[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ROBIN L. WILSON J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION I STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter is a proceeding initiated by the petitioner, commissioner of children and families, seeking to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother and respondent father, Lisa C., and Erick C., to their minor child, Ja'Niya C. The petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondents was filed in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-112 et seq. on September 19, 2007. Consolidated with these proceedings are permanency plans with respect to Ja'Niya as formulated by the department of children and families ("DCF"). The permanency plans, filed on July 18, 2007 and May 12, 2008, identified a plan of termination of parental rights and adoption. The respondent mother objected, and the matters were consolidated following the filing of the termination petitions. On October 18, 2007, the respondent father failed to appear for the plea on the termination of parental rights petition and a default was entered against him at that time. Trial of this matter took place on July 1 and 25, 2008. Proposed findings were due on August 25, 2008. On August 25, 2008, the petitioner requested an extension of time to file her proposed findings. The court granted the petitioner's request and extended the time for filing to September 15, 2008. The petitioner filed her proposed findings on September 15, 2008, the attorney for the minor child on September 16, 2008, and the respondent mother's proposed findings were not filed until September 17, 2008. The court finds that notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the provisions of the rules of practice. The court further finds that the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, Child Protection Session at Middletown has jurisdiction over the pending matter and that no action is pending in any other court affecting custody of the child.
II CT Page 17614 ISSUES
The petitioner seeks to terminate the parental rights of the respondents, mother, Lisa C. and father, Erick C. on the grounds that Ja'Niya has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and both have failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of Ja'Niya they could assume a responsible position in her life; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i); and that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship between mother Lisa C. and father, Erick C. and Ja'Niya within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D). In addition, the petitioner seeks approval of the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption. The respondent mother objects to the permanency plan of adoption and seeks a transfer of guardianship of Ja'Niya to her maternal great aunt.
III PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The petitioner's involvement in this case dates back to December 30, 2005 when DCF filed a motion for an ex parte order of temporary custody regarding Ja'Niya. On December 30, 2005, the court, Owens, J., granted the motion and the order of temporary custody was subsequently sustained at the preliminary hearing held on January 5, 2006. Neglect petitions were also filed on December 30, 2005 along with the petitioner's motion for an ex parte order of temporary custody. Preliminary specific steps were signed by mother and father and ordered by the court on January 5, 2006. On June 5, 2006, the court, Hadden, J., adjudicated Ja'Niya neglected and committed her to the care and custody of DCF. Final specific steps were signed by mother, Lisa and ordered by the court at this time to facilitate Ja'Niya's return home. On July 18, 2007 and May 12, 2008, in accordance with General Statutes § 46b-129(k), DCF filed a permanency plan of termination and adoption and on September 19, 2007, DCF filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother, Lisa C. and the respondent father, Erick C. Trial on the petition began on July 1, 2008. On that same date, during the course of the trial, mother and father agreed to admit to ground D as alleged in the petition. The respondent mother continued to contest the best interest element of the petition and sought a transfer of guardianship of Ja'Niya to Ja'Niya's maternal great aunt Lisa M. The matter was tried to the court on July 1 and 25, 2008. Witnesses for the petitioner included social worker, Angel Jackson, court-appointed evaluator, Dr. CT Page 17615 Lance Hart, foster mother, Lisa M. and Patience Walcott, a case worker from the Bridges program. The petitioner also offered a number of exhibits which were admitted into evidence which have been reviewed by the court. The respondents mother and father did not call any witnesses, nor offer any exhibits. The child's attorney did not call any witnesses nor offer any exhibits.
Following each of the respondents admissions to ground D, the petitioner withdrew ground B1 as to both respondents as originally alleged in the petition.
IV FACTUAL FINDINGS
The court, based on its review of the testimony and evidence, makes the following factual findings by clear and convincing evidence.
A MOTHER(LISA C.
Lisa C. was born on January 9, 1989 in Bridgeport, Connecticut and is nineteen years old. Lisa has a younger brother and when she was just nine years old, her mother left the family without any explanation and Lisa's father became the primary caretaker of Lisa and her younger brother. Lisa, her father, and brother had very little contact with Lisa's mother from the time she left the family. Lisa was an "A" student while attending elementary school. Sadly, at the age of twelve, Lisa was the victim of a gang rape by three men who were eventually incarcerated. Subsequently she became sexually provocative in dress and behavior and engaged in numerous sexual interactions. Lisa became a teenage mother at the age of fifteen when she gave birth to her oldest daughter, Tashyanna J. Paternity of Tashyanna was never determined. While pregnant with Tashyanna, Lisa began dating Ja'Niya's father, the respondent, Erick C., who was nineteen at the time. Lisa would sneak Erick into her father's home in the middle of the night which caused serious problems between Lisa and her father. Subsequent to Tashyanna's birth on June 18, 2004, Lisa ran away from home with Erick after Lisa's father put Erick out of his home at 5:00 a.m. one morning when he discovered that Erick was in the home without his permission. When Erick and Lisa were proceeding to leave the home, they tried to take Tashyanna with them, however, maternal grandfather would not allow them to take the baby. Erick and Lisa were gone for two weeks while Tashyanna remained with maternal grandfather. After her two-week run away with Erick, Lisa returned home. After Lisa returned home, she began to display peculiar behaviors to her family by stating to them that she did not have a baby. In August 2004, Lisa became involved with DCF when DCF received a hotline report from Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services ("EMPS"), stating that Lisa who CT Page 17616 was fifteen at the time, was home with her nine-year-old brother. She asked her brother to take the baby and when he refused Lisa placed Tashyanna in her carrier, grabbed a kitchen knife and threatened to kill herself. Lisa's brother ran from the home and immediately called 911. EMPS responded and provided an assessment to DCF and reported that Lisa was disoriented, she was talking in a baby voice, and could not recall that she had a baby. Physical neglect was substantiated against Lisa due to her erratic behavior and psychiatric problems, which placed Tashyanna at risk. Tashyanna was placed with her maternal great aunt, Lisa M. and on December 14, 2005, the Bridgeport Superior Court for Juvenile Matters transferred custody and guardianship of Tashyanna to maternal great aunt, Lisa M.
