poor interaction with Zion, at times causing him to become upset and she failed follow the social worker's attempts to redirect her.
As noted above, mother underwent an initial court ordered competency evaluation on October 9, 2014, by Dr. Vinneth Carvalho. Dr. Carvalho opined that mother's refusal to engage in her recommended treatment is based on her limited insight with respect to her illness. Dr. Carvalho concluded that mother's psychotic symptoms will not be eliminated without the use of medication and that mother's " symptoms will evolve into a chronic pattern of untreated psychosis . . . [B]ased on Mother's poor insight, chronic pattern of non-compliance with medications and treatment, continued use of illicit and habit forming substances (PCP and marijuana), her symptoms are not likely to improve over time." Dr. Carvalho further opined that mother did not have the capacity to understand the nature of the legal proceedings against her and did not have the capacity to assist her attorney in her defense but that mother could likely be restored to competency with the use of psychotropic medications. As a result of these findings, the court appointed mother a guardian ad litem to assist mother with the proceedings. The court then ordered a period of restoration with psychotropic medications.
The court subsequently ordered second competency evaluation which was performed on June 2, 2015. Dr. Carvalho opined that mother exhibited as depressed and had a disjointed, rambling and incoherent speech pattern, and that she " did not exhibit the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against her as they pertained to custody issues involving her son and did not exhibit the capacity to assist her attorney in her defense . . . Given her incoherent and illogical articulation of her thoughts, [mother] did not demonstrate the capacity to follow testimony for contradictions and errors, to understand instructions and advice and to make informed decisions about the handling of her case after first conferring with her attorney. It is therefore my opinion that [mother] did not exhibit the capacity to assist her attorney in her defense . . . This decision was based on her observed delusional state, mood liability and disorganized speech pattern which impaired her ability to effectively communicate."
Notably, Dr. Carvalho stated that there has been no significant change in mother's delusional thought content or her disorganized speech pattern since her first evaluation in October 2014. Further, Dr. Carvahlo opined that in light of mother's " poor insight, chronic pattern of noncompliance with psychotropic medication, her refusal to take a prescribed antipsychotic medication and her relapses in using illicit and habit forming substances (such as PCP and marijuana), her symptoms are not likely to improve overtime. It is therefore my opinion that [mother] will not likely be restored to competency." Dr. Carvalho also credibly testified at trial that mother was not restorable to competency due to her drug use and exhibition of mania and hyper mania. As noted above, the court held a competency hearing on June 8, 2015 and found the mother incompetent and nonrestorable at that time.
Minor Child Zion M.
Zion T. was born on December 7, 2005, at St. Francis Hospital. He is a healthy child who suffers from mild asthma. He is up to date with his immunizations, physical exams and dental exams. He is a happy, friendly child who interacts well with his peers.
Zion was placed in his grandmother's home on March 13, 2014. He has thrived in this placement and is closely bonded with his grandmother as well as her partner who visits the home daily and provides guidance and support to Zion and acts as a psychological grandfather to Zion.
Due to concerns of impulsivity and hyperactivity at school, Zion underwent a psychiatric evaluation on September 19, 2014, and was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He underwent a second evaluation on July 28, 2015 and was subsequently prescribed Ritalin due to ongoing impulsive behaviors at home and school which included difficulty in completing his homework. The medication initially helped with Zion's focus as well as his impulsivity and he reported feeling better. However, as of September 2015, he began exhibiting behavioral issues at home. He was taken off the medication to determine if that would improve his behavior.
Zion currently attends individual therapy at The Village for Children and Families on a biweekly basis for his diagnoses of ADHD and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He engages in therapy to improve his coping skills and his ability to focus but his progress has been slow. He continues to work on his behavior issues including impulse control, anger management, communication skills and working on his behavior with his grandmother. He remains guarded regarding his family and has not been willing to discuss his mother. His grandmother has been actively involved in his therapy and treatment.
Zion is attending 5th grade at the Moyland School. He has had good attendance. He is receiving special education services and is doing well academically although he continues to have difficulty focusing on his individual work. He was assigned an education surrogate in June 2015 to advocate for his educational needs. He is also on an individualized behavior plan at school with goals and incentives built into the plan. His behavior at school has improved dramatically since being placed with his grandmother. He no longer requires redirection as often as before and is completing his work independently and efficiently. In addition, his attendance at school is no longer an issue.
