Opinion
No. L15-CP08-008453-A
May 6, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTIONS TO REVIEW PERMANENCY PLANS, MOTION TO REVOKE, and PETITIONS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
STATEMENT OF CASE AND PROCEEDINGS
In the captioned child protection proceeding the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has petitioned the court to terminate the parental rights of Jennifer W. (mother) and Jeffrey N. (father) to Zowie N. (child). The child is three years old; she was born on April 10, 2008. An ex parte order of temporary custody (OTC) was issued for the child on April 14, 2008, and was sustained by agreement on April 22, 2008. On August 10, 2009, the court adjudicated the child neglected and committed the child to the care and custody of DCF. Petitions for termination of parental rights were filed on August 10, 2009, alleging failure of mother to achieve the necessary and appropriate degree of personal rehabilitation and further alleging no ongoing parent-child relationship between mother and the child. As to father, the petition alleged failure to achieve rehabilitation necessary to meet the child's needs. The petition against the father was amended on September 7, 2010, to also include the grounds of abandonment and no ongoing parent-child relationship.
On April 16, 2010, mother consented to the termination of her parental rights, the consent was accepted, and DCF amended its petition to reflect termination of mother's rights on the basis of consent.
Father's Motion to Revoke Commitment, filed on December 7, 2009, was consolidated for trial with the termination petitions, as were DCF's 2009 and 2010 permanency plan motions. Trial on all of these matters proceeded on September 27, 29 and 30, 2010, October 1, 13, 14, and 15, 2010, and March 1 and 3, 2011. Father represented himself at trial and was assisted by stand-by counsel who had been appointed by the court. Also present at trial were counsel for the child, a DCF representative and counsel for DCF.
DCF presented the testimony of ten witnesses: A Connecticut state trooper; police officers from Thomaston, Torrington and Canton, Connecticut; a records keeper from the Wheeler Clinic; a caseworker from All Pointe Care; one of the foster parents caring for the child; the DCF social worker on the case; a psychologist; and a psychiatrist. Father presented the testimony of eight witnesses: two police officers from the town of Torrington, the branch manager of Securitas (an agency that provides security for the DCF facility at which father takes his visits with his daughter), three Securitas guards, and a visitation supervisor. Father also testified. Counsel for the child fully participated in the trial but did not call any witnesses or introduce any documentary evidence. There were numerous exhibits introduced at trial by DCF and father.
A DNA test ordered by the court established the paternity of Jeffrey N. as to Zowie, and the court herewith confirms the finding that Jeffrey N. is Zowie's biological father.
On motion by DCF filed at the commencement of the trial and unopposed by the parties, the court took judicial notice of certain filings, dates, hearings and decisions in these matters.
FACTUAL EVIDENCE The Child
Zowie was born prematurely, about four weeks, on April 10, 2008, and, although mother had ingested cocaine and alcohol during her pregnancy, the child does not appear to have suffered any permanent abnormalities, defects or delays as a result thereof. The order of temporary custody, initially issued ex parte when Zowie was four days old, was premised on substance abuse on the part of mother, domestic violence on the part of mother and father, and reckless disregard for the newborn's well-being on the part of both parents.
On April 15, 2008, Zowie was taken from the hospital by DCF and was placed in a DCF foster home. A few days later the child was placed in another DCF foster home with her two older maternal brothers. Zowie was moved again on May 23, 2008, to the home of a paternal cousin. Since that time, Zowie has continued to reside with that cousin, the cousin's fiance and the children of each of them.
Mother
Jennifer W. is thirty-three years old. Prior to her meeting Jeffrey N., mother was involved in two other serious relationships, the second of which was an on-again/off-again one in which there was domestic violence. Mother gave birth to two sons as a result of those relationships. Those children are presently fourteen and ten years of age. Mother met Jeffrey N. in 2003 — he was the karate instructor for one of her children. In 2006, Jeffrey left the home he shared with his wife and children and moved in with Jennifer. Jennifer's substance abuse and mental health issues led to DCF taking temporary custody of her sons in early 2007. In addition, DCF became involved with Jennifer and Jeffrey at that time, before the birth of Zowie, because of domestic violence between Jennifer and Jeffrey. Mother continued to experience drug, alcohol and mental health problems and her parental rights to her sons have been terminated.
One month before Zowie's birth in 2008, Jennifer and Jeffrey were involved in a domestic violence incident with each other. Ten days later, mother, who was eight-months pregnant, advised her therapist that she had been drinking heavily and was contemplating suicide. This triggered emergency transport of mother to the hospital. Zowie was born three weeks later.
