Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** IN RE MARIAH S.* (AC 20365)
Spear, Pellegrino and Hennessy, Js. Argued September 26--officially released December 26, 2000 Counsel

Raymond J. Rigat, for the appellant (respondent mother). Mary K. Lenehan, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Opinion

SPEAR, J. The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, M.1 She claims that the court improperly found that (1) the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts at reunification, (2) she failed to achieve a sufficient level of personal rehabilitation and (3) there was no ongoing parent-child relationship. The respondent further claims that her federal and state constitutional rights were violated because (1) the department's

efforts at reunification were not reasonable and were especially inadequate considering that the respondent was a dependent child herself, (2) the court improperly concluded that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship prior to finding that the respondent was an unfit parent and (3) counsel for the respondent rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The court found the following facts. J., a twenty-six year old man, impregnated the respondent when she was twelve. At the time, the respondent, a former foster child, lived in Danbury with her maternal grandmother and two of her grandmother's adult children. M was born on September 4, 1995, when the respondent was thirteen years old. The respondent initially feared the department due to her own mother's experience in having children removed from her care, but she reluctantly agreed to accept assistance from the intensive family preservation service. The respondent nonetheless made poor caretaking choices for her child. A social worker who repeatedly visited the respondent's home for three months following the child's birth found that the child was not there, that the respondent did not know the name of the child's baby-sitter, that the child remained in the baby-sitter's care for several days at a time or that neither the respondent nor the child was at home and their whereabouts were unknown. In December, 1995, the respondent told the social worker that she was overwhelmed with caring for her child and wished to have the child cared for by a friend. On January 11, 1996, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner) filed a neglect petition on behalf of the child. Later that month, a social worker visited a home in New Milford where the respondent had placed her child three weeks earlier. After the police arrested an adult male occupant of the New Milford home for a drug-related offense, the child was removed from the home and a ninety-six hour hold was invoked. On March 1, 1996, the court issued an order of temporary custody, finding that the child was in immediate physical danger from her surroundings and that removal was necessary to ensure her safety. The child was then placed in the care of a foster family, where she has been living ever since. During the ensuing year, David Mantell, a psychologist, conducted a court-ordered evaluation of the respondent and recommended mental health care, a psychiatric evaluation for assessment of depression and medication, and an intensive program of individual psychotherapy. Because the respondent did not follow Mantell's recommendations and made little progress toward reunification, the department took additional steps. On April 10, 1997, the respondent entered into a service agreement with her grandmother and the

department that outlined the parties' various responsibilities ``in creating conditions that would allow [the respondent] to be considered as a permanent caretaker for [the child] . . . .'' The respondent agreed to visit her daughter, to participate in psychotherapy and to show improvement in her ``judgment, relationships with men, self-esteem and parenting issues.'' She also agreed to participate in a psychiatric evaluation and to inform the department if any of the anticipated service providers were unavailable so that the department could offer alternative resources. In addition, the respondent agreed to review her progress in six months. The respondent did not live up to her obligations. She refused to complete a psychiatric evaluation and to participate in psychotherapy. On March 18, 1998, the court adjudicated the child neglected, following the respondent's nolo contendere plea, and committed the child to the care and custody of the commissioner for a period not to exceed twelve months. On March 18, 1998, the respondent, her attorney, her court-appointed guardian ad litem and the child's attorney agreed to court-ordered expectations whereby the respondent was required, inter alia, (1) to keep all appointments set by or with the department, (2) to make her whereabouts known, (3) to visit the child as often as the department permitted, (4) to engage in individual counseling, (5) to secure and maintain adequate housing and income, (6) to abstain from substance abuse, (7) to obtain a consistent secondary caretaker, (8) to have no ``involvement'' with the criminal justice system, (9) to participate in a teen mentor program and (10) to complete a psychological evaluation and follow any subsequent recommendations for treatment. The expectations included a caveat advising the respondent that the ``[f]ailure to achieve these goals will increase the chance that a petition may be filed to terminate your parental rights permanently so that your child may be placed in adoption. If you need help in reaching any of these expectations, contact your lawyer and/or [department] worker.'' On March 9, 1999, the commissioner filed a petition to terminate the respondent's parental rights. A trial was conducted in October, 1999. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the department had made reasonable efforts at reunification. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent had failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation, within the meaning of General Statutes

Download In re Mariah S..pdf

Connecticut Law