Zion has looked forward to his supervised visits with mother and they have a clear bond with one another. Mother did not engage in the supervised visitation for a period of time due to her reluctance at having the visits at DCF. She did recommence some of the scheduled supervised visitation in November and December 2015, which did not go well. Zion subsequently reported that he no longer wanted to visit with mother. Mother failed to attend several supervised visits which upset Zion. A supervised visit did occur on December 22, 2015 but mother became combative with the social worker and would not follow the social worker's direction which, in turn, caused Zion to become upset with mother. A similar occurrence occurred at the next visit on December 30, 2015, when mother had inappropriate conversations with Zion and initially refused to be redirected by the social worker.
Zion continues to remain comfortable in his grandmother's home. He seeks comfort and nurturance from her. He has a very close relationship with her and reports being happy in her care. Zion is aware that the plan for him is adoption by his grandmother and he is in agreement with this plan. He understands that mother is not in a position to care for him at the present time.
ADJUDICATION OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION
As noted in detail above, prior to the commencement of the trial, a court-appointed psychiatrist evaluated mother on two separate occasions after which competency hearings were held. The evaluator's second report stated that mother was not competent to understand the nature of the proceedings nor was she able to assist her attorney. The court, without objection, found that mother was not competent and appointed a guardian ad litem for her. In addition, the court found that mother's court appointed attorney who effectively represented mother during the course of the proceedings. In light of that finding, the court has carefully considered the findings regarding competency hearings as set forth in In re Alexander V., 223 Conn. 557, 564, 613 A.2d 780 (1993). The Supreme Court therein noted that " there is a cognizable risk that a parent unable to assist his or her attorney or to understand the proceedings might suffer an erroneous termination of parental rights regardless of whether a guardian ad litem has been appointed pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-708(a)." Id. at 563. In weighing that risk, the court has reviewed the procedural safeguards set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) to provide assistance in the decision to proceed with the trial. The court has considered the multi-factored balancing test set forth in Matthews to ensure that the due process rights of the incompetent parent have been addressed in order to balance the mother's interest in maintaining her family free of coercive state interference with the interest of the child in a safe and healthy childhood. See In re Aida M. and Carmela O., Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, H12-CP96-000640 and H12-CP96-00064 (March 24, 1997, Foley, J.). To ensure that mother's due process rights have been properly considered, the court has also considered the four concerns addressed in Matthews :
1. " Is it likely that the evidence presented could be refuted by a competent parent?"
In this case there is clear and convincing evidence of failure to rehabilitate. Mother's interests were competently represented by her attorney during the trial. Mother's attorney actively participated in the examination of the witnesses and closing argument. Mother's GAL also participated in the trial and consulted with mother and her attorney. There was an abundance of evidence that mother was suffering from debilitating mental health issues and substance abuse issues which affected her ability to parent effectively. She has been unable to successfully address her mental health and substance abuse issues. She was unable to address her son's developmental needs and his basic care. She missed numerous supervised visits with him. It is clear and convincing that the evidence presented to the court could not be successfully refuted by mother.
2. The second concern is " whether the parent could be restored to competence within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child" ?
The evaluator of mother's competency was of the opinion that due to the depth and persistence of mother's mental illness and ongoing substance abuse issues, and her failure to take her prescribed medication, that no intervention could restore her to competency. The evidence clearly showed that mother has a significant history of failing to adequately address her significant mental health and substance abuse issues which have put her son at risk. The evidence is clear and convincing that mother has failed to address her mental health needs on a consistent basis for a significant period of time. She has resisted taking her prescribed medication and has failed to successfully participate in her services. Further, mother's demeanor during the course of the trial and her testimony supports the finding of incompetency. Mother was agitated and her testimony was rambling and at times incoherent. She had difficulty in focusing on the questions posed to her and in providing responsive, coherent answers. Her emotional demeanor was at times inappropriate. In light of the above, it is not reasonable to assume that mother will cooperate in any efforts to restore her competency in the foreseeable future. Further, in light of Zion's age and needs, it would not be reasonable to give mother any additional time in which to restore her competency.