Although visitation with Zowie was available to her, mother has not seen Zowie since October 2008.
Father
Father, Jeffrey N. is fifty years of age. Jeffrey N. had been married for some time to Mrs. N. and has two adult children from that marriage. The marriage was legally dissolved last year. Father is currently self-employed restoring metal antiques. In the past he was employed as a karate instructor.
Although there had never been any DCF involvement with the N. family, Jeffrey N. became known to DCF about four or five years ago when he began a relationship with Jennifer W. Jeffrey N.'s criminal record also reflects that police involvement in his life did not commence until after the relationship with Jennifer W. began. Most of the charges occurring from the various arrests of Jeffrey N. have been nolled; some remain pending; and he has one misdemeanor conviction for larceny in the fourth degree.
In addition to the police intervention in numerous incidents involving both Jeffrey and Jennifer that are described separately below, Jeffrey N. has singularly been the subject of police involvement. In October 2009, Jeffrey took it upon himself to stop a state-owned car he thought was speeding and demanded that the operator give him his driver's license. An investigation followed as to this alleged impersonation of an officer. On February 3, 2010, police were called by Jeffrey N.'s wife who expressed concern about Jeffrey because he had been acting bizarre and was threatening to harm himself. The bizarre behavior continued after the police arrived, and, because of that and other factors which led the police to be fearful for Jeffrey's safety, Jeffrey was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Jeffrey's aberrant and disruptive behavior continued in the ambulance and at the hospital. One of the hospital technicians later called the police asserting that he had been assaulted by Jeffrey. Jeffrey contends that it was he who was assaulted at the hospital and that he was wrongfully taken there by the police.
On May 28, 2008, one month after Zowie's birth, Jeffrey and Jennifer were each evaluated by psychologist, Ralph Balducci. Both of them had been evaluated by this psychologist the year before, as a result of DCF involvement with the family with reference to mother's sons. Dr. Balducci opined that Jeffrey suffers from an attention deficit disorder, impulsivity and an underlying self-doubt that Jeffrey protects against by taking on an "us versus them" attitude. Dr. Balducci found an antisocial personality disorder: an exaggerated sense of self, as well as obsessive-compulsive tendencies to continue in self-aggrandizing activities, beliefs and relationships held rigidly and inflexibly, to Jeffrey's own detriment. Not only does this not serve him well in everyday matters, but also it causes a volatility that has developed with Jennifer W., whom Jeffrey has badgered and admonished in his attempts to cure her of her own problems. Jennifer reacts negatively to this, exacerbating the turmoil. Concisely, but understatedly, Dr. Balducci concluded "neither partner appears to be good for the other at this time." Dr. Balducci went on to state that the couple's relationship is self-destructive and plays, in an extremely negative way, into the emotional weaknesses and unmet psychological needs of each of them. This presents a very unsafe environment for a young child.
Jeffrey N. has been consumed by Jennifer W. and her erratic behavior. Dr. Balducci has described Jeffrey's relationship with Jennifer as one which allowed Jeffrey to hold an unfounded view of his ability to resolve Jennifer's problems so that she would forever need and be indebted to him, and thus place him in a superior position. While Dr. Balducci found no evidence that led him to conclude that Jeffrey ultimately could not be a competent and responsible parent, the psychologist recommended that Jeffrey continue with therapies in order to attempt to understand and overcome his persistence in engaging in behaviors and a relationship that significantly interfere with his ability to regain custody of his daughter. In his May 2008, evaluation, Dr. Balducci opined that Jeffrey N.'s potential to become a custodial parent for Zowie could only begin to materialize
. . . if he extracts himself from what appear to be the horrible decisions he has made since pursuing a relationship with (mother) and finds the resolve to truly focus his energies upon what is best for Zowie rather than to continue to gratify his own changing wants and needs while waging unnecessary battles with those who appear to truly be committed at this point in time to acting in his daughter's best interests.
Jeffrey N. was also evaluated in July 2010, this time by psychiatrist Stephen Herman, and that doctor reported that the one-hour session with Jeffrey led the doctor to report a "normal mental status examination." The doctor noted however, that the documents provided by DCF described a rageful and sometimes violent man, who frequently engaged in antisocial activities and behavior that appropriately caused him to be arrested. Dr. Herman concluded that the documents revealed a startling number of problems that Jeffrey and Jennifer had with each other and separately. Dr. Herman further indicated that, if the documentation proved to be accurate, he could not recommend reuniting Jeffrey and Zowie. Dr. Herman testified that the reported constant aberrant and defiant behavior of Jeffrey N. revealed an antisocial personality disorder.
