Opinion
Nos. H12-CP97-005502-A, H12-CP97-005503-A, H12-CP03-009144-A
August 16, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These are actions brought by the Department of Children and Families ("DCF" or "Petitioner") seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Miguel R., Natalie R. and Ivan R. (hereinafter referred to as "Miguel R.", "Natalie R." and "Ivan R." or "the children"). The biological mother of the children is Lisandra V. (hereinafter referred to as "Lisandra V." or "Mother") and the biological Father of the children is Miguel R., Sr. (hereinafter referred to as "Miguel R., Sr." or "Father"). The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting the custody of this child and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.
On 11/23/04 a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed.
The court found that in-hand service on Respondent Mother, Lisandra V. and Respondent Father, Miguel R., Sr. was made on 12/23/04.
In accordance with the notice to the Respondents, the trial for the Termination of Parental Rights was set to commence at 9:30 a.m. on 5/30/06. At that appointed time the Respondent Mother and Father appeared and the trial commenced. A second day of trial was set for 5/31/06 at 9:30 a.m.
At the time of the trial the State submitted twelve exhibits and five witnesses and the Respondents submitted two exhibits and one witness, Father, Miguel R., Sr.
The grounds of this petition for the Termination of Parental Rights as to the biological Mother, Lisandra V. and the biological Father, Miguel R., Sr. are failure to rehabilitate. The court carefully considered all the evidence presented at trial. The court applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights petitions. Only evidence relevant to the adjudication date was considered as a part of adjudication proceedings on the termination petition.
I FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Background; Reasons for Petition
On 8/15/97 Miguel R. was diagnosed with hearing loss, speech delay and emotional problems and was found unattended in an abandoned parking lot near his apartment building. The child was in filthy condition and was playing on a piece of construction equipment in the parking lot, having wandered out of his family's apartment building. Mother left Miguel R. and his baby sister, Natalie R., in the care of their father, Miguel R., Sr., who was asleep. On 6/24/98, four-year-old Miguel R. was placed under a 96 Hour Hold after being found by New Britain Police Department wandering the streets without any shoes.
On 6/9/03, another report was received by DCF, from Officer Inho, Hartford Police Department, alleging neglect of Ivan R. and Natalie R. by Mother, Lisandra V. Officer Inho reported that paternal grandmother, Placida L. went to Mother's home at 3:00 a.m. with Mother's oldest son and upon arrival, found said children home alone.
Procedural History: On 8/15/97, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of Miguel R. On 8/19/97, Miguel R. was returned home after an Order of Temporary Custody was denied by Plainville Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. On 2/25/98, Miguel R. was adjudicated as Neglected and Protective Supervision was issued. On 6/24/98, Miguel R. was placed under a 96-Hour Hold, after Lisandra V. was arrested for Risk of Injury to a Minor. He had again been found some distance away from the home, wandering unsupervised around the area of Jerome Street/Corbin Avenue without shoes. On 9/14/98, Miguel R. was adjudicated neglected and on 9/14/98, was committed to the care and custody of DCF. Extensions of the commitments of the above-named child were granted, effective respectively on 9/13/99, 8/23/00, and 9/10/01.
On 8/26/02, 7/27/03, 7/27/04, and 5/24/05, the court made a finding that the commitment of the child should be maintained until further order of the court.
On 6/9/03, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of Natalie R. and Ivan R. On 6/12/03, DCF filed a Petition of Neglect, and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody regarding the above-named children. Orders of Temporary Custody were granted on 6/12/03, and were subsequently sustained on 6/18/03. On 9/3/03, the above-named children were adjudicated neglected/uncared for and on 9/3/03 the children were committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of DCF as neglected/uncared for children. On 7/27/04 and 5/24/05, the court made a finding that the commitment of the children should be maintained until further order of the court.
