Connecticut Cases January 10, 2019: In re E.H.

Case Description

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

File Date: January 11, 2019

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The matter proceeded to trial on October 5, 2018 and on various dates thereafter. Mother and father were represented by counsel.

II. ISSUES

Has A.H. been neglected? Have mother and father failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that they could assume a responsible position in the life of E.H. within a reasonable time considering the age and needs of E.H.? Is termination of parental rights in the best interest of E.H?

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Father

At the time of trial, father was 26 years old. In 2012 he pled guilty to one count of Escape in violation of Connecticut Gen. Statutes section 53a-169. The disposition was one year execution suspended after six months, one year’s conditional discharge. In 2009 father pled guilty to Robbery in the 2nd degree in violation of Connecticut Gen. Statutes section 53a-135. The disposition was 30 months imprisonment with four years special parole. In 2008 father pled guilty to one count of Robbery in the 2nd degree. The disposition was three years execution suspended three years probation with a special condition of probation of 100 hours of community service. Father was also found in violation of probation in 2008.

Steven Faiella supervised father on parole from November 13, 2015 until April 25, 2016. Father needed employment services and substance abuse treatment for marijuana use. Father was assigned to live with an aunt in Stamford after his discharge from his incarceration. However, father moved out of the aunt’s home in April 2016. Father had no stable residence, tested positive for drugs and refuse to wear a GPS monitor. Parole services violated father in April 2016. Thereafter, he was incarcerated at Bridgeport correctional Center.

On June 24, 2016 father entered Sierra Center. Sierra Center is a work release program and a reentry program. Father was unsuccessfully discharged from the Sierra program as he escaped on December 30, 2016. An absconder warrant was issued for father in January 2017.

Wendy Jones supervised father on parole from June 30, 2017 until August 30, 2017. Ms. Jones was a parole officer at the Isaiah Halfway House. Some of the conditions by which father had to abide at the halfway house were to have no contact with his victims or co-defendants and to limit his alcohol use. On August 30, 2017 father absconded from the Isaiah House. He turned himself in on September 28, 2017.

While a resident at the Isaiah House father signed up for workplace training. He also worked for a temporary employment service and attended church regularly. He participated in group sessions designed to help offenders reintegrate into the community. Father’s risk areas were identified as recidivism, criminal history, education and employment. He was an active participant in vocational groups. He engaged in computer class work and completed five orientation groups.

Father is participating in the Fathers for Life program. Some of the group discussions focus on family history, men’s health, discipline and co-parenting. Father is an active participant. He completed the six-week program successfully. He has been attending the program since July 2008. Currently he attends once a week and has gained insight into parenting. He attended a 12-week program on his own. He completed the program and continues attending. He started working at the Dollar Store in August 2018. He has maintained that employment.

From November 3, 2017 until May 2018 Safeway Family Services supervised visitation between father and E.H. Father received two visits per week at two hours per visit. Father did not have his own transportation. Sometimes he would walk to the visits. Sometimes he would take the bus. He missed 22 or 23 visits. During the visits, however, father positively interacted with E.H.

In 2018, father participated in the Connecticut Renaissance outpatient substance abuse program. He missed his first appointment and second appointments. He canceled the third appointment. Father finally kept an appointment on July 16. He was referred for treatment on July 18. He did not attend more sessions and was discharged on August 22, 2018. The program had been unable to reach father as of October 2, 2018.

On the eve of trial father accelerated his efforts to rehabilitate. He completed the baseline assessment with Connecticut Renaissance on October 15, 2018. Since that time, his instant urine screens tested negative for all substances. Father participates in the recovery skills group at the Connecticut Renaissance. The skills group examines coping skills, explores triggers and addresses goal setting. Father is an active participant in groups. He provides feedback and finds the groups helpful. He is employed at the Dollar Tree retail store as a cashier and a stock person. He is looking for better employment in order to secure better housing. He recently had an interview with United Postal Service and Shake Shack. He has also attended a job fair in Stratford. He attends Narcotics Anonymous and is getting assistance for stable housing. He has no pending charges and is not on probation or parole. He has not, however, allowed DCF to assess his current living arrangement. He believes the arrangement would not be appropriate for children. He testified that as of the date of trial, he is not in a position to take any of the children to his residence. The department has assessed the home of the paternal grandmother for A.H.’s placement.

Mother

Mother is 29 years old. Mother was in DCF custody as a child because of her mother’s heroin addiction. Mother graduated from high school and attended the ITT technical Institute for business management for a short period of time, but did not complete the degree. Mother’s parental rights were terminated as to two other children. Mother gave birth to E.H. while incarcerated at York Correctional Institution. E.H. was removed from mother’s care on April 14, 2016 and remains in foster care.

Mother has a lengthy history of mental health problems. She has received mental health and psychiatric services throughout her life. Mother has had several mental health diagnoses including depression; posttraumatic stress disorder; and personality disorder: narcissistic and borderline. She has been previously described as impulsive, reactive, having aggressive outbursts, as well as experiencing self-injurious behaviors and suicidal behaviors. She has also had a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder not otherwise specified, schizophrenia, PTSD, depression, anxiety and multiple personality disorders. Mother has an extensive history of trauma. She has been physically, emotionally and sexually abused. She has had numerous placements in foster care, psychiatric hospitals, and group homes. Mother has a substance abuse history involving marijuana and PCP. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from substance abuse treatment on June 9, 2017. She has not been in treatment since May 12, 2017. Mother has received Social Security and state benefits throughout her life.

Mother is serving a sentence at the York Correctional Institution. She began her sentence on March 5, 2018. Prior to incarceration mother’s whereabouts were unknown. She was transient. She was not in contact with DCF and had not engaged in any services. She was not visiting with her daughter, E.H. On May 23, 2018 mother gave birth to her youngest daughter, A.H. The court entered an order of temporary custody. The department placed the child in a DCF licensed foster home. Mother was sentenced on May 2, 2018. Her maximum release date is February 2, 2021. While incarcerated mother is not receiving services. However, she is prescribed medication for sleep. A.H. is transported to the institution for weekly visits. E.H. visits mother monthly.

Psychological Evaluations

Dr. M. Deborah Gruen conducted psychological evaluations on October 31 and November 4, 2016. Dr. Gruen concluded that mother has endured severe emotional trauma and physical abuse for most of her life. She writes:

Apparently [mother] has been inconsistent in taking her medication over the years, in part, due to her pregnancies. However, it is essential that she continue psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy, at a minimum of once a week. [Mother] might be a candidate for eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy to address her trauma history and dialectical behavior therapy DBT to help regulate [mother’s] emotional instability.

[Mother] may have started parenting skills training, however, it is recommended that she participate in more than one educational experience related to child development, [sic] and parenting methods.

[Father’s] passive, and pleasant nature seems to have kept them under the radar in recognizing that he is depressed, and very worried about himself and his future. His low self-esteem and tendency to harbor feelings of rejection and anger suggests he could benefit from individual psychotherapy. His psychotherapist can determine if he should be evaluated for medication to treat his depression.

[Father] should participate in extensive parenting skills training. He has rigid expectations for how children should behave. It is recommended that [father] learn about normal child development and appropriate parenting methods.

[Mother and father] have strong attachments to E.H. E.H., a seemingly easy-going baby, appears comfortable with both parents. Both parents are also bonded to the legal system. Parenting ... requires providing consistent nurturance, structure, monitoring, communication, discipline, instruction, sensitivity, the ability to be child centered and knowledge of child development.

Both parents may have the capacity to provide these essential elements for raising E.H. However, [mother and father] have not, as of yet, developed their own stability in life. In addition to being bound to the legal system, they have significant mental health issues, and very recently have made unhealthy choices in the way they have conducted their lives.

[Mother and father] would be able to achieve reunification if they are first able to recognize and accept their current status and then work hard to stabilize their own lives before expecting to parent E.H. alone. They must complete their legal obligations, participate, wholeheartedly, in the recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment plans, immerse themselves in learning about child development and healthy parenting skills, find housing, employment, and remain drug-free.

[Mother and Father] have a basic understanding of the E.H.’s needs and they seem dedicated to providing loving and healthy parenting for their daughter. They are young, and have much to learn about child development and parenting. It is recommended that they participate in parenting skills classes as well as their own mental health and treatment. Both parents could benefit from receiving feedback in how they respond to EH while they are with her. If there is a parent-child group in the child protection community, that would be an ideal setting for this purpose.

The parents’ reunification with E.H. is premature. First, mother and father must acknowledge and accept their current status, and the need to stabilize their own lives before the reunification process begins. Based on the extent of time needed to meet the goals described above, it is not realistic to expect that the reunification process begins before next summer when the legal obligations may be completed. It is also essential that substantial progress be made in their mental health treatment programs, and that they had consistently participated in child development and skills classes. Furthermore, the parent should have established adequate housing, employment, and maintain the drug-free lifestyle.

