In re Mah'niyah L., F04CP13009980A

In re Mah'niyah L.P0F ^[1]

No. F04CP13009980A

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, Bridgeport, Juvenile Matters

October 4, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Burton A. Kaplan, Judge

On September 2, 2015, the petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (DCF), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. Section 17a-112 et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Tiffany M. the biological mother of Mah'niyah L., and Wayne L., the biological father Mah'niyah L.

The mother, Tiffany M., was served by publication in the Connecticut Post on September 13, 2015 and the father, Wayne L., was served by Certified mail on September 24, 2015. Service on both parents was confirmed on October 1 2015.

The court is aware of no other proceedings in any court regarding the custody of these children. There is no tribal affiliation. This court has jurisdiction.

With regard to the mother, she was appointed counsel on December 15, 2015. Counsel was appointed for the father on October 1 2015.

DCF alleges the following grounds for termination of parental rights.

As to the mother, Tiffany M.

Ground A--Abandonment: The child has been abandoned by the parent 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.

Ground B1--Failure to Rehabilitate: The child or youth has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected, uncared for, or abused, and the respondent mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time considering the age and needs of the child or youth, she could assume a responsible position in the life of the child or youth.

Ground D--No Ongoing Parent/Child Relationship: There is no ongoing parent-child or parent-youth relationship with respect to the mother that ordinarily develops as a result of the parents having met on a day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional moral, and educational needs of the child or youth, and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of the parent-child or parent-youth relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child or youth.

As to the father, Wayne L.

Ground B1--Failure to Rehabilitate: The child or youth has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected, uncared for, or abused, and the respondent father has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child or youth, he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child or youth.

Ground D--No Ongoing Parent/Child Relationship: There is no ongoing parent-child or parent-youth relationship with respect to the father that ordinarily develops as a result of the parents having met on a day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional, moral, and educational needs of the child or youth, and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of the parent-child or parent-youth relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child or youth.

Prior to the start of the trial on June 7, 2016 the father Wayne L. appeared with counsel. He was advised of his rights pursuant to In Re Yasiel R . by Judge Maronich. He then consented to the termination of his parental rights. The consent was canvassed and accepted by Judge Maronich. After the consent was canvassed and accepted, the grounds for Termination of Parental Rights with regard to Wayne L. were amended to consent only.

The court was notified that on July 10, 2016, the father Wayne L. passed away and a death certificate was filed with the court.

The trial on the Termination of Parental of Parental Rights was scheduled before this court on June 7, 2016. At 10:00 A.M. the case was called into court. Mother's counsel was present at 10:00 A.M. but the mother was not present.

The trial was started in the absence of the mother. Exhibits were admitted by agreement. All the State's witnesses were present. The DCF social worker testified and counsel for the mother and children were given the opportunity to cross examine. After the State rested its case, no further evidence was offered by mother's attorney or the attorney for the children. The trial concluded in the morning after final arguments of counsel.

FACTS AND FINDINGS

At the trial the court heard testimony from the DCF social worker, Carlos Herandez. The Court also granted DCF's Motion for Judicial Notice. The court has reviewed and considered the following full exhibits: Criminal record of Tiffany M., Social Study in support of TPR, Permanency Plan dated 5/13/15, Court TPR update dated 4/5/16, SWCHC intake on T.M. dated 2/2/16, SWCHC Psychiatric evaluation on T.M. dated 3/3/16, SWCHC discharge summary for T.M., Study in support of Permanency Plan dated 3/9/16, Project Courage discharge summary for Tiffany M. dated 10/17/13, Project Courage discharge summary for Tiffany M. dated 3/28/14 and, Mah'niyah L.'s Specific Steps dated 10/23/13.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence the following facts. Mah'niyah L. was adjudicated neglected on December 11, 2013. On that date she was committed to the care and custody of DCF until further order of the court.

With regard to the mother Tiffany M., she has a history with DCF regarding two other children who are not in her care. While pregnant with Mah'niyah L. she used PCP four times. When Mah'niyah L. was born, the mother tested positive for opiates. The mother was recommended to participate in drug treatment but was not successful. The mother has a substance abuse history.

After the child was committed to DCF on December 11, 2013, DCF attempted to arrange visitation with the mother to no avail. DCF also attempted to arrange substance abuse treatment for the mother at Project Courage. That was also unsuccessful.

The mother has been incarcerated on criminal charges and when released has not remained in contact with DCF or attempted to contact her daughter's foster family. The mother has lived a very transient lifestyle and has made herself unavailable for any reunification process.

DCF was unable to work with the mother when she was not in jail because she was in parts unknown and not in contact with DCF. While the mother was in jail there could be no visits because of the child's medical condition on the orders of the child's doctor.

When the mother finally contacted DCF by phone in March 2015, she stated she had not seen her daughter in over one year. There was no further contact with DCF. Thereafter, the mother was incarcerated again. When released, she did not contact DCF and was again in parts unknown.

The mother was next heard from when she appeared in court on December 15, 2015. She started to contact DCF and monthly visitations were planned starting in February 2016. The mother visited once.

DCF also arranged for the mother to have a substance abuse evaluation and mental health treatment at Southwest Community Health Center (Southwest). She went for the evaluation and tested positive for drugs. Treatment was recommended. She failed to comply with substance abuse treatment and failed to appear for her psychiatric evaluation. She was unsuccessfully discharged from Southwest on March 3, 2016.

The mother was on probation. Her probation officer reported she was in violation status. She was arrested by the Fairfield police on new criminal charges on February 26, 2016. She also tested positive for cocaine and THC on March 10, 2016.

The mother has not been in contact with DCF and is again in parts unknown. She did not appear for the trial.

ADJUDICATION

The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights is comprised of two phases.

In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must determine whether any of the statutory grounds alleged by DCF exist by clear and convincing evidence. In the adjudicatory phase, the court is limited to considering events preceding the filing of the termination petition or the latest amendment. If a determination is made that one or more of the statutory grounds exist, the court may then proceed to the dispositional phase. In this phase, the court determines whether the termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child. In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing including those occurring after the filing of the petition.

The court after hearing the evidence, and reviewing the exhibits makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

The Mother

DCF alleges the following grounds for termination of the parental rights of the mother.

ABANDONMENT

" Abandonment focus is on the parents' conduct . . . A lack of interest in the child is not the sole criterion for determining abandonment . . . C.G.S. Section 17a-112(j)(3)(A) defined it as the failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . . Attempts to achieve contact with the child telephone calls, sending of cards and gifts and financial support are indicia of interest, concern, or responsibility for the welfare of the child . . . Abandonment occurs when a parent fails to visit a child does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare . . . Section 17a-112(j)(3)(A) does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of the child. The parent must maintain a degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child. Maintain implies a...