IN RE:.  London S.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a contested action brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to terminate the parental rights of Gianna R. and Harley S. to their male child, London S. The parents have appeared and are represented by counsel.   The child is represented by counsel.   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   This court has jurisdiction.

The petition, filed on November 12, 2009, alleges that as to both respondents, that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, either of them could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.  C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).

The court heard the testimony of eleven witnesses including DCF social workers, three police officers, an evaluating psychologist, the mother's therapist, and the maternal grandparents.   A host of documents were entered into evidence including social studies, psychologist's reports, and police reports.   Since neither the father nor the mother testified, the representations in the social studies and evaluations were mostly uncontested.

At the conclusion of the evidence following two days of testimony, the oral argument focused the court's attention on the main issues:  neither parent seeks a return of the child to their custody, but rather both seek a transfer of guardianship of the child to the maternal grandparents rather than a termination of parental rights.

The court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

The Maternal Grandparents:

At the time of the birth of London on March 15, 2008, the child was brought to the home of the maternal grandparents.   Their daughter, Gia, did not have the ability to provide for the child alone.   Gia, the child's mother, was to provide the primary care for the child with the assistance of her parents.   As will be seen, the child has been in the exclusive care of the grandparents since birth and remains in their care.

Both grandparents testified in court.   The maternal grandparents appear to be in good health.   They have their own single family home in a suburban community.   The maternal grandmother is 49 years of age.   Her husband is 52.   She has some college and is employed in health information services at two local hospitals.   The maternal grandfather is a college graduate and employed as Director of Environmental Services at a State College in Massachusetts.   They have two daughters, Gia being the youngest.

The maternal grandmother believed that they had the “perfect family” until Gia began cutting herself in early adolescence.   Unbeknown to her mother, Gia admits to being sexually active, drinking alcohol and doing drugs.   Gia was hospitalized a few times, changed schools, and began therapy/counseling.   Gia discontinued the therapy.

The Respondent, Mother.2

Gia is strikingly attractive in her presentation in court.   She will be twenty-one years old in July. Gia describes herself as coming from an intact, middle class family of four.   She enjoyed a happy childhood and a good relationship with her parents and one older sister.   She told the DCF social workers that she began experiencing behavioral and educational problems in early adolescence.   These issues were severe enough to result in several mental health hospitalizations, mental health counseling and educational intervention, principally in the form of alternative high schools.   She reports to having been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder.   Her psychological evaluation and other documents and testimony reflect a much more seriously dysfunctional and volatile personality.

Gia expressed her dissatisfaction with herself and her internal conflicts of control with her mother, by cutting herself, educational insufficiency, running away and ultimately, to the enormous distress of her mother, by involving herself at age 16, with Harley S.

Psychological Assessment: 3

Behaviorally, as a toddler, Gia was described as willful, difficult to redirect, and always had a “strong personality.”  ․ In second grade, Gia was beaten by a much larger, older male student on the school bus ․ Gia developed a fear of going to school ․ Apparently, the attack was precipitated by Gia calling the boy ugly ․ really significant behavioral and emotional difficulties were not noticed much by Maternal grandmother until Gia was about 13 years old ․ According to Mrs. R., Adrienne began calling her mother at work, complaining that her young sister was fighting, throwing things, and hitting her ․ Gia admitted to smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, and being sexually active by the time she was thirteen or fourteen.  “I was oblivious.”   Asked specifically if some professional intervention was sought, maternal grandmother said they did not involve her in therapy until she was 15 years old, when she “willingly got in a car with an older boy from school, drank, took drugs, and got sexually assaulted.”  ․ “Shortly thereafter, she [Gia] attempted suicide,” by “serious wrist cutting.”   She was doing much alcohol and drug abuse, but mother thought she had “good supports at school.”  ․ Maternal grandmother said her daughter was admitted to Manchester Hospital several times, and attended an alternative high school program, where more drugs were readily available.   They placed her in the hospital's clinical day school, where she finished high school.   Prior to graduation, she met and began dating Harley S. “Everything went wrong then,” and maternal grandmother alleged Harley planned for Gia to become pregnant so he could get housing assistance, food stamps, and other forms of public assistance, “like his mother, father,” and other family members.