B. Mother, Lisandra V.
Lisandra V. was born in Gurado, Puerto Rico, on 12/18/76 to Petro V. and Brunilda C. who are of Puerto Rican heritage and were unmarried. Lisandra V. has an older sister, Damaris V., DOB 6/21/75, who lives in East Hartford, CT. Damaris V. is 29 years old, unmarried with three children and she is employed at Tournik, Inc. in East Hartford.
Lisandra V. was raised by her aunt, Julia V. after coming to Hartford at age two with her aunt, uncle and sister. Her parents' relationship did not work out and she has seen her mother, who is now living in Lawrence, MA only "a couple of times."
Lisandra V. denied any physical or sexual abuse as a child but felt that her mother had abandoned her. She attended high school and quit in the 9th grade when she became pregnant with her first son. She denied any involvement with drugs or problems with alcohol. Mother stated that she has never been arrested, other than for Risk of Injury, with regard to a situation where one of her children left the home in New Britain without her knowledge.
In 2004 Mother and Father were both arrested following a domestic violence incident where Father pulled a gun on Mother. Mother denied any physical abuse of her children but did acknowledge some degree of neglect on her part in that she left the children with her brother-in-law.
On 1/25/05 Mother reported that she was unemployed and had no source of income. Although she was in Section 8 housing, with a rental fee of about $15, she could not pay it and was fearful of losing her apartment. Although she was not able to find a job due to lack of transportation she continued her search for employment.
Since 11/12/04 the DCF social worker has met with Mother on four occasions in which she stated that she has done what she needs to do and did not wish to comply with any other services.
C. Father, Miguel R., Sr.
Miguel R., Sr. was born in Hartford, CT on 5/30/68 to Miguel R. and Placida L. Both parents are of Puerto Rican heritage. Miguel R. is the oldest child and he has three siblings, Luis R. — DOB 4/30/69, Jose R. — DOB 11/7/70 and Samuel R. — DOB 10/14/72. Miguel R., Sr.'s father left the family when he was young and his parents divorced in 1992.
Miguel R., Sr. attended Kinsella Elementary and Bulkeley High School where he completed the 10th grade and then dropped out of high school because he didn't want to attend school any more. His childhood was normal and he has no medical problems.
Miguel R., Sr. is currently employed at a local oil company in East Hartford where he has been working full-time. See Paragraph H, Present Situation, for employment information. He likes his job. He lives with a girlfriend, Ana C., who has an eleven-year-old child, in a two-family home in West Hartford, CT. Miguel R., Sr.'s father is living "somewhere in Connecticut."
Miguel R., Sr. completed parenting classes but did not complete anger management classes because he felt that he did not have a problem in this area. He was arrested in 1990 or 1991 for possession of cocaine which he used to sell. He indicated that he did not have a problem with drugs and has no substance abuse issues. His only other arrest was in 2003 as a result of an argument with Mother in which she called the police. He was arrested for possession of an unregistered handgun in the home and served six months in jail as a result. He was released in September 2003.
The DCF social worker has met with Father on four occasions. He was not aware of what was going on in the case and indicated that he would be fighting to obtain custody of his children.
D. Child, Miguel R.
Miguel R. was born on 8/3/93 and appears to be small for his age. He is a very hyperactive and impulsive youngster and takes the medication Adderall for these tendencies. He does not always appear to have a complete understanding of the effects of his hyperactivity and impulsiveness. Miguel R. is friendly and likeable but is out of control and defiant. He has been in DCF custody since 6/24/98 when he was removed from the home due to inadequate supervision. He returned home on 2/2/03, however, he was still committed to DCF. He was removed again on 6/9/03 with his siblings and placed in a DCF foster home. He does not have a clear understanding of his family issues with respect to DCF involvement.
