|
The
Appellate court routinely affirmed the termination of parental rights
in a case that thoroughly addressed whether the mother demonstrated
the willingness or ability to benefit from reunification efforts.
In Jonathan C., the court relayed the long and difficult
history that befell the three children involved, and their respondent
mother's ("respondent") inability to provide a safe, appropriate
home environment.
The
respondent, a thirty-one year old mother of three, first became
the object of the Department of Children and Families' ("Department")
scrutiny in July 1999 after investigating allegations of significant
parental and grand-parental neglect. The respondent herself was
a childhood victim of sexual and physical abuse, as well as physical
neglect. In July 1999, her three children were eight, six and two
years of age.
The
Department removed the children and successfully obtained an ex-parte
order of temporary custody ("OTC"), but proceeded to return the
children to the respondent's care in August 1999. Unfortunately,
the respondent failed to adhere to court proscriptions, and the
Department once again successfully obtained an OTC in December 1999.
Upon completion of successful parenting classes, the juvenile court
returned the children to the respondent's care in April 2000, with
specific instructions and steps designed to assist the respondent
in facilitating reunification. After once again failing to adhere
to these court orders, the Department filed OTC motions, placed
the children in relative foster care, and petitioned the court for
termination of parental rights ("TPR") in December 2001. After an
eleven-day trial, the court terminated the respondent's parental
rights in February 2003.
On appeal,
the respondent argued that (1) the court improperly concluded that
she was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts,
and that (2) the court improperly concluded that the Department
made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children. On the
first issue, the appellate court carefully recounted a number of
the evidentiary points from the trial court's forty-eight page memorandum
of decision, all of which demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence
that the respondent had repeatedly ignored or rebuffed the Department's
efforts aimed at providing services, guidance and support. Specifically,
the decision notes the respondent's failure to secure safe and adequate
housing; secure employment to provide subsistence income; failure
to attend regular review meetings; continued denial of responsibility
for the children's problems; failure to regularly submit to random
drug testing and substance abuse treatment; failure to participate
in family and parenting counseling; failure to cooperate with the
children's therapists and educational providers; etc., all contributed
to the conclusion that she was unable and/or unwilling to benefit
from reunification efforts. And while the respondent complied with
some of the steps, she failed to comply with many others, including
recording ten different addresses between 1994 and 2000, and repeatedly
leaving her children with their maternal grandmother in violation
of a specific court order.
The
court also dismissed the respondent's second claim (failure to reunify)
based on the notion that pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j),
a showing of unwillingness or inability to pursue reunification
meets the state's burden regarding the reunification issue. Furthermore,
the court opined that the overwhelming evidence in this case provided
ample support for the notion that the Department made reasonable
efforts to reunify.
The
case is available on line at the Judicial Branch website by going
to
www.state.ct.us/judicial.
(JES)
|