The Respondent Father.4

Harley is four years older than Gia. Contrasting greatly with the attractive and fashionably dressed Gia, Harley's most striking feature is that he is covered with tattoos.   The tattoos which were also noted by the evaluating psychologist, cover his neck, biceps, forearms, elbows, wrists and fingers.   As noted before, neither parent testified.   So the evaluation of both parents by the court, aside from their appearance, is taken largely from the social studies, testimony of witnesses, the psychological evaluation and the arrest records.   These documents confirm that while the two of them appear to be greatly different in presentation, their mental instability, behavioral disorder and personalities are remarkably similar.

Harley reports his parents' separation at age three.   He has two full sisters, two half-sisters and one half-brother.   He reports living back and forth between various communities in Massachusetts and Connecticut.   His early life was dysfunctional and disordered.   Even today, he often uses a Massachusetts address of his father and a Connecticut address of his mother when he is not residing with Gia. His record of residential stability is poor.

Harley reports being expelled from school in the 6th, 8th, and 10th grades.   Like Gia, he also attended and graduated from an alternative high school after he was expelled from the public high school.   He reports being in the Charles River Hospital (Massachusetts) for three months at aged 12 for attempted suicide.   At aged 14, he was hospitalized in Connecticut again for attempted suicide.   While involved with Gia, at age 22, Harley was admitted to Manchester hospital because he tried to hang himself on September 20, 2008, and again following an arrest for threatening suicide in 2009.

Harley has a history of residential instability, unemployment, and frequent arrests for possession of drugs, breach of peace, assaults, violation of protective orders, and disorderly conduct.   His most recent positive drug screen for marijuana occurred little more than two weeks ago on May 25, 2010.

Psychological assessment:

Father presented as a short, stocky man, with multiple colorful tattoos visible on his arms, hands, fingers, and neck.   His clothing was neat and clean and all black including his cap, with the exception of his silver studded belt.   His short hair was neat, as well as facial hair.   His ear lobes were pierced, with large bore earrings, leaving significant circular holes in each ear lobe.

In his presentation, he is mostly an innocent victim and Gia has been the instigator of all of their physical altercations and his arrests, other than the time he punched her ex-boyfriend in self-defense, breaking the young man's tooth.   He also alleged that Sallie R. (maternal grandmother ) was conspiring against him, not liking him from the beginning of his relationship with mother, and was falsely accusing him of all sorts of things.

“Her mom thought I wasn't good enough for her.   She thought Gia was wasting her time with me.   Once, we got arrested together and that might be a factor [in why her parents disliked him].”   The incident to which he was referring was a time Gia told him her ex-boyfriend was harassing her, “so we went to his house and I beat him up.”   When asked, Mr. S. agreed that his actions were “stupid.”   He and Gia were then not allowed to speak for a while, because they were codefendants in the criminal proceedings.  “I got probation, but it's still on my record.   Then Gia got pregnant.   She was already crazy, but the hormones made her crazier.”   He felt initially attracted to her because “she's very pretty.   When she's sane, she's got a great personality and she's funny.   I like spending time with her;  some weird attraction I can't explain.   I keep going back, knowing it's a bad idea.”   He thought they had been involved for about a month before they became sexually involved, and it was about two years before London was conceived.  [His math did not add up.   If Gia was 16 when they were going out, and was 18 when London was born, the child must have been conceived after they knew one another for about one year or a little more, not two years.]   Harley was asked why they were not using birth control, and said, “I thought she was on birth control.”   He then reported that his ex-girlfriend was pregnant, within another relationship, and he opined that Gia was jealous so she must have gotten pregnant on purpose.   When he asked her about this theory, he said “she wouldn't give me a straight answer,” going on to add, “like I said, it was a bad relationship.   I finally have stopped going back to her.”  (N.B. the evaluation was done in April 2010.)

When he learned Gia was pregnant, Harley said he had a mixture of feelings and thoughts, mostly negative ones.  “I thought she was really young and should get an abortion, but she was against it.   I didn't think I was ready to have a baby for four or five years, till I was financially stable.   She didn't like my job.  [Question:  what didn't she like?   What was your job?]   I was a retail manager at the mall.   I quit, because she didn't like girls hitting on me.   Then, I couldn't find a steady, good job.   I would have liked to have a baby later.   I don't regret having London.   I love him, but didn't think either one of us was ready.”   Asked to describe her feelings and thoughts about the pregnancy, he said “she was excited.   She was only 17 or 18, and I don't think she realized the amount of responsibility kids take.   After a month, she was ready to go out and have fun.”   He then alleged it was her desire to continue acting like a teenager that led to DCF involvement.

