In re Ryder M.

211 Conn.App. 793

274 A.3d 218

IN RE RYDER M.^*

AC 44831

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 18, 2022

Officially released April 20, 2022^**

David B. Rozwaski, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent father).

Jennifer C. Leavitt, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Evan M. O'Roark, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).

Moll, Clark and Sheldon, Js.

MOLL, J.

The respondent father, Phillip M., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights as to his minor son, Ryder M., on the ground that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i).¹ On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with Ryder, (2) he failed to rehabilitate sufficiently, and (3) termination of his parental rights was in Ryder's best interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the trial court, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The respondent and Caroline E. began a relationship in early 2017. Ryder was born in early 2018. On March 18, 2018, the respondent was arrested for various motor vehicle violations and use of drug paraphernalia. At that time, Ryder was in the respondent's primary care. A few days later, the department received a report from one of the respondent's brothers and that brother's girlfriend that they had Ryder, then five weeks old, in their care, that they had no supplies with which to care for him, and that they did not know how long they could care for him. The respondent's brother also explained that the respondent was unable at that time to care for Ryder.

On March 23, 2018, the petitioner applied for and secured an order of temporary custody, which was sustained on March 27, 2018. Ryder was then placed in a nonrelative foster home. On May 23, 2018, Ryder was adjudicated neglected by the court, Doherty, J. , and was committed to the care and custody of the petitioner. The court also ordered specific steps for the respondent to take to facilitate his reunification with Ryder.

On November 15, 2019, the petitioner filed a motion to review and approve a permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption in the interest of Ryder. On December 11, 2019, following a hearing, the court granted the motion. On February 6, 2020, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the respondent with respect to Ryder (petition).² In the petition, the petitioner alleged, as the ground for termination, that Ryder had been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected, abused, or uncared for and the respondent had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of Ryder, he could assume a responsible position in Ryder's life. See General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i).

A trial on the petition occurred on April 12, April 13, and May 4, 2021. The respondent appeared and was represented by counsel. Numerous witnesses testified, including the respondent, and several exhibits were admitted into the record.

On May 14, 2021, the court, Hon. Barbara M. Quinn , judge trial referee, issued a memorandum of decision terminating the parental rights of the respondent. The court determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ryder had been adjudicated neglected on May 23, 2018, and that the respondent had failed to rehabilitate sufficiently to satisfy the requirements of § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). The court also determined that the department had made reasonable efforts to locate the respondent and to reunify him with Ryder.

The court made the following relevant findings concerning Ryder. "Ryder has been in his present foster home since he was an infant. He has thrived there and is bonded to his foster family, which includes one of [the respondent's] younger brothers who was adopted by this family. ... [At the time of trial] Ryder [was] a few months older than three. He is an engaging, happy child and enjoys playing with his cars, watching cartoons and playing outside. He attends day care and preschool, and there are no developmental concerns about Ryder. He is learning and socializing in age appropriate ways. He is medically up to date and doing well."

In addition, the court made the following relevant findings regarding the respondent. "[The respondent] is one of seven children born to his parents. He has three older sisters and three younger brothers.

His parents, he reported, were both alcoholics, and there were many incidences of domestic violence between them in the home. He and his siblings were also involved with [the department] in their younger years. They were removed from their parents three separate times; once, for the first time, when [the respondent] was fifteen [years old] and twice more when he was sixteen years old. It appears that [the respondent's] parents were not successful in having all their children returned to their care ....

"[The respondent] ... was never adopted and continued to make his way as best he was able outside of [the department's] care. He was a special education student and did not graduate from high school. Nonetheless, to his credit, he has subsequently earned his general equivalency diploma (GED). While not identified in the [department's] record as such, his back-ground and experiences in his family of origin would be expected to have caused him to experience trauma from the chaos and domestic violence he observed. He reported to one of his therapists that he was aware his childhood had impacted his own parenting skills and the choices he has made as an adult. His various mental health diagnoses ... also support the court's conclusion.

"[The respondent] has limited family support, mostly from his father, with whom he is close and with whom he has resided from time to time. Nonetheless, due to their [department] history, neither his mother nor his father are potential resources for him so that Ryder could have been placed with them after he was removed from his parents' care in 2018.

"As an adult, [the respondent] has had a sporadic work history, primarily employed in landscaping on a seasonal basis and often being paid in unofficial ways. He has been homeless or itinerant and [was] not able to be located at times in the early months after Ryder's removal. More recently, since late 2019, [the respondent] has been employed by a landscaping and contracting business with a more official standing and payroll history. Unfortunately, his employment in landscaping means he has been unemployed during the winter months on a regular basis and secured unemployment compensation. To combat this difficulty, over this past winter, [the respondent] took as his primary job a position at Cumberland Farms and only works part-time in landscaping. As yet, [the respondent] has not provided [the department] a wage stub to demonstrate his legal employment, as required by the specific steps issued for him.

"His current landscaping employer testified that [the respondent] is a good worker with considerable skills. His employer stated that he has tried to accommodate his visits with Ryder and to assist him in his attendance at other required services. [The respondent] does not have his own transportation and often secures rides from others or walks to where he needs to be. His employers have at times provided him with that assistance." (Footnote omitted.)

The court further found that, in addition to the standard provisions of the specific steps, the respondent was directed to meet detailed, well-tailored goals relating to substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, and parenting. The court explained, by way of summary, that "[t]he testimony at trial reviewed [the respondent's] lengthy involvement with many service providers, the rejection of most of the providers to which [the department] had referred him and his choice of his own selected providers. His conduct demonstrated his significant need and insistence on controlling the services he accepted. He rejected those services which required strict supervised, random drug testing and focused individual counseling during which he and his therapist would have worked together to address his past trauma and mental health. His insistence on selecting his own services which did not comply with the [department's] directives of what was needed for him ultimately led to his failure to make any meaningful progress on the very detailed goals for rehabilitation set by the court for reunification with [Ryder]. Despite his belief that he has complied with such services and the great efforts he has made to attend and comply, he himself sadly sabotaged those efforts."

With respect to substance abuse and mental health treatment, the court found the following facts. At the start of the neglect proceedings, the department specifically referred the respondent for substance abuse assessment and treatment. It became known, and the respondent admitted at trial, that he had regularly used heroin in the past. Initially, he was referred to the McCall Foundation for combined substance abuse assessment and treatment (which included weekly urine screens), mental health services, and medication management. The respondent was not compliant with the program and was discharged in June, 2018. The respondent then was referred to a second provider, MCCA of Torrington,³ but he did not comply with the requirements of the program, refused to submit to random urine screens, and was discharged for noncompliance in November, 2018. The department again referred the respondent to MCCA of Torrington, but he did not...