Additional Information Re Parents' Relationship
The on again/off again relationship between Jeffrey N. and Jennifer W. has been tumultuous and chaotic and can best be viewed as one in which each of them "undid" the other. Each of them has been the subject of court-issued protective orders as to each other, both as victims and perpetrators, and the rocky path they have traversed together has necessitated frequent intervention by the police authorities. Six weeks after the birth of Zowie, Torrington police investigated a report from Jennifer W. that her "ex-boyfriend," Jeffrey N., had assaulted her in her apartment, and attempted to injure himself to get her "in trouble." (May 23, 2008, 11:09 p.m.) Jeffrey N. complained to police that he was approached by a male and a female who were trying to open his car door and yelling profanities at him. Jeffrey told police he was in the area because his girlfriend Jennifer lived there and he was concerned because she had not returned a phone call to him (August 7, 2008, 2:14 a.m.). Jeffrey N. reported to Torrington police that Jennifer W. had been at his home, intoxicated, and had thrown all of his belongings out onto a porch. He further reported that she had been sleeping in the woods and had a bag of clothing, prescription medication and baby pictures that were still in the woods. Two hours later, Jeffrey N. called police again, this time to report that he was no longer concerned about Jennifer's well-being. A few minutes thereafter, Jennifer W. called the police reporting that she had left Jeffrey W.'s apartment because he had been throwing around her things. (September 11, 2008; 1:28 a.m.) The next month, Jennifer called police to complain about a week-long series of events that included Jeffrey hitting her, throwing her out of their apartment, initiating argumentative phone calls, throwing her personal belongings, and making accusations regarding another man. Jeffrey responded that Jennifer had stolen his computer and did not return it until he called the police. He further asserted that Jennifer kept trying to be physically close to him and would not take "no" for an answer; that Jennifer repeatedly called his phone; and that Jennifer often hurts herself and then reports that Jeffrey caused these injuries. (October 27, 2008; 10:34 p.m.) On Thanksgiving Day, November 27, 2008, as the police were investigating a situation outside a convenience store that they believed was suspicious, they saw a man and woman in a parked car, but by the time they reached the vehicle the woman had left. The man, Jeffrey, remained, and denied that anyone had been with him. Jennifer eventually told police that, despite the existence of a protective order prohibiting contact by Jeffrey, Jennifer had spent time with him that evening. The protective order was apparently modified soon thereafter, and the two moved in together again, however, on December 29, 2008, police were summoned to Jeffrey's apartment, where they found Jennifer, in her pajamas, locked outside. Jennifer told the officer that she and Jeffrey had argued, she went outside to smoke a cigarette, and Jeffrey then locked her out. There was no response to the police knocks on the door. A short time later, when Jeffrey tried to drive his car out of the garage, police attempted to question him, but he was not responsive. Upon entering the home, police found belongings of Jennifer which revealed that she had been residing at that apartment and had been locked out by Jeffrey.
In 2009, on January 31 at 1:56 a.m., upon police response to a call about a disturbance near a Torrington bar, Jeffrey and Jennifer related that they had gotten into an argument because he wanted to leave the bar and she did not. Jennifer further alleged that Jeffrey had attempted to pull her out by the arm. At the time, a protective order between the two was in place On May 28, 2009, at 1:32 a.m., Jeffrey called the police to report that Jennifer had possibly injured herself or was attempting to do so. Upon their arrival, police found broken glass strewn about the lawn and Jennifer admitted to breaking plates because she feared Jeffrey would throw them out and/or injure her with the knife he was using to prepare their dinner. She further related that the two had been drinking, that they had argued and struggled physically, and that Jeffrey had tried to strangle her. Jeffrey reported that Jennifer had been extremely upset all day, had broken plates, put a DVD player into the sink and threatened to take a whole bottle of prescribed medication. He further stated that not only did he not do or say anything to Jennifer that could be construed as a threat, but that Jennifer had punched him earlier in the day. At the time, each of the parties was under court-issued protective orders precluding harassment of one another. On June 26, 2009, at 10:16 p.m., police investigated a report that Jennifer had locked Jeffrey in the garage, following an earlier incident that evening for which police had been called. Jennifer reported that the couple had been arguing, had been pushing each other, and that Jeffrey had hit her in the eye and had attempted to strangle her. Jennifer also reported that Jeffrey had been opening and closing the garage door to harass her while she was trying to sleep. At the time of this incident, both Jeffrey and Jennifer were under protective orders. Three days later, Jennifer contacted the police to report that her cat was dead and that she believed Jeffrey had something to do with it. Upon their arrival, the police were told by Jennifer that her cat was not dead and that she had not so reported but she also stated that she and Jeffrey were separating and trying to sort out their respective belongings. She sought police department advice as to how to resolve the possibility that Jeffrey was keeping items that belonged to her.