In December 2004, DCF became involved with Lisa at the request of paternal grandfather due to Lisa's out of control behaviors. On December 23, 2004, a Families With Service Needs ("FWSN") hearing was held in the Bridgeport Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. The court, Hadden, J., issued from the bench an order of temporary custody of Lisa after paternal grandfather refused to care for her due to her defiant and out of control behaviors. The court subsequently committed Lisa to DCF on March 15, 2005. Due to severe out of control behaviors and unaddressed mental health issues, Lisa was admitted to Hallbrooke Hospital for two months. She was then discharged into the care of her maternal aunt, Lisa M. who, as previously discussed, is also the guardian of Lisa's oldest daughter, Tashyanna. Lisa remained in her aunt's care for four months and her behavior was managed through medication. During month four, Lisa began to act out again by running away and behaving beyond her aunt's control. During this time, she became pregnant by the respondent father, Erick C. with Ja'Niya. As a result of her behavior problems, Lisa was placed into foster care. She continued to demonstrate out of control behaviors, and as a result, she was placed in three foster homes.
After Ja'Niya was born in November 2005, Lisa was placed into Mi Casa Shelter for teenage mothers so that she would have the opportunity to parent Ja'Niya. Clearly, DCF was attempting to maintain Lisa's family unit, however, while residing in the Mi Casa shelter, allegations of physical neglect of three-week-old Ja'Niya were made against Lisa based on her inability to meet Ja'Niya's needs due to her unstable mental health condition. Lisa's mental health episodes and her repeated suicidal ideations while caring for Ja'Niya caused concern by Mi Casa staff for Ja'Niya's safety. As previously discussed, in December 2005, Ja'Niya was placed under an OTC and subsequently placed in foster care. Once Ja'Niya was placed into foster care, Lisa was placed in the Salvation Army Shelter in Waterbury. She repeatedly ran away from the shelter, was arrested several times for out of control behavior, and CT Page 17617 admitted to using substances during her periods of AWOL. (Petitioner's Ex. 2.) Lisa also engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior while at the shelter. ( Id.) Due to her AWOLs and arrests, Lisa was incarcerated at the York Correctional Institute for a brief period of time before she was placed at Riverview Hospital for an assessment period. Following her placement at Riverview, Lisa was placed at High Meadows residential treatment facility in August 2006, and remained there until June 2007. Lisa's treatment at High Meadows focused on her mental health diagnoses of severe post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), impulse control disorder, mood disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) and rule out bipolar disorder. Lisa's treatment focused on her behavioral issues of impulsivity, lack of self-control, and poor boundaries. During her treatment at High Meadows, it was noted that Lisa responded well to structure, and although she had some missteps by running away from the facility twice, and using substances during this time, she continued to be a successful student and graduated from highschool.
Realizing that Lisa needed ongoing mental health treatment and extensive support services in order for her to function in the community, prior to her graduation, DCF and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services ("DMHAS") worked in concert to devise a plan for Lisa to succeed in the community upon her discharge from High Meadows. Lisa voluntarily signed up for DMHAS services and on June 21, 2007, when Lisa was discharged from High Meadows, she was immediately transitioned into the Bridges program which is managed by DMHAS. As part of this program, Lisa was given the opportunity to live independently in an apartment that is managed by DMHAS through its Bridges program. She continued to receive weekly counseling, medication management, nursing services, financial and budgeting management, and case management, from DMHAS through its Bridges program. DCF assisted in Lisa's transition to the Bridges program and continued to provide visitation with Ja'Niya to support Lisa in having a relationship with Ja'Niya so that Ja'Niya could be returned to Lisa's care. Lisa's efforts to address her issues will be discussed.
B FATHER(ERICK C.
Erick C. was born on October 1, 1985 in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Erick, like Lisa was involved with DCF, which, at the age of nine, resulted in a transfer of custody and guardianship of Erick and his younger sister to their maternal aunt. Erick received special education services in elementary school and in 2005, graduated from Harding Highschool. After highschool, Erick joined the Job Corps and graduated CT Page 17618 in September 2006 with a certificate in building and facility maintenance. Upon his graduation and discharge from Job Corps, Erick returned to live with his mother who has an extensive DCF history.
In October 2006, Erick was hired by Bridgeport Hospital in the building and maintenance department. However, as reported by Lisa, he was fired due to substance use and excessive absenteeism. (Petitioner's Ex. 2.) As of August 2007, Erick was unemployed. At the time of Ja'Niya's removal and placement into foster care in December 2005, Erick was unable to be a resource for Ja'Niya because he was in the Job Corps. Erick's efforts to address his issues so that he could assume a parental role in Ja'Niya's life will be discussed.
C CHILD(JA'NIYA
Ja'Niya C. was born on November 23, 2005 and is soon to be three years old. Ja'Niya has specialized needs, including the need for Birth to Three services for developmental delays concerning speech and verbal communication. At four weeks old, Ja'Niya was placed in a non-relative foster home on December 28, 2005, shortly after her removal due to allegations of physical neglect. In August 2006, Ja'Niya was placed in a special study foster home with Ms. Shinetta S. identified by Lisa as Ja'Niya's godmother. In February 2008, Ja'Niya was placed with her maternal great aunt, Lisa M. Ja'Niya is doing very well in her current placement and has bonded with Ms. M. and Ms. M's companion. Ja'Niya has also bonded with her older sister who was placed with Ms. M. when she was eight weeks old. Ja'Niya is in a stable, nurturing and permanent environment. Ms. M. provides Ja'Niya with the physical and emotional support that she requires given her age and special needs and Ja'Niya looks to Lisa M. for that support. Ms. M. is willing to adopt Ja'Niya and provide her with a permanent, stable and loving home. Ms. M. understands the nature of a transfer of guardianship as requested by mother, Lisa C., and she does not agree that transfer of guardianship of Ja'Niya is in Ja'Niya's best interest. (Tr., 7/25/08, pp. 5-6.) Lisa M. desires a permanent placement for Ja'Niya with her pursuant to an adoption. ( Id.) Lisa M. has no desire to cut Lisa C. off from her children because she is family and, both Ja'Niya and Tashyanna, Ja'Niya less so because of her age, recognize that Lisa C. is their mother. ( Id. at 16-17.)
