| |
TERMINATION
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS/INCARCERATED PARENT
The
appellate court in this case rejected the respondent father’s contention
that the trial court erroneously found that DCF had made reasonable
efforts to reunify him with his daughter, despite the fact that
for much of the duration of the child protection case, the Department
had no contact with the father. Additionally, the court held that
there was sufficient evidence that the father could not rehabilitate
within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs
of his child.
The
court first noted that while the Department could have done more
to maintain contact with the father during the child protection
proceedings, that the father was either incarcerated or on “escape”
status for much of the time. Even when the father was on “escape”
status, DCF made contact with the paternal grandparents who were
in regular contact with the respondent. The Department requested
that the grandparents provide the father with DCF’s contact information
and ask him to get in touch with the Department regarding his child’s
case. Additionally, when the Department learned from the grandparents
that the respondent had been re-incarcerated, DCF did make periodic
contact with the Department, encouraging the father to avail himself
of whatever programs the correctional facility could offer. Finally,
though the Department relied on the grandparents to facilitate visitation
between father and child, when the Department learned that the grandparents
were not providing such visitation, the Department immediately made
efforts to provide the visitation directly. The court also noted
that despite the Department requesting that the father contact the
agency once he was released to a community half-way house, the father
never called the case worker. The court observed that the record
contained no evidence of the father ever contacting the Department
directly to inquire about his child’s case, services, visitation,
or any other opportunity to present himself as a custodial resource.
Lastly, the court held that it was not error for the trial court
to conclude that the father failed to rehabilitate, when the father
made minimal to no efforts to maintain contact with the Department,
admitted that he did not avail himself of any prison programming,
indicated that his problems were fairly minimal, and could not present
himself as a reliable parental resource in a reasonable time frame
considering the age and needs of his young child.
|