Dr. Balducci, who had evaluated this couple for the matter involving mother's sons, before Zowie's birth, and also after Zowie's birth, has opined that this is a "toxic relationship," complicated by the fact that the parties are very dependent on one another Shortly after Zowie's birth, the couple attempted to separate because of the understanding that Zowie would not be reunited with either of them if they were together, however, as the above recitation makes clear, that "separation" did not occur. Based on the above-described incidents, Dr. Balducci opined that he could not support Zowie's reunification with Jeffrey N.
Father's Visitation with the Child
During the entire time of DCF custody of Zowie (all but the first four days of the child's life), DCF has arranged for and provided father with visitation. Initially visits were at DCF offices, but the location was changed to the foster parents' home. There came a time, however, when father was no longer welcome to conduct his visitation at the foster family home. There was no violence, nor were there any threats against anyone, however, according to the foster father, Jeffrey N. was often late for his visits, which were scheduled from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Jeffrey's visits caused a disruption to the other children in the home. The visits were also upsetting because of Jeffrey's continuous complaints during the visits about DCF and Jennifer W. Foster father testified that, in addition to these difficulties, he ceased making his home available for visitation because, although he and foster mother would take time off from work to attend DCF meetings, Jeffrey N. failed to do so.
Jeffrey's visitation with Zowie then continued at DCF offices. A supervisor of the visits testified that, in the fall of 2009, visits went well, and several visits took place outdoors in a playground. She also confirmed that father had never been violent or mean to the child and that he provided dinner and snacks. Father also played with the child, played music for her, and taught her songs. The caseworker believed that there appeared to be affection and bonding between father and daughter. Father moved the court to provide him with additional visitation time and that was eventually provided, however, there continued to be a dispute about the timing thereof, with father complaining that the schedule failed to accommodate his need to work, and DCF indicating that the proposals by father did not accommodate Zowie's sleeping and eating schedule.
Although visitation continued to be available to him, in December 2009, father exercised only seven of his fourteen allotted visitation times and on December 22, father unilaterally stopped visiting his daughter. Zowie was twenty months of age. Father did not resume visitation until the following summer. During the hiatus, Zowie did not ask about, or for, her father.
When the visitation resumed in July 2010, the child's reaction was negative. Psychiatrist Stephen Herman observed the July 2010, visitation session between Jeffrey N. and Zowie. This first session after the six-month hiatus took place in a conference room at a regional juvenile court. Jeffrey N. has complained, and Dr. Herman has agreed, that the site for this visit could have been a more accommodating one. However, the child's trauma started before her arrival at the visitation site. When she was picked up from her foster home by the visitation supervisor, Zowie yelled "no" to the social worker and her foster father and the child had to be coaxed into departing in the car. Upon entering the visitation room, the child was literally hanging onto her foster father as he left the room. Zowie did not respond to Jeffrey N.'s efforts to entice her to play and Zowie made no eye contact at all with her father. This was consistent throughout the visitation hour and at the end of the session, the child ran happily to her foster father.
Both the visitation supervisor and the foster father reported that, subsequently, the child was reluctant to go to the visits with Jeffrey N. Indeed, considerable effort had to be made at times to get the child into the car and to calm her and then the child repeated this unsettled behavior again upon arrival at DCF. The caseworker's observations were that during these post-hiatus visits, the child did not appear to be interested in interacting with her father and had no difficulty leaving him when the visiting time ended.
Eventually the visitation time improved somewhat in that the child played with the toys brought by the father, listened to him read to her and they shared the snacks that father had brought. Father introduced several photographs of Zowie taken during visits in August and September 2010, and these show the child smiling amidst her toys, and also smiling with her father. The supervisor related that Zowie had to be prompted to take the pictures — Zowie did not want to take part in that process. According to the supervisor, as recently as late September or early October 2010, the child cried during the entire drive to DCF and also as they were entering the DCF building. The supervisor also testified that Zowie continues to remain on her lap for the first ten or fifteen minutes of each session and that the child, for the most part, does not initiate any interaction, hugs, kisses or games, instead only engages at the behest of Jeffrey N. In contrast, Zowie is spontaneously and eagerly affectionate with her foster parents.