D SPECIFIC STEPS CT Page 17619
Specific steps were ordered for the respondents mother and father at the time of Ja'Niya's initial removal in December 2005. The steps were signed by mother and father. Final steps were ordered at the time of Ja'Niya's adjudication and commitment in June 2006. These steps were signed by mother, however due to father's participation in the Job Corps program, he was unable to sign the final steps. The previously ordered steps as to father, however, remained in effect. Pursuant to the steps, DCF offered various case management services to facilitate reunification of mother and father with Ja'Niya.
1 Visitation
The specific steps required the respondents to visit Ja'Niya as often as DCF permits. Lisa's visits with Ja'Niya began to decrease after her discharge from High Meadows in June 2007. As of August 2007, Ja'Niya's foster mother at that time, Shinetta S. had not spoken with Lisa since June 2007 nor had Lisa had a visit with Ja'Niya. Lisa's work and class schedule were an obstacle to visitation, and therefore, in September 2007, in order to accommodate her schedule, a visitation schedule was put into place which required Lisa to call DCF to schedule visits. When Lisa would call to schedule a visit, DCF would arrange a supervised visit to take place at Lisa's apartment. Since September 2007, Lisa has called to visit Ja'Niya only one to two times per month. Lisa's visits were not limited to one to two times per month, and, if she had called more than one to two times per month, DCF would have provided visits, and yet, since September 2007, she has not done so. Social worker Angel Jackson observed Lisa during the visits that were scheduled, beginning in September 2007. During the visit Lisa's attention was directed toward Ja'Niya for only twenty-five to thirty minutes of the visit. Lisa would be distracted and preoccupied with other things going on, whether it was with her cell phone company or, with a situation that was going on in her life at the time. (Tr., 7/1/08, p. 59.) During the visits, Ja'Niya was observed to be quiet and a little resistant to Lisa at the beginning of the visit. It would take Ja'Niya a little while to warm up to Lisa which was not the case with her care giver, Lisa M. Although Ja'Niya recognizes Lisa C., she was not observed going to Lisa C. for comfort. With foster mother, Lisa M., Ja'Niya is just the opposite. She is very active, outgoing and verbal like a typical toddler. She looks to Lisa M. for comfort by placing her head on Lisa M. or sitting on her lap.
Erick has visited with Ja'Niya a total of approximately seven times since she entered DCF care in December 2005 despite being offered many CT Page 17620 more visits. Erick allowed four months to go by between April 2006, and August 2006 without following through on a visit. Since September 2007, DCF had very little contact with father, Erick. In November, December 2007 and January 2008, DCF offered Erick visitation with Ja'Niya, however he failed to follow up. In December 2007, social worker Jackson spoke with father at a court hearing, and in addition to offering him visitation with Ja'Niya, she spoke to Erick about DCF's permanency plan of termination of his parental rights and adoption of Ja'Niya, and his opinion regarding the plan. Erick expressed to Ms. Jackson that he was in agreement with DCF's plan. In February 2008, Erick attended a supervised visit with Ja'Niya. He was appropriate during the visit and affectionate towards Ja'Niya. Ja'Niya was quiet and reserved during the visit and did not respond very well to Erick's hugs and kisses. Since February 2008, Erick has not had a visit with Ja'Niya and although he would call to request a visit, he would fail to follow through. Both mother and father admitted to having no ongoing parent child relationship with Ja'Niya, thus acknowledging that Ja'Niya has no present memories or feelings of a positive nature of them, that she does not seek either of them out for comfort and, to allow time for such a relationship to develop would not be in her best interest.
2 Individual Counseling/Mental Health
The specific steps also included a requirement that Lisa participate in individual counseling, psychiatric and medication services. Between August 2005, through the last day of trial in July 2008, DCF provided Lisa with counseling services to address her mental health issues. Lisa received individual weekly counseling and medication management through the Child Guidance Center until she was incarcerated at York in June 2006. She also received family therapy with her birth mother once a week during this time. Lisa was compliant with the counseling and medication. Prior to August 2005, after the sexual assault at the age of twelve, Lisa has been receiving mental health services and medication on an ongoing basis dating back to that time, including a psychiatric hospitalization at Hall-Brooke Hospital in December 2004. Since Ja'Niya's removal in December 2005 through the last day of trial, Lisa was hospitalized at Riverview Hospital from June 2006 until August 2006, in accordance with Dr. Ellen Schwartz's psychological assessment and her recommendations for placement and treatment services. Lisa received counseling services and psychiatric treatment until her discharge into High Meadows residential treatment facility in August 2006. Lisa was placed into High Meadows to address her diagnoses of severe PTSD and behavioral issues of impulsivity, lack of self-control and poor CT Page 17621 boundaries. Her admission into High Meadows offered Lisa a longer period of stabilization during which time she showed slow and steady progress. She attended public school and participated in a work program.
