In re Angelina S.
| Docket Number | AC 46551 |
| Decision Date | 18 December 2023 |
| Parties | IN RE ANGELINA S. ET AL. [*] |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
1
IN RE ANGELINA S. ET AL. [*]
No. AC 46551
Court of Appeals of Connecticut
December 18, 2023 [**]
Argued November 6, 2023
Procedural History
Petitions to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to their minor children, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, Juvenile Matters, and tried to the court, Chavey, J.;
judgments terminating the respondents' parental rights, from which the respondent father appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Matthew C. Eagan, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent father).
Joshua Perry, solicitor general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Ingrid Swanson, for the minor children.
Alvord, Elgo and Prescott, Js.
OPINION
ALVORD, J.
The respondent father, Troy S., appeals from the judgments 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 children, A and M, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i).[1] On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly determined that the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children, he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, and he failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and needs of the children, he could assume a responsible position in the children's lives.[2]We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our consideration of the respondent's appeal. The department has been involved with A and M throughout their entire lives. The department received a report in March, 2019, when A was born, that A's mother, Lindsay B., was taking methadone and benzodiazepines, leading the hospital to treat the newborn A under the neonatal abstinence syndrome protocol. Upon A's discharge from the hospital to the home of Lindsay B. and the respondent, the respondent was identified as A's primary caretaker because he was compliant at that time with methadone treatment at the APT Foundation (APT). On April 3, 2019, the petitioner filed a neglect petition as to A. On July 30, 2019, the court adjudicated A neglected and ordered a three month period of protective supervision. A motion to extend the period of protective supervision for six additional months was granted on October 22, 2019.[3] The court again extended the period of protective supervision for an additional six months, which would have elapsed on September 18, 2020.
M was born in the kitchen of Lindsay B.'s home in August, 2020. Lindsay B. had received no prenatal care during her pregnancy with M. At the hospital where M and Lindsay B. were transported after M's birth, both the respondent and Lindsay B. were "observed to be passed out." Although Lindsay B. was "slurring her speech, drooling, and falling asleep mid-sentence," the respondent advocated for her to receive benzodiazepines. At one point, hospital staff were unable to wake the respondent, who was sleeping while holding newborn M, even by touching his arm. M showed symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome and remained in the hospital for two weeks after her birth, during which time the respondent did not return to visit. On August 28, 2020, the petitioner sought orders of temporary custody as to A and M, vested in the children's paternal great-aunt and great-uncle, and filed a neglect petition
as to M. The court sustained the orders of temporary custody on September 2, 2020.
On April 14, 2021, the court adjudicated M neglected and committed her to the custody of the petitioner. The court also modified the prior disposition with respect to A and committed her to the custody of the petitioner. The court ordered specific steps as to the respondent.
On November 29, 2021, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respondent and Lindsay B. with respect to A and M. A trial on the termination of parental rights was held over three dates beginning in January, 2023, before the court, Chavey, J. The court heard the testimony of Jessica Biren Caverly, who was qualified as an expert in forensic psychology; Melanie Vitelli, clinical coordinator from 'r kids Family Center (R Kids); Courtney White, a department social worker; Artemisia Cardona, a department investigative social worker; Loren Pappagoda, a department ongoing services social worker; and the respondent.[4] The court also admitted documentary evidence. Only one exhibit was admitted over the objection of the respondent's counsel.
On March 29, 2023, the court issued its memorandum of decision, in which it terminated the parental rights of the respondent and Lindsay B. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify A and M with the respondent and that the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from the department's efforts. The court found that, although the respondent had complied with some of his specific steps, "he persistently refused to cooperate with [the department's] recommended services regarding substance use and mental health, instead insisting either that he did not need or want the services to which he was referred or that he had complied when in fact he had not."
The court found that the respondent had resumed methadone maintenance following a back injury and knee surgery, as an alternative to other forms of pain management. The respondent testified that he had" 'bottle privileges'" with APT and picks up thirteen bottles of methadone every other week. The respondent explained that APT requires that he attend one group session per month and one meeting per month. Following M's birth, the department became concerned about the respondent's substance use. Specifically, there were instances when the respondent appeared impaired, and he belatedly disclosed that he was receiving mental health medication management from Michelle Muzyka, an advanced practice registered nurse, who also had been treating Lindsay B.[5] The respondent testified that, in March, 2019, he began treating with Muzyka, whom he saw every two months or sometimes every three months for panic attacks and anxiety. Muzyka prescribed the respondent alprazolam, which is a benzodi-
azepine, and gabapentin.[6] She reported [7] that the respondent already had been prescribed his medication at the time he began seeing her. Muzyka stated that she was treating the respondent for generalized anxiety disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. She further reported that she did not provide therapy to the respondent.
The department consulted with its Regional Resource Group, which recommended that the respondent receive treatment at Hill Health Center, and the department, on multiple occasions beginning in August, 2020, referred the respondent there for a mental health evaluation and medication management.[8] The respondent testified that, after he told Hill Health Center that he needed only an evaluation but not treatment because he already had a provider, he was told the center did not do evaluations if the patient would not be seeking treatment there as well. The respondent never engaged with Hill Health Center, and he advised the department that he did not want to change treatment providers. He "expressed concern that Hill Health Center would not prescribe the benzodiazepines he was getting through . . . Muzyka, which he said he needed for his anxiety."
The court noted the recommendations of Wendy Levy, a psychologist who performed a court-ordered evaluation of the respondent in the spring of 2021. Levy's recommendations directed the respondent to "[e]ngage in therapy to learn coping skills to address anxiety and distress tolerance rather than rely solely on anxiety medication, [and] [p]sychiatric reevaluation (Psychologist recommended the APT Foundation, however they do not offer long-term mental health services. Clinicians are only available for acute concerns)." Levy's recommendations were incorporated into specific steps issued on June 1, 2021, of which the court took judicial notice. The court found that the respondent did not comply with "crucial elements" of his specific steps, including failing to participate in a psychiatric evaluation.
The court rejected as not credible portions of the respondent's testimony. Specifically, the court did not credit his testimony that he had no knowledge of Levy's recommendations and that he had done everything the department had asked of him. [9]
The court found that the department also offered the respondent visitation and case management services. "[The] respondent . . . had visits with the children at their relative placement until January, 2021, when his behavior led the relatives with whom the children were placed to discontinue the visits. Thereafter, the respondent . . . had weekly video visits, followed by [department] supervised visits at [the department's] offices. [The department] then referred both the respondent [and Lindsay B.] to R Kids for the Therapeutic Family Time program, which was a twelve week visitation and
parenting program, of which the respondent . . . attended nine sessions. One of the sessions he missed was the closing session, which R Kids requested he attend with his lawyer and mental health provider 'so we could discuss everything together.' Contrary to R Kids' records, the respondent . . . testified at trial that he was never told about the closing meeting. This is yet another example of the [respondent's] lack of credibility, as the evidence is clear and convincing that R Kids did communicate with him about the closing meeting." (Footnote omitted.) Although the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial