Argued
January 11.
Petition by the Commissioner of Children and Families to
terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect
to their minor child, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Hartford, Juvenile Matters, where the
respondent father was defaulted for failure to appear;
thereafter, the matter was tried to the court, C. Taylor, J.;
judgment terminating the respondents' parental rights,
from which the respondent mother appealed to this court.
Affirmed.
Joshua
Michtom, assistant public defender, for the appellant
(respondent mother).
Benjamin A. Abrams, assistant attorney general, with whom
were Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, and, on the
brief, George Jepsen, attorney gen- eral, for the appellee
(petitioner).
OPINION
BRIGHT, J.
The
respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial
court terminating her parental rights with respect to her
minor child, Malachi E.[1] On appeal, the respondent claims that
the court erred in determining that the termination of her
parental rights was in the best interest of the child because
(1) the court relied entirely on its adjudicatory
determination that the respondent had failed to achieve
sufficient personal rehabilitation, and (2) there was no
evidence to support its determination that the termination of
her parental rights was in the best interest of the
child.[2]We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The
following facts, which the court found by clear and
convincing evidence, none of which the respondent challenges
on appeal, and procedural history are relevant to the
resolution of this appeal. The child was born in December,
2015, and is the respondent's only child. The child, the
respondent, and the child's maternal grandmother
(grandmother) have lived together in a two family home owned
by the grandmother since the child's birth. On May 5,
2016, the grandmother reported to Monique Frey, a parent
educator, who was employed by the Catholic Charities
Nurturing Families Program and was working with the
respondent, that she was concerned about the safety of the
child. In particular, the grandmother reported that the
respondent is an alcoholic, is aggressive when she is drunk,
is depressed and has bipolar disorder, and that the child had
fallen off of a bed on two occasions. Frey then reported the
grandmother's concerns to the Department of Children and
Families (department). On that same date, personnel from the
department went to the respondent's residence to discuss
the report, but the respondent was defensive and refused to
cooperate.
On May
6, 2016, the grandmother reported to the department that the
respondent began drinking alcohol after its personnel had
departed from the residence. The grandmother also elaborated
on her prior report, stating that the respondent has a prior
history of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, that she
suffers from blackouts when she drinks, and that she
appropriately cares for the child when she is sober. On that
same date, the department's personnel returned to the
respondent's residence. Upon their arrival, the
respondent became verbally and physically aggressive, and
expressed a suicidal intent. As a result, she was taken to
Hartford Hospital for a seventy-two hour hold and a mental
health assessment. On May 7, 2016, the respondent was
discharged from Hartford Hospital.
On May
9, 2016, personnel from the department met with the
respondent regarding the future supervision of the child. At
the meeting, the respondent admitted that she had a long
history of substance abuse and mental health issues, that she
had been in and out of treatment for many years, that she had
not been taking her prescribed medications for over a year,
and that the child had fallen off a bed. The respondent
agreed to submit to a substance abuse and mental health
assessment at Wheeler Clinic, and to comply with any
recommendations stemming therefrom. She also agreed to permit
the grandmother to be the primary caretaker of the child
until the respondent had made progress in her treatment, and
that she would have only supervised contact with the child.
On June
20, 2016, the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and
Families, filed a neglect petition on behalf of the child and
an addendum in which she claimed that the child had been
denied proper care and attention as a result of the
respondent's substance abuse, mental health issues, and
the incidents in which the child had fallen from a bed. On
June 21, 2016, Wheeler Clinic reported that the respondent
had refused to comply with its recommendation that she
participate in individual counseling or trauma-focused
therapy to address her history of abuse and trauma. The next
day, the grandmother reported to the department that the
respondent continued to drink alcohol on the weekends. On
August 4, 2016, the respondent, who was represented by
counsel, appeared in court and denied the allegations of the
neglect petition. The respondent then refused two subsequent
recommendations for additional counseling services at Wheeler
Clinic. On September 6, 2016, the grandmother reported to the
department that the respondent had been intoxicated over the
weekend and, consequently, the respondent was hospitalized
first at Hartford Hospital, and then at the Institute of
Living.
On
September 12, 2016, the petitioner filed a motion for
temporary custody of the child that was supported by an
affidavit attested to by a social worker. Therein, the
petitioner alleged, on the basis of the same facts as the
neglect petition, that the child was in physical danger from
his surroundings, that immediate removal was necessary to
ensure his safety, and that reasonable efforts had been made
to eliminate the need to remove the child. On the same date,
the court granted the motion for temporary custody, pending a
hearing that was scheduled for September 16, 2016, and
ordered specific steps for the respondent's
rehabilitation. On September 13, 2016, the petitioner filed
an amended neglect petition.
On
September 16, 2016, the respondent appeared in court with
counsel, she agreed that the motion for temporary custody
could be sustained, and the court issued specific steps for
the respondent's rehabilitation. On approximately the
same date, the child was removed from the custody of the
respondent and placed in the care of the grandmother, who
lived in the same residence. Since that time, the grandmother
has continued to care for the child ‘‘full-time,
'' and the respondent has maintained frequent contact
and visits with the child, which have been supervised by the
grandmother.
On
November 8, 2016, the respondent entered a plea of nolo
contendre to the neglect petition. On that same date, the
court issued final specific steps for the respondent's
rehabilitation. In accordance with the specific steps, the
respondent was referred to several service providers,
including Radiance Innovative Services, and engaged in
services to address her mental health and alcohol use.
Nevertheless, she achieved limited progress and continued to
minimize her issues with alcohol and her history of trauma.
On
May4, 2017, a meeting was held among the respondent, a
clinician from Radiance Innovative Services, and the
department's personnel. At the meeting, the clinician
reported that the respondent never expressed any
accountability or responsibility for past incidents, denied
being intoxicated and claimed to have had just one drink when
she was out at dinner with a friend, refused an offer of
shelter or sober living housing because she wanted to retain
her freedom, continued to minimize her issues with her
alcohol use, and stated that alcohol was not an issue for
her. On May 18, 2017, the department referred the respondent
to the Therapeutic Family Time Program; however, on June 6,
2017, it learned that the respondent had been discharged for
her failure to complete the intake process.
On June
13, 2017, the petitioner filed a motion to review a
permanency plan that recommended the termination of the
respondent's parental rights and subsequent adoption of
the child. On June 28, 2017, the department's personnel
conducted a home visit during which the respondent adamantly
refused to participate in any additional programs, and said
that the department could keep the child. During that same
visit, the grandmother confirmed that the petitioner was
drinking alcohol the day prior to the May 4, 2017 meeting.
In
August and September, 2017, the department started
facilitating weekly supervised visits at its office. During
that time, the respondent reported to the department that she
had been consistently attending therapy, working on her
issues, and was making progress in her treatment. She
expressed an interest in reunification with the child and
recognized that she had made some mistakes. On September 13,
2017, the clinician reported that the respondent was more
stable and was doing well and, as a result, the frequency of
her sessions was reduced from weekly to biweekly. On
September 20, 2017, Frey reported that their recent ...