FRANCIS J. FOLEY, Judge.
On January 23, 2006, the petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, ("DCF"), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112, et seq. to terminate the parental rights as follows:
1) the parental rights of Gail T. and Dean T. to the child Trevon G.; (dob 10/13/94)
2) the parental rights of Gail T. and Roshawn J. to the child Ro'Aisha J.; (dob 10/09/01)
and on May 2, 2007 a third petition was filed:
3) the parental rights of Gail T and Dean T. to the child D'Aisha T. (dob 1/2/06).
Neither of the male biological progenitors has been married to the children's mother and both seem to have limited their role in fatherhood to the act of conception. None of the various parents claim Indian Tribal affiliation. The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children. This court has jurisdiction.
In this case, one of the fathers (Dean T.) has previously been defaulted for failure to appear as to D'Aisha. His parental rights were terminated as to Trevon on April 30, 2007 (Graziani, J.). The other father, Roshawn J., was brought to court on a writ of habeas corpus from his place of current incarceration. He was represented by counsel. He did not testify. Aside from mother sharing a residence with him off and on until his March 13, 2003, arrest for domestic violence against the mother, he is not known to have actively parented Ro'Aisha. Dr. David Mantell who attempted a parent child evaluation with Ro'Aisha in 2006, noted "[T]here is not only no parent and child bond between his daughter CT Page 11858 and himself, but his behavior is also upsetting to her." (Petitioner's exhibit H.) This is significant in terms of his relationship (or lack of relationship) with his daughter and as it relates to his legal rights as well. Several United States Supreme Court cases have considered the rights of unmarried male biological parents, e.g. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), Quillion v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978), Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979). In Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983) the court succinctly stated;
. . . the existence or nonexistence of a substantial relationship between (the unmarried) parent and child is a relevant criterion in evaluating both the rights of the parent and the best interests of the child.
Id., at 266-67.
The statutory grounds alleged against respondent mother as to all the children are (1) that the children were found in a prior proceedings to have been neglected or uncared for on November 20, 2003, and for D'Aisha on February 5, 2007, and the mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and the needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children (C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I)). These same grounds are alleged against Roshawn J. Further, both fathers are alleged to have abandoned their children in the sense that they have failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of the children (C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)).
At trial, on June 5 and 6, 2007, the court heard testimony from eight witnesses, including social workers, one psychologist, three police officers and the respondent mother. Petitioner introduced the social study, psychologist's evaluation, DCF narratives and various documents of evidence.
Based upon a review of the petitions together with the testimony and the documentary evidence the court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.
1. FACTS The Mother:
Although the present case concerns Gail's three youngest children they are not her only children. Gail has two older children by yet other fathers. None of Gail's five children are in her care. Significantly, CT Page 11859 Gail's mother, the children's maternal grandmother has four daughters, including Gail, with fifteen grandchildren, all of whom are in alternative care situations. (Exhibit H, pp. 4, 18.) Gail continues the family legacy of multi-generational parental dysfunction.
Gail is thirty-one years of age. She was served with the termination petition while incarcerated at York Correctional Institution. Her parents were unmarried, her father an alcoholic and there was domestic violence in the home. Gail was raised out of her mother's home by her maternal grandmother. She left high school without completing the 10th grade: pregnant, actually at age 15. She got pregnant a second time at age 16; gave birth to her second son at age 17. At aged 18 she gave birth to her third son, Trevon. Although Trevon's last name is the same as her first two sons, the child was fathered by Dean T. She did not use Dean's last name for Trevon because Dean had left her before the child was born and she was angry at him. Interestingly, after a relationship with another man, Ro'Aisha's father, Gail allowed Dean back in her life to impregnate her yet again with her last child D'Aisha, born January 2, 2006. He then left her again and has not actively parented either of his children by Gail.
Father of Trevon and D'Ashia:
Dean T. was born in Jamaica. He is ten years older than Gail and has a prodigious criminal history of weapons charges, drugs and assaults. He is responsible also for Gail's arrest and conviction for possession of seven pounds of marijuana. He is presently believed to be in London, England or possibly Los Angeles, although there has been references to him being in Connecticut in January 2007. He was deported from the United States in 1999. He returned to Connecticut and it is believed he is presently here using assumed names. Gail said that he has not had any involvement with his children, Trevon and D'Aisha. He has never cemented his biological relationship with an actual physical association with either of the children. He has failed to provide any regular financial assistance to the family, nor any guidance, interest or concern for the children. He has abandoned them in the physical sense as well as that term is understood in the legal sense. Curiously, if DCF or the court ordered reunification of the children with Gail, she would elect to leave this country and take the children to England with Dean!
