In re Brian P.

195 Conn.App. 558

226 A.3d 159

IN RE BRIAN P.^*

AC 43032

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued December 10, 2019

Officially released February 6, 2020^**

Benjamin M. Wattenmaker, for the appellants (respondents).

Sara Nadim, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

James W. Auwood, for the minor child.

DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Moll, Js.

ALVORD, J.

As the trial court aptly observed, " ‘[t]his is another sad case involving opiates and their invidious harm to parents’ lives and families." The respondents, Jennifer L. (mother) and Brian P. (father), appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating their parental rights with respect to the minor child, Brian P.¹ On appeal, the respondents claim that the court improperly (1) found that they had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, (2) failed to determine the needs of Brian P. before deciding whether they had failed to rehabilitate, and (3) found that termination of their parental rights was in the best interest of Brian P.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, which the court found by clear and convincing evidence, and procedural history, are relevant to this appeal. Brian P. was born to the respondents in February, 2016. The respondents have been in a relationship with one another since 2012, and were engaged to be married at the time of Brian P.'s birth. Prior to Brian P.'s birth, the father, a college graduate with honors, decided against pursuing graduate school to work, instead, full-time at a casino restaurant in New London county. The father's career initially was finan-cially rewarding, enabling the respondents to purchase a home in Rhode Island, two cars, and an engagement ring for the mother. The father's employment also provided him with access to illicit drugs, a feature of what he labelled "the casino lifestyle."' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The father began with what he described as recreational use of opiates, which led to an addiction. The mother also became addicted to opiates. The respondents' addictions caused them to lose their home, a car, and the mother's engagement ring. Together, they moved into the paternal grandmother's home while the father continued to work in casino restaurants. Neither of the respondents sought treatment for their addictions prior to Brian P.'s birth.

During her pregnancy with Brian P., the mother tested positive for benzodiazepines, opiates, and marijuana. Upon his birth, Brian P.'s meconium tested positive for opiates, but no symptoms of withdrawal were noted. The Department of Children and Families (department) became involved on the day following Brian P.'s birth. The mother admitted her addiction to the department, but the respondents did not admit to the department that the father had substance abuse issues as well. The department, the respondents, and the paternal grandmother, collectively, entered into a voluntary service agreement. All parties agreed that Brian P. would remain in the respondents' custody while they resided at the paternal grandmother's home, that the mother was not permitted to have any unsupervised contact with Brian P., and that the mother would participate in substance abuse treatment and counseling. No treatment was recommended for the father because, at that time, he had not admitted to having any substance abuse issues.

The mother's participation in substance abuse treatment was minimal and, after September, 2016, she received no counseling and refused all urine screens. On January 18, 2017, the department filed a neglect petition on behalf of Brian P. The respondents appeared in court on February 21, 2017, where they were advised of their rights and appointed counsel. Following their court appearance, between March and April, 2017, the respondents had no contact with the department. On April 25, 2017, the respondents entered pleas of nolo contendere, and Brian P. was adjudicated neglected. For the next six months, Brian P. remained in the respondents' custody under court-ordered protective supervision. The respondents were given specific steps to follow, including, inter alia, "that they engage in a substance abuse evaluation, cooperate with any recommended treatment, obtain and maintain sobriety, obey the law, maintain an adequate income, and, in the mother's case, cooperate with counseling."

Between May and early June, 2017, the respondents were unresponsive to the overtures of the department. On June 9, 2017,³ Brian P.'s disposition was modified, and he was committed to the custody of the petitioner. Brian P. has been in the care and custody of the petitioner since then, living in the home of a nonrelative. The respondents consistently and appropriately have visited with Brian P. since his commitment to the custody of the petitioner. On June 14, 2017, the father admitted to the department and his family that he had been addicted to opiates for three years. At this time, the respondents' specific steps for reunification remained as set.

The mother was referred to the Connection Counselling Center (CCC) for regular, individual counseling in February, 2017. The mother failed to attend her intake appointment scheduled for March 7, 2017, and never engaged in counseling at CCC. The department unsuccessfully encouraged the mother to engage in individual counseling between August, 2017 and January, 2018. On January 19, 2018, the department referred the mother to Sound Community Services (SCS) for counseling. The mother did not schedule an intake appointment until February 27, 2018, and she failed to appear at the March 6, 2018 appointment that she had scheduled.

The mother did engage in limited treatment at The Journey to Hope, Health and Healing, Inc. (The Journey) in Rhode Island. The mother's therapist at The Journey provided a letter that reported that the mother was open and honest and committed to recovery, but the letter did not indicate that the mother was addressing any of her underlying mental health concerns, that she had made substantial progress in recovery or that she was in long-term or permanent remission. Between June 26, 2017 and February 19, 2018, the mother submitted to twenty-eight urine screens at The Journey. Ten tested positive for illicit substances, including six for the opiate fentanyl.

From August, 2017 to January, 2018, the department recommended to the father, as it had to the mother, that he attend regular, individual counseling. The father agreed with the department's recommendation and was provided with referrals to area providers, but he did not schedule an intake appointment. On January 19, 2018, the department referred the father to SCS for counseling. The father, like the mother, did not schedule an appointment until February 27, 2018, and failed to appear at his appointment scheduled for March 6, 2018.

The father eventually began individual counseling on May 22, 2018. The father's therapist, Timothy Cormier, testified at trial that the father was making great progress on his substance abuse issues and that he was testing negative for drugs. The father reported to Cormier that he was overcoming his cravings. The father, however, misrepresented to Cormier that that he was working as a waiter. In actuality, in November, 2017, the father had been terminated from his restaurant employment due to substance abuse issues. After his firing, the father began working at another casino restaurant where he remained until he voluntarily left that employment in June, 2018. The father insisted that he could return to his previous employer if he so wished, but his employer testified that, while he would readily consider hiring the father again, there was no guarantee of employment. The father's employer provided a positive review of the father's work skills and motivation.

Between June 19, 2017 and February 23, 2018,⁴ the father submitted to thirty-one drug screens. Sixteen of those screens were positive for illicit substances, including many for fentanyl. The father had multiple negative drug tests after he began individual counseling in May, 2018. The father, however, did test positive for marijuana in an August, 2018 drug screen. When explaining the positive drug test, the father claimed that he had last used marijuana in late April or on May 1, 2018. The father's own expert, however, cast doubt on that claim by opining that, on the basis of the hair test, the father had last ingested marijuana no earlier than late June, 2018.

On September 25, 2017, the mother was arrested and charged with possession of heroin after a police officer in an unmarked police vehicle observed her engaging in a drug transaction in a commercial parking lot. The mother told police that she was buying the drugs for the father. The drugs purchased by the mother tested positive for fentanyl. As a resolution to the charges, the mother was given an opportunity to participate in a diversionary program by the criminal court, but, as of the date of trial on the termination petition, she had not satisfied her obligations under that program. The respondents did not tell the department about the mother's arrest. The department learned of it through a routine criminal background check in February, 2018. When the department approached the mother about the arrest, she acknowledged it but misrepresented the facts of the arrest in an effort to minimize its nature.

On March 29, 2018, the respondents were stopped by the police while driving the mother's car in Rhode Island because the father was not wearing a seatbelt. The respondents consented to a search of the vehicle, which led to the discovery of marijuana and prescription medicine for which neither of the respondents possessed a prescription. Narcotics also were discovered...