Miguel R. attended Hartford Public Schools where he received special education services. He has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (by history), R/O Anxiety Disorder NOS, R/O Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and R/O Expressive Language Disorder. It is also noted that he has a bilateral hearing loss. There is a record of possible sexual abuse in the past. He is difficult to manage during visits, and in the foster home, although the foster parent has stated that she is bonded to him. Miguel R. and his siblings have a somewhat competitive relationship during visits but they do play well together. He has not been able to properly form a familial bond in that he has twice been removed from the care and custody of his biological family and has had a total of 17 placements in his life.
E. Child, Natalie R.
Natalie R. is a beautiful Hispanic female born on 1/15/97. She is friendly, however, she can be defiant and has recently been refusing to get out of bed, go to school or comply with other adult instructions. This has been so severe that it has affected her school attendance, even while she has been in foster care. She can engage in tantrums and is very difficult to redirect. She appears to be in good health and her immunizations are up to date.
F. Child, Ivan R.
Ivan R. is a handsome Hispanic male born on 5/19/00. He is very active but not on medication. He enjoys going to day care and playing with his sister, Natalie R. He is also friendly, however, he is a very difficult child. He appears to be physically well and has his medical needs met. However, he shows symptomatic behaviors consistent with possible hyperactivity. He often runs "wildly" and cannot be maintained by one adult alone. He hits his siblings, adults and family members, throws things, refuses to stay on task and is difficult to engage. His behavior is concerning in that he puts himself in possibly dangerous situations by removing himself from car seats, trying to open doors and running into the street. Family members report that this behavior is not new.
G. Relatives
Mother has indicated that there are no relative resources for the children on the maternal side of the family. An extensive report dated 1/11/05 with respect to the consideration of paternal grandmother, Placida L. was available to the court as Exhibit C. A review of that report leaves the court with the opinion that paternal grandmother is not a resource in this matter.
H. Present Situation
Lisandra V. currently is residing with her sister in East Hartford. She is unemployed and has recently asked for assistance in getting food because she does not have enough money for food or bill payment. Mother's father has been assisting her financially.
Mother was discharged from ADRC in December 2005 due to non-compliance. She also tested positive for cocaine and marijuana. She informed the DCF social worker that she did not need the program and admitted to smoking marijuana.
On 2/26/06 DCF re-referred Lisandra V. to ADRC and Project Safe. She was requested to come into the office on 2/28/06 to sign a release of information for Advance Behavioral Health and she stated that she would come to the office and sign the release that same day. However, it took her three days to come into the office and sign the release.
On 3/7/06 Karen M. from Project Safe scheduled a home visit with Mother for 3/8/06. Karen M. went to Lisandra V.'s home but she was not there. Messages have been left for her but she has not called back.
Mother had a scheduled substance abuse evaluation on 3/16/06. She attended her evaluation and was recommended for treatment. DCF received a copy of a drug screen collected on 3/16/06 and the results were positive for marijuana. On 5/2/06 Mother was discharged from the ADRC Latino Program due to non-compliance and positively testing for cocaine on 4/6/06.
Mother was also referred to St. Francis Parent Aide Program but she was non-compliant with this service. The parent aide attempted to make contact with Mother but without success. Many attempts have been made to engage Mother in the program but there has been no reciprocation.
Father indicates that he is stable. He is residing with his girlfriend in a two-family house in West Hartford and has been employed at an oil company. He had planned to work as many hours as possible in order to better his income but business generally is slow during the late spring and summer season and he would probably be laid off but would be called back to work in late fall. He intended to collect unemployment during this period. Father would like to care for his children himself and stated that he intends to "fight" for his children but in the event of the "worst possible scenario," he knows that the children would be safe in the care of his mother.
On 11/4/05, both Natalie R. and Ivan R. were placed in the home of Ms. W. The children appear to be well adjusted to their placement and new surroundings. All of the children are receiving the following services: Mentor through the STAR Program, YUS Fast Program, family therapy through the Village for Families Children (VFC) and family support services through DARE, SW Katie B. A referral is also pending for My People's Clinical Services in order to assist Ms. W. with the transition and children's behaviors.
