In re Martha
| Decision Date | 08 November 2004 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re Maria Martha et al., children under the age of eighteen years<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>. |
This case involves petitions to terminate the parental rights of Maria Martha V. (D.O.B. 11/20/87), Marisela V. (D.O.B. 10/5/90), and Araceli V. (D.O.B. 10/24/94). On 1/20/04, the Department of Children and Families (DCF or department) filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respective biological parents Juana V. (respondent mother), and Martin V. (respondent father). The department alleged the following grounds for termination of the parental rights of the respondent parents: parental failure to rehabilitate, and acts of commission or omission. C.G.S. §17a-112(j).
On 2/3/04, the parents were served in-hand with the termination petitions. They were appointed counsel. The case was tried to the court on 5/12/04, 5/14/04, 9/16/04, and 10/8/04. Through their attorneys, the respondents contested the petition. All counsel participated in the examination of witnesses. The petitioner called the following witnesses: Betsy Dellacruz (DCF social worker), Shirley DeFlaviis (DCF social worker supervisor), Maria Cruz (DCF social worker), Ines Schroeder (psychologist), Maria Isabella Perez (Institute for Hispanic Families), Cassandra Colon (Interval House), Lisa Murphy (clinical child interviewer supervisor), Ellen Hernandez (psychologist—Voices, Inc.), James Pollard (Department of Correction), and Donna Hoffman (DOC). The mother called the following witnesses: Gladys Soto-Carrion, sexual assault counselor at the YWCA, and Attorney Gary Woodfield, GAL. The respondents did not testify. Numerous exhibits were admitted into evidence.2 The court took judicial notice of certain documents in the file.3
The issue in this case is whether the petitioner has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondents' parental rights should be terminated. "In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under §17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; General Statutes §17a-112(j)(1); (2) termination is in the best intetest of the child; General Statutes §17a-112(j)(2); and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in §17a-112(j)(3)." In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004). "Except in the case where termination is based on consent, in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall consider and shall make written findings regarding" the seven statutorily-enumerated criteria. C.G.S. §17a-112(k).4
In determining whether the petitioner has established the grounds for termination, the court's function as the fact finder "is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical." (Internal citation omitted.) In re Christine F., 6 Conn.App. 360, 366, 505 A.2d 734 (1986). "The burden of persuasion, therefore, in those cases requiring a showing of clear and convincing proof is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist." Dacey v. Connecticut Bar Assn., 170 Conn. 520, 537, 368 A.2d 125 (1976). "The same evidence certainly can establish more than one ground for termination." (Internal citation omitted.) In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 16, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993). The court may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. In re Juvenile Appeal (85-2), 3 Conn.App. 184, 193, 485 A.2d 1362 (1985); In re Cheyenne XXX, 59 Conn.App. 151, 158-59, 756 A.2d 303 (2000).
"It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony." In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000). "It is the quintessential function of the fact finder to reject or accept certain evidence, and to believe or disbelieve any expert testimony . . . The trier may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of an expert offered by one party or the other." (Internal citation omitted.) In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 782, 740 A.2d 896 (1999). "Although expert testimony may be accorded great weight when it is offered, there is no requirement for expert testimony in termination of parental rights cases." (Internal citation omitted) In re Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 382, 400, 852 A.2d 643 (2004)
The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction of the matter, notice of the proceeding was provided, and no action is pending in any other court affecting the custody of the child. After considering the petition, evidence, and statutory considerations, the court finds in favor of the petitioner and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent parents.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this decision. The facts were proved by clear and convincing evidence at trial. The child, Maria Martha V., was born on 11/20/87. The child, Marisela V., was born on 10/5/90. The child, Araceli V., was born on 10/24/94. On 11/8/02, the court granted orders of temporary custody, which were sustained on 11/5/02. By agreement, on 1/21/03, the children were adjudicated neglected (conditions injurious), and they were committed to the care and custody of DCF. On 11/12/03, the court maintained the children's commitment. On 11/15/02 and 1/21/03, the respondent mother was ordered to comply with specific steps including participate in individual and family counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals, obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents, secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income, visit the child as often as DCF permits, and demonstrate appropriate parent-child interaction during visitation. On 11/15/02 and 1/21/03, the respondent father was ordered to comply with specific steps including participate in individual and family counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals, obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents, secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income, no substance abuse, no involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system, visit the child as often as DCF permits, and demonstrate appropriate parent-child interaction during visitation.
The petitioner called several witnesses to testify at trial.
After the mother's case was opened on 3/1/02, DCF worked with the family to address domestic violence and substance abuse issues including providing services through the Institute for Hispanic Families and Interval House. Betsey Dellacruz, DCF social worker, was first assigned to the case on 9/17/02.
On 11/6/02, the school reported possible physical abuse of the mother and children, which was later substantiated. When the mother refused to go to a domestic violence shelter with the children, the department invoked a 96-hour hold. On 11/8/02, an OTC was granted and later sustained (11/15/02). The children were all placed in the same foster home on 11/8/02.
The parents were provided with services to facilitate reunification. The mother was provided domestic violence services through Interval House and the Institute for Hispanic Families. She admitted to the department that the father hit her when he was drinking. The father was provided substance abuse, anger management, and parenting services. The parties were allowed weekly-supervised visitation with all three children.
While transporting the children to the first visit on 11/13/02, the worker was told by Araceli V. that when the father was hitting the mother they were made to watch, and they would not be allowed to cry, or they would be hit. During one of the initial visits, Ms. Dellacruz became concerned regarding the father's behavior. The father was having Maria Martha V. sit on his lap, and he was trying repeatedly to kiss her. Maria Martha V. attempted to avoid his kisses. She looked uncomfortable during the visit. Later, Ms. Dellacruz spoke to the father about her concerns, and he stopped. The worker also noted that Maria Martha V. appeared fearful about seeing her father.
On 12/10/02, the girls told her that they didn't want to see their father anymore. After speaking further with the girls, Maricela V. confirmed that she didn't want to see her father, and Maria Martha V. indicated that she only wanted to visit with her father if DCF was there.
On 1/21/03, the children were committed to DCF. Ms. Dellacruz reported that from 10/02 through 1/21/03, the parents were complying with services, but they had not yet completed the programs. The mother was attending domestic violence sessions at the Interval House, and individual therapy at the Institute for Hispanic Families. The father was attending substance abuse sessions at the Institute for Hispanic Families. In February 2003, the foster mother contacted the worker and raised concerns that the father was driving by the foster home. The children feared that the father would take them away.
On 2/21/03, the foster mother contacted the worker and asked her to speak to Maria Martha V. The worker came to the foster home and interviewed the children. Maria Martha V. disclosed to the worker that her father had sexually abused her. See State's Exhibit A. The worker also spoke to Maricela V. and Araceli V....
To continue reading
Request your trial