The court finds that Harley is essentially homeless, unreliably employed, unwilling to accept personal responsibility for his own situation, drug involved, mentally at risk and essentially, unable to care for himself in a socially acceptable manner.   He could not ensure the safety and well-being of an infant.

The minor child, London.

Gia became pregnant at age seventeen.   Neither she nor Harley was functioning at a level of competence to adequately care for themselves.   Given the mental instability that will be later described in detail, their interpersonal relationship was toxic.

It should be noted here that while DCF cites as reasons for bringing a petition to terminate their parental rights, the exposing of the child to domestic violence and the physical and verbal abuse of Gia by Harley, inter alia, the court finds that both parties harbor uncontrolled rage and aggression and have each subjected the other to verbal, emotional and physical violence.   The court further finds that these conditions preceded their current interpersonal relationship and continue unabated as of the present time.

Gia's parents believed that Gia and Harley were in an abusive relationship from the very beginning.   One evening while Gia was seventeen and pregnant, she left the home of her parents to help stop Harley from doing drugs.   Whatever happened, Gia ended up on a riverbank with a battered face when her mother went to pick her up.   Gia refused to call the police and was taken to the hospital emergency room.   Harley was called by the maternal grandmother to report Gia's condition.   Harley said Gia was crazy and he wanted nothing to do with her.   Just as so many times thereafter, the couple did not break off their relationship.

DCF first became involved on April 7, 2008, when the police were summoned to the home of the maternal grandparents.   London had been born three weeks earlier on March 15, 2008.   Gia and Harley were going out for the evening to a movie and the maternal grandparents were to babysit at their home.   Gia left breast milk to feed the infant.   The parents were gone for longer than anticipated and the maternal grandparents ran out of breast milk for the child.   When Gia and Harley returned an argument ensued.   The grandparents thought Gia was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.   Gia became angry and struck her father in the face.   The police were called.

DCF was summoned by the police.   They prepared a safety plan whereby Gia and London were to reside with the maternal grandparents, Harley was to stay away from the home of the grandparents, except for visitation.   Later partial protective orders were obtained to prevent Gia from assaulting her father and to keep Harley from the home of the grandparents.

Psychologist's assessment:

London (dob:  03/15/2008) is the only child born within his parents' non-marital relationship.   Gianna R. was 18 years old by the time of London's birth;  Harley S. was then almost 23 years old.   Reports of significant volatility and dysfunction in their relationship have been made, with the identity of the instigator of domestic violence and other problems varying with the reporter.   At the time of the child's birth, the young parents had no stable living arrangements of income sources, so mother and baby went to reside with her parents, where appropriate preparations had been made.   Gia was expected to care for the infant, assisted by her parents.   Harley was expected to visit, under guidelines set by maternal grandparents.   Although some concerns were expressed about the young parents' capacity to independently care for London after birth, there were no formal protective custody arrangements or DCF involvement, initially.   DCF reportedly became involved after a physical altercation between mother and maternal grandfather, during which Gia punched her father in the face.   By written agreement, London was placed in the maternal grandparent's care, with DCF legally overseeing the child's welfare.   According to reports from all parties, there have been multiple issues presented with the inter-relationships among maternal grandparents and parents, once again with the nature and source of the difficulties varying with the provider of the account.

Sometime after the April 2008 event, Gia moved out of the home of her parents and moved in with Harley.   On or about July 28, 2008, the grandparents were leaving their home for an extended boating trip.   Gia was to stay at their home and care for London.   As soon as the grandparents were away, Gia organized a party at the home.   That night in the early morning hours, the neighbors heard a party going on, heard Gia and Harley arguing and heard pottery being broken.   They called the police.   Gia and Harley told wildly conflicting and inconsistent stories to the police, some of which involved threats, a knife, drugs in the house, and Harley's threats of suicide.   Harley admitted to getting a knife and threatening to kill himself.   Whatever happened, Gia was arrested for violating the protective order, Harley was arrested for trespass and brought to the emergency room because of his suicidal ideation.   Again, DCF was summoned to the house by the police since London was at home.

Psychological assessment:

In other incidents, Harley insisted that mother was always the one to attack him, and he was arrested four times for her assaulting him.  “I had my head cracked open by her,” he continued, claiming complete innocence in domestic violence reports.   He stated he has called Mr. R. to pull Gia off of him, while she continued to kick him.  “I get the shit kicked out of me and she's the one attacking me.   I don't hit her.   Once she went to a show, while pregnant.   She broke her foot and got hit.  [Question:  how?]   From the mosh pit.   Her mom called DCF and blamed me.   We did argue a lot and I have lots of resentment towards this whole situation.   I'm getting screwed and I didn't do anything.”   Going on, he mentioned the party Gia had at Maternal grandparents' home, while they were gone, and London was asleep upstairs.  “I found out about the party and that another friend was bringing over her baby.”   Harley claimed he went there, in violation of a protective order, to kick everyone out because “I didn't think it was a good idea for a party while there were babies there.   Gia flipped out, ‘cuz I ruined her birthday party.   She was screaming and attacked me and flower pots got smashed.   Then, we resolved it, and I slept overnight.   The police came at 8 a.m., and I got a ticket for trespassing.   She violated the protective order by not following house rules by having me over.   Her mom blamed me for having the party and smashing up her house, but DCF saw she was irresponsible and made her sign a thing saying to put London in her parents' care.   I didn't want to be involved with DCF. [Question:  how come?]   I know how DCF works.  [Question:  what does that mean?]   I had them in my life when I was a kid.   They're really shifty.”   He then went on to accuse DCF of “lying” and having “shifty methods,” complaining he had to sign a paper saying he would not be with London without a third party present.   He continued to firmly claim his innocence of any sort of neglect, and to be irate his rights could be terminated based on false information from others, particularly Maternal grandmother.  [Throughout such diatribes, Harley continued to be resistant to any explanatory factors not placing almost full blame onto maternal grandmother, despite suggestive feelers by the evaluator that maternal grandmother and father, might be relying on skewed information provided by her daughter.   For both maternal grandmother and father, it seemed easier to just blame and dislike one another.   Unfortunately, the implication of such tendencies is significant improbability they could potentially cooperate in London's best interests.]

DCF prepared and Gia signed a service plan agreeing:  1) the child would remain with the maternal grandparents, 2) Gia would not reside in that home, 3) Gia would attend domestic violence counseling, 4) Gia would attend individual counseling, 5) grandparents would supervise visits and 6) Gia would participate in anger management counseling.   Since Harley told DCF that he was getting services at Hockanum Valley DCF took no further action as to him, except with respect to arranging visitation and obtaining a protective order.

As the child continued to live with the maternal grandparents who had no legal right to the child, DCF filed a neglect petition in October 9, 2008.   On January 29, 2009, London was adjudicated a neglected child (Simon, J.) and committed to DCF. The child has continued to live with the grandparents since birth.

Psychological assessment:

Weaning London off breast milk became necessary because Gia began spending less time at home and manifesting less interest in caring for the baby.  “She was unreliable about coming home.”   Hence, maternal grandparents took over more and more of the baby's care.

After the neglect adjudication the parents signed Specific Steps requiring the parents to keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF;  take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals;  submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow the recommendations about treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention;  submit to random drug testing;  the time and method of the testing will be up to DCF;  cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling;  get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal income and importantly, not get involved with the criminal justice system.   Further, not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine and cooperate with restraining / protective orders.

Both Gia and Harley were not honest with DCF. They often denied that they were still in a relationship notwithstanding protective orders to the contrary.   They were arrested on July 13, 2009, August 22, 2009, September 16, 2009, and December 4, 2009.   All arrests had to do with criminal violation of protective orders, among other things.

These arrests not only signified a criminal law violation and a violation of the specific steps to avoid criminal involvement and obey the protective orders, but the arrests demonstrated a lack of benefit obtained in the services that they both had reluctantly attended.   Exhibit R describes the events of August 22, 2009, when Gia's ex-boyfriend was at her apartment.   Gia, who holds herself out as a tattoo artist, had done a new tattoo for her ex-boyfriend.   Whatever the exact description of events, the ex-boyfriend was “sucker punched” in the mouth by Harley causing him to lose a tooth.   It was not self-defense as Harley told the psychologist.   A melee of sorts ensued resulting in the arrest of Gia for violation of a protective order and breach of peace.   Harley was arrested for assault in the 2nd degree, falsely reporting an incident and violation of a protective order.