3. The third concern is " if the mother were competent, is there proof of the existence or prospect of an existing parent-child relationship?"
The clear and convincing evidence is that any parent-child relationship between Zion and mother is minimal at best. It is clear that mother loves her son and Zion loves his mother. However, their relationship is not that of " parent-child" due to mother's significant mental health and substance abuse issues. There is neither sufficient evidence that the relationship between mother and Zion is a positive one nor is there a reasonable prospect that a positive parent-child relationship will develop in a reasonable period of time. The evidence clearly demonstrates that mother is not able to effectively parent Zion. Zion has acknowledged that his mother is unable to take care of him.
4. The fourth concern is " was the respondent mother effectively represented by counsel and the guardian ad litem, given the difficulties attendant to such representation?"
In this case, both mother's attorney and guardian ad litem met with respondent mother before and during the trial. Mother was given ample opportunity to consult with her attorney and her guardian ad litem throughout the course of the trial. Both competently and effectively represented mother in their capacities as her attorney and guardian ad litem. Neither were prevented in any way from presenting mother's case. They both fully participated in the trial. Mother's attorney had full opportunity to cross examine all witnesses, call witnesses and argue mother's case.
In light of these concerns, the court concludes that all of the factors to be considered by the court under a Matthews analysis support proceeding to trial. The likelihood of an erroneous termination decision is slight in view of the substantial evidence establishing mother's failure to rehabilitate and to adequately address her significant mental health and substance abuse issues. That remote possibility is greatly outweighed by the child's needs. Mother's due process rights have been provided to her in the appointment of a GAL. To permit any further delay to allow mother additional time to restore her competency would not reduce the risk of an erroneous termination of mother's parental rights. Therefore, the court concludes that mother's rights have been adequately protected and her due process rights have been adequately considered.
Reasonable Efforts
" The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child." (Citation omitted.) In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006). In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under § 17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that " it has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents 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." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 837, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005). " [T]he statute imposes on the department the duty . . . to make reasonable efforts to unite the child or children with the parents. 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. Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act by which the requirement was drawn . . . [R]easonable efforts mean doing everything reasonable, not everything possible . . ." (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).
DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it used reasonable efforts to locate mother and to reunite her with Zion as contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(I). The evidence clearly establishes that mother was properly served. Mother was present for most of the trial.
DCF has also proven by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to reunify Zion with mother. As discussed in detail above, DCF made reasonable and active efforts to reunify Zion with mother. Further, mother was unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reunification services. Reasonable efforts were made by DCF to rehabilitate mother and most of these efforts were thwarted due to mother's mental health issues, continued substance abuse and failure to consistently engage in her recommended services. She has consistently refused to engage with DCF and has failed to sign necessary releases. As discussed above, DCF made appropriate referrals for mother and attempted to have mother successfully engage in her court ordered services but she failed to do so. Mother was offered case management services, substance abuse evaluations and screens; individual counseling, psychotherapy services, and supervised visits. She was noncompliant with a majority of these services resulting in her unsuccessful discharge. She was clearly unable to benefit from them. It is, therefore, clear and convincing to the court that mother is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. The court has considered mother's failure to sufficiently address her issues and rehabilitate. Mother has not made significant gains with regard to her ongoing and significant issues. She has been unable to put her child's needs ahead of her own. The court, therefore, finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify mother with her son and, further, that as of the adjudicatory date, mother has been unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification.