Dr. Gruen’s diagnostic impression of mother is Bipolar II Disorder; Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Borderline Personality Traits and Substance Use Disorder-cannabis in early remission. Dr. Gruen’s diagnostic impression of father is Avoidant Personality Disorder with Depressive Features, Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Traits, Substance Use Disorder— cannabis in early remission.

Mother has difficulty functioning emotionally. The bipolar disorder manifests itself through vacillating moods, emotional dysregulation, impulsivity and poor judgment. Mother also suffers from dissociative disorder, where she loses contact with herself, not knowing who she is or where she is. Father’s avoidant personality disorder renders him passive in relationships. The disorder has dependent features because of insecurities, sadness and anxiety. He has an obsessive compulsive trait. It manifests itself in wanting to be in control, compulsive drinking and inflexible thinking. He also has poor self-esteem.

The child has been in foster care since April 2016. The child was adjudicated neglected in May 2017 and committed to the Department of Children and Families. Visits began with mother and father in April 2016. During visits between April and June, mother would play music, lie down with the child, feed the child and change her diaper. She referred to the child by pet names. The social worker case aide supervising the visits had no concerns. Father’s visits began in September 2016. There were no concerns with his interaction with E.H.

From December 2016 until May 2017 father’s whereabouts were unknown. In May father was taken into custody. Mother was whereabouts unknown from July 2017 until March 2018. During that time Mother did not contact the department. In March 2017 mother was incarcerated.

The visits in 2017 were in the community. The child’s interaction with mother and father did not differ from the interaction the child had with the foster parents. The child is bonded to the foster parents. The child is comfortable with mother and father during visits.

Mother’s parental rights to two other children were terminated. Mother was incarcerated, when she gave birth to A.H. and E.H. Only during October 2018 did father begin to comply with substance abuse and mental health treatment. Father has a history of transiency and does not allow the department to see the home where he lives. He has not been involved with the criminal justice system since October 2017.

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW

"Long-term stability is critical to a child’s future health and development." In re Anthony H. , 104 Conn.App. 744, 767 (2007). Our legislature has deemed necessary the early permanency of children through reunification, foster placement or termination of parental rights and adoption. C.G.S. § 17a-110 et seq. "A child or youth may be found neglected who, for reasons other than being impoverished, (A) has been abandoned, (B) is being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, (C) is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to the well-being of the child ..." Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-120(6).

"The Superior Court ... may grant a [termination of parental rights] petition pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent ... unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts ... (2) termination is in the best interests of the child, and (3)(A) the child has been abandoned in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child; (B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least 15 months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child ..." C.G.S. § 17a-112(j). "In determining whether the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify a parent and a child or whether there is sufficient evidence that a parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, the court is required in the adjudicatory phase to make its assessment on the basis of events preceding the date on which the termination petition was filed." In re Kylik A. , 153 Conn.App. 584, 596 (2014) "Personal rehabilitation ... refers to the restoration of the parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent [and] requires the trial court to analyze the parent’s [rehabilitative] status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time." In re Anthony H. , 104 Conn.App. 744, 757 (2007) (citations omitted, internal quotation marks omitted). "[I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved her ability to manage [her] own life, but the particular needs of the child [or children] ..." In re Adriana C. , 153 Conn.App. 683, 688 (2014).

The standard of proof which applies in a decision to terminate parental rights is clear and convincing evidence. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j). "The burden [of proof] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist." Chernick v. Johnston, 100 Conn.App. 276, 280 (2007) citing Notopoulos v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 277 Conn. 218, 226 (2006).

"The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ..." In re Anna Lee M. et al. , 104 Conn.App. 121, 137-38 (2007). "In the adjudicatory phase ... the court must decide whether there is clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for the termination of parental rights exists." In re Stanley D. , 61 Conn.App. 224, 229-30 (2000) (italics omitted). "[T]he court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child’s life within a reasonable time." Id . at 230. "If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists [by clear and convincing evidence] it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent’s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. In arriving at this decision the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [C.G.S.] § 17a-112(k)." In re Ryan R. , 102 Conn.App. 608, 626-27 (2007).

V. ANALYSIS

Mother is serving a prison sentence. She began her sentence on March 5, 2018. Her maximum discharge date is February 2, 2021. Prior to incarceration, mother’s whereabouts were unknown. She was transient. She was not in contact with DCF and had not engaged in any services. Mother gave birth to A.H. while imprisoned. The department placed the child in a DCF licensed foster home. While incarcerated mother is not receiving services. Mother has a long history of emotional trauma and physical abuse. Historically she has been inconsistent and maintaining her medication regimen. Mother has had several mental health diagnoses including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and multiple personality disorders. She has a substance abuse history involving marijuana and PCP. She was unsuccessfully discharged from a substance abuse treatment program in June 2017. She has not been in treatment since May 2017.