Early during Lisa's admission, around the anniversary date of her assault, she decompensated with acute symptoms of PTSD. However, Lisa was successfully discharged from High Meadows residential treatment facility upon her graduation in June 2007, and was transitioned into the Bridges Program through DHMAS, specifically the Young Adult Services Program. As part of the services provided by DHMAS, Lisa lives independently in an apartment that is managed by DMHAS through the Bridges Program and she continues to receive weekly medication management and nursing services, case management and financial and budgeting management. Lisa began having compliance problems with the Bridges Program shortly after her transition into the program. In July 2007, she was evicted from her first apartment due to high traffic, noise, drinking and drug use. In addition, the police had to be called to the apartment on several occasions. When Lisa was evicted from her apartment, her whereabouts were unknown to DHMAS, DCF and her family for approximately one week. When Lisa resurfaced, she was provided a respite bed in a group home until DHMAS was able to find another apartment for her. She did not go into the shelter and her whereabouts remained unknown for another two days. After two days Lisa did return and complied with DCF's and DHMAS's expectations by entering into the shelter, meeting with her clinician and with the staff clinician and by taking her medication. Lisa moved into her second apartment in late August 2007, but again had the same problems with the same type of behavior, i.e., inappropriate company, noise, drinking and out of control behavior. Lisa was again evicted from her apartment and did not move into her third apartment until January 2008. Following her move into this apartment she began to improve. Lisa obtained a job, began attending community college and has continued to maintain her apartment. In July 2008, Lisa exercised poor judgment, and what appeared to this court to be the fringes of out of control behavior, when she represented to her Bridges case worker, Patience Walcott, that she was meeting her aunt, Lisa M. and her mother in New York and going to visit a relative in Maryland who was dying of cancer. Walcott dropped Lisa off at the train station on a Saturday. Walcott became worried when Lisa did not call her to let her know whether she had arrived in Maryland safely. She then called Lisa on Sunday and could not get in touch with her. She called Lisa again on Tuesday and still could not reach her. She then contacted Lisa's aunt, Lisa M. and discovered that Lisa had not gone to Maryland and, that the cousin who Lisa claimed was sick, was doing much better. When Walcott saw Lisa later on Tuesday she was informed by Lisa that she was in Bridgeport with her father. CT Page 17622
Although the steps include individual counseling for Erick, there is no evidence that referrals were made for Erick to participate in individual counseling.
3 Parenting Counseling/Classes and In-Home Support Services
The specific steps also required Lisa and Erick to cooperate with recommended service providers for parenting counseling and in-home support services. Lisa was placed in Mi Casa shelter for teenage mothers in August 2005, three months prior to Ja'Niya's birth, and remained there until approximately December 2005. While residing at Mi Casa, Lisa received services from the Teen Parent Aide program at the Bridgeport Department of Health. Lisa became ineligible for these services once Ja'Niya was removed from her care in December 2005. She was ultimately asked to leave the Mi Casa shelter because the staff had concerns with her parenting ability and because she required a higher level of supervision with Ja'Niya than the shelter could provide. In February 2007, Lisa was referred to Connecting Families to receive parenting services and supervised visitation. Since her discharge from High Meadows in June 2007, Lisa's visits with Ja'Niya through the Connecting Families program decreased and she did not make herself available for the parent education classes.
After Ja'Niya's removal in December 2005, through the adjudicatory date of September 2007, DCF attempted to make numerous referrals for Erick for parenting education and parent counseling. DCF attempted to make referrals for Erick to the ParenTeen Program, Child Guidance Parent Education Program and the Kennedy Center Parent Aide Program. Erick did not maintain regular contact with DCF and failed to make himself available to sign the necessary releases to complete the referrals. In addition, Erick's failure to maintain stable housing also precluded his eligibility for the Kennedy Center Parent Aide Program.
4 Substance Abuse Evaluation and Treatment
The specific steps for Lisa and Erick included the following with respect to substance abuse and treatment: (a) no substance abuse; (b) substance abuse assessment and treatment; and (c) random drug testing. DCF referred Erick for an ABH evaluation at Connecticut Renaissance to CT Page 17623 rule out any issues of substance abuse. Erick did not follow through with the referral and did not show up for two appointments that were scheduled by DCF. Although the specific steps required Lisa to participate in a substance abuse assessment and drug screening, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that substance abuse was not an issue for her. There is no evidence that DCF required her to submit to a substance abuse assessment or random drug testing. As previously discussed, Lisa's issues included her significant mental health condition and her inability to parent Ja'Niya.
5 Involvement with the Criminal Justice System
The specific steps also required that mother and father have no further involvement with the criminal justice system. Except for her brief incarceration at York, because of her AWOLs and arrests for out of control behavior in 2005, there is no evidence that Lisa has had any recent involvement with the criminal justice system. There is evidence that Erick was incarcerated in 2004 for six months as a result of a weapons charge, however, there is no evidence of any recent criminal activity by Erick.
6 Releases
The specific steps required Lisa and Erick to sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before the court. Due to Erick's failure to maintain contact with DCF, releases were not obtainable for the parent education and counseling programs to which DCF attempted to refer Erick. Lisa has complied with this step.
7 Maintain Legal Income and Stable Housing
Prior to January 2008, Lisa had difficulty maintaining stable housing. She was asked to leave the Mi Casa Shelter because of concerns with her parenting ability and her mental health episodes which raised concerns for Ja'Niya's safety. Lisa also had difficulty when she was placed in the Salvation Army Shelter after Ja'Niya was removed from her care. She ran away from the shelter on numerous occasions and engaged in CT Page 17624 inappropriate sexual behavior during her placement. Upon her discharge from High Meadows in June 2007, Lisa obtained her own apartment through the Bridges program. However, she was evicted in July 2007. Prior to obtaining a second apartment in late August 2007, Lisa was living in different places, and for a short period of time, her case manager from DMHAS did not know where she was residing. Lisa reported that she was living in Bridgeport at the time. A respite bed was offered to Lisa at this time until another apartment was secured for her. Lisa obtained her second apartment in late August 2007 and was again evicted due to her out of control behaviors. It wasn't until January 2008, that Lisa obtained her third apartment, and has, since that time maintained that apartment through the Bridges program. As previously discussed, Lisa is employed and attends community college. Given Erick's lack of regular contact with DCF and DCF's inability to maintain contact with Erick, it is reasonable to infer that he has not maintained stable housing. As of August 2007, Erick was residing with his mother who has significant DCF history. As of August 2007, Erick was not employed.