Psychological assessment:

Given his portrayal of the romantic relationship, Harley was questioned about continuing to be involved with mother.  “I could only see my son once a week.   I thought it would be good to get back together in order to have London.   I grew up with only one parent, and I want him to have two.   I love her;  she's pretty and funny.   I just keep going back.   Now, I'm in a bunch of trouble with the law and might lose my son.”   He insisted he has “now called it quits.   I started leaving her, about eight months ago;  packed up my stuff.   She was squirting me with household chemicals and I did it back.   The police showed up and we were both charged with disorderly conduct.   Then, we were over at her house, and her ex showed up drunk.   He punched me and I hit him back and broke his tooth.”   The result was Harley being arrested for assault and violation of a protective order because he was at maternal grandparent's house.  “We were still talking because of the court case with London.   I didn't want to go inside, but she wasn't coming out.   I went in and the police show up.   She told the police I broke in and she didn't want me there.   I got charged with another violation and burglary.   I'm fed up with this shit.

It is clear from hearing the two, usually conflicting views, of events, that neither Gia nor Harley accurately assess the world around them.   Similarly, even the maternal grandparents concede Harley's accounts of why he was arrested are significantly at variance to the observation of many others that their daughter is often the aggressor in the domestic confrontations between the two.

DCF has offered reasonable, appropriate and available services to both Gia and Harley.   They both desperately require committed long term individual counseling with medication.   Both do from time to time concede the need for counseling.   Yet two years following the removal of their child, neither has successfully engaged in consistent, long term treatment.   Dr Berkowitz assesses each parent as follows:

As to Harley:

This man is chronically depressed, to the extent that negativism, suspicion, and emotional insulation from others have all become integral parts of his character structure.   He has come to expect others to betray him and disappoint him, and has little awareness of the impact of his own behavior on others, or how his actions can precipitate the negative consequences he fears and expects.   His self-esteem and self-confidence are precarious, and his manner of socially approaching others is likely inconsistent.   Harley does not tolerate frustration well, and tends to be easily irritated by others, even when some of the perceived slights could be figments of his imagination and/or suspiciousness.   He can easily be provoked into impulsively expressing hostility, perceiving his behavior as justified by what he thinks others are doing to him or have done to him.   Mostly, he is unable to accept responsibility for effects of his behaviors or their ensuing consequences.   With his close personal relationships, he is prone to bitterly complain, to feel victimized, and to be overly concerned about others' efforts to exert control over him.   Harley seemed to have difficulty with real, adult autonomy, and to over-react to highly-attuned sense of vulnerability to depending on others.   Disagreements over his actions are almost always perceived as other wanting to be in control, rather than seen as potential feedback from which he could more effectively make behavioral decisions.   When he makes decisions he later regrets, he tends to blame others for causing him to make those decisions.   He is also prone to significantly distort others' remarks, characterizing them as more denigrating and insulting then reality.   When angered, Harley had difficulty exerting control over his propensity to constrain expression of hostility.   He lacks an effective conscience, and does not feel guilt or remorse for things he has done or caused to happen, preferring to externalize responsibility onto others.   Noteworthy MCMI-III responses were made in such areas as social alienation, emotional dyscontrol, and self-destructive potential.

Diagnostically, Harley appeared to be currently suffering an Acute Major Depressive episode, without psychotic features.   There were also signs he sometimes experiences brief periods of agitated, intense, restless and temperamental energy surges-probable manic episodes.   At such times, he is more readily provoked into angry and disruptive outbursts, during which he could potentially harm others, verbally and/or physically.   The more he feels trapped by others or by circumstances the more powerless and hopeless he feels and the more probable he will experience suicidal ideation and/or behaviors.

Unfortunately, with respect to parenting capacity, emotional maturity, and personal stability, there seemed to be no current likelihood that Harley S. could provide London with adequate parenting.   He did seem potentially capable of being a positive, supportive visiting resource, if he could successfully participate in sufficient treatment to remediate his inadequate interpersonal interaction skills in order to form a civil relationship with the child's caretakers.   Doing so would entail recognizing his responsibility for many of the relational difficulties between him and the R's (maternal grandparents ).

