October 5, 2016.
from Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk,
Juvenile Matters, Randolph, J.
P. Sexton, assigned counsel, with whom were Emily L. Graner
Sexton, assigned counsel, and, on the brief, Marina L. Green,
assigned counsel, for the appellant (respondent).
M. Magnano, with whom, on the brief, was Heather L. Perbeck,
for the appellee (petitioner).
Lavine, Beach and West, Js.
respondent father, Baciany R., appeals from the judgment of
the trial court terminating his parental rights as to his
son, Baciany R. (child). On appeal, the respondent claims
that the court improperly concluded that there was clear and
convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights
was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
October 10, 2013, the petitioner, Stephanie P., filed a
termination of parental rights petition in the Court of
Probate for the district of Stamford seeking to terminate the
parental rights of the respondent on the grounds of
abandonment and no ongoing parent-child relationship. See
General Statutes § 45a-717 (g).The termination petition was
transferred to the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in
Stamford. The matter was tried to the court in March, 2016;
the court issued a memorandum of decision on March 17, 2016.
The court issued an articulation on June 21, 2016.
memorandum of decision and articulation, the court made the
following findings of fact. At the time of trial, the child
was four and one-half years old. Between December, 2011, and
May, 2012, the respondent regularly visited the child and a
few times bought the child baby items. He has not seen the
child, however, since the child was six months old. The
petitioner does not talk to the child about the respondent,
and the child does not know that the respondent exists and
would not recognize him.
court found that the child has a comfortable, contented, and
loving relationship with the petitioner. They play together
easily and enjoy one another's company. The petitioner
provides the child with a balance of fun, learning, and
limits. When he engages with the petitioner, the child is
polite and curious. The child has a happy temperament and is
not especially given to tantrums or angry outbursts. He has
affectionate relationships with the petitioner, his maternal
grandparents and aunt, and has age appropriate personal
habits and self-care. The child relates well to other
children. He has a variety of interests, and a strong
capacity to focus on activities and to learn new things. He
persists when toys and games present a challenge. His verbal
skills and vocabulary are excellent. The child exhibits no
serious psychopathy or significant emotional or behavioral
2012, the respondent has been incarcerated for possession of
a gun and expects to be discharged in 2018. He was
incarcerated between 2006 and 2009 for firing a gun that
injured another person. The petitioner had a brief intimate
relationship with the respondent, who impregnated her. At the
time the petitioner was pregnant with the child, the
respondent impregnated another woman, whom he later married.
The respondent plans to resume living with the other woman
when he is released from prison.
court also found that the respondent had a troubled
relationship with his family. His father is unknown, and the
respondent no longer sees the woman in Haiti who raised him
until he was thirteen. He believed that the woman with whom
he resided in the United States from the age of thirteen was
his mother, but she told him when he was an adult that she
was not his mother and put him out of the house.
respondent wishes to have a loving relationship with the
child, but he has not been able to follow a law-abiding path.
He does not want the child to believe that he has abandoned
him. The respondent, however, is
‘‘disconnected'' from his emotions and
pretends that he is unaffected by his own family's
rejection of him. The court found that the respondent needs
to resolve these issues through counseling, but until the
time of trial, the respondent was unwilling to seek
counseling. Until the respondent works through his emotions
concerning his feelings of rejection, he will not be able to
develop a healthy relationship with the child. The respondent
also is unfamiliar with parenting.
the respondent has provided almost no financial support for
the child. After the child was born, the respondent did not
pay for baby wipes, diapers, or formula. He failed to
purchase clothing for the child on a regular basis. He has
not paid for any of the child's education expenses.
Inasmuch as the respondent is incarcerated, he has no income.
The court did not credit the respondent's testimony that
he has ready employment available once he is released from
petitioner returned to work two months after the child was
born and placed the child in day care at a cost of $250 per
week. The respondent did not contribute to the child's
day care expenses. In 2011, the petitioner sought child
support payments from the petitioner. Although the parties
reached an agreement, the agreement was not entered as a
court order. The respondent had agreed to pay 25 percent of
the child support until he could work more hours at his job,
but he never made any child support payments, stating that he
had no money. He has provided no support for the child since
time of trial, the petitioner and the child lived with the
child's maternal grandparents, who helped the petitioner
with insurance premium payments, food, and babysitting. The
child attended a preschool; the petitioner paid a co-pay and
Care for Kids paid the balance of the fee. The
petitioner's sister and grandfather also provided care
for the child. The petitioner worked at a pharmacy, earning
$15.50 an hour, and attended nursing school from which she
expected to graduate in September, 2016.
response to the respondent's motion for articulation, the
court stated that, with help, the petitioner meets all of the
child's needs. Her future earnings as a nurse will allow
her to meet the child's needs with less financial
assistance from her parents. The respondent has provided no
financial support since the child was six months old, and his
future earnings are speculative at best. The child's
greatest need is permanency in a placement that affords
emotional health and development. The petitioner is meeting
his physical, emotional, educational, medical, and moral
needs. The child does not know his father, the respondent,
and would not recognize him. He has no memories of the
respondent. The court concluded that it is in the child's
best interest that the respondent be relieved of his
financial obligations to the child, an obligation that he has
not met since 2012.
court found by clear and convincing evidence that the
respondent had abandoned the child and that he had no ongoing
relationship with the child. The court further found by clear
and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best
interest that the respondent's parental rights be
terminated. The respondent appealed and thereafter filed a
motion for articulation; see Practice Book § 61-10;
which the trial court denied. The respondent then filed a
motion for review; see Practice Book § 66-7; which this
response to the respondent's request that the court
articulate how the child's permanency needs are advanced
by terminating the respondent's parental rights, the
court repeated its factual findings as to the child's
happy temperament, his affectionate relationships with the
petitioner, his maternal grandparents and aunt, and his great
grandfather. The court also iterated its findings with
respect to the child's behavior, personal habits, his
relations with other children, his interests, and his