In re Lizmarie J., No. H14-CP02-007107-A (CT 4/28/2005)
| Decision Date | 28 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. H14-CP02-007107-A,H14-CP02-007107-A |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re Lizmarie J. and Antony J.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Opinion No.: 88621. |
The court approves of the Permanency Plan, filed in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters (SCJM), 14th District, located in New Britain on 5/5/04, calling for termination of parental rights and adoption. The court will also adopt the factual findings and case histories as proven by clear and convincing evidence in the TPR trial.
1. The court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to:
a. reunite each of the respondent parents with the children; and
b. to achieve the Permanency Plan.
2. This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts to reunify the children with either of the respondent parents are not appropriate.
3. This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that each respondent parent is either unwilling or unable to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.
The court overrules all objections to the Permanency Plan.
This memorandum of decision addresses termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions brought to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of Sandra M. (Sandra) and Wilfredo R. (Wilfredo), the biological mother and father of LizMarie J. (LizMarie), born 8/9/02, and Antony J. (Tony), born 8/9/02 (the twins).
The court finds the following by clear and convincing evidence.
The history of the file reflects that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has been involved with members of this family since 1991.
On 8/7/02, a member of the New Britain Police Department (NBPD) observed Sandra engaging in conduct which he believed to constitute the purchase of narcotics by Sandra. Sandra was known to this officer. At approximately 5:09 P.M., she was apprehended by a member of the NBPD. During this encounter, Sandra placed at least 1 bag of heroin in her mouth, chewed it and swallowed it, despite orders of NBPD to cease and desist. She was arrested on the charges of Possession of Narcotics, Interfering With A Police Officer and Tampering With Evidence.
The narcotics seller was also apprehended and admitted selling Sandra 3 bags of heroin.
Subsequently, Sandra was taken to New Britain General Hospital (NBGH) by ambulance. She initially denied having ingested heroin, but subsequently admitted having swallowed a bag of heroin to a NBPD officer as well as to hospital personnel. She indicated that she was purchasing the heroin for another person. She also claimed to have been drug-free for the 11 eleven months prior to this incident, but that she had used drugs for 10 years prior to that.
The respondent mother was incarcerated and went into labor on 8/8/02, while being arraigned. Correctional officers from York Correctional Institution brought Sandra to the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) on the same day. The twins were born by caesarian section on 8/9/02 at 31 weeks gestation.2
On 8/9/02, Ms. Nancy Nachazed-Thompson, a social worker at UCHC, contacted DCF and referred this matter to them. Nachazed-Thompson indicated that Sandra tested positive at UCHC for opiates, as did the twins.
On 8/12/02, a DCF social worker met with Sandra at UCHC and interviewed her. Sandra admitted to having purchased 2 bags of heroin for a friend. She admitted to having swallowed both bags of heroin when police confronted her because she was afraid that she would go to jail. She admitted that she was on probation at the time of the offense and that this incident would result in her incarceration. Sandra claimed to have been drug-free since 10/01 and was undergoing substance abuse treatment at the Lifeline program.
On 10/3/02 in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, Fourteenth District, New Britain (SCJM), DCF filed a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody and a neglect/uncared for petition on behalf of the twins. The OTC was granted by the court (Santos, J.). The neglect/uncared for petition alleged that;
1. The twins had been denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally and that;
2. The twins had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being.
Additionally, DCF alleged that the twins were uncared for, in that;
Sandra's home could not provide the specialized care which the physical, emotional or mental condition of the children required.
At the time of the issuance of the OTC, the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home. The court issued ex parte specific steps for the respondent parents.
Both the OTC and the neglect petitions were filed in SCJM with the father listed as being Felix "Flex" J. (Felix).
On 10/7/02 in SCJM (Tanzer, J.), the OTC was confirmed. Preliminary steps were issued for the respondent mother and the putative father, Felix and denials were entered as to the neglect petition.