The father of Ro'Aisah is Roshawn J. Gail told Dr. Mantell she could not think of the last time he provided any support. The only time he talked to a DCF worker he was guarded in his responses and provided very incomplete personal information except to admit a very extensive substance abuse history. He did not wish to comment on his criminal CT Page 11860 history except to say he had been incarcerated many times. He did not wish to comment on his education except his self-report of a GED in 1997. He was brought to court from a correctional institution. His criminal history (Exhibit G) lists 21 arrests. His first serious sentence in 1997 was for four years of incarceration after his second conviction for sale of illegal substances. He has a total of 16 years of sentences mostly of the one year, often concurrent variety, for larcenies, resisting arrests, weapons, drugs and civil disruptions.
On March 14, 2003, Gail's older children called the police during a domestic violence episode between Gail and Roshawn. He was arrested and later sentenced to a year in jail for the assault. Gail told Dr. Mantell, Roshawn had moved in with her and her children when she was pregnant with Ro'Aisha. On that day March 14, 2003, date Roshawn was high on drugs and was choking her. He was high on some drug "they call wet or dust." She says she has not talked to him since his arrest and has a restraining order against him. He has not been a factor in Ro'Aisha's life in the past four years.
It is unknown to this court when DCF first became involved with Gail and her older children. The social studies provide an incomplete history of the family. There is no discussion of why DCF initially became involved with Gail and her children. There is no discussion of the nature of services offered to keep the family intact. While a search of the file reveals a neglect petition was filed July 24, 2003, no evidence was presented nor did any social study reflect the underlying causes. The file reflects that an adjudication of neglect was made on December 2, 2004, for Trevon and Ro'Aisha. At that time Trevon was committed to DCF and Ro'Aisha continued living with mother under an order of protective supervision. In May of 2004, Trevon was returned to Gail's care under an order of protective supervision and in September 2004 the children, Trevon and Ro'Aisha were removed from her pursuant to an order of temporary custody in favor of DCF.
Petitioner's Exhibit C for D'Aisha is more complete, but neither reveals early history.
During 2005, Gail seemed to be making some progress. She was receiving individual counseling for most of the year. She had an apartment. She completed a parenting class. Her older three boys were not adjusting to foster care. Their special needs were great. DCF was actively considering a return or Trevon and Ro'Aisha to Gail.
The youngest child, D'Aisha, was not born when the older children were removed from Gail. She gave birth to D'Aisha on January 2, 2006. D'Aisha was left in mother's care as an infant. DCF was working toward reunification and was about to begin Intensive Family Preservation services when on March 21, 2006, federal and state drug task force CT Page 11861 officials arrested Gail at her home for receiving seven pounds of marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit D). Gail was charged with six criminal charges including possession of marijuana with intent to sell and risk of injury to a minor child, D'Aisha, who was present during the police raid. At this point, Gail became incarcerated and remained in Janet York Correctional Center following her subsequent conviction. DCF sought and obtained an order of temporary custody of D'Aisha. Further active efforts to reunify the other children ceased at this point due to Gail's incarceration.
Gail remained in York Correctional Institution until her release on parole on September 26, 2006. Since that time Gail was evaluated for and found inappropriate for substance abuse counseling. She has engaged in individual counseling. Initially she refused to sign releases regarding that counseling. Her therapist had not provided any information to DCF as requested as of May 24, 2007.
D'Aisha was found by this court to be neglected on February 5, 2007. Gail is hardly in a position to be considered for active parenting at this time. On March 10, 2007 Gail was arrested again for Breach of Peace and again incarcerated at York until March 21, 2007. This was incidental to a shoplifting report in Trumbull shopping mall. The manager of a boutique reported three females going around the store, one female concealed merchandise in her hand, when confronted the females took off running. Gail had a blue bag when she took off running but did not have the bag when confronted by security personnel.
On April 4, 2007 Gail was arrested again on breach of peace charges regarding an assault. These charges are currently pending. Gail has no children in her care at present and is unemployed. She is likely homeless. She uses her grandmother's address as her current address but concedes that is for mailing purposes only.
Her attitude is defiant toward DCF. She refused to receive anger management services offered in April 2007. The youngest two children were removed from a foster home last year because the foster parents said that Gail was threatening, intimidating and harassing them. She threatened to put sugar in their gas tank and setting their house on fire.
Dr. David Mantell, an established forensic clinical psychologist, did five evaluations through the years on Gail, Gail's mother, her children and Roshawn J. The most recent evaluation being in January 2007. (Petitioner's H.) He testified that his prior conclusion that Gail was a poor prospect for reunification was only hardened by knowledge of her CT Page 11862 recent criminal charges. He indicated that her life has been in a downward spiral. She has children by exploitive men who fail to father her children. She was so severely abused and traumatized as a child that none of her adult relationships has worked out. "They have let her down, abused her and abandoned her." She has a history of multiple arrests, incarcerations, lack of education, lack of stable housing, lack of income, and is dependant on others for income and support at 36 years of age.
Dr. Mantell testified that in order for Gail to overcome these multitude of personal issues Gail would have to have a stable life situation; she would have to be motivated to therapy and disciplined to follow through with her therapy. She has not had a stable life situation in the recent past nor has she shown a willingness to discuss these issues. She manifests an avoidance and denial of the problems. This avoidance and denial significantly impairs her ability to resolve the issues. He further testified that she is schizoid; she doesn't make friends; doesn't keep friends, the men are variable, her home situation is chaotic and neglectful and the problems continue to mount. Her plan of reunification is to move to England with Dean T. This is the same man who has left her, who was not helpful as a parent, with whom she has a romantic attachment, and the person who got her involved with the receipt of drugs and incarcerated. A chronically mal-adapted, criminally involved anti-social character. That demonstrates her judgment. That is the person she would choose to assist in the care of her children.
Finding:
The grounds alleged in the petition as to respondent mother are (1) that the children were found in a prior proceedings to have been neglected or uncared for and that the mother failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and the needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children (C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I)). The court finds that the petitioner has sustained its burden by clear and convincing evidence.
With respect to the male biological progenitors, Dean T. and Roshawn J., neither person has acted as a father as that term is commonly understood. Neither has provided food and shelter for the children, neither has provided the daily emotional support and guidance children need, neither has provided the children with the interest, concern or responsibility necessary for the child's welfare. They have each abandoned their children as that term is defined and understood pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(A). CT Page 11863
Further, the court finds, there is no ongoing parent-child relationship with respect to Roshawn and Ro'Aisha that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day to day basis the physical, emotional, moral or educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.
The petitioner has established these grounds by clear and convincing evidence.
A. Required Findings
The court makes the following factual findings required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(e) as to the parents, which findings are also made upon clear and convincing evidence:
1. Finding regarding the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent. A) as to Dean T. It was not possible to offer services for reunification to the father as he has never been located. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia.
B) as to Roshawn. He has been incarcerated since March 30, 2004. He was released and re-confined as of April 30, 2007. His history while incarcerated has been flagrantly disobedient. (Petitioner's exhibit I.) He has been unwilling or unable to participate in services. He was provided visitation with Ro'Aisha but discontinued contact on or about April 15, 2005, at his own request.
When DCF changed the social worker from a female to a male social worker, he announced he was no longer interested in the visits.
C) as to Gail:
Mother has been offered a multitude of programs and services which have not generated any significant benefit. She was offered and completed Hockanum Valley parent education. She had individual counseling in 2005 but following the birth of D'Aisha, Gail appeared to be still angry and said she did not find counseling useful. Gail was to begin Intensive Family Reunification but the services were aborted when Gail engaged in criminal activities that led to her arrest and incarceration.
CT Page 11864
She has had numerous complete psychological evaluations. She had a substance abuse evaluation. She has been offered other services as previously noted which she has declined. The only service provided which Gail continues to utilize relates to Kid's Safe visitation services. Gail sees her children on a fairly regular basis. She maintains a relationship with them, especially Ro'aisha.
2. Finding regarding whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended. DCF has been willing to discharge its statutory obligations as evidenced by the many services made available to the mother. The male biological parents have not requested services.
3. Finding regarding 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. A) as to Dean T.: No expectations or specific steps were ever reduced to writing for Dean T. as he was unwilling to participate and to do so would be a useless act. Lex non cogit ad vana seu inutilia.