Miguel R. is presently hospitalized in an extended day outpatient program at Holbrook Hospital in Westport, Connecticut. The hospital has many different in-services, including a school program. Miguel R. was hospitalized a day before Easter, April 15, 2006. He had been in his room playing with fire when discovered by his foster mother. She notified the police after the fire department and a mobile crisis team had come to the home. It was reported that Miguel R. might have been hospitalized on one or two occasions.
The prognosis for Miguel R. is that he would be in a lesser intensive program of sub-acute care which would be located at Holbrook Hospital. The hospital will be working on a discharge plan but the progress toward discharge is uncertain.
The foster home with Ms. W., where Miguel R. was placed prior to his hospitalization, is interested in having him return when he is discharged.
II TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION
The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Miguel R., Sr.'s and Lisandra V.'s parental rights as of the date of the filing of the petition.
A. Reasonable Efforts Finding
Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, DCF, in order to terminate parental rights, initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the children with their parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts." C.G.S. Sec. 17a-112(j)(1). "Reasonable effort means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).
The court has found in a prior proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from any reunification efforts.
1. On 7/27/04, the court made a finding that further efforts toward reunification were no longer appropriate as to Father, Miguel R., Sr.
2. DCF has been involved with this family since 6/26/98.
3. On 9/13/99 and subsequently on 9/14/01 and 9/3/03, Mother was given the following court expectations:
Keep all appointments set by DCF.
Mother makes all scheduled supervised visits at DCF but has missed several appointments with her service providers.
Keep whereabouts known to DCF and your attorney.
Mother has been consistent with keeping her whereabouts known to DCF.
Visit children as often as DCF permits and demonstrate appropriate parent/children interaction during visits.
Mother is consistent with attending visits. Interaction with her children appears to be appropriate.
Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals — parenting and family.
Mother has failed to participate and complete classes.
Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF, and make progress toward the identified goals.
DCF submitted a referral for in-home support/reunification services via Klingberg Family Services. Mother accepted and completed.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment.
On 8/28/03, Advance Behavioral Health recommended that Mother attend a substance abuse class due to her history of substance abuse issues. Mother did not follow the recommendation.
Successfully complete substance abuse treatment and follow recommendations regarding aftercare treatment including relapse prevention. On 8/28/03, Advance Behavioral Health recommended that Mother attend a substance abuse class due to her history of substance abuse issues. Mother did not follow the recommendation. Mother was referred to Community Solutions by her Probation Officer, Fred P., for a mental health and substance abuse evaluation. Mother was scheduled for a total of eight sessions, and she only attended two sessions. Numerous efforts were made to re-engage Mother in treatment and numerous appointments were scheduled. Mother was discharged due to non-compliance.Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goal.
Mother signed releases when requested of her.
Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income.
Mother is presently residing with her sister in East Hartford. She is unemployed and is seeking employment.
No further involvement with the criminal justice system.
Mother has no involvement with the criminal system at this time.
The parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services in that mother has not benefited nor made progress toward the treatment goals with regard to substance abuse treatment, domestic violence and mental health goals including medication management.
The presenting problems with this family were substance abuse, domestic violence, a history of mental health, including depression, suicidal ideations and failure to take the children to their medical appointments.
In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan.
B. Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) — as to biological Father, Miguel R., Sr. and biological Mother, Lisandra V. The Commissioner has alleged as grounds for termination that the parents have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child has been adjudicated as neglected in a prior proceeding. This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii) states in part that:[t]he Superior Court . . . may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the child . . . has been found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected . . . in a prior proceeding . . . and the parent of such child has been provided with specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent . . . and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.
Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a respondent to a constructive and useful role as a parent. In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 203, 504 A.2d 532 (1986). The parents' compliance with expectations or steps set after the adjudication of the neglect or uncared for case or the parents' success in fulfilling service agreements entered into with DCF are relevant, but not dispositive, to the rehabilitation finding. In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 167-68, 5545 A.2d 722 (1989).