Adjudication
Failure to Rehabilitate
General Statutes § 17a-112(j) provides in relevant part " that the court may grant a petition for termination of parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the child . . . has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . ." " Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [Section 17a-112] requires the 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jordan T., 119 Conn.App. 748, 755-56, 990 A.2d 346, cert. denied, 296 Conn. 905, 992 A.2d 329 (2010). " The statute does not require [the parent] to prove precisely when they will be able to assume a responsible position in [the] child's life. Nor does it require [the parent] to prove that [she] will be able to assume full responsibility for [her] child, unaided by available support systems. It 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." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 847 A.2d 883 (2004). The ultimate question is whether the parent at the time of the filing of the termination petition is more able to resume the responsibilities of a parent than he or she was at the time of the making of the commitment. In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 614 A.2d 832 (1992). In making this determination, the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering 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. In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000). The crux of the adjudicatory ground of failure to rehabilitate is whether a parent has sufficiently addressed the problems and deficiencies in parenting that led to state intervention in the family so that the parent can, considering the age and needs of the child, assume a responsible position in the child's life, or will be able to do so in the reasonably foreseeable future. What is a reasonable time is a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the age and needs of the particular child. See In re Shannon S., 41 Conn.Supp. 145, 562 A.2d 79, affirmed, 19 Conn.App. 20, 560 A.2d 993 (1989).
In light of the statutory elements of this ground as well as the case law interpreting it, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to mother. The court finds that Zion was adjudicated neglected on June 8, 2015. It is clear and convincing to the court that, as of the adjudicatory date, mother has not sufficiently rehabilitated herself to assume a responsible position in Zion's life in view of his age and needs on that date or in the foreseeable future. Further, the court finds that mother does not have nor has she gained the ability to care for the primary needs of Zion. As noted above, mother's noncompliance with the referred services including substance abuse evaluation and screens, individual therapy, psychotherapy services and parenting program have prevented her from sufficiently rehabilitating to care for Zion. Her subsequent failure to sufficiently benefit from and consistently engage in services offered by DCF is clear and convincing evidence that mother has failed to rehabilitate. The court must consider the age and needs of Zion. There has been virtually no improvement in mother's ability to parent Zion since he was committed to the care of DCF. Clearly, she will not be able to assume a responsible position in Zion's life within a reasonable period of time. As such, it is clear and convincing to the court that, as of the adjudicatory date, mother has not sufficiently rehabilitated herself to assume a responsible position in Zion's life in light of his age and needs on that date or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, in light of the statutory elements of this ground as alleged by DCF, as well as the case law interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to Zion.
DISPOSITION
As our courts have long observed, the deleterious effects of prolonged temporary care are well known. In re Juvenile Appeal (84- CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). " It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents. There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty . . ." Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982).
For all of the above reasons, the court, having found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by the petitioner for the termination of the parent's parental rights have been proven, the court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Zion's best interest that mother's parental rights be terminated. The court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in General Statutes § 17a-112(k).
In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, " the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child." In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 356-57, 641 A.2d 378 (1994). During this dispositional phase, " the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent's parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in § 17a-112[k]." In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 361-62, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995). We note that those " seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered . . . There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence." (Citation omitted.) In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).
The seven statutory findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
1. The Timeliness, Nature and Extent of Services Offered, Provided and Made Available to the Parent and the Child by an Agency to Facilitate the Reunion of the Child With the Parent
DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and Zion as discussed in detail above. The services offered were designed to address mother's parenting as her mental health and substance abuse treatment needs all in an effort to facilitate the return of her child. These services were offered in a timely manner. Reasonable efforts to reunify mother with Zion are no longer appropriate in light of mother's cognitive limitations, ongoing mental health and substance abuse issues, parenting needs and inability to meet Zion's needs.
2. Whether the Department of Children and Families Has Made Reasonable Efforts to Reunite the Family Pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as Amended
Reasonable efforts to reunify the child with mother were made by DCF pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Ample services to facilitate the return of Zion to his mother were made. As noted above, mother was offered appropriate multiple services towards reunification which were not successful.
3. 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
Specific steps were ordered as to mother on March 21, 2015, and June 8, 2015.
Mother has not completed many of her court-ordered specific steps. She has been unable to procure regular and legal employment and she has not successfully participated in or completed the court ordered services. She has been inconsistent in her visitation with Zion. She has failed to demonstrate a good understanding of age-appropriate parenting skills. Her mental health and parenting issues have negatively impacted the reunification process.
4. 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 For at Least One Year and With Whom the Child Has Developed Significant Emotional Ties
Zion has a strong emotional attachment with mother. However, he understands that he cannot be reunited with mother at the present time. He has a strong emotional bond with his grandmother with whom he has been placed since March 2014.