The demonstrated lack of attachment of Zowie to Jeffrey N. has only minimally changed since the initial post-hiatus visit in July 2010. Although Jeffrey N. attempts to do many appropriate things to engage the child, and to have her feel close to him, and although he believes to the contrary, the evidence does not reveal a bonding of the child to her father.
MOTIONS TO REVIEW PERMANENCY PLANS
Pursuant to the directives of General Statutes § 46b-129(k) and Practice Book § 35a-14, this court has considered the evidence and finds that DCF has established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption, filed on November 3, 2009 and September 8, 2010, are appropriate and are in the best interests of the child. The plans are approved. The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the plans.
CT Page 11120
MOTION TO REVOKE
Upon a finding, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the cause for commitment no longer exists, the court may revoke the commitment so long as it also finds that such action is in the best interests of the child. General Statutes § 46b-129(m). In this case, the child was committed to DCF in August 2009, upon the adjudication of neglect. The cause for commitment was the unstable environment that arose from substance abuse, domestic violence and irresponsible behavior. Memorandum of Decision, J. Eschuk, August 7, 2009, page 11.The evidence does not reveal that the cause for commitment no longer existed as of the date of the filing of the Motion to Revoke in December 2009, nor as of the time of trial. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary in that Jeffrey N. was still involved, or attempting to be involved, with Jennifer W. as of March or April 2010, and that dangerous relationship was one of the major contributors to the commitment of Zowie. Furthermore, Jeffrey N. had not successfully accomplished the goals set for him so that he could act as a responsible parent for Zowie. Moreover, the evidence does not support a finding that revocation is in the best interests of the child.
The Motion to Revoke is denied.
PETITIONS TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATORY FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
A hearing addressing the issue of termination of parental rights must be conducted in two phases. The initial adjudicatory phase addresses whether one or more grounds for termination exist and, if that is decided in the affirmative, the court goes on to the dispositional stage in which the court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child. In re Lukas K., 120 Conn.App. 465, 486, cert. granted on other grounds, 297 Conn. 914 (2010).
In this matter, as to mother, General Statutes § 17a-112(i) provides that a parent's consent to termination of parental rights suffices as a basis for termination so long as the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that such termination is in the best interests of the child.
As to father, there are three bases set forth by DCF: abandonment, failure to rehabilitate, and lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship. Specifically, General Statutes § 17a-112(j) provides, in pertinent part as to these proceedings, that DCF must prove by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at the hearing pursuant to section 17a-111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required, and
(2) termination is in the best interest of the child, and
(3)
(A) the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child;
(B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 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;
****
(D) there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.
Reasonable Efforts
DCF has provided father with regularly scheduled visitation. DCF has provided substance abuse screening. DCF has provided assistance in counseling, mental health and parenting through Dr. Edward Edgars at the Counseling Center in Waterbury, with Dr. Maria Havens at Counseling to Therapy on the Run, education about substance abuse at the McCall Foundation so that Jeffrey N. could better understand Jennifer's difficulties with substance abuse and the effect on Zowie, and the DOVE program at Wheeler Clinic for domestic violence issues.
The clear and convincing evidence reveals that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite Jeffrey with his daughter, however, father has been unable to benefit from those efforts.
Bases of Termination
Mother has consented to the termination of her parental rights.
Father — Abandonment
Abandonment focuses on a parent's conduct, and requires the court to consider whether the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child. In Re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 732 (2010), appeal dismissed, 300 Conn. 294 (2011). Abandonment occurs when a parent fails to visit the child, fails to attempt to interact with the child, fails to have contact or communication with the child, and does not demonstrate concern for the child's welfare. Id.; In Re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 514 (2008).
Of his own choice, Jeffrey N. did not visit with Zowie from December 22, 2009 until July of 2010. During that time, Jeffrey N. made no attempts to ascertain the emotional or physical well-being of Zowie, nor did he forward any communications or gifts to her. Jeffrey N. admits that "it was the worst decision I've ever made." He contends, however, that there were numerous reasons for his actions — he felt that he was being harassed by the security guards at the visitation site; he was going through a divorce; his business was bad; and he had been prescribed an anti-depressant medication at about the time he stopped visitation. Jeffrey N. also felt harassed by the police and felt that the DCF social worker, Jennifer Block, was deliberately giving him a "hard time." Jeffrey N. testified that he was traumatized by the original taking of his child, felt hopeless, and also felt as though he just "couldn't win" and "could not take it any longer."
Jeffrey N. presented the testimony of the Securitas branch manager and three security guards. The manager testified that his agency's investigation of Jeffrey N.'s complaints about harassment by the security guards led to the conclusion that the complaints were without merit. The testimony elicited from the security guards not only did not substantiate any of Jeffrey N.'s claimed harassment, but reflected that there was no improper behavior of father observed by the guards, and that, indeed, from time to time, during the visits, Zowie's laughter could be heard, as well as Jeffrey N.'s voice apparently reading to his daughter.