8 Keep All Appointments Set by or With the Department
The specific steps also required Lisa and Erick to attend appointments at DCF or elsewhere as may be required. In that regard, DCF conducts treatment plan conferences and administrative case reviews on a periodic basis. Parents, among others, are notified of these meetings and are expected to attend. Given Erick's minimal contact with DCF, there is no credible evidence that he participated in any administrative case reviews or treatment plan conferences. In fact, when DCF attempted to schedule an appointment with Erick to discuss plans for Ja'Niya, he failed to follow through on the appointment. Likewise, Erick's lack of follow through on scheduling visits with Ja'Niya clearly demonstrates his failure to meet this step. Lisa did not attend the Department's administrative case review held in August 2007.
9 Other Miscellaneous Steps
The specific steps included various other obligations which required compliance by Lisa and Erick. The steps required Lisa and Erick to keep their whereabouts known to DCF. Except for a short period of time in August 2007, Lisa has complied with this step. Erick, on the other hand, has failed to keep his whereabouts known to DCF on a regular basis. As of August 2007, Erick visited with Ja'Niya only six times after she CT Page 17625 entered foster care in December 2005. At one point between April 2006 and August 2006, Erick allowed four months to go by without following through on a visit. As of July 2007, DCF had not been in contact with Erick since January 16, 2007. Erick made contact with DCF in July 2007, regarding a court hearing and was advised by social worker Jackson to attend the hearing. He failed to appear for the hearing and when he was called the following day by social worker Jackson, who again offered him a supervised visit with Ja'Niya, he agreed to follow through with a visit, but did not. Contact was made with Erick in November and December 2007 to schedule supervised visits with Ja'Niya for which he failed to follow through. DCF made contact with Erick in January 2008 to discuss the planning of Ja'Niya's case, and to schedule a supervised visit, however Erick again did not follow up with DCF. He finally had a supervised visit in February 2008. Since February 2008, DCF would schedule visits, but Erick would fail to follow up and would not contact DCF to request visits. The steps also required both Lisa and Erick to cooperate with court-ordered evaluations. A court-ordered evaluation was not ordered for Erick, however an evaluation was ordered for Lisa with Dr. Lance Hart. In June 2007, Lisa participated in the court-ordered psychological evaluation and interactional with Ja'Niya. Dr. Hart's findings will be discussed as they relate to whether it is in Ja'Niya's best interest to terminate the parental rights of Lisa, or transfer the custody and guardianship of Ja'Niya to paternal great aunt, Lisa M.
V LEGAL DISCUSSION A MOTION TO TRANSFER GUARDIANSHIP
On August 17, 2007, the respondent mother, Lisa C. filed an objection to the petitioner's permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption filed on July 18, 2007. In her objection, mother was seeking reunification with Ja'Niya or, in the alternative, a transfer of custody and guardianship of Ja'Niya to Shinetta S., Ja'Niya's foster mother at that time. On June 5, 2008, the respondent mother filed an objection to the petitioner's permanency plan of termination and adoption filed on May 12, 2008. In this objection, the respondent mother seeks a transfer of guardianship of Ja'Niya to Lisa M., Ja'Niya's maternal great aunt and foster mother as of February 2008. Both objections were consolidated with the termination of parental rights trial. The respondent mother, based on her admission to ground D, and based on her objection of June 5, 2008, has abandoned her initial CT Page 17626 request to reunify with Ja'Niya. The respondent mother seeks only a transfer of custody and guardianship of Ja'Niya to her maternal great aunt as an alternative to termination and adoption. Lisa argues that termination is not in Ja'Niya's best interest in that such action would permanently deprive Ja'Niya of the ability to maintain any type of relationship with Lisa. The petitioner contends that termination and adoption is in Ja'Niya's best interest, given the child's need for permanency and stability which Ja'Niya has had since being placed with her maternal great aunt.
In general, the party seeking a transfer of guardianship "bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the best interest of the child warrants granting [the movant's] request." In re Angela H., Superior Court for juvenile matters, child protection session at Middletown, Docket No. K09-CP96-000094-C (March 23, 2004, Jongbloed, J.); In re Shyliesh H., Superior Court for juvenile matters, child protection session, 1999 Conn.Sup. 2329 (1999), aff'd on other grounds, 56 Conn.App. 167, 180, 743 A.2d 165 (1999). See also, In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re John Anthony D.A., Superior Court for juvenile matters child protection session, 2000 Conn.Sup. 6755 (2000). Here, the moving party, respondent mother, Lisa C. has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that transfer of custody and guardianship of Ja'Niya to her maternal great aunt, Lisa M. is in her best interest. The court had the opportunity to observe and consider the witnesses' testimony as they testified during the course of the hearing. The maternal great aunt, Lisa M., social worker Angela Jackson, the court-appointed evaluator, Dr. Lance Hart, and Patience Walcott, Lisa's case worker at Bridges, all provided testimony on the issue of whether it would be in Ja'Niya's best interest to transfer custody and guardianship to her maternal great aunt. "It is the peculiar province of the trial court to observe the demeanor of the parties and their witnesses and to draw inferences therefrom as to the motives underlying their testimony and conduct." Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 379, 493 A.2d 1933 (1985); Dadio v. Dadio, 123 Conn. 88, 92-93, 192 A. 557 (1937). The Dadio court stated: "Findings based upon these observations in the courtroom are in the same category as findings based upon a view of premises or property. Such evidence is as properly to be considered by the court in rendering its decision or making its finding as if presented by the lips of witnesses." Dadio, supra at 93. From that evidence, the court concludes that transfer of guardianship of Ja'Niya to her maternal great aunt, Lisa M. is not in Ja'Niya's best interest. The court was particularly persuaded by maternal great aunt's testimony and found her to be credible. Lisa M. understands the need for Ja'Niya to have a permanent and stable environment and wishes to provide her with such by adopting CT Page 17627 her. The evidence also demonstrates, and it is undisputed that Lisa M. has, since February 2008, and continues to provide Ja'Niya with, a stable, loving and nurturing environment. Lisa M. demonstrated through her testimony that she clearly understands the nature of a transfer of guardianship and, regarding Ja'Niya, she does not agree that a transfer of guardianship is in Ja'Niya's best interest. Although Lisa M. does not believe a transfer of guardianship is in Ja'Niya's best interest, "she would never cut [Lisa C.] off [from Ja'Niya]." (Tr., p. 15.) She would allow Lisa C. visitation with Ja'Niya. However, she feels Ja'Niya needs permanency and stability which she can provide by adopting her.