B) as to Roshawn: Specific Steps were entered on September 20, 2004. Except for the rather administrative steps, Roshawn has been virtually non-compliant. He has failed to maintain visitation and has been criminally involved.
C) as to Gail: Specific Steps were entered on November 20, 2003 and again on September 20, 2004. Gail has been faithful about visitation. She has been less than robust in her compliance with other steps. She has been criminally involved and incarcerated. She has declined some treatment. She has not maintained adequate housing and legal income. She resists ongoing individual counseling.
4. Finding regarding the feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to their parents, any guardian of his person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties. CT Page 11865 A) as to Dean T.: It is not believed that the children Trevon and D'Aisha have any parental bond with this man.
B) as to Roshawn: As previously indicated, Dr Mantell determined that not only is there no parental bond between Roshawn and his daughter, it is a negative relationship.
C) as to Gail: She is appropriate at visitation. She appears to have the best bond with Ro'Aisha. Trevon knows her as his mother. He continues to harbor a hope of reunification but, Gail continually fails to get her life stabilized and appropriately ordered. She is not even fully successful at caring for her own personal needs.
Both Ro'Aisha and D'Aisha are living together in a foster home. They have a strong bond with the foster parents. D'Aisha views her foster parents as her psychological parents. The foster parents have committed to their long-term care of the girls through adoption.
Trevon is living in a special study foster home with a man who has been his Big Brother since 2005. Although he would like to live with his mother, if that is not possible he desires to stay where he is. He is well adjusted in the home and doing honors work in school. He is safe and protected.
5. Finding regarding the age of the children.
Trevon is twelve years old and in the seventh grade. He has been in alternate care almost exclusively since August 21, 2003. He was briefly reunited with Gail for four months in 2004.
Ro'Aisha is five years old. She has been in foster care for the last three years.
D'Aisha is one year old. She has been in her mother's care for less than 90 days.
6. Finding regarding the efforts the parent has made to adjust his/her circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return him/her to his/her 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 CT Page 11866 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. These issues have been previously developed.
7. Finding regarding 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. There is no evidence that the unreasonable act or conduct of DCF personnel or any other person prevented the respondents from maintaining a meaningful relationship with their children. Dean T. has been hiding or in flight. Roshawn has been largely incarcerated. Gail has been offered visitation and has most often exercised her opportunity although it has been problematic the past few months.
B. LOCATION § 17a-112(j)(1):
In order to terminate parental rights, DCF must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory element requiring "reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts provided such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing . . . that such efforts are not appropriate." C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). Here two of the parents were located, had court-appointed counsel and were given information to assist them with reunification. Dean T. has been missing. He has been deported from this country. Immigration and Naturalization authorities have been contacted as have local police authorities. It is not likely that he wishes to be located.
C. REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNIFY § 17a-112(j)(1)
The court finds that reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the fathers were not realistically possible. Dean was missing. Roshawn knew CT Page 11867 of the pendency of the proceedings and he had counsel but he stayed in the shadows or in jail. He was not forthcoming with any information to enable DCF to assist him. He did not actively seek or participate in reunification services.
IV. DISPOSITION
With respect to the best interests of the children contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Gail, Dean and Roshawn is in the best interest of the children. Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for all the children. The children require more than an adequate caretaker. It is not likely that any form of services could rehabilitate the parents within a meaningful time frame for these children. They can not wait indefinitely for such an unlikely event. The children are now in appropriate foster care settings where they are very well cared for by foster parents who are fully committed to them. They are safe. They are not exposed to the criminal elements. They have stable housing, regular meals, nurturance and protection.
In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the children's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity of their environment; their length of stay in foster care;, the nature of their relationship with foster parents and biological parents; the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents; and their genetic bond to respondents. The court has also balanced the children's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with their parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity). Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that termination of respondents' parental rights is in the children's best interest.
The court also notes that counsel for the children recommends termination.
After considering the children's sense of time, their need for a secure and permanent environment, the need to avoid future placements, and the totality of circumstances, the court concludes that termination of parental rights of respondent parents is in the children's best interest. It is accordingly, CT Page 11868
ORDERED that the parental rights of Gail T., Dean T. and Roshawn J. are hereby terminated as to Trevon, Ro'Aisha and D'Aisha. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the children.
With regard to the permanency plans for the children, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as to all children and finds that such plans are in the best interest of the children. The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans. Case plans shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
CT Page 11869