5. The Age of the Child
Zion is ten years old. His birth date is December 7, 2005.
6. The Efforts the Parent Has Made to Adjust Such Parent's Circumstances, Conduct, or Conditions to Make it in the Best Interest of the Child to Return Such Child Home in the Foreseeable Future, Including, But Not Limited to, (A) The Extent to Which the Parent Has Maintained Contact With the Child as Part of an Effort to Reunite the Child With the Parent, Provided the Court May Give Weight to Incidental Visitations, Communications or Contributions, and (B) The Maintenance of Regular Contact or Communication With the Guardian or Other Custodian of the Child
Mother has made little effort to adjust her circumstances to permit Zion to safely return to her care. She continues to have unresolved issues that impede her ability to safely and appropriately care for her son. She has failed to adequately address her mental health and substance abuse concerns and has not fully rehabilitated herself in the year and a half since Zion has been committed to the care of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families. Further, she has been sporadic in her visitations with Zion and she has minimally responded to DCF's efforts to engage with her.
7. 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
No unreasonable act or conduct of any person or the other parent has prevented mother from a meaningful relationship with Zion. DCF has encouraged mother to maintain a meaningful relationship with her son. The economic circumstances of mother have not prevented her from having a relationship or visits with Zion. Mother was offered programs at no cost to assist her with her issues. There has been no claim that mother was unable to obtain services due to lack of financial resources. Legal counsel and a guardian ad litem were appointed for mother at no cost to her. Mother's conduct has prevented her from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Zion.
BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child. The best interest standard is inherently flexible and fact specific, giving the court broad discretion to consider all the different and individualized factors that might affect the specific child's welfare. The factors to be considered in deciding whether it would be in the best interest of a child to permit further time for a relationship with his parent to develop include " (1) the length of stay with the foster parents, (2) the nature of the child and relationship with the foster parents, (3) the degree of contact maintained with the natural parent, and (4) the nature of the child's relationship with his or her natural parent." In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 22, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993). In considering all the above noted factors and after weighing all of the evidence, the court finds that the clear and convincing evidence has established that termination of the respondent mother's parental rights is in the best interest of Zion. It is clear that mother is in no better position today to provide for Zion than she was at the time of his removal. The problems that led to the removal have not been rectified and the prospects of improvement particularly with regard to mother's ongoing competency are bleak at best. Mother has failed to consistently avail herself of available services in order to make the necessary progress and improve her circumstances to the point where she can assume a responsible role in the life of her son. Mother has failed to understand the impact her behaviors have had on her child's physical and emotional needs. She has not been able to put her child's interests ahead of her own. She continues to be unwilling or unable to provide competent, safe and nurturing parenting to Zion. Clearly, mother is not a resource for Zion. Zion should not be required to wait into the indefinite future for his mother to address her long-standing mental health and substance abuse issues that have prevented her from parenting Zion. He needs a permanent and stable living arrangement in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner. This conclusion is supported by the testimony and evidence presented at the time of trial.
Zion's needs are those of all children. He has an interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and a continuous, stable environment. He has this with his grandmother. Mother will continue to need substantial help to maintain herself with no reasonable prospect for success in the foreseeable future especially with regard to her mental health and substance abuse issues. The child's attorney recommends termination of parental rights as well and believes that termination is in the best interest of Zion. The court agrees. DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Zion T.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of his mother.
It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental rights of Daiana T. are TERMINATED as to her child, Zion M.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing findings and having considered all of the evidence, after due consideration of the child's need for a secure, permanent placement, the totality of the circumstances, and having considered all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that efforts at reunification with mother were made, that mother continues to be unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts, and that further efforts as to mother are no longer required, that grounds exist to terminate mother's parental rights as alleged, and that it is in the child's best interest to do so, it is accordingly ordered:
That the parental rights of the respondent mother Daiana T., are hereby terminated as to her child, Zion M., born on December 7, 2005;
That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent of the child for the purpose of securing the child's adoption as expeditiously as possible;
That a written report of the plan for the child shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be timely filed and presented to the court as required by law;
Judgment shall enter accordingly.