Jennifer Block, the DCF social worker, testified that, after Jeffrey first made mention of harassment, she would attempt to observe the actual entry of Jeffrey through security, and did not see any evidence of harassment. In addition, after Jeffrey stopped visiting in December 2009, he did not advise Ms. Block that he was not visiting because of harassment. Instead, he told her that, unless he could get visitation at the times he requested, he would not continue to visit. Jeffrey N. made no contact with DCF regarding Zowie, or with Zowie, during this time, however, Ms. Block did receive two letters from Jeffrey during this time, one demanding co-payment for a therapy session and the other filled with accusations against DCF. Neither made any reference to Zowie. In May or June of 2009, Jeffrey N. made inquiry about Zowie's schedule, but this appears to be in reference to setting up the reunification visit.
Dr. Herman opined that father's lack of contact with Zowie for six months occurred at a critical age and was a major contributor in the lack of the child's ability to attach to her father thereafter. He further opined that, while there may have been some improvement in the visitations since the initial reunification visit in the summer of 2010, it would be too traumatic for the child to be forced to continue reunification efforts and abandon her foster family.
DCF added the basis of abandonment to its termination petition on September 7, 2010. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, as of that date, Jeffrey N. had abandoned his daughter, and did so at a critical point in her developing young life. Although it is clear that Jeffrey N. loves his daughter and wants to be a positive part of her life, the abandonment foreclosed any potential hope of successful reunification, and the court is also convinced that any further attempts toward that goal would not be beneficial for, and indeed would be harmful to, the child.
Father — Failure to Rehabilitate
Parental rehabilitation refers to restoration or establishment of a parent to the position of a constructive and useful role in the child's life as dictated by the needs of the child, and General Statutes § 17a-112 requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent's level of achievement falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that the parent could assume a responsible position in the child's life within a reasonable period of time. In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706 (1999). The age and needs of the child comprise one of the most important factors in the rehabilitation issue. In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384-85 (2001).
The specific steps entered into by DCF and father on April 22, 2008, mention submission to drug testing and substance abuse assessment, however, it is clear from the evidence presented at trial that substance abuse by father is not an issue in this case — he is not plagued by that affliction. The specific steps require participation in counseling on three levels: parenting, individual and family, and also that father attain certain goals specifically identified in the steps:
Adequately address domestic violence and mental health issues, learn parenting skills and gain an understanding of how domestic violence/substance abuse/and mental illness negatively impacts children, and work toward reunification.
As of August 10, 2009, the date of the original termination petition, Jeffrey N. was still involved in the tempestuous and destructive relationship with Jennifer W. that created a dangerous environment for Zowie and precluded Jeffrey from developing the skills he needed to become a resource for Zowie. DCF had communicated to Jeffrey N. that it was essential that he address the issues of his mental health, domestic violence, and codependency. Jeffrey N. was also advised that it was essential that he take responsibility for his own actions, and come to an understanding of the effect of substance abuse by Jennifer on his and her relationship and the effect of this and domestic violence on Zowie. When he was reminded by the DCF social worker that his relationship with Jennifer constituted a barrier to reunification with his daughter because of the domestic violence and volatility of the relationship, Jeffrey responded that he loved Jennifer and he would not give up on her. The evidence clearly reveals that Jeffrey N. had not been successful in beginning to overcome these problems. Indeed, Jeffrey N. has told therapists that he was attending sessions only because DCF had told him to do so and that he did not have any need for the therapeutic assistance. Jeffrey N. also bolstered his adamant opposition to therapy by pointing out to DCF that he had raised two other children successfully without any intervention.
While the court must focus on events preceding the date of the filing of the termination petition or the latest amendment thereof in deciding whether a statutory basis for termination exists, the court also may rely upon post-petition events in evaluating whether a parent's degree of rehabilitation supports a finding that restoration is foreseeable within a reasonable time. Practice Book § 35a-7; In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748 (2002); In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 357 (2001). In November 2009, Jennifer reported that Jeffrey's behavior was so frightening to her that she sought assistance in procuring safe, confidential housing. A space was found for her in a confidential shelter, but Jeffrey found her. Although Jennifer then was placed in another shelter, Jeffrey found her again. As of February 2010, Jennifer had moved to California, but she was found by Jeffrey, and, with his assistance, Jennifer returned to Connecticut in March or April of 2010. After February 2010, Jeffrey failed to seek any further therapy.
