In re DqM

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

In re DqM, a child under the age of eighteen years¹

Superior Court of Connecticut

Judicial District of Middlesex

Child Protection Session at Middletown

June 4, 2004

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

RUBINOW, JUDGE.

This memorandum of decision addresses a petition brought to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of DaM and AnN, the biological parents of DqM, born June 10, 1999. The Department of Children and Families (DCF or department) filed the TPR petition at issue on November 27, 2003, alleging that each respondent had failed to achieve statutory rehabilitation; the petition also alleged that AnN had abandoned DqM, and that no ongoing father-son relationship was in existence. For the reasons stated below, the court finds these issues in favor of the petitioner, and terminates both respondents' parental rights.

Trial of this highly-contested matter took place on October 20 and 21, 2003, and on February 5, 2004. The petitioner, the child and DaM were vigorously represented throughout the proceedings.² Those parties submitted detailed, thorough and well-researched briefs which were of great assistance to the court in resolving the legal and factual issues suggested by the wide-ranging evidence in this case. AnN did not participate in the TPR trial.³

The Child Protection Session of the Superior Court, Juvenile Matters, has jurisdiction over the pending case. Notice has been provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book. No action is pending in any other court affecting DqM's custody.

I. FACTUAL FINDINGS

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the verified petitions, the TPR social study,⁴ and the multiple other documents submitted in evidence which included: court documents; DCF records; a resume; psychological reports; providers' records; a physician's affidavit; and a certificate of completion. The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering this evidence and the testimony of the numerous trial witnesses,⁵ who included: a clinical psychologist; a preschool intervention program coordinator; DCF social workers; and the child's foster mother.⁶ The court also received a report from DqM's GAL, who was subject to cross examination. In re Tayquon H., 76 Conn.App. 693, 705-06, 821 A.2d 796 (2003). Upon deliberation, the court finds that the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence at trial.⁷

I.A. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

DaM was born on March 1, 1984. Now a high school graduate, DaM received special education services along with DCF's support in reaching this goal. DaM has worked at a fast food restaurant, at a local music theater, as a receptionist and child-care worker at her church, and as a part-time teaching assistant. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of ToM.)

When she was in her early teens, DaM commenced a relationship with AnN. Their child DqM was born on June 10, 1999, about three months following DaM's fifteenth birthday. DaM's involvement with AnN ended when the child was several months old, leaving the respondent mother to care for DqM alone.⁸ (Exhibit 12.)

DqM came to DCF's attention on March 10, 2000, upon a referral from the local hospital where DaM had taken the baby for treatment of his asthma. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of LaB.) DCF soon received additional reports from DaM's family indicating concerns for the respondent mother's oppositional behavior, lack of care for the child, financial needs and relative homelessness.⁹ Upon investigation, DCF found that the room in which DaM lived with her son was unkempt and unsanitary due to the presence of dirty diapers "covering the floor and filling the dresser." (Exhibit 3.) On March 12, 2000, when a family member reported that DaM was unable or unwilling to administer her child's asthma medication, DCF executed a 96-hour hold and took custody of DqM. (Exhibit 3.)

On March 15, 2000, the court (Swienton, J.) issued an ex parte Order Of Temporary Custody (OTC), finding that in placement with his mother, DqM was "in immediate physical danger from [his] surroundings." (Exhibit 4.) On that date DCF also filed a neglect and uncared for petition, alleging that DqM was being "denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally; . . . being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to [his] well-being, and/or that his home cannot provide the specialized care which [his] physical, emotional or mental condition . . . requires."¹⁰ (Exhibit 6.)

I.B. EVENTS FOLLOWING THE OTC AND NEGLECT PETITION OF MARCH 15, 2000

On March 24, 2000, the court (Keller, J.) sustained the OTC and imposed specific steps upon DaM.¹¹ Among other things, these steps required DaM to make progress in achieving basic parenting skills; to become educated about her child's special medical conditions; to cooperate with therapy as to the child's medical needs; to demonstrate appropriate behavior toward the child during visits; to cooperate with the process of identifying the child's father; to work with the foster family and Birth to Three services.¹² As a minor, DaM still required stable housing for herself; her temporary custody was assigned to JeC, a maternal uncle, by the local Probate Court. Accordingly, the steps also ordered DCF to explore independent living for DaM, while facilitating visitation, expediting training so DaM could care for her son's asthma, and implementing the steps including visitation. (Exhibits 3, 9, 10.)

