IN RE: Heavenly K.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These actions are brought by The Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or “Petitioner”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Heavenly K. (hereinafter referred to as “Heavenly K.” or “child”).   The biological mother of this child is Monica B. (hereinafter referred to as “Monica B.” or “Mother”) and the biological father is James K., (hereinafter referred to as “James K.” or “Father”).

On 10/28/09, Neglect Petitions and Motions for Temporary Custody were filed on behalf of the child with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford.

On 10/28/09, Petitions to Terminate Parental Rights of Monica B. and James K. were filed.

On 11/06/09, the court confirmed service on both parents.   Mother was present, was advised and appointed an attorney.   A CSC was set for 12/7/09 at 2 p.m.

On 11/24/09, Father was present, was advised and a denial was entered.

The court commenced with the trial on 3/15/10.   Both parents were present.   Counsel for DCF submitted nine exhibits (A-I) and presented two witnesses, and Respondent Mother presented one witness.   Neglect was not contested, commitment was ordered and the court took the papers and noticed the parties that it would issue a written decision.

The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting custody of this child and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.

The grounds of the Petition for TPR as to the biological mother, Monica B., and biological Father, James K., are Failure to Rehabilitate.  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(E).

On 11/6/09, the court sustained the OTC and ordered preliminary steps.

The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights and Neglect Petitions and has reviewed the Neglect Petition and the social studies and exhibits that were submitted in evidence.   The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering the evidence and the testimony of any witnesses.

I

FACTUAL FINDINGSA. Background, Facts Substantiating Allegations of Neglect and Termination, and Present Situation

The allegations of neglect and/or uncared stem from the child being abandoned;  denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally or morally;  and being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to her well-being.

The ground for the Petition of Termination of Parental Rights of Mother, Monica B. and Father, James K. is Ground E, in that they are the parents of a child under the age of seven who was neglected or uncared for;  they were unable or unwilling to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable amount of time, they would assume a responsible position in the life of the child;  and their parental rights to another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the DCF Commissioner.

A neglect and/or uncared for petition was filed based upon the fact that reasonable efforts to return the child to her parents were not possible or appropriate because the social issues that existed when Mother's parental rights to her two previous children were terminated still exist today, and she has made no effort to change her circumstances so her child can return to her care.   Mother has also been incarcerated.

Reasonable efforts to return Heavenly K. to her parents are not possible or appropriate because the social issues that existed when Father's parental rights to his two previous children were terminated still exist today and he has made no effort to change his circumstances so his child can return to his care.   He is currently incarcerated.

DCF has been involved with Mother since 2001 and Father since 1989.   The presenting problems with this family were Mother's chronic, untreated substance abuse, and transience, and Father being whereabouts unknown and suspected intentional lack of involvement in his other child's life.

A Petition for the Termination of Parental Rights was filed based on Heavenly K. being under the age of seven (DOB 10/21/09);  the child was neglected in that Mother and Father were incarcerated and unable to meet the needs of the child;  and did not have a plan in place for the child.   Mother has not made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate.

On 9/9/08, a Termination of Paternal Rights Petition was granted at Superior Court for Juvenile Matters regarding Mother's third child.   On 5/1/09, a Termination of Parental Rights Petition was granted at the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford regarding Mother's fourth child.   On 5/20/08, a Termination of Paternal Rights Petition was granted at the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford with regard to Father's first born child.   On 5/1/09, a Termination of Paternal Rights Petition was granted at the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford with regard to Father's second born child.

Due to Mother and Father's failure to engage in services offered, their ongoing use of illegal substances, their previous incarcerations and Father's current incarceration, that they remain unable to parent their children safely.   Mother has lost custody of two of her children and guardianship of two other children.   Father has lost custody of two of his children.

Father is incarcerated at Osborn Correctional Institution.   He was sentenced on 01/29/10 to one year of incarceration, with a maximum release date of 08/27/10.   Father has monthly visits with Heavenly K. at Osborn.   According to a letter sent by Father to the DCF social worker, he began a substance abuse program at Osborn Correctional Institution on 03/04/10.

Mother was released from York Correctional on 12/10/09, placed inpatient at the Chase Center in Waterbury, CT, until 01/12/10, and then re-incarcerated at York Correctional Institution.   According to Mother's case worker, she was sent back to court due to her behavior at the program.   She was offered another inpatient substance abuse program, however, she stated that she would not be able to remain substance-free, and requested to return to York Correctional Center.   Mother remained at York Correctional Center until 02/08/10, at which time she was released to the CRT/Fresh Start inpatient substance abuse program in Hartford, CT. She is actively participating in the group three times a week and receives medication management services and counseling.   Although she is participating in services, her case manager reported on 03/05/10, that Mother is on a behavioral contract because she needs to work on her interpersonal skills and needs to learn to be less aggressive.

Mother participated in a mental health assessment while at York Correctional Center and was diagnosed with ADHD and bipolar disorder.   She takes Abilify and Seroquel medications for mental health issues.   She believes that the medication has helped her self image and thinking process.   Mother continues to have weekly two-hour visits with Heavenly K. at the Fresh Start Program.   The visits are supervised by Devin L. from Family Connections and he relayed that Mother is appropriate during the visits and interacts well with her daughter.

Heavenly K. is placed in the same foster home as two of her older siblings who have been adopted by the foster parents.   She is doing well in the home, there are no medical concerns and she is current with her immunizations and medical appointments.   Foster mother reported that Heavenly K. has begun to sleep through the night and that she is eating well and reaching all of her developmental milestones.   Both foster parents have expressed their desire to adopt Heavenly K. so that she can remain with her two siblings.   The foster parents would be willing to maintain some contact with Mother and Father in the future should they be substance-free and appropriate with the child.

Despite intensive services offered to Mother and Father, they continue to be unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services with Heavenly K.

Mother and Father have failed to provide a safe and nurturing environment for Heavenly K. They have unresolved anger management issues that negatively impact their ability to provide adequate care for their child.   The child is an infant, rendering him completely dependent upon a responsible caretaker.

B. Mother, Monica B.

Monica B. was born on 2/22/79, to Luz R. and James B. At age 12, she came to the attention of DCF due to a voluntary services referral.   At that time she demonstrated concerning behaviors including gang involvement and running away.   She was voluntarily placed in DCF's care by her own mother, and was later committed to the Department.   During this period there were multiple placement disruptions including foster homes, shelters, as well as placements in a psychiatric hospital and a residential treatment facility.   From DCF records and investigator documentation, Monica B. has a significant history of substance abuse, behavioral health, and criminal court involvement.   She has a criminal record dating back to 1989 with charges including larceny, resisting arrest, possession of marijuana, breach of peace and failure to appear.

Mother has four older children:  a daughter, Taury, (DOB 10/14/95) a son, Solomon (DOB 11/14/99), a son James (DOB 11/29/07) and a son Jamere (DOB 11/15/08).   Taury lives with maternal grandmother, Luz R. Mother was 17 years old when she gave birth to Taury and maternal grandmother gained custody of him through Probate Court.   Solomon resides with his father;  and has been in his father's primary custody since 2/28/06, when his father filed for temporary custody through Probate Court due to Mother's substance use.   In May of that same year, Mother was removed as the child's guardian by the Probate Court.   James was removed from Mother's care at birth due to being exposed to substances and her rights to James were terminated by the court on 9/8/08.   Jamere was removed from Mother at birth due to being exposed to substances and her rights to Jamere were terminated by the court on 5/1/09.   Mother has been using drugs since she was 15, starting with marijuana and then trying cocaine when she was 22.   She has used-cocaine off and on since that time.   She admitted to using substances while she was pregnant with her son, James, who was born in November 2007.   She claims that she stopped using substances in September 2007, but relapsed in January 2008.   She has not had treatment for her substance use.

Mother denies a history of mental health but admitted that when she was pregnant with her son, Solomon, she attempted suicide in an isolated incident.   She was hospitalized at The Institute of Living for 72 hours and then discharged.   Mother denied being on any medication or being in treatment for mental health issues.   She believes that she has been diagnosed with depression but does not hear voices or have hallucinations.

Monica B. has been in a relationship with relationship with James K. for two years.   She met him while she was pregnant with her son James.   She claims that she has a good relationship with James K. although there was an isolated incident of domestic violence in April 2009 when she and James K. were arrested as a result of her assaulting him for eating her crab cakes and getting angry because he wanted to leave the hotel where they were staying.   She stated that this isolated incident was due to her pregnancy and that James K. has never been physically abusive to her.

