IN RE: Anvahnay S. (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 Anvahnay S. (hereinafter referred to as “Anvahnay S.,” or “child”).   The biological mother of this child is Angela H. (hereinafter referred to as “Angela H.” or “Mother”).   The biological father is Anthony S., (hereinafter referred to as “Anthony S.” or “Father”).

On 8/6/08, a 96-Hour Hold was issued on behalf of Anvahnay S. On 8/08/08, Orders of Temporary Custody were filed on behalf of the above-named child.   The Orders of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petition were granted on 8/08/08 and subsequently sustained on 8/15/08.   On 2/24/09, Anvahnay S. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department of Children and Families.

On 9/17/09, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford withdrew a permanency plan of reunification of Anvahnay S. with Mother, and thereafter on 10/21/09, DCF filed a permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption which was approved on 11/19/09.

On 1/29/10, Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights of Angela H. and Anthony S. were filed as to Anvahnay S.

On 2/11/10, the Court confirmed service on both parents.   Parents were present and advised of their rights, and denials were entered.   A CMC was set for 3/15/10 at 2:00 p.m., and a trial was set for 5/19/10.

On 5/19/10, the court commenced trial.   Both Angela H. and Anthony S. were present.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted twenty-eight exhibits (A-BB).  Respondent Father testified.   Seven witnesses testified for DCF and one witness testified on behalf of the Respondent Mother.

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, Angela H., and as to Father, Anthony S., are Failure to Rehabilitate.

The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights, 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

On 9/17/07, DCF received a referral from family relations regarding Anvahnay S., due to a incident of domestic violence between Mother and an older male friend, Mihai L. As a result of that investigation, DCF substantiated neglect and the case remained open.

Angela H. has demonstrated limited compliance with DCF since her case was opened in September 2007.   DCF was concerned about Mother's history of domestic violence, her continued association with Mihai L., and her arrest for prostitution on 6/18/08.   She was also arrested in May 2008 for fighting with another female.   Although it was recommended that Angela H. participate in substance abuse services, she refused to do so.   She has a history of transience and lost her DSS income in June 2008.

On 8/6/08, DCF invoked a 96-Hour Administrative Hold on behalf of Anvahnay S. On 8/8/08, DCF filed a Petition of Alleged Neglect and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody of Anvahnay S. in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford.   The OTC was granted on 8/8/08, and was subsequently sustained on 8/15/08.

On 2/24/09, Anvahnay S. was adjudicated neglected, and on 2/24/09, she was committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   On 8/5/09, DCF submitted a Permanency Plan to the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford recommending reunification with Mother.   At the scheduled Permanency Plan hearing on 9/17/09, DCF submitted a Status Report indicating that Mother had had some significant setbacks, and that DCF intended to submit a new Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption.

Angela H. became involved in a relationship with Mihai L., whom she described as a friend.   She claimed that he provided her with shelter when she was pregnant, as well as food and transportation.   She denied dating Mihai L., who hung around the club where she worked.   There are three documented incidents of domestic violence between mother and Mihai L. and three protective orders were issued.   The third protective order was issued on 6/18/08, and it defined Angela H. as the protected person, and Mihai L.'s relationship to Angela H. as a “dating” relationship.   Mihai L.'s charges were Promoting Prostitution 3rd degree, and Violation of a Protective Order.   No protective orders are in effect today.   Angela H.'s current DCF case was opened following a referral for domestic violence between herself and Mihai L.

Angela H. has no significant health issues.   She denies any mental health history, however, she does have a significant trauma and substance abuse history.

Mother has been known to DCF since 2002.   Referrals were made regarding Mother's oldest daughter, Dionnah H. on 10/29/02, 12/17/02, and 8/6/03, none of which were substantiated.

DCF received a referral on 9/17/07, regarding Anvahnay S. due to an incident of domestic violence between Mother and Mihai L., who Mother claimed was a friend.   DCF substantiated neglect due to inadequate shelter, and the case has remained open since that time.

In March 2008, DCF received a request from the Groton Probate Court for a study regarding Mother's oldest daughter, Dionnah H., who had been residing with her paternal aunt, Cassaundra H., for over 2 years.   Cassaundra H. had been appointed as Dionnah H.'s legal guardian through the New London Probate Court, however, her guardianship expired on 3/8/08.   She petitioned the Groton Probate Court for immediate temporary custody and removal of guardian of Dionnah H. On 4/7/08, the Groton Probate Court ordered and decreed that temporary custody of Dionnah H. be awarded to Cassaundra H. DCF submitted probate studies as requested, and recommended removal of guardianship of both parents of Dionnah H. The court removed Mother as guardian on 2/4/09.

The State of Connecticut Judicial Branch's website indicates that Angela H. has the following criminal record:  3/28/02 Creating a Public Disturbance;  7/5/04-Breach of Peace, 2nd degree;  3/10/05-Failure to Appear, 2nd degree;  12/10/05-Interfering with Police Officer/resisting Arrest;  and 5/22/08-Breach of Peace, 2nd degree.   Additionally, Angela H. was arrested by the Farmington Police Department on 6/18/08 and charged with prostitution, but the charges were later dropped.   The police report indicated that Mihai L. was also arrested with her.   Angela H. was arrested on 6/6/09, in Hartford, for Breach of Peace 2nd degree, but this charge was dropped.   She was arrested most recently on 10/7/09, and faced the following charges:  Larceny 6, Conspiracy to Commit Larceny 6, Interfering, and Risk of Injury.

Anthony S. has no military history.   Criminal background checks with the Department of Public Safety indicate that he has the following convictions:  Larceny 6;  Larceny 4;  Failure to Appear;  Probation Violation;  Robbery 1;  Robbery 3;  Possession of Drugs/Marijuana;  Brach of Peace;  Interfering/Resisting Arrest;  Criminal Weapon Possession;  Drug Paraphernalia.

Father consented in court to the termination of his parental rights with regard to his son Jordan on 5/14/08.   He was on escape status from the Department of Correction at that time.

B. Mother, Angela H.

Mother, Angela H., was born in Aurora, Illinois on 11/5/82.   She was raised by her maternal great aunt, Dolores C., and came to live in Connecticut when she was about five years old.   Her family moved a lot, but remained in the Groton/New London area.   Neither of her parents participated in raising her.   The loss of her maternal grandmother was very painful for her.   She does not have a relationship with maternal grandfather.

Angela H. and her aunt, Dolores C., did not have a good relationship, and when she was 13 years old, Angela H. requested a DCF placement.   The DCF record indicates that she suffered a lot of verbal and emotional abuse in the home of her aunt, including threats on her life.   Angela H. was committed to DCF care on 6/18/98, and had five foster care placements before participating in DCF's CHAPS program.   She moved into a CHAPS apartment on 8/1/00, but did not comply with the program and was asked to move out of her CHAPS apartment by 7/16/01.   She complied, and DCF closed her case.   At that time, DCF did not know of her whereabouts.

Angela H. earned a high school diploma through adult education in New London, CT. She has worked in retail and at a casino, and has been employed as an exotic dancer.

Angela H. met Jerome H., father of her oldest daughter Dionnah H., when she was 18 years old.   They were together for seven years and there was domestic violence in their relationship.   Jerome H. was incarcerated during Mother's pregnancy and Dionnah H. was born on 8/17/02.   Mother claims that Jerome H. is a good father and that they are able to interact appropriately as parents to Dionnah H. Jerome H. has a significant criminal history, and is presently incarcerated.

Angela H. reported that she had a positive relationship with Anthony S., father of Anvahnay S. Father has a criminal history.   They became involved in 2005 when Father was residing at a halfway house and he was incarcerated again in 2007.   Mother claims there was no domestic violence in their relationship.   Father would visit Anvahnay S., and Mother later learned that he was on escape status.

C. Father, Anthony S.

Anthony S., was born in Hartford, CT on 10/17/80, to Mr. and Mrs. Hertis S. He has an older brother, Hertis S., and a younger sister, LaTaja S. As a child, Anthony S. was close to both of his siblings and both of his grandmothers.   He also knew his great-grandmother, and had extended family in the local area, as well as in the south.

Anthony S. attended grammar school in Hartford, middle school in Manchester, and high school in East Hartford where he completed the 9th or 10th grade.   Around this time, he began having difficulties in school and getting into trouble with the law.   He earned his GED while he was incarcerated.

Anthony S. was involved in two relationships that produced children.   DCF records indicate that he was involved with Crystal S., and they had a son, Jordan S., who was born on 11/27/06.   He became involved with Angela H. and that relationship produced a daughter, Anvahnay S.

According to paternal grandmother, Anthony S. has no significant health issues, other than seasonal allergies, and he has not had any hospitalizations or injuries.   She was aware of his substance abuse, but did not know the extent of his involvement.   Father's correctional counselor reported that Father completed the Addiction Services Tier II program offered through the CT Department of Corrections on 3/24/05.

D. Child, Anvahnay S.

Anvahnay S., a three-year-old child, was born on 6/16/07.   She requires a stable and competent caretaker to meet all of her basic needs.   She is medically up to date, having had her last physical at Community Health Services on 6/24/09.   She is also monitored by the Gastroenterology Department at the Connecticut Children's Medical Center due to being underweight.   She takes nutritional supplements as well as prescribed medication to