In re Caiden B.
| Docket Number | AC 45822 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 2023 |
| Parties | IN RE CAIDEN B. ET AL. [*] |
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Argued March 8, 2023
Procedural History
Petitions by the Commissioner of Children and Families to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to their minor children, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, Juvenile Matters at Waterford, and tried to the court, Hoffman, J.; judgments terminating the respondents' parental rights, from which the respondent father appealed to this court. Affirmed.
David B. Rozwaski, assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent father).
Evan M. O'Roark, assistant attorney general, with whom were Haseeb Kahn, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
OPINION
The respondent father, Derek B., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights as to his minor children, Caiden B., Adrion B., Paislee B., Payton B., Skylar O., and Alexandria B., on the grounds that (1) he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) and (ii), and (2) with respect to Caiden, Adrion, Paislee, and Payton, his acts of parental commission or omission denied them the care necessary for their well-being pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C).[1] On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) had made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (1) and that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification services, (2) he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) and (3) termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests.[2] We affirm the judgments of the trial court.[3]
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. The respondent has eight children, six of whom are at issue in the present appeal.[4] The respondent and Brittani B. met in 2016 and married in May of that year. The two share four children: Caiden, Adrion, Paislee, and Payton. Brittani B. also has three minor children from a previous relationship with a different man.[5] The department has been involved with Brittani B. since November, 2013, due to inadequately addressed mental health needs and an inability to care for her children.
Caiden was born in April, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the department received a report indicating that Brittani B. was overwhelmed with caring for her children and had threatened to kill herself.
Adrion was born in March, 2018. On April 16, 2018, Brittani B. attended a biopsychosocial assessment at The Connection, a statewide community based human services agency that connects individuals with a variety of resources, in which she was diagnosed with "attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type [ADHD], opioid dependence mild symptoms or some difficulty in social and occupational functioning."
On May 1, 2018, the department received a report from Connecticut Children's Medical Center (medical center) regarding Adrion through its Child Abuse and Neglect Careline (careline). Adrion had sustained a right parietal skull fracture with overlying hematoma. The respondent told medical center staff that, while he was caring for Adrion the previous day, Adrion fell out of his bouncer seat and hit his head. Medical center staff, however, concluded that such a fall could not cause Adrion's injury. A follow-up skeletal survey took place on May 15, 2018, at the medical center, which revealed that Adrion had six or seven healing rib fractures that appeared to be ten to fourteen days old. Medical center staff noted that Adrion's injuries were indicative of child abuse.
On May 16, 2018, the petitioner applied for and secured orders of temporary custody (OTC) on behalf of Adrion and Caiden, which were sustained on May 25, 2018. Therein, she alleged that the children were in physical danger and that immediate removal was necessary to ensure their safety. On May 16, 2018, the petitioner also filed neglect petitions on behalf of Adrion and Caiden alleging that they had been denied proper care and had been permitted to live under conditions injurious to their well-being. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that both Caiden and Adrion had been abused in that they had suffered nonaccidental physical injury or injuries that were inconsistent with the respondent's explanations. On July 24, 2018, the court, Dris-coll, J., adjudicated Adrion and Caiden neglected and committed them to the care and custody of the petitioner. The court also ordered preliminary specific steps for the respondent to take to facilitate his reunification with Adrion and Caiden.[6] On March 8, 2019, the petitioner filed motions to review and approve a permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption of Caiden and Adrion. On April 16, 2019, following a hearing, the court granted the motions.
In April, 2019, Brittani B. gave birth to twin girls, Paislee and Payton. On April 12, 2019, the petitioner applied for and secured OTCs on behalf of the twins. In issuing the orders on April 12, 2019, the court also ordered specific steps for the respondent to take to facilitate his reunification with the twins.[7] In the motion for temporary custody, the petitioner alleged that Paislee and Payton were in physical danger and that immediate removal was necessary to ensure their safety. On April 12,2019, the petitioner also filed neglect petitions on behalf of the twins based on predictive neglect. Therein, the petitioner alleged that the twins had been denied proper care and had been permitted to live under conditions that were injurious to their well-being.[8] A preliminary hearing on the OTCs was held on April 18, 2019, at which point the court, Hon. Michael A. Mack, judge trial referee, granted the petitioner's motion for a paternity test to confirm that the respondent was the father of Paislee and Payton. The court, Driscoll, J., sustained the OTCs on May 3, 2019. The respondent was adjudicated to be the father of Paislee and Payton on July 2, 2019.
On June 6, 2019, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respondent with respect to Adrion and Caiden.[9] The petitioner alleged, as a ground for termination, that, pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), Caiden and Adrion had been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and that the respondent had failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that, considering the children's ages and needs, he could assume a responsible position in their lives. The petitions also alleged that, pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C), Caiden and Adrion had been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission, including severe physical abuse or a pattern of abuse, the care necessary for their physical or emotional well-being. The petitions further alleged that reasonable efforts had been made to reunify Caiden and Adrion with the respondent. Last, the petitions alleged that "reasonable efforts to reunify are not required for the [respondent] because the court has approved a permanency plan other than reunification in accordance with [General Statutes § 17a-111b]."
On November 8, 2019, the petitioner filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respondent with respect to Paislee and Payton.[10] The petitions were amended on December 10, 2021, and again on February 25, 2022. In the operative February 25, 2022 petitions, the petitioner alleged that, pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (ii), Paislee and Payton had been neglected, they had been in the custody of the petitioner for at least fifteen months, and the respondent had failed to achieve an appropriate degree of personal rehabilitation.[11] The petitions further alleged that the respondent had denied Paislee and Payton, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission, the care necessary for their well-being. Last, the petitions alleged that the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify Paislee and Payton with the respondent and that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts.
The respondent and Erika O. met in 2017. The two maintained an on-again, off-again relationship over the next several years and share two children, Skylar and Alexandria. In addition to Skylar and Alexandria, Erika O. has four other children who are not involved in these proceedings.[12] Erika O. has a long history with the department dating back to 2012 when she tested positive for oxycodone at the birth of one of her children.
Erika O. gave birth to Skylar in June, 2019. On June 7, 2019, the department received a report that Erika O. had tested positive for amphetamines upon Skylar's birth. At that time, Erika O. refused to provide a name for the father. On June 13, 2019, the petitioner applied for and secured an OTC on behalf of Skylar, which was sustained on June 21, 2019. The petitioner alleged that Skylar was in physical danger and that immediate removal was necessary to ensure her safety. That day, the petitioner also filed a neglect petition alleging that Skylar was being denied proper care and had been permitted to live under conditions injurious to her well-being. The petitioner premised...
To continue reading
Request your trial