Mother is a convicted felon with the following criminal history:  8/13/09-possession of a controlled substance less than four ounces of marijuana, use of drug paraphernalia and interfering with officer and resisting arrest.;   1/31/06-disorderly conduct (unconditional discharge);  9/23/02-breach of peace ($100 fine);  failure to appear (18 months conditional discharge);  10/19/01-possession of drugs/marijuana ($250 fine), failure to appear (unconditional discharge);  12/22/98-larceny 5 (18 months conditional discharge, 100 hours of community service).

C. Father, James K.

James K. was born on 11/23/81, to Tammy K. in Redding, Pennsylvania.   He has no information about his biological father.   He has resided in Connecticut since the age of four.   His mother lives in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and is diagnosed with Schizophrenia.   James K. has a childhood history of DCF involvement due to his mother's mental health issues.   He was raised and adopted by his maternal aunt who also adopted his two brothers and was a good surrogate mother to him.

James K. started using marijuana at the age of 13 due to peer pressure.   He began using PCP in 2002 and stopped in 2004.   He claims that using marijuana laced with PCP was precipitated by his brother being stabbed to death on 10/18/08.   He was using one to two bags of PCP twice a week but denies any cocaine use.   James K. has never completed substance abuse treatment.

James K. has never been diagnosed with any mental health issues and does not take psychiatric medication.   He has had five open heart surgeries since birth for valve replacement.   He did not participate in high school gym and was unable to sign up for military service.

Father's rights to his oldest son, Jesus, were terminated by the court on 5/20/08.   He did not contact DCF about Jesus' care and has only visited with him twice since his birth.   Father's rights to his second child, Jamere, were terminated by the court on 5/1/09.

Father has a criminal history that includes the following:  8/12/09-possession of a controlled substance less than four ounces of marijuana, criminal trespass 3rd degree, sale of certain illegal drugs, possession of narcotics, and controlled substance within 1500 feet of a school and daycare;  1/21/07-possession of narcotics ($600 fine);  6/24/05-possession of narcotics (1 year jail);  12/20/02-evading -injury/property (20 days jail);  9/26/02-possession of narcotics (18 months jail);  3/29/02-failure to appear (1 year jail concurrent);  10/-24/00-larceny 2 (3 years probation, 200 hours of community service), reckless endangerment (1 year probation), probation violation (unspecified sentence);  10/3/00-failure to appear (3 years probation 200 hours of community service).

D. Child, Heavenly K.

Heavenly K. was born on 10/21/09, to Monica B. and James K. in New London, Connecticut.   There were no complications or health concerns and the baby tested negative for substances.   She was removed from her Mother's care due to issues of physical neglect (Mother and Father were incarcerated at the time of her birth), the parents' DCF history and unaddressed substance abuse issues.   Heavenly K. was placed in a DCF licensed foster home on 10/24/09.

Heavenly K. was seen for a physical exam on 11/4/09, and no concerns were reported by the doctor.   Her foster parents have expressed their willingness and ability to be an adoptive resource for the child should she become legally free for adoption.   The foster mother has also expressed her willingness to maintain contact for Heavenly K. with the child's siblings who are in an adoptive home.

E. Relative and Other Resources

Mother had provided the name of Suejournal D., who was Mother's foster sister when Mother was in DCF care as a child, as a placement resource for Heavenly K. She was contacted by a social worker on 10/29/09, but she was unemployed at the time and had no income.   A completed background check indicated that Suejournal D. had been arrested on 8/20/09 for breach of peace 2nd degree and assault 3rd degree.

Mother has not provided a current phone number and address for maternal grandmother, who has a DCF history.   DCF attempted to obtain this information for their records.

Father provided the name of Denis K., paternal uncle as a resource for Heavenly K. On 10/26/09, a criminal background check was completed and the following criminal charges were found:  misdemeanor handgun disqualification in 2006;  criminal trespass 3 (nolled);  interfering/resisting arrest, assault personnel, larceny 2, use of motor vehicle without permission, possession of drugs and marijuana, sale of a controlled substance (nolled), drugs near a prohibited location (nolled);  possession of narcotics, possession of drug and marijuana, probation violation, possession of drugs/marijuana probation termination (2004);  restricted substance (nolled), criminal trespass 3 (2002).   Denis K. has not returned DCF phone calls with respect to his eligibility as a placement resource for Heavenly K.

DCF attempted to contact three paternal aunts at the time of Jesus' removal from his Father's care.   Aunt B. did not wish to be a resource, and Aunt S. and Aunt J. did not return the Department's phone calls.   Father has not provided DCF with any current phone numbers or addresses for his aunts.

G. Present Situation

See:  I-Factual Findings above.IINEGLECT AND UNCARED FOR ADJUDICATION

The court is required to proceed in three separate stages when neglect and uncared for and termination petitions are coterminously filed.   The court must first determine, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, if the child has been neglected or uncared for as of the date the petition was filed or last amended.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84-AB), 192 Conn. 254, 263, 471 A.2d 1380 (1984);  In re Emmanuel M., 43 Conn.Sup. 108, 111, 648 A.2d 904, aff'd 35 Conn.App. 276, 648 A.2d 881, cert. denied 321 Conn. 915, 648 A.2d 151 (1994).

The court finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that DCF has proven all of the allegations alleged in its neglect and uncared for petition.

“Courts have long been supportive of neglect adjudications which are, in effect, based on the prediction that the parent would neglect the child based on the parent's prior conduct or mental illness and the danger such conduct would present to a child left in her care.  In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 613 A.2d 748 (1992);  In re Kelly S., 29 Conn.App. 600, 616 A.2d 1161 (1992).   No court is required to leave a child in the custody of a parent who is clearly incapable of providing even basic care for the sole purpose of demonstrating that she will suffer actual harm.  In re Kelly S., supra 615.”  In Re Eric A., 1999 Ct.Sup. 16718 (1999).   See also In Re Michael D., 58 Conn.App. 119 (2000).

“Actual incidents of abuse or neglect are not required in determining that a child is uncared for under the ‘specialized needs' section of the statute.”   In re Kelly S., 29 Conn.App. 600, 613, 616 A.2d 1161 (1992), citing In re Carl O., 10 Conn.App. 428, 435-36, 523 A.2d 1339, cert. denied., 204 Conn. 802 (1987).   In this case a fair preponderance of the evidence has shown that the “home” provided by the parents would have lacked the stability, structure, safety, financial security and parental judgment necessary to assure adequate and competent care for this child.   The situation was totally inadequate, in light of the parent's ongoing deficiencies, to be viewed as an appropriate home for the child.  In re Kelly S., supra.

Facts Supporting Allegations of Neglect

Mother and Father have a history with the Department.   The presenting problems with this family are substance abuse, inadequate parenting skills, and homelessness.  (See:  I-Factual Findings above).

Mother and Father have had prior involvement with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters regarding other children who have been removed from their care.

III

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION

The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Mother, Monica B. ‘s and Father, James K.'s rights as of the date of the filing of the petition ․

A. Reasonable Efforts Finding

Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, in order to terminate parental rights, DCF initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify Heavenly K. with [her] parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  C.G.S.-Sec. 17a-112(j)(1).   “Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).

Reasonable efforts to reunify Heavenly K. with Monica B. and James K. are not possible because of Mother's unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues, Father's unaddressed substance abuse, his incarceration, and the lack of contact with or interest shown by him with regard to his daughter, Heavenly K.

The parents are basically unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts because the issues that previously existed with the child's siblings still exist despite services offered and referrals made.

DCF has been involved with Mother since 2007 and Father since 1989.

The presenting problems with this family were mother's chronic, untreated substance abuse and transience;  both parents' being whereabouts unknown;  Father's suspected intentional lack of involvement in his other child's life;  and Father's incarceration.

In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Grounds for the Termination:  Failure to Rehabilitate-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(E)-as to biological Mother, Monica B. and Biological Father, James K.

The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother and Father have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child was adjudicated as neglected and their parental rights to other children were previously terminated.   This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(E) states in part that:

[t]he Superior Court ․ may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ the child under the age of seven years ․ has been found by the Superior Court ․ to have been neglected ․ in a prior proceeding ․ and the parent ․ has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.

Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent.  “․ [The statute] requires the trial court ․ to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [they] have achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted).  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999) “․ [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [their] ability to manage [their] own life, but rather whether [they] have gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000).   See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001);  In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).

Whether the age and needs of the child would support allowance of further time for the parents to rehabilitate must also be considered.  In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 157, 167-68, 5545 A.2d 722 (1989).   The reasonableness of the time period within which rehabilitation is sought to be accomplished is a question of fact for the court.  In re Davon M., 16 Conn.App. 693, 696, 548 A.2d 1350 (1988).   Also, in determining whether further allowance of a reasonable period of time would promote rehabilitation, a court can consider efforts made since the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights.  In re Sarah M., 19 Conn.App. 371, 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Monica B. and James K. have yet to achieve a sufficient “level of rehabilitation ․ which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their child's life].”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000).   See In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005);  In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001).   The credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study and exhibits, clearly and convincingly establishes that Monica B. and James K. have not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(E) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that they have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground (E)-Failure to Rehabilitate with Heavenly K. as to biological Mother, Monica B.

1. Paragraph G of Section I-Factual Findings is hereby incorporated by reference.

2. Heavenly K. was born on 10/21/09 and is therefore less than seven years old.

3. Heavenly K. is a neglected child in that Mother was recently incarcerated, is presently on probation, is unable to meet the needs of the child and does not have a plan for the child's care.

4. Mother has not made efforts to rehabilitate.   She attended a substance abuse evaluation and screen on 12/18/07, and the service provider recommended intensive outpatient treatment services.   She informed Outreach and the engagement worker that she would prefer to attend inpatient or residential treatment.   A telephone interview with Connecticut Valley Hospital was offered, but Mother did not complete the interview.

5. Mother worked with the Project SAFE provider for about six weeks.   The provider supplied direction and helped with applying for public assistance and insurance through DSS, and in connecting with substance abuse treatment.   Mother was discharged from the program on 3/17/08, after the program staff spent several unsuccessful weeks attempting to contact her.

6. On 9/9/08, a Termination of Parental Rights Petition was granted at Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford with regard to Mother's third child.

7. On 5/1/09, a Termination of Parental Rights Petition was granted at Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford with regard to Mother's fourth child.

8. Due to Mother's failure to effectively engage in services offered and provided to her since 2007, and due to her ongoing drug use and recent incarceration, she has demonstrated that she remains unable to parent her child safely.   She has lost custody of two children and guardianship of two other children.

9. Heavenly K. is an infant who is completely dependent on a competent, sober, and nurturing caregiver for all of her needs.   She cannot summon for help if the need should arise.   The child needs permanent and stable living arrangements in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner.

Ground (E)-Failure to Rehabilitate with Heavenly K. as to biological Father, James K.

1. Paragraph G of Section I-Factual Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference.

2. Heavenly K. was born on 11/5/08 and is therefore less than seven years old.

3. Heavenly Kelly is a neglected child in that Father is currently incarcerated and unable to meet the needs of the child and does not have a plan for her care.

4. Father has been referred to ADRC for substance abuse evaluations and was scheduled to attend an evaluation on 12/13/08.   DCF has left messages with the Institute of Hispanic Families to make referrals for Father to attend parenting education classes and mental health assessments.

5. On 5/20/08, a Termination of Parental Rights Petition was granted at Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford regarding Father's first born child, Jesus.

6. On 5/1/09, a Termination of Parental Rights Petition was granted on Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford with regard to Father's second born child, Jamere.

7. Heavenly K. is an infant who is completely dependent on a competent, sober, and nurturing caregiver for all of her needs.   She cannot summon for help if the need should arise.   The child needs permanent and stable living arrangements in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Mother, Monica B., and Father, James K., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Heavenly K.

IV

DISPOSITION

Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights applying the appropriate standard of proof, the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial establish, by clear and convincing evidence, after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest.   If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.

A. C.G.S. § 17a-112(k) Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.

Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Monica B.'s and James K.'s parental rights, as they did not consent [but rather a trial was ordered by the court], the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k).  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).

These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:

1. “The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.”

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Heavenly K. with her parents.   Those services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent parents to facilitate [their] reunification with [their] child and made reasonable efforts to reunite [them] with [their] child.  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Monica B. and James K. are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.  CGS § 17a-112(j)(1).   Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.  In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004).

DCF was unable to provide services to facilitate the return of the child since Father, James K., and Mother, Monica B. have not come forward to participate in services and to establish stability, they have both been incarcerated and Father is currently incarcerated.

2. “Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.”

This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that the parents are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF has previously offered multiple services to the parents.   DCF has made reasonable efforts to maintain contact with both parents.

3. “The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order.”

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the parents have failed to fully comply with most of the terms ordered by the court.

4. “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to her parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.”

The child has been able to exhibit little or no bonding with her parents, due to their substance abuse and reluctance to accept their role as parents.   She has developed a strong bond with her foster parents with whom she has been placed since birth.   They have expressed a desire to adopt her.

5. “The age of the child.”

Heavenly K. was born on 10/21/09 and is five months old.

6. “The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to such child's home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent provided that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.”

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that they may have continued to abuse substances up to the present time and have refused to co-operate with DCF or programs presented.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for Heavenly K. To permit the child to return to the parents' care would compromise the safety of the child.

7. “The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.”

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, foster parents, Department of Corrections or third parties prevented Monica B. or James K. from maintaining a relationship with Heavenly K., nor did their economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

B. Best Interest of the Child-C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2)

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Monica B.'s and James K.'s parental rights to Heavenly K. would be in her best interests.²  Applying the appropriate legal standards ³ to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of the State of Connecticut and DCF.

In determining whether termination of Monica B.'s and James K.'s parental rights would be in the child's best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of her environment;  her length of stay in foster care;  the nature of her relationship with her biological parents;  and the degree of contact maintained with her biological parents.⁴  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000);  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).   In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance Heavenly K.'s intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with her parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).

Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that it is not in Heavenly K.'s best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with her parents.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that her parents have failed to gain insight into becoming safe, nurturing and responsible parents for Heavenly K. The clear and convincing evidence shows that their judgment and conduct remains questionable, and has not improved since their child was taken into DCF care.

The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles.   Their recalcitrance concerning referrals clearly and convincingly shows that, without commitment to consistent substance abuse treatment, as well as individual and parenting counseling, it is likely that they have extinguished what little chance they ever had to be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for any child.

An additional factor to consider in this case is time.   The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates Heavenly K.'s pressing need for permanence and stability.   Unfortunately, much time would be required for Mother and Father to show that they have forsaken substance abuse, addressed their issues, undertaken the necessary counseling and succeeded in it, established themselves in the community and shown that they were capable of being safe, nurturing and responsible parents to their child.

Heavenly K. cannot delay her need for permanence and stability for her parents' uncertain future.

Based upon the parents' behavior and performance so far, this court cannot foresee them ever having the ability or the opportunity to be able to follow the regimen necessary for this child to maximize her abilities and achievements.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time needed for the parents to attempt to rehabilitate and establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing and responsible parents, if that were possible, is time that their daughter cannot afford.

The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles.   Their conduct clearly and convincingly shows that it is unlikely that they will ever be able to conform their behavior to appropriate norms or be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for Heavenly K.

Our courts have recognized that “long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development ․” In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999).   Furthermore, “[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceeding on young children, time is of the essence” when resolving issues related to the permenant or temporary care of neglected children.  In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992);  see also In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).   The court is obliged to agree with DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Heavenly K. is entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of her biological parents as caretakers.

Having balanced Heavenly K.'s individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with her parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the child's best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to her parents.  Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.

Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by CGS § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, including the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Monica B. and James K. as to Heavenly K. is in the best interest of the child in question.

IV

CONCLUSION

The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Heavenly K.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Monica B., the biological Mother of the child and James K., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Heavenly K. are hereby terminated.

It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for this child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for this child.

The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as are required by state and federal law and which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of this child.

BY THE COURT,

WOLLENBERG, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, CGS § 17a-112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court most find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”.  FN2. The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, CGS § 17a-112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court most find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”

FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action, In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33-5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 454, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000)..  FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action, In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33-5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 454, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).

FN4. “[T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999)..  FN4. “[T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).

Wollenberg, William L., J.T.R.