The specific steps for Jeffrey N., signed by him on April 22, 2008, require, inter alia, that Jeffrey adequately address mental health issues and gain an understanding of how domestic violence and mental illness negatively affect children. While Jeffrey N. has been exposed, through DCF efforts and his own, to therapy for these issues, he has not benefited from them. Jeffrey was given multiple recommendations to end the relationship with Zowie's mother, and not only did that advice go unheeded, but also Jeffrey N. actively sought out mother after attempted mutual separations or mother's attempts to escape from him. Jeffrey has not demonstrated any indication that he has developed an appreciation for the negative effect on a child of exposing the child to this volatile relationship. Furthermore, Jeffrey has not taken any responsibility for the circumstances that led DCF to interfere with this family. Instead, he has consistently blamed others including DCF, specific DCF social workers, police, and security staff. Additionally he has alleged that his cousin's fiancé, a Torrington police officer, has encouraged the Torrington police department to harass him and he claimed at trial that his efforts to reunify with his daughter were sabotaged by Jennifer W.
Dr. Edgar and Dr. Hagans, therapists treating Jeffrey, both reported that Jeffrey was making progress. The issue for the court, however, is not simply whether a parent may have made progress, but whether the parent has come far enough to encourage the belief that the parent is able to assume the role of a responsible parent in the child's life within a reasonable period of time. In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000). The evidence is to the contrary.
The August 2008, specific steps also prohibit further involvement with the criminal justice system. Jeffrey N. has clearly not been able to fulfill this promise.
Zowie was adjudicated neglected in a prior proceeding, specifically on August 10, 2009. In addition, DCF has met its burden of establishing in the trial of this matter, by clear and convincing evidence, that Jeffrey N. has failed to achieve a degree of rehabilitation that would encourage a belief that he could assume responsible parenting of his daughter within a reasonable time considering the needs and circumstances of the child.
Father — Lack of Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship
As to the basis of "no ongoing parent-child relationship," this court is required to engage in a two-pronged evaluation, determining first whether a parent-child relationship exists, and if such a relationship does not exist, whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interests to permit time for the development of a parent-child relationship. In Re Megan M., 24 Conn.App. 338, 340 (1991). The statutory language has been interpreted to apply to a situation in which, regardless of fault, there has never been a parent-child relationship or one in which the relationship has been lost. In Re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670 (1979). An ongoing parent-child relationship is one that ordinarily and naturally develops as a result of a parent being involved in the child's life, addressing the child's physical, emotional, moral, and educational needs. In Re S.D., 115 Conn.App. 111, 123-24 (2009).
The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, as of the time of the filing of the amended petition, September 7, 2010, there was not an ongoing parent-child relationship between Jeffrey N. and Zowie. Although Jeffrey had engaged in visitation with Zowie until December 2009, any possibility of the development of a close relationship was completely thwarted by the six-month hiatus that followed. Since the summer of 2010, Jeffrey N. has tried very hard to engage Zowie in the sessions that they have together, however, the evidence reveals that the relationship, while fun for the child at times, is not a close one as far as the child is concerned and, at times, is instead one that is simply tolerated by the child. Zowie does not react with spontaneity to Jeffrey N. as a child does in a parent-child relationship. Furthermore, the evidence clearly reveals that any further time devoted to development of this relationship would be detrimental to Zowie because she needs to experience permanency.
Dr. Stephen Herman has opined that the combination of the child's very tender age and the six-month no-visitation period contributed significantly to the failure of Zowie and Jeffrey N. to attach, and served as a barrier to attachment in the reasonably near future. Dr. Herman further opined that more positive interaction between Zowie and Jeffrey N. on subsequent visits would not change his opinion on this issue.
DCF has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is not an ongoing parent-child relationship. Furthermore, because the child has a long, stable and nourishing relationship with, and bond to, her foster family, continued attempts to disrupt that for an alternative parenting situation would be detrimental to the child.
Best Interests of the Child
Determination of what constitutes the best interests of the child requires consideration of the potential for the child's sustained growth, development, wellbeing, continuity, and stability in her environment. In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 340 (2011).
Zowie does not know her biological mother and is fully bonded to her foster mother. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that it is in the child's best interests to terminate Jennifer W.'s parental rights.
Because of Zowie's bond to her foster family, her need to continue in the stable and loving environment in which she has lived for just about her entire life since birth, and her lack of a close bond to Jeffrey N., the clear and convincing evidence reveals that it is in Zowie's best interests that the parental rights of Jeffrey N. be terminated.
Furthermore, the following findings, set forth pursuant to General Statutes § 17-112(k), support the findings that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.
1. The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child to facilitate reunion.
Jeffrey N. was not a stranger to DCF at the time that Zowie was born. He had been evaluated when DCF was addressing Jennifer W.'s sons and, immediately after Zowie's birth, in May 2008, a re-evaluation by the psychologist was performed and recommendations were made. Thereafter, DCF timely provided programs and resources focused on reunification, and attempted to stress to Jeffrey N. the importance of the needed adjustments in his life.
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.DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite Jeffrey N. with his daughter, as mandated by the federal legislation.
3. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's father, any guardian(s) of such child's person and any persons who have exercised physical care, custody or control for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.As is set forth in detail in the preceding sections, despite his expressed beliefs to the contrary, the evidence does not reveal that Zowie has a child/parent emotional tie to Jeffrey N. Indeed, the evidence reveals that, although Jeffrey N. tries very hard and although Zowie reacts positively to some of his efforts, the child does not look forward to the visits and is not comfortable in this relationship.
Zowie has resided with her paternal cousin, Caitlin N., since Zowie was approximately six weeks old. Also residing in that foster home are Caitlin's children, approximately 7 and 8 years of age, Caitlin's fiancé, and the fiancé `s son, who is 20 years of age. Zowie regards her foster parents as her mom and dad, and their children as her siblings. Zowie has lived with this family almost her entire three-year life and she is thriving in that environment. She is completely attached to the family, and is an integral part of it. The older children are very attentive to her and Zowie loves that. The foster parents would like to adopt Zowie.
4. The terms of any applicable court order(s) 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(s).
Jeffrey N. has not been able to achieve the goals set forth for him in the court-ordered specific steps. DCF has provided the assistance it was directed to provide.
5. The age of the child.
Zowie was born on April 10, 2008, and is three years of age.
6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests 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 guardians or other custodians of the child.Unfortunately, Jeffrey N. has been unable to timely overcome his obsession with Jennifer W. and to address his personality deficits. Instead, he has persisted in attempting to continue a link with Jennifer, testifying at trial that this is simply out of his compassion for others. He has blamed many others for his separation from his daughter and not taken on any responsibility at all, except to admit at trial that his six-month abandonment of Zowie was a mistake. He has been unable to maintain a working relationship with Zowie's foster family and blames foster father, a Torrington police officer, for instigating police action against him so that the foster family can adopt Zowie. Jeffrey constantly and adamantly complains about and accuses Jennifer Block, the DCF social worker and makes accusations against DCF. Father did not, or could not, adjust his conduct and circumstances for Zowie's best interests when he abandoned her for six months.
7. The extent to which the parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable acts or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable acts of any other persons or by the economic circumstances of the parent.Father contends that he had been harassed by the security guards at the DCF facility at which he had visitation with Zowie and he further contends this is one of the major reasons that he stopped visiting with his daughter from December 22, 2009, through July 2010 Father contends that security check upon his entrance at facility was unnecessarily prolonged; that there was unnecessary searching of his bags, including the toys and children's books he brought to share with his daughter; and that one or more guards activated the hand-held metal detector so that it would go off, although there was no reason for that to occur. Jeffrey N. also contends that he was sexually harassed by a female guard who repeatedly waved the metal detector over his crotch and looked down the front of his pants.
Even if these allegations were found to be accurate, these activities are alleged to have taken place before the visits and outside the presence of the child. Furthermore, father's own accounts of his visits with his daughter do not reveal any negative effect of this alleged behavior on the quality of the father/child visits. The court does not find that this alleged behavior affected Jeffrey N.'s ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with his daughter.
Father complains about the small DCF visitation room and also that it has a dirty carpet. While these are certainly not luxurious accommodations, and while other arrangements might be more pleasant, the visitation arrangements are not unreasonable, and the court does not find that the visitation arrangements have negatively affected father's ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with his daughter.
The court has accepted mother's consent to terminate her parental rights, and having found that it is in the best interests of the child to do so, the court grants DCF's petition to terminate the parental rights of Jennifer W. to Zowie N.
Having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of father and that termination would be in the child's best interests in light of the fact that the child has a need for a secure and permanent placement, with a focus on adoption, the court grants the petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent Jeffrey N. to Zowie N.
The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent of Zowie N.
The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall file, within thirty days hereof, a report as to the status of the child and shall also timely file any additional reports as are required by law.
The clerk of the Probate Court that has jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of any of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Torrington if and when the adoption is finalized.
Judgment is entered accordingly.