On July 5, 2000, both DaM and DqM evaluations by Nancy Randall, Psy.D., as ordered by the Juvenile Court.¹³ (Exhibit 12.) At the time, Dr. Randall determined that although DaM's "intellectual functioning falls within the range of mental retardation, adaptive behavior scales do not indicate that she would be appropriately diagnosed as mentally retarded." (Emphasis added.) (Exhibit 12; see also Exhibit 13.) Dr. Randall then proposed that despite her cognitive limitations, DaM could respond well to counseling and hands-on, supervised parenting education, learning "to do things in new ways" and thereby meeting young DqM's needs. (Exhibit 12.)

On July 25, 2000, in response to Dr. Randall's recommendations, DCF referred DaM to the eight-week parenting class offered through the PIP program (Preschool Intervention Program) sponsored by CREC, a regional council providing specialized educational services. At this time, DCF also referred DaM to CREC's parent aide services. (Exhibit AA.) On August 28, 2000, DCF referred DaM for individual counseling at IOL, a local, specialized mental health treatment center. However, DaM refused the opportunity to participate in therapy at the IOL. (Exhibit 3.)

On October 30, 2000, upon DaM's no contest plea, the court (Keller, J.) adjudicated DqM to be an uncared-for child with specialized needs. The court imposed a second set of specific steps upon DaM. Largely reiterating the March 2000 steps, the court newly ordered DaM to participate in individual counseling at her high school; accept parent aide services; undergo substance abuse testing and receive services from the ADRC; work with the PIP program; and remain in residence with JeC. The court further designated a specific visitation schedule with which both the respondent mother and DCF were to comply. As to DCF, the court ordered the agency to "advise mother of child's medical, well child and other appointments to allow her to participate . . . [and] provide all counsel with copies of PIP reports . . ." (Exhibit 11.)

I.C. EVENTS AFTER THE UNCARED-FOR ADJUDICATION OF OCTOBER 30, 2000

On December 12, 2000, KlFC began extending family reunification services to DaM, while she was living with and receiving the support of JeC and his family.¹⁴ After a month of KlFC's preparatory services, DqM was returned to DaM's care, at JeC's home, on January 19, 2001. However, the mother-child reunification was short lived.

On February 9, 2001, DqM again required hospital care for treatment of his asthma, fever, and vomiting. Although a follow-up medical appointment was made to ensure the child's continued good health after discharge from the hospital, DaM failed to bring DqM in for care as scheduled. (Exhibit 3.) In addition, by late February 2001, when DaM was nearing her seventeenth birthday, JeC reported that he was no longer able to meet the respondent mother's needs. As this maternal uncle was unwilling to provide a home for her or DqM, and without other resources, mother and child became homeless. After having spent one month under DaM's supervision, DqM was returned to DCF foster care on February 21, 2001, so that an appropriate caretaking living environment could be secured for him. KlFC's family reunification services for DaM were then suspended. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of ToM.)

DaM herself entered DCF foster care in March 2001, when the department submitted a neglect and uncared for petition along with an OTC. On March 27, 2001, DaM was committed to the care and custody of the department. In foster care, DaM continued to have issues with hygiene, enuresis and oppositional behavior. (Exhibit 3, 9.)

On March 8, 2001, DaM began receiving parenting instruction and support services from a CREC-trained parent aide. The parent aide services continued while DaM was in foster care; she successfully completed the program on July 12, 2001. (Exhibits 8, AA; Testimony of LaB.)

On May 11, 2001, at DCF's referral DaM underwent a multi-disciplinary evaluation at a local children's hospital. Consistent with the psychological conclusions reached by Dr. Randall, the hospital team found that DaM demonstrated anger and low tolerance for frustration. Although the team and the psychologist at DaM's school recommended long-term counseling to help her develop social skills, the respondent mother refused to participate in such therapy. (Exhibit 3.)

After many months, DaM finally agreed to attend individual counseling. On January 4, 2002, DCF referred her to CFS for this...