Father has taken strong strides towards rehabilitation. He attends a parenting program that focuses on family history, men’s health, discipline and co-parenting. He maintains employment. He visits A.H. and E.H. regularly. Father has had recent interviews for better jobs. He attends Narcotics Anonymous. He has no pending criminal charges and is not on probation or parole.

Father’s efforts towards rehabilitation appear sincere, but are newly found. Since 2008 father has pled guilty to two counts of Robbery in the second degree. He also was found in violation of his probation. In April 2016 father was violated on parole and incarcerated at Bridgeport Correctional Center. After re-incarceration for violating parole, father entered the Sierra Center, a work release and reentry program. He absconded from the program in December 2016.

In 2018, father participated in the Connecticut Renaissance outpatient substance abuse program. He missed his first and second appointment and cancelled the third appointment. After he was referred for treatment on July 18, 2018 he did not attend any more sessions. He was discharged on August 22, 2018. The program had been unable to reach father as of October 2, 2018.

On the eve of trial, father accelerated his efforts to rehabilitate. He completed the baseline assessment at Connecticut Renaissance on October 15. Since that time, his instant urine screens have tested negative for all substances. He participates in the recovery skills group. However, father has been unable to secure adequate housing for himself and for his children. lie admits that his current living arrangement is not appropriate for children. He has not allowed DCF to assess his current living arrangement.

Mother and father have not stabilized their own lives. Mother is in deep need of psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy to help regulate her emotional instability. Mother suffers from disassociative disorder where she loses contact with herself, not knowing who she is or where she is. Two of her older children have been terminated from her care. Mother has not gained control over her substance use. Mother’s whereabouts were unknown from July 2017 until March 2018. Father was whereabouts unknown from December 2016 until May 2017. The court finds the following proven by clear and convincing evidence.

The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent . C.G.S. § 17a-112(k)(1).

The department has offered appropriate services to mother and father in a timely fashion to facilitate reunification. Mother has been unwilling or is unable to benefit from services. Father’s participation in services has come at too late of an hour.

Whether the department has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended . C.G.S. § 17a-112(k)(2).

The department has made reasonable efforts to reunite father and mother with E.H.

The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order . C.G.S. § 17a-112(k)(3).

Mother has not followed court orders. Father’s compliance with court orders has accelerated, but not enough for E.H. to be in his care.

The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child’s parents, any guardian of such child’s person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties . C.G.S. § 17a-112(k)(4).

E.H. shows affection to both parents but is bonded to current caregivers.

The age of the child . C.G.S.§ 17a-112(k)(5).

E.H. is 3 years old.

The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent’s circumstances, conduct or conditions that make it in the best interests of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future including but not limited to the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of the effort to reunite the child with the parent provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions or maintenance of communications with the guardian or other custodian of the child. C.G.S.§ 112(k)(6).

Mother has made few efforts to adjust her circumstances, conduct or conditions, and has made insufficient efforts to care for E.H.’s social, educational, emotional and medical needs. Father has made good efforts, but is not sufficiently stable to care for E.H. or provide for her social, educational, emotional and medical needs at this time.

The extent to which the 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 by the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent . C.G.S. § 17a-112(k)(7).

No other person has prevented mother and father from maintaining a meaningful relationship with E.H. Their economic circumstances have not prevented them from attempting to establish a bond with E.H.

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that A.H. has been denied proper care and attention physically and emotionally. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department has made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify mother and father with E.H. in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b. Mother and father have been provided specific steps to facilitate the return of the child pursuant to section 46b-129 and have 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, they could assume a responsible position in the child’s life. The department has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan of termination of parental rights.

VII. JUDGMENT

A.H. is committed to the Department of Children and Families until further order of the court. The permanency plan calling for termination of parental rights is in the best interest of E.H. and is approved. Mother’s and father’s parental rights are terminated concerning EH.

---------

Notes:

"Except in the case where termination is based on consent, in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall consider and shall make written findings regarding: (1) The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent; (2) whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended; (3) the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligation under such order; (4) the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child’s parents, any guardian of such child’s person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties; (5) the age of the child; (6) the efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent’s circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child; and (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." C.G.S. § 17a-112(k).

---------