This court also notes Lisa M.'s testimony that she spoke with mother, Lisa C., and "she does not want me to have these children." (Tr., 7/25/08, p. 13.) This testimony is consistent with mother, Lisa C.'s comments to Lisa M. on July 1, 2008, at the conclusion of day one of the trial, and, as testified to by social worker Angela Jackson, accusing Lisa M. of "trying to take her kids away" (Tr., p. 35) and that "the judge is going to rule against [Lisa M.] so [Lisa M.] might as well give up with this case." ( Id.). This testimony is very telling of mother's underlying motive for seeking a transfer of guardianship. This court can reasonably infer from this testimony, and does so infer, that mother's real motive(without regard to what is in Ja'Niya's best interest, but rather solely with regard to her own interest(is to at some point seek a reinstatement of custody of Ja'Niya. As the court stated in Dadio, supra, it is within this court's province to draw inferences from the testimony of the witnesses as to their motives underlying their testimony and conduct, and although mother did not testify herself, her statements made to those witnesses who did testify, provides a clear picture to this court of mother's underlying motive for seeking a transfer of guardianship of Ja'Niya.
Ja'Niya is thriving in her current placement setting and has bonded with her relative foster parent as well as her sister who is also residing in this placement and has been since Ja'Niya's placement in February 2008. This court notes Dr. Hart's testimony in which he opined that as of June 2007, when he evaluated Lisa C., she was "far from being able to independently and unsupportedly mother a child in a safe, consistent, and healthy manner." (Petitioner's Ex. 1.) Dr. Hart opined that as of June 2007, he could not see Lisa C. capable of parenting Ja'Niya before the age of twenty-one. After becoming aware of Lisa's regressions the first six months following her discharge from High Meadows in June 2007, her visits with Ja'Niya occurring only one to two times per month, her lack of attentiveness during the visits, and her apparent improvement and stabilization in January 2008, Dr. Hart further opined that Lisa C.'s rehabilitative prospects were delayed and, that CT Page 17628 her ability to parent Ja'Niya would be "extrapolate[d] out even farther than [he] originally did . . . between twenty-two and twenty-three." ( Id., Tr., pp. 21-25.) Dr. Hart, however, was still discouraged by these additional facts from believing that Lisa could even reach a point to care for Ja'Niya by the age of twenty-two or twenty-three. ( Id., at 25-26.)
Dr. Hart opined that it is important for a child of Ja'Niya's age to have a stable, consistent and responsive caretaker. It is clear from this opinion, that it will be a number of years before Lisa C. would be in a position to provide the stability, consistency and responsiveness that Ja'Niya requires. A transfer of guardianship would not provide Ja'Niya with the stability and permanency she requires as she would continue to "hang in the legal balance" of whether Lisa C. would, as her motive has been so clearly demonstrated through the testimony, at some point in the future seek to regain legal custody of her. The amount of time required for Lisa to reach a point to care for Ja'Niya is far too long for Ja'Niya to wait, given her young age and her specialized needs. Lisa herself has admitted that she does not have an ongoing parent-child relationship with Ja'Niya, and that it would not be in Ja'Niya's best interest to wait for such a relationship to develop. "Children cannot wait for years for a determination that they should be returned to their natural parents [or] placed permanently in an adoptive home . . . The delays that are annoying and frustrating to adults can permanently damage children and their families . . ." Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998). Accordingly, the respondent mother, Lisa C. has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a transfer of custody and guardianship of Ja'Niya to Lisa M., and not adoption is in Ja'Niya's best interest. The respondent mother's motion for a transfer of guardianship is therefore denied.
B ADJUDICATION
"`Termination of parental rights' means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents so that the child is free for adoption . . ." General Statutes (45a-707(8). "[I]t is both a fundamental right and the policy of this state to maintain the integrity of the family. Where a fundamental right is involved, the burden of proof is always on the party seeking to interfere with that right." In re Juvenile Appeal § 83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 295, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). "[T]ermination of a parent's rights to his or her children was unknown to the common law." In re Eden F., CT Page 17629 48 Conn.App. 290, 321, 710 A.2d 771 (1998), rev'd on other grounds, 250 Conn. 674, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). The statutes creating procedures for the termination of parental rights are in derogation of common law. Id. Without the existence of such state statutes, the power of a juvenile court to terminate parental rights would not exist. Id. "The rights of children to protection from harm and to placement in a nurturing environment are core values of our society. So too, is the right of parents to raise their children without undue government interference . . . Since the severance by the state of a parent-child relationship implicates fundamental rights and the termination of a parent's rights is a creature of statute, it is essential that a parental termination can be decreed only in both strict and literal compliance with the applicable state statutes." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 43, 887 A.2d 415 (2005).
General Statutes (17a-112(j) imposes upon DCF the clear and convincing evidence standard for the burden of proof. "In order to terminate rights under (17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); (2) termination is in the best interest of the child; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2); and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a-112(j)(3)." In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004).
I Reasonable Efforts to Locate and Reunify General Statutes (17a-112(j)(1)
For a child in the custody of DCF, the first requisite for termination of parental rights is the exhaustion of reasonable efforts by DCF to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent.
General Statutes (17a-112(j)(1). "[Section 17a-112(j)(1)] imposes on the department the duty, inter alia, to make reasonable efforts to reunite 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 effort is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn . . . [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." In re Samantha C., supra, CT Page 17630 268 Conn. 632.
