In re Emily S.

210 Conn.App. 581

270 A.3d 797

IN RE EMILY S.^*

AC 44791

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 3, 2022

Officially released February 9, 2022^**

Albert J. Oneto IV, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent father).

Evan O'Roark, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Cynthia Mahon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

Alvord, Cradle and Lavine, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent father, Damon F. (respondent), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Emily S. (child), pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j). On appeal, the respondent claims that, in terminating his parental rights, the trial court improperly found that the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his child and that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The child was born on August 5, 2018, and her mother left the hospital and the child that same day without providing any information as to the identity of the child's father. At the time the child was born, she was premature and tested positive for cocaine and opiates, and she was placed in the neonatal intensive care unit of the hospital. On August 16, 2018, the commissioner filed an ex parte motion for order of temporary custody of the child and coterminous neglect and termination of parental rights petitions as to the child's mother and John Doe, as the father.¹ The ex parte motion for order of temporary custody was granted on that same day. After the child was discharged from the hospital, she was placed in a preadoptive home, where she has remained.

After investigating and eliminating other putative fathers, the department contacted the respondent, who was incarcerated in New Hampshire at the time. On September 12, 2019, the commissioner filed amended coterminous petitions for neglect and termination of parental rights, naming the respondent as the child's father. The respondent submitted to a paternity test, and, on October 28, 2019, a finding of paternity entered identifying the respondent as the child's father. The respondent thereafter was appointed counsel.

The respondent did not contest the earlier neglect determination and the matter proceeded to trial on the amended petition to terminate his parental rights on February 8, 2021. The amended petition alleged abandonment and the absence of an ongoing parent-child relationship as the statutory grounds for termination.

By way of a memorandum of decision filed on April 22, 2021, the court granted the petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent. The court found, "by clear and convincing evidence, that the department made reasonable efforts to locate [the respondent], that [the respondent] was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship as defined by ... § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D), and that to allow further time for the establishment of such a relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child." The court further found that the termination of the respondent's parental rights and the permanency plan proposed by the petitioner, which provided for the child's adoption following termination, was in her best interest. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the respondent claims that, in terminating his parental rights, the trial court improperly found that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his child and that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services.

Section 17a-112 (j) provides in relevant part: "The Superior Court ... may grant a petition filed 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 in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts ...."

"[W]e ... review the trial court's decision ... with respect to whether the department made reasonable efforts at reunification for evidentiary sufficiency. ... [W]e review the trial court's subordinate factual findings for clear error. ... Similarly, in reviewing a trial court's determination that a parent is unable to benefit from reunification services, we review the trial court's ultimate determination ... for evidentiary sufficiency, and review the subordinate factual findings for clear error." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Karter F., 207 Conn. App. 1, 14, 262 A.3d 195, cert. denied, 339 Conn. 912, 261 A.3d 745 (2021).

We have examined the record and considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. In granting the petition to terminate the respondent's parental rights, the court issued a thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision, which is a proper statement of the relevant facts and the applicable law on the issues. We therefore adopt the decision as our own. See In re Emily S. , Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Juvenile Matters, Docket No. CP-18-012507-A (April 22, 2021) (reprinted at 210 Conn. App. 581, 270 A.3d 797). Any further discussion of the issues by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway , 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010) ; Nussbaum v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection , 206 Conn. App. 734, 741–42, 261 A.3d 1182, cert. denied, 339 Conn. 915, 262 A.3d 134 (2021).

The judgment is affirmed.

APPENDIX

IN RE EMILY S.^*

Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, Juvenile Matters File No. CP-18-012507-A

Memorandum filed April 22, 2021

Proceedings

Memorandum of decision on petition by Commissioner of Children and Families to terminate respondent's parental rights with respect to his minor child and on motion for review of permanency plan. Judgment terminating respondent's parental rights and approving permanency plan .

Jeanette Johnson , assistant attorney general, for the petitioner.

Chris Oakley , for the respondent.

Patricia Lyga , for the minor child.

Opinion

HUDDLESTON, J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Emily S. is a young child, born on August 5, 2018. Now pending before the court are an amended coterminous petition for the termination of parental rights as to the child's father, Damon F., and a contested motion for review of a permanency plan. The child was previously adjudicated neglected, and the parental rights of the child's mother were terminated by consent, on July 23, 2019. The child's mother died on November 4, 2019.

A consolidated trial as to all issues relating to Mr. F. was held on February 8, 2021. Mr. F. appeared and was represented by counsel. The child was also represented by counsel.

The court finds that it has jurisdiction over the matter. Proper notice of the proceeding was provided. No action is pending in any other court concerning the custody of this child. No Native American tribal affiliation was claimed, and the Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply.

For all the reasons that will be discussed in this decision, the court finds that the department has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that a statutory ground for termination exists and that termination is in the child's best interest. The petition is granted and the Commissioner [of Children and Families] is appointed the child's statutory parent. Mr. F.’s objection to the permanency plan is overruled, and the permanency plan is approved as in the best interest of the child.

IRELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Emily was born on August 5, 2018. At her birth, both the child and her mother, Florence M., tested positive for opiates and cocaine. Ms. M. left the hospital against medical advice on the day of the child's birth and did not provide any information concerning the child's father. On August 15, 2018, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (department or DCF) initiated a ninety-six hour hold. On August 16, 2018, the department filed an ex parte motion for order of temporary custody and coterminous neglect and termination of parental rights petitions. The pleadings named Ms. M. as the respondent mother and John Doe as the respondent father. Ms. M. was served by abode service. Publication was ordered as to John Doe.

The ex parte motion for order of temporary custody was granted on August 16, 2018, and sustained by default on August 24, 2018, at the preliminary hearing on the order of temporary custody. At that hearing, the department's counsel orally moved to cite in John S. as the child's putative father, based on information recently provided to the department by Ms. M. That motion was granted. On the plea date of September 12, 2018, Mr. S. appeared, was advised of his rights, and entered pro forma denials. Putative father John Doe was defaulted for failure to appear. The department sought and obtained an order for paternity testing as to Mr. S. On November 13, 2018, the department filed a DNA report which indicated that Mr. S. was excluded as the child's father. The department moved for a judgment of nonpaternity as to Mr. S., which was granted, and Mr. S. was removed from the case.

Also on November 13, 2018, the mother appeared, was appointed counsel, and the previous default was vacated. She was questioned under oath as to possible fathers and was reminded that she had mentioned Mr. F. as a possible father. She responded that he was not the father and she did not know who the father might be. She said it could have been a man in Bristol. The court ordered service of notice by publication in Bristol for John Doe, which was effected. Doe was defaulted when he did not...