In re Constance W.

In re Constance W. ^[1] In re Jahage W

Nos. H12CP1315274A, H12CP1315275A

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Middlesex, Middletown, Child Protection Session

August 23, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Marcia J. Gleeson, J.

This case presents petitions by the Department of Children and Families (DCF, or the department) asking that the parental rights of the respondent Mother, Jasmine W., (Mother) and the respondent Father, John H., (Father John), the biological parents of Constance W. (Constance or " the child") be terminated, and that the parental rights of the respondent Mother, Jasmine W., (Mother) and the respondent Father Stephen B., (Father Stephen), the biological parents of Jahage W. (Jahage or " the child") be terminated.

The respondent parents opposed the petitions. The statutory grounds alleged in the petition against the respondent Mother as to Constance are that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time considering the child's age and needs, she could assume a responsible position in her life, and acts of commission and/or omission. The statutory grounds alleged in the petition against the respondent Father John are that Constance has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Father has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering her age and needs, he could assume a responsible position in her life. The statutory ground alleged in the petition against the respondent Mother as to Jahage is that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time considering the child's age and needs, she could assume a responsible position in his life. The remaining statutory grounds alleged in the petition against the respondent Father Stephen are that Jahage has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Father has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering his age and needs, he could assume a responsible position in his life and abandonment. A third ground, no parent child relationship, was not pursued at trial as stated on the record by the department on April 18, 2016, and accordingly is dismissed.

The matter was tried to the court on January 25, 26, 27, and 28 2016 and April 18 and 20, 2016. The respondent Mother was present and was represented at trial by counsel. Also present were attorneys for DCF and the children. Respondent Father John was not present but was represented at trial by counsel. Respondent Father Stephen was present and was represented at trial by counsel. The petitioner called nine witnesses and introduced thirty-one exhibits. Mother called two witnesses, and introduced eleven exhibits. Father John called no witnesses and introduced no exhibits. Father Stephen testified on his own behalf, called one additional witness and introduced three exhibits. The child's attorney called no witnesses and introduced no exhibits.

The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction of the matter and that there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor children. There are no claims of Indian tribal affiliation. The court has carefully considered the petition, all of the evidence and testimony presented, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, ^[2] according to the standards required by law. On the basis of the evidence presented and for the reasons stated below, the court terminates the parental rights of all parents as to both children.

I FACTS

Having weighed all of the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the following relevant facts to have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.^[3]

A Procedural History and Preliminary Facts

On October 18, 2013, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on behalf of Constance and Jahage.

On October 22, 2013, DCF filed neglect petitions, and an order of temporary custody (OTC) was granted on behalf of both children. On November 1, 2013, the OTC was sustained by agreement. On June 12, 2014, both children were adjudicated as neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF by the court, Burgdorff, J., after a trial, and the court ordered final specific steps for the respondent parents.

On September 4, 2014, the court, Dannehy, J, approved the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption as to both fathers. On September 23, 2014 the court Lobo, J., approved the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption as to the mother after a contested hearing. On November 24, 2014, DCF filed petitions to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of both parents as to each child. The respondent parents were properly served. Mother and Father Stephen appeared in court and were appointed counsel; Father John failed to appear and was thereafter defaulted by the court, Lobo, J., on March 9 2015. On July 16, 2015, the court, Dannehy, J., approved the permanency plan of TPR and adoption. On July 16, 2015, Father John filed a motion to open default. Father John did not attend the hearing on the motion to open default on August 27, 2015, and on that date the motion was denied by the court, Rubinow, J. On October 9, 2015, Father John did attend a hearing during which his Motion to Reconsider Reopening the Default was granted by the court, Gleeson, J., and thereafter the matter proceeded to trial as above.

John H., the Father of Constance

Father John was born in New Haven, Connecticut on December 20, 1977. He resided in Connecticut with his mother and two older sisters, and visited with his father on Sundays. He has a history with the department as a child participant. After graduating from high school in 1998, John was arrested and charged with criminal trespass in the first degree, pled to a substituted charge of interfering/resisting arrest, and was sentenced to one year in jail, execution suspended, and eighteen months probation. Thereafter, he moved to North Carolina, where he lived with his sister's family for several years until moving to Maryland to live with an aunt. While in Maryland he moved in with Aneisha H., who became pregnant with his child. During the pregnancy, when Father was fired from his job as a warehouse worker and the couple lost their apartment, Aneisha moved in with her mother, and John lived in his car. After his daughter Kayla was born in 2004, he returned to Connecticut to move in with his mother and lost contact with Aneisha.

Father John met Mother during the winter of 2005-2006 and moved in with her almost immediately. Mother became pregnant with Constance shortly thereafter, but Father decided to move to North Carolina to live with his sister again, and Jasmine moved in with her mother. About a month after Constance was born, Father John visited for a short time and then returned to North Carolina. After about a year, John returned to Connecticut and again moved in with his mother. When Jasmine contacted him again and told him she was moving into a Section 8 apartment in Waterbury, Father moved in with Jasmine and Constance. Father moved out after several months reportedly after Jasmine assaulted him without provocation. Father had concerns about Mother's mental health, and although Father felt that Constance would not be safe with Jasmine, it did not occur to him to do anything to protect his daughter. Thereafter, he occasionally communicated with Mother electronically or by telephone, but had only limited contact with Constance and was not really involved in Constance's life. Father John also has a third daughter, Kiana, who is two years younger than Constance, and at last report, resided with her mother in New Haven.

In addition to the conviction discussed above, Father John's criminal record prior to Constance's removal included an arrest for operating under suspension in 2006, for which his bond was forfeited; an arrest for possession of narcotics, in August 2009, to which he pled to a substituted charge of possession of drugs and was sentenced to one year in jail, execution suspended, and two years probation; and possession of drugs in September 2009, for which his sentence was an unconditional discharge.

In 2010, Father successfully completed a substance abuse program required by the criminal court to address his alcohol abuse.

At the time of the OTC in October 2013, Father John had not seen Constance in nine months.

After Constance's removal, Father completed a seven-week parenting program at New Haven Family Alliance in December 2013, but as it was unclear as to whether Father had benefitted from the program, his program case manager recommended that Father attend an aftercare fatherhood support group. Father failed to consistently attend the support group.

After testing positive for marijuana on multiple occasions, Father John completed a twelve-week early intervention substance abuse program at The Connection in New Haven and was successfully discharged from the program in May 2014. Because of Father's long history of use, the department recommended that Father engage in random urine screens, but he did not make himself available for such screening.

The department also arranged for Father John to have weekly supervised visitation with Constance in the community alternating between New Haven and Hartford. Under this arrangement, Constance would be transported by a social worker to New Haven to father's...