Pursuant to (17a-112(j)(1), the court need not make a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the parent, if the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding of reasonable efforts is not required if a court has previously determined at a permanency plan hearing that such efforts at reunification were no longer appropriate. General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1). Such findings were not made by the court as to the respondents, mother and father. In this matter, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify this family. Between the time of Ja'Niya's removal in December 2005 and the adjudicatory date of September 19, 2007, DCF offered multiple services to mother Lisa C. in an effort to reunify her with Ja'Niya. These included placement at Mi Casa shelter for teenage mothers, the Salvation Army Youth Shelter for housing, the Child Guidance Center for individual counseling, Riverview Hospital and High Meadows residential treatment facility for mental health, MORE services for mentoring, the Connecting Families program for parenting education and visitation. Lisa is currently receiving services through DHMAS and has been since her discharge from High Meadows. DCF and DMHAS worked in concert to devise a plan for Lisa to succeed in the community by placing her into the Bridges program which is managed by DMHAS. This program allows Lisa to live in an apartment independently while at the same time receive weekly counseling, medication management, nursing services, and financial and budgeting management.
DCF also offered multiple services to father Erick between December 2005 and September 2007 to facilitate reunification. These services included attempted referrals to the ParenTeen program for parent aide services, the Child Guidance Center and the Kennedy Center Parent Aide program for parent education and Connecticut Renaissance for substance abuse assessment and treatment.
In sum, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that DCF did all that was reasonably necessary to reunite Lisa and Erick with Ja'Niya. That those efforts did not succeed was the result of Erick's lack of interest in his daughter and failure to maintain contact with DCF so that services could be identified for him, and Lisa's failure to remain sufficiently stable in placements and programs, such as Mi Casa and, as of the adjudicatory date, DMHAS services. In addition, neither parent, as a result of their inconsistent visits, lack of consistent compliance with services, and, by their own admission, have developed a parent-child relationship with Ja'Niya.
CT Page 17631
2 Adjudicatory Findings
"To justify the termination of parental rights in the absence of consent, one or more of the grounds set forth in General Statutes § [17a-112(j)(3)] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 18, 614 A.2d 832 (1992). "In contrast to custody proceedings, in which the best interests of the child are always the paramount consideration and in fact usually dictate the outcome, in termination proceedings the statutory criteria must be met before termination can be accomplished and adoption proceedings can begin. No all encompassing best interests standard vitiates the requirement of compliance with the statutory criteria." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 538, 744 A.2d 915 (2000). There must be "strict compliance with the statutory criteria [of (17a-112(j)(3)] before termination of parental rights and subsequent adoption proceedings can occur." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. 252, 257, n. 9, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984).
Both of the respondents acknowledge that neither of them have an ongoing parent-child relationship with Ja'Niya and have admitted to ground D as alleged in the petition. Therefore, the court finds in favor of the petitioner on this ground.
C DISPOSITION 1 Mandatory Findings (17a-112(k)
"A 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." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Danuael D., 51 Conn.App. 829, 835-37, 724 A.2d 546 (1999).
"In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by CT Page 17632 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)]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Vanna A., 83 Conn.App. 17, 26, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004). "The factors, however, serve simply as guidelines to assist the court in its determination of the child's best interest, and each factor need not be proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-59, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). "The judicial authority may admit into evidence any testimony relevant and material to the issue of the disposition, including events occurring through the close of the evidentiary hearing, but no disposition may be made by the judicial authority until any mandated social study has been submitted to the judicial authority. Said study shall be marked as an exhibit subject to the right of any party to require that the author, if available, appear for cross-examination." Practice Book (35a-9.
The court, after having considered all testimony and documentary evidence relating to the issue of disposition, and, which evidence includes events occurring through the close of the trial, makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parents, the court finds that DCF offered numerous services for both mother and father, including parenting education, individual counseling, housing for mother through the Salvation Army Youth Shelter and substance abuse assessments for father, and visitation for both mother and father. Father Erick failed to follow through on services offered to him and made minimal contact with DCF so that additional services could be identified for him. Visits were offered to father as well as a substance abuse evaluation, however he failed to follow through. Similar services were offered to Lisa, and as previously discussed, she like Erick, have failed to sufficiently engage in such services to facilitate Ja'Niya's return to their care. Birth to Three Services have been provided to Ja'Niya to address her special needs.
(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts.
(3) As to the terms of an 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 CT Page 17633 order(s), the court finds that specific steps were ordered as to both respondents, mother and father. As previously set forth, there was compliance by respondent mother with some steps but failure to fully engage with a number of the steps, particularly those steps which were essential to any prospect of her rehabilitation, namely, remaining sufficiently stable in placements and programs, and inconsistent visits or minimal visits with Ja'Niya. Father failed to follow through on services offered, and failed to maintain regular contact with DCF so that additional services could be identified for him in accordance with the specific steps.
(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to her parents, any guardian of her 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 the court finds as follows:
Both Lisa and Erick have admitted that they do not have a parent-child relationship with Ja'Niya and that it would be detrimental to Ja'Niya's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop. By admitting to this alleged ground, both Lisa and Erick have conceded that Ja'Niya has no present memories of or feelings for either of them. In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 525, 777 A.2d 695 (2001). Ja'Niya has been residing in her current placement since February 2008. She has adjusted extremely well to her current placement, is thriving, and has bonded well with her relative foster parent. She has also bonded with her sibling who also resides in the same placement. The court was particularly impressed with the foster mother's deep commitment to family and the need for Ja'Niya to have stability and permanency in her life as relayed to the court through her testimony. Foster mother, Lisa M. is committed to providing Ja'Niya with a loving, nurturing and stable environment and is willing to adopt her into the current placement.
(5) As to the age of the child, the court finds that Ja'Niya is two years old and will soon be three. She has been in foster care for almost three years. She needs and deserves a sense of permanency and stability as she continues to bond with her current care giver. The uncertainty of not knowing if, or when Lisa and Erick might be in a position to care for her is of paramount importance. Foster care should be a strictly time-limited interval in the life of any child. Our Supreme Court has long recognized the deleterious effect of prolonged temporary care of abused and neglected children. See In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The Appellate Court has also noted that "[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence . . ." (Emphasis CT Page 17634 added.) In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992).
The Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq., as amended, envisages that after twelve months in foster care a child deserves a permanent home. Given the length of time that Ja'Niya has been in foster care, she deserves a permanent home without further delay.
(6) As to the efforts each parent has made to adjust his or her circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return 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 the incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child, the court finds as follows: Lisa and Erick made little effort to adjust their circumstances so as to facilitate reunification with Ja'Niya. Erick has had very little contact with Ja'Niya and has not asked about Ja'Niya's well-being. Lisa, as previously discussed, has not been sufficiently stable in placements and programs. In addition, both parents have failed to visit their daughter on a consistent basis so as to develop a parent-child relationship and, recognizing this fact, both have admitted to ground D as alleged in the petition. Despite DCF's efforts to provide Lisa and Erick with the appropriate services to effectuate reunification, neither parent has made sufficient efforts to change their circumstances which lead to Ja'Niya's removal.
(7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent the court finds that nothing has prevented respondents from maintaining a meaningful relationship with their child. The lack of a meaningful relationship is not due to any unreasonable interference by DCF, foster mother, or any other third party. The failure of this family to reunite falls squarely on the shoulders of Lisa and Erick, who by their inability or unwillingness to fully engage in services have split this family apart. DCF has taken all reasonable steps to reunify Ja'Niya with Lisa and Erick.
2 Best Interests CT Page 17635
With respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2), based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of Lisa C. and Erick C. is in Ja'Niya's best interest. Ja'Niya is in a loving and nurturing environment. She has a sense of permanency, consistency and stability with her current relative foster parent, Lisa M., which is crucial for her right now. Ja'Niya has bonded with Lisa M. and her biological sister who also resides with her. Dr. Hart opined that it is important for a child Ja'Niya's age to have a stable, consistent and responsive caretaker. There is no credible evidence to support the conclusion that either Lisa or Erick are now, or would be able, in the reasonably foreseeable future, to provide Ja'Niya the stability, consistency, or responsiveness that she requires. Both Lisa and Erick have admitted that neither of them have an ongoing parent-child relationship with Ja'Niya, and both have admitted that it would not be in Ja'Niya's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop. Furthermore, as the court has previously discussed, a transfer of guardianship would not be in Ja'Niya's best interest as it would undermine the permanency and stability that Dr. Hart testified a child of Ja'Niya's age needs and requires. Any uncertainty evoked by Ja'Niya's knowledge that her placement is not permanent because Lisa may one day in the future seek to regain custody of Ja'Niya, will clearly have a detrimental effect on her. A transfer of guardianship would clearly leave Ja'Niya open to uncertainty and no feeling of permanency. In view of the fact that the respondents are not in a position to care for Ja'Niya right now or at any reasonably foreseeable time in the future, termination of their parental rights is in Ja'Niya's best interest.
In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in Ja'Niya's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including her interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment; her length of stay in foster care; the nature of her relationship with her relative foster parent, her biological sister, and biological parents; the degree of contact maintained with her biological parents; and her genetic bond to the respondents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). The court has also balanced Ja'Niya's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with her biological 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 CT Page 17636 scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establish that termination of respondents' parental rights is in Ja'Niya's best interest.
With regard to permanency, the court considers the social studies and the testimony of the social worker, the relative foster parent, Lisa M. and Dr. Hart which clearly indicate that Ja'Niya is in a stable environment where she is provided with the quotidian nurturing she requires. Ja'Niya also has a sense of permanency which is crucial for her right now given her young age. Ja'Niya is entitled to resolution, without delay, of the period of uncertainty as to the availability of respondents to serve as her parents by terminating respondents' parental rights. After considering Ja'Niya's sense of time, her need for a secure and permanent environment, her need to avoid future placements, and the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that termination of the respondents' parental rights is in her best interest.
D REVIEW OF PERMANENCY PLANS
Pursuant to General Statutes (46b-129(k) and Practice Book (35a-14, on July 18, 2007, and May 12, 2008, the petitioner filed Motions to Review Permanency Plan of Ja'Niya. In her motions, the petitioner requested the court to review and approve the plan for termination of parental rights and adoption of Ja'Niya. Ja'Niya was committed to DCF on June 5, 2006 and her commitment was maintained until further order of the court. On August 17, 2007, and June 5, 2008, the respondent mother filed objections to the permanency plan. All objections to the permanency plan were consolidated with the termination of parental rights trial. With regard to all permanency plans filed, based upon all of the evidence submitted at trial, including but not limited to the social studies submitted in support of termination, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption is in Ja'Niya's best interest and hereby approves the plan. The court also finds by a preponderance of the evidence that DCF made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan. The court further finds, by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts towards reunification with the respondents, mother and father are no longer required. All objections to the permanency plan are hereby overruled.
VI CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
CT Page 17637
Based on the findings that have been made by clear and convincing evidence and considering the seven factors set forth in the previous section, it is hereby ORDERED that the parental rights of the respondent mother, Lisa C. and Erick C., because they have no ongoing parent-child relationship with Ja'Niya within the meaning of (17a-112(j)(3)(D), and, because termination is in Ja'Niya's best interest, be and hereby are terminated, and that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the purpose of placing the child in adoption. A permanency plan shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law. This court found the testimony of relative foster parent, Lisa M. compelling. Particularly, Lisa M.'s understanding of Ja'Niya's need for permanency and stability as well as her need to be with family and know her mother. In light of this testimony, the court strongly recommends that visitation continue between Ja'Niya and Lisa C. solely at the discretion of Lisa M. Father Erick should also be allowed to participate in those visits at the sole discretion of Lisa M.
The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Bridgeport of the date when said adoption is finalized.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ORDERED this November 3, 2008.