Gia appears to have more recognition of her need for counseling without recognizing how she undermines her own opportunities for successful therapy:

Recently, she stopped going to treatment, and justified cessation by saying “the people I was seeing, I honestly didn't think they understood anything I was saying ‘cuz they are not in my shoes and are out of my age range.   I felt like they were just paid to listen to me and that can't help me.”   She was heavily confronted for these flimsy excuses, so she next switched to saying “I felt like they were giving me wrong advice.   I didn't have time to give them all details.   You only get like an hour or something, right?   Hence, their advice was wrong.  [Question:  tell me what your part is in your failure to benefit from treatment, rather than just blaming the professional involved.   What's your part?]   I know what's right and wrong.  [Question:  really?]   I did well with male therapists, and then I got females.   I always feel like women are judging me, like you.”   In further conversation, she admitted being easily intimidated by women, and she never informed any of the female professionals how she felt, so they might have been able to work with her.  [It appeared strongly probable that Gia was transferring her issues with her mother onto female professionals, and offering multiple excuses for her failure to benefit from services.   She was never able to respond as to her responsibility in the therapeutic relationships.]   Next asked what kinds of services she thought she needed, she said “I do need to go back to therapy, ‘cuz I need to be on mood stabilizers.”   In further discussion, she continued to think she did not have Bipolar Disorder, even though she thought she needed medications usually prescribed for those with Bipolar Disorder.   Confronted about her contradictions, she seemed at a loss.   She reported previously being prescribed a mood stabilizer, but not filling it because it was too expensive, even bough it was a generic.   Only later did she say she also wanted therapy, not just medications.   Asked what issues she thought she needed to work on, she said she did not know, other than “a lot of anger build-up, but I didn't want to say that.   I don't have friends to talk to.  [Question:  are you aware your friends cannot provide you with therapy?]   Yes. Having a kid taken away is a huge thing for me.   I'm upset;  upset I'm not there to raise my son.   I would love to.   I have to get out my feelings of upset.  [Question:  what else?]   Anxiety issues.   Don't know what that's about.   I need someone to help me out to understand what that is about.”   In further questioning about how she handles her anger and stress, she said, “when I get pissed off, I usually tell them [others] I'm pissed off.   I get pissed off with myself, and announce to myself, “what do I need to do to not get pissed off?”  [Question:  so what do you need to do?]   Take a step back;  coping skills and stuff.  [Question:  coping skills and stuff tells me nothing.   What do you do?]   Strumming my guitar, improvising music.   Smoke cigarettes, lots of cigarettes.   I don't smoke around London.”  [It is noteworthy that none of her coping skills actually deal with problem-solving, only with stress reduction.]

The social worker reports Mother is not currently engaged in any services.   On December 1, 2009, Gia reported she does not wish to return to individual counseling, as she does not benefit from these services and is no longer in need of them.   Gia reported she last attended counseling services in September.   In January, the Department offered Gia parenting and individual counseling services which she declined.   She reported she did not feel she was in need of further parenting classes and also did not feel she was in need of counseling services.   Again in March 2010, the Department asked her once again if she had followed through with engaging in counseling services as recommended.   She said that she did have the contact information for Inter Connections in East Hartford, CT, but that she continues to forget to call, she agreed to call by March 31, to schedule her intake to begin counseling services.   She failed to follow through.   Gia also stated that she was in need of a refill for her anxiety medication which she said she would address with Inter Connections.

Psychological assessment:

Asked what other types of help or services Gia thought she and her family needed, she stated, “I definitely need to be in a domestic violence group, a support group.   I would definitely benefit.   DCF thinks I need to be in counseling.   I would like to do that, not just for DCF. I might need meds.   I'm fine now;  no trouble with the law, just trouble relating to Harley.   I'm not that bad of a kid.”  [This psychologist's impression is that Gianna R. has little awareness of the nature and depth of her psychological issues, the treatment she needs, or the impact of her immaturity and emotional neediness on others.   Nor does her self-depiction as a “kid” bode well for considering her as a full-time, adult, parental resource for London.]   What she would like this psychologist to be able to tell the Judge is “I want my son.   I would love to prove to everybody it was a mistake of him being taken away.   Not that;  I'm bad with words.   Just ‘cuz I'm incompetent doesn't make me a bad parent.   I'm LD but not a bad parent.  [Question:  well, what is it you want to say?]   I want to say I would love it if they returned custody back to me.   They won't regret it.