On 3/7/03 in SCJM, DCF filed an motion to cite in a party, specifically Wilfredo R. (Wilfredo) as the putative father of the twins.
On 3/7/03 in SCJM, DCF filed a motion to amend the neglect petition, specifically as to Wilfredo R. (Wilfredo) as the putative father of the twins.
On 3/7/03 in SCJM (Santos, J.), the court granted the motion to cite in a party, specifically Wilfredo, as the putative father of the twins, as well as the motion to amend the neglect petition, specifically as to Wilfredo as the putative father of the twins. The respondent mother Sandra requested that new counsel be appointed for her and the court granted her request.
On 7/2/03 in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Maintain Commitment (MMC) and its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP). The permanency plan (PP) called for the twins to be reunified with the respondent parents.
On 7/16/03 in SCJM (Santos, J.), the court granted the motion of Wilfredo's counsel to withdraw at her client's request. New counsel was appointed.
On 8/4/03 in SCJM, the court (Santos, J.) approved the permanency plan of reunification with a concurrent plan of TPR and adoption. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan, and that reunification efforts as to both respondent parents remained appropriate.
On 9/4/03 in SCJM (Santos, J.), prior to the neglect/uncared for trial, the respondent father Wilfredo indicated that he would stand silent as to the allegation. He indicated that he agreed with DCF's recommendation for commitment of the twins. After trial, the court found, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the twins had been neglected and uncared for. After having adjudicated the twins neglected and uncared for, the court then committed them to the custody of DCF.
On 9/4/03 in SCJM, Sandra, through counsel, filed a motion for an order for an expedited interstate compact study.
On 9/29/03 in SCJM, DCF filed an objection to the respondent mother's motion for an order for an expedited interstate compact study.
On 10/3/03 in SCJM, the court (Santos, J.), signed a request granting a priority placement order as to the twins.
On 10/20/03 in SCJM, DCF filed the TPR petitions as to LizMarie and Tony, DCF alleged abandonment, failure to rehabilitate and no ongoing relationship as to each child as grounds for the TPR as to both Sandra and Wilfredo.
On 11/21/03, the respondent parties appeared, with counsel, in SCJM (Santos, J.) regarding the TPR petition. Both were advised of their rights and entered pro forma denials.
On 1/15/04 in SCJM, the court (Santos, J.) granted the state's motion for a psychological evaluation.
On 5/5/04 in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Maintain Commitment (MMC) and its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP). The permanency plan (PP) called for TPR and adoption.
On 7/1/04 in SCJM, the court (Santos, J.) ordered, over the objection of the twins' counsel, that DCF investigate an additional placement resource. The court also granted the MMC and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan. Due to the objection of the respondent mother to the PP, a motion to consolidate the PP hearing with the TPR trial was granted by agreement. The matter was referred to Superior Court for Juvenile Matters-Child Protection Session, located in Middletown (CPS) for trial.
On 11/30/04 in CPS, this court heard argument by counsel for the foster parents as to their motion to intervene. Although her counsel was not present, the respondent mother Sandra was on speakerphone from her place of incarceration in the state of Ohio. The court granted DCF's unopposed motion to disclose records. The court further ordered that the motion to revoke commitment be consolidated into the TPR trial barring objection within 5 days. Finally, the court ordered that counsel for the respondent parents submit position letters within 48 hours concerning the foster parents' motion to intervene.
On 12/22/04 in CPS, the respondent father Wilfredo submitted a written consent to the termination of his parental rights as to LizMarie and Tony. This court canvassed Wilfredo, who was assisted by counsel, and then accepted the consent. The State then orally amended the TPR petition to reflect the ground of consent as to Wilfredo.3 The court then commenced trial on the TPR petitions and the various motions.4
Sandra orally moved the court to recuse itself. The motion was denied. The court granted the State's motion to take judicial notice of the court file, limited to petitions, summaries of facts, specific steps, transcripts and court memorandum sheets.
The court also granted a motion to protect the identity of the foster father (FF), who was present in court with his co...
To continue reading
Request your trial