The ultimate question is whether the parents at the time of the filing of the termination petition were more able to resume the responsibilities of parents than they were at the time of the commitment. In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 126, 614 A.2d 832 (1992).
Whether the age and needs of the children would support allowance of further time for the parents to rehabilitate must also be considered. In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 167. The reasonableness of the time period within which rehabilitation is sought to be accomplished is a question of fact for the court. In re Davon M., 16 Conn.App. 693, 696, 548 A.2d 1350 (1988). Also, in determining whether further allowance of a reasonable period of time would promote rehabilitation, a court can consider efforts made since the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. In re Sarah M., 19 Conn.App. 371, 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).
The respondents were advised by the court and the Petitioner on numerous occasions that they needed to address their substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence and criminal conduct problems. However, neither parent has been successful in overcoming these problems.
Ground B1 — Failure to Rehabilitate After Adjudication as to the Children by Lisandra V. and Miguel R., Sr.
The respondents were advised by the court and the Petitioner on numerous occasions that they needed to address their substance abuse, domestic violence, and criminal conduct problems. However, neither parent has been successful in overcoming these problems.
On 9/13/99, and subsequently on 9/14/01 and 9/3/03, Mother was given the following court expectations. Mother has not followed through with these expectations.
Keep all appointments set by DCF.
Mother misses appointments with her service providers.
Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals.
Mother has failed to participate and complete classes.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment.
On 8/28/03, Advance Behavioral Health recommended that Mother attend a substance abuse class due to her history of substance abuse. Mother did not follow the recommendation.
Successfully complete substance abuse treatment and follow recommendations regarding aftercare treatment, including relapse prevention.
On 8/28/03, Advance Behavioral Health recommended that Mother attend a substance abuse class due to her history of substance abuse. Mother did not follow the recommendation.
Mother was referred to Community Solutions by her Probation Officer, Fred P., for a mental health and substance abuse evaluation. Mother was scheduled for a total of eight sessions, and she only attended two sessions. Numerous efforts were made to re-engage Mother in treatment and numerous appointments were scheduled. Mother was discharged due to non-compliance.
On 9/13/99, and subsequently on 9/14/01 and 9/3/03, Father was given the following court expectations. Father has not followed through with these expectations.
Keep all appointments set by DCF.
Father has not participated in counseling, as he has stated that he does not need any services.
Visit children as often as DCF permits and demonstrate appropriate parent/children interaction during visits.
Father is inconsistent with visits. There have been several occasions when he would show up for the last fifteen minutes of the visit. When he does arrive for the visit the children are excited to see him and are equally disappointed when he does not arrive.
Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals — parenting and family.
Father has failed to participate in counseling.
Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF, and make progress toward the identified goals.
Father has not complied with any referrals/services recommended by DCF.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment.
Father did not follow through with referrals for substance abuse treatment made by the DCF.
Successfully complete substance abuse treatment and follow recommendations regarding aftercare treatment including relapse prevention.
Father did not comply with recommended substance abuse treatment.Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income.
Father indicates that he is stable. He is residing with his girlfriend in a two-family house in West Hartford. He has been employed at an oil company. See Paragraph H, Present Situation for employment information.
No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system.
Father was arrested on 3/11/03 for domestic violence and possession of a handgun. He was sentenced to six months in prison and three years probation. He was released in September 2003.
On 4/15/02, 10/10/02,4/3/03, 7/18/03, 1/13/04, 7/1/04 and 12/27/04, the parents were notified of Treatment Plan Conferences. The treatment plans stated that they would comply with the following services: Substance Abuse Treatment, Parenting, Anger Management and Individual/Family Counseling. However, neither parent followed through with these services.
For more than one year, despite the services offered, both parents have failed to demonstrate such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable amount of time, considering their children's ages and needs, they could assume a responsible position in the life of their child.
Summary of Adjudicatory Findings
This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence that Miguel R., Sr., the biological Father, and Lisandra V., the biological Mother, have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected these children.
III DISPOSITION CT Page 15099
Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights, applying the appropriate standard of proof the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial, establish, by clear and convincing evidence, after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest. If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.A.C.G.S. § 17a-112(k) Criteria
The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.
Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Miguel R., Sr.'s and Lisandra V.'s parental rights, as they did not consent, but rather were defaulted, the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k). In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).
These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows.
1. "The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent."The parents have been provided with ample services to facilitate the return of their children. The services, as described above, were appropriate, were offered on a timely basis and were made available to the parents.
2. "Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended."
DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.
3. "The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order." The terms of court orders addressed to the parents are described above, and the parents have not fulfilled their obligation under those orders. 4. "The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his parents, any guardian of such child's 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." There is evidence of a relationship with both parents; all these children present as especially attached to their Mother. Miguel R. is attached to those who have mentored him and others. Foster parents have deep interest in these children and wish to continue their care giving services. Due to the fact that so much time has passed with the children in a state of flux and confusion as to stability and permanence, significant emotional ties have been difficult to establish or even present to these children.5. "The age of the children."
Miguel R. is thirteen years old, Natalie R. is nine years old five months old and Ivan R. is six years old.
6. "The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to such child's 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 that 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."The parents have made little effort to adjust their circumstances to permit their children to safely return to their care.
7. "The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent." CT Page 15101 The petitioner has encouraged the parents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children; neither economic circumstances nor the unreasonable actions of any person have prevented them from having such a relationship.B. Best Interest of the Children
As stated, DCF has been involved with this family since 8/15/97 when Miguel R. was placed on a 96-hour hold. He was reunited shortly thereafter and was later committed on 9/14/98. Commitment was maintained until the present so that he has been in the DCF system for the last eight years of his thirteen years.
Natalie R. and Ivan R. have been in the DCF system since 6/9/03 or for Natalie R., three years of her nine and one-half years and for Ivan R., three of his six years. These children have been removed from the home for long periods of time. DCF has been very active with these children but the court is of the opinion that success in stabilizing them has been sorely wanting. Granted, all three of these children are a challenge for caretakers, and have been virtually from the onset of each of their commitments. A history of Miguel R.'s placements, evaluations, assessments, treatment, consultants, interviews, diagnosis, behavioral techniques, educational controls, hypersexualized behavior, sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect, is evidenced in the Psychological Evaluation of Dr. Humphrey, Respondent's Exhibit 2. Evidence has been presented about Natalie R.'s behavior including defiance, refusal to go to school, get out of bed, and general refusal to comply with adult instructions. She can engage in tantrums and is very difficult to direct. Ivan R. has been described as a very difficult child. It was reported that he "runs wildly" and that he could not "be maintained by one adult alone." He was reportedly hitting his siblings, family members and other adults, throwing things and refusing to remain on task. It was reported that he attempted to remove himself from car seats and run into the street.
At the time of the trial it was reported that Miguel R. was hospitalized at Holbrook Hospital in Westport, Connecticut and had been there for about seven weeks.
Apparently he was hospitalized as he was found playing with fire in his room and his foster mother called the police. The fire department came to the scene as well as police and a mobile crisis unit. At the time of the trial a discharge plan was being worked on but nothing was determined. The foster home expressed interest in having him returned.
Natalie R. and Ivan R. were placed in the home of Ms. W. on 11/4/05. This was subsequent to Ivan R. being removed from his foster home at the request of his foster mother due to his aggressive unsafe behavior. A referral was made to Klingberg Family Services in order to assist foster mother with in-home services before placing Ivan R. back in the home.
It is abundantly clear that these children are afflicted with a myriad of problems, psychologically, educationally, behaviorally and otherwise. The attention the children have required for some time, in Miguel R.'s case, some eight years, has been extraordinary and continues until today. It is the opinion of the court after review of all the evidence that intensive services will be required for a long period of time.
The court has determined that if the parental rights of Lisandra V. and Miguel R., Sr. are not terminated there is little or no possibility of these children gaining the stability and real sense of permanency that is necessary for them to progress through this stage to a viable maturity. Too much time has gone by in their young lives already. Immediate response to the needs of these children is warranted and this can only be effected by this action.
The State of Connecticut Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford referred Miguel R., Sr. and Lisandra V. for psychological evaluations and interactional studies with their three children. The court also ordered clinical evaluations of all three children. The evaluations were performed on 4/26/05 and 4/27/05. The examiner previously evaluated both parents in 2001 for the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in New Britain. The opinions expressed by Dr. Humphrey in his latest evaluation (Respondent's Exhibit #2) refer to a time frame for rehabilitation over a period of five years, and it is apparent that many of the issues which mitigate against reunification are issues that have not been addressed properly by the parents and have not, in most cases, been accomplished to anyone's satisfaction.
This extended period of time with little or no progress led Dr. Humphrey to be "gravely concerned about a pattern of physical and emotional neglect evident in Mother's care of her children over at least the past eight years . . . her failure to acknowledge her son's psychological issues and her failure to engage in services in a diligent and timely manner, intensify these concerns."
At this time Dr. Humphrey set forth certain steps for Mother to complete with success and at the time of the evaluation, 4/26 and 4/29/05, some sixteen months ago, he suggested six months to one year for completion and then the court should consider means of initiating steps for reunification. If she were not to comply or show progress, it was the doctor's opinion that rehabilitation within a time-frame conducive to the psychological health of the children would not be likely and alternative plans for permanency should be sought. With regard to Father, although he reports part-time employment and suitable housing with his girlfriend and her eleven-year-old daughter (it should be noted that Father testified that it was his girlfriend who had an interest in the home and he was residing there only at her will), his failure to engage in services, evidence of anti-social traits, his comportment toward Miguel R., and his inability to manage his children with success suggests that placement with him would pose problems for the children's psychological development, according to Dr. Humphrey.
Dr. Humphrey was asked for his opinion as to whether the termination of parental rights of the parents was in the children's best interests considering their age and needs. He responded that there were at least two factors that, from a psychological standpoint, would support the grounds of termination of parental rights. He opined that both parents, especially Father, have failed to achieve a degree of rehabilitation that would encourage him to believe that the threat of psychological harm to the children has been removed, or that it could be removed within a reasonable period of time. As to Father, the doctor reported that there were strong indications that his willingness to engage in such rehabilitation was minimal. He also noted that there was a well established pattern of neglect, primarily with regard to inadequate supervision and engagement in school and medical services.
It is apparent that there is evidence of a relationship with both parents, all three children present as especially attached to their Mother. At the time of the evaluation by Dr. Humphrey, April 2005, he indicated that is was likely that their return to Mother's care at that time would be premature and would expose them to the risk of further neglect. A long period of time has passed to the present, the situation for reunification has not improved and little progress by the parents has been made. (See above Paragraph H., Present Situation and Exhibit L, Addendum to the Social Study).
The Appellate Court has recently observed that, "the sad fact is there is a difference between parental love and parental competence." In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575, 877 A.2d 941, cert. granted on other grounds, 276 Conn. 903, 884 A.2d 1024 (2005). This is a case in point at least with regard to Mother, and clearly the time has come to release these children to be administered to in a proper manner for their best interests.
IV CONCLUSION
The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Miguel R.'s, Natalie R.'s and Ivan R.'s best interests to terminate the parental rights of Lisandra V. and Miguel R., Sr., the biological Mother and Father of the children. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Miguel R., Natalie R. and Ivan R. are hereby terminated.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for these children for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for these children.
The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as are required by state and federal law and which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of these children.