Overall, this young woman manifested a significant level of behavioral and personality disturbance.   It is quite unfortunate she waffled during her statements about needing and wanting to engage in mental health services.   Her assertions about wanting to have therapy and medication seemed more designed to make a positive impression on the court-appointed evaluator.   Her actual behaviors and her externalization of responsibility for repeatedly failed services seemed reflective of much lack of willingness to fully participate.   Any therapist with whom she engages should expect to be frequently tested for sincerity and competency.   In addition, Gia will probably behave passive-aggressively, rather than honestly express her mistrust or skepticism.   She may superficially act the dutiful patient, but the professional should be highly alert to be likelihood Gia is only acting as though she is cooperating and benefitting.   Premature termination, blaming the therapist for doing or not doing something, would not be surprising.   Prognosis for significant benefit, at this point in time, is “poor” to “guarded,” at best.

Adjudication

In considering the law applicable to this case, the court must consider the effects of domestic violence on children.   In the matter of In re DR, Superior Court, Child Protection Session at Middletown, Docket No. CP 03 07318 (December 12, 2003, Rubinow, J.), n.31;  after finding that the child was uncared for, the court noted that the evidence did not establish “which of the respondent parents had instigated the historical domestic violence at issue in this case ․ However, the court has not turned a blind eye to the preponderant evidence of the respondent parents' history of domestic violence, and has taken note of General Statutes § 17a-106b(a), which provides, in pertinent part:  ‘The state of Connecticut finds that family violence can result in abuse and neglect of the children living in the household where such violence occurs ․’ “ Similarly, In re Destiny Q., Superior Court, Child Protection Session at Middletown (November 19, 2001, Levin, J.), in discussing whether a mother's parental right should be terminated on the basis of failure to rehabilitate, the court stated:  “Preliminarily, the court observes that the failure of a parent to protect a child from harm and a parental history of engaging in relationships marked by domestic violence are parental deficiencies requiring rehabilitation which, if unsuccessful, may warrant the termination of parental rights.”

In another child protection case, In re Joseph L., 105 Conn.App. 515, 526-27, 939 A.2d 16, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 902, 947 A.2d 341, 342 (2008), the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the respondent mother could not provide adequate care for the children in that, inter alia, she refused to attend a domestic violence program and her history of “dependency on poorly chosen partners and irresponsibility regarding her children have had a significant impact on her parenting ․” The court also found that the trial court properly determined that termination of the respondents' parental rights was in the best interests of the children in that they were not able to assume responsible parental roles, “[f]or instance, the respondent mother has chosen to continue her relationship with a violent, controlling individual on whom she is completely dependent.   Additionally, the court found that the children had already endured difficulties in their lives, ‘including the trauma of witnessing various domestic violence incidents and living in an environment of coercive control by the respondent's father.”   Id., 531.   In the present case, both parents have engaged in family violence which included angry screaming and physical aggression.   Significantly, they have stated that the child was not harmed since the child was in another room.

Based upon this evidence that the child was found in prior proceedings to have been neglected or uncared for, the court finds that the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, that either of them could assume a responsible position in the life of this child.  C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).

DISPOSITION;

During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.”  In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000).  “In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a-112(k) ].”  In re Jonathon C., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)).   The seven factors “serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.”  In re Quanitra M., supra, at 104.  “There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009).   The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section.

The court makes the following seven written findings:

(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with respondents, the court finds that DCF offered very extensive services including parenting education, individual mental health counseling, medication management, visitation and in-home services.  (See exhibit A, p. 12.)   The court relies upon the findings above regarding the parent's cooperation with these offered services.   Most notably, the completely uncontested statements of both parents to the psychologist that they have not consistently attended outpatient mental health counseling and have not benefitted from the programs they did attend.

(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts.   The agency was providing services over a period of two years to no apparent benefit.   Neither parent robustly engaged the services.   When they did so they were tepid in engagement.   But as much as admitted to the psychologist, that they obtained no benefit.   The court finds the parents were unable or unwilling to benefit by the offered services.

(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered as to both parents.   As set forth above, there was compliance by the parents with some steps, but failure to comply with many.   They did not benefit by the services they attended in any way that was meaningful for the child.   Harley completed an anger management program and then subsequently engaged in domestic violence.   Harley is still using drugs.   Both have numerous presently pending criminal cases.   Both recognize they are in no position to care for the child even after two years of being offered appropriate and available services.

Psychological assessment:

In this psychologist's opinion, based on the data collected from all available sources, both father and mother are in serious need of significant mental health treatment.   Whether or not they would willingly participate seemed unclear, as both of them showed a strong propensity to blame others for their own difficulties and the consequences of their behavior.   Both young adults are volatile, probably sometimes leading to physical and/or verbal domestic violence.   Their respective volatility appeared to stem from their personality pathology and probable Bipolar Disorders and Major Depression, requiring treatment with both psychotropic medication and cognitive-behavioral therapy, in order to potentially achieve any benefits.   Their substance abuse or substance dependence appeared likely to be a function of attempts to self-medicate their psychopathology.

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

The psychologist reports that both parents have a visiting relationship with London.   The maternal grandparents who have continuously provided the complete daily care for the child since birth are the psychological parents of London.

(5) As to the age of the child:  Previously noted;  London is age two.

(6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child 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 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 as follows:  It is undisputed in the evidence that the child does have some bonds to their biological parents, especially the mother.   The maternal grandmother has testified that, although there is no legal requirement, she would permit limited future contact with the parents if the parents were sober, civil and respectful.

(7) As to 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, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties.

Best Interest Finding:

As previously indicted, neither parent seeks an immediate return of London to their care.   They have each requested the court to consider a transfer of guardianship rather than a termination of parental rights.

Psychological assessment by Dr. Berkowitz:

Transfer of guardianship would not afford London the type of permanency in his best psychological interests, as either parent could later seek resumption of guardianship, leading to disruption of the child's life and identity formation.   In this particular situation, with the relatively unfavorable prognosis for both parents benefitting quickly and significantly from services, it is thought to be best for him to quickly move into a permanent situation, one which actually constitutes a continuation of his current situation.   Doing so would provide him with psychological and physical stability.

With respect to the best interests of the child contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Gianna R. and Harley S. is in the best interest of the child.   Permanency, consistency, affection and stability are crucial for this child.   The biological parents are incapable of providing the quotidian warmth, affection, consistency, stability and mature care that this child needs.   See In re Jorden R. AC28128 (March 23, 2010.)

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and stability;  their length of stay in foster care;  his need for a structured, stable, abuse-free, child-focused setting, the nature of his relationship with maternal grandparents and biological parents;  the degree and quality of contact maintained with his biological parents;  and their genetic bond to the respondents.

The court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a legal connection with the biological 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 termination of respondents' parental rights is in the child's best interest.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Gianna R. and Harley S. are hereby terminated as to London S. The Commissioner of the Department of Child and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child.

With regard to the permanency plans for the child, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as being in the best interest of the child.   Any outstanding objections to the plans are over-ruled.

To the extent not previously found, the court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans and to reunify the parents with the child.

The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of this child as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.

The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of these child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 25 School Street, Rockville, CT 06066 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 11th day of June 2010.

Foley, Sr. J. # 251

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The respondent mother, Gianna R. is sometimes referred to as mother, Gianna, Gia, and Ms. R., not to be confused with the maternal grandmother, Mrs. R. The court will substitute Gia for all other appellations for the sake of uniformity and clarity..  FN2. The respondent mother, Gianna R. is sometimes referred to as mother, Gianna, Gia, and Ms. R., not to be confused with the maternal grandmother, Mrs. R. The court will substitute Gia for all other appellations for the sake of uniformity and clarity.

FN3. Barbara P. Berkowitz, a licensed psychologist, interviewed the maternal grandparents, and evaluated psychologically, Gia and Harley.   Her assessment of the sociological facts is noted after each section.   (Indented and single spaced.).  FN3. Barbara P. Berkowitz, a licensed psychologist, interviewed the maternal grandparents, and evaluated psychologically, Gia and Harley.   Her assessment of the sociological facts is noted after each section.   (Indented and single spaced.)

FN4. All references to Harley S., and Mr. S., have been changed for the sake of uniformity and clarity to Harley..  FN4. All references to Harley S., and Mr. S., have been changed for the sake of uniformity and clarity to Harley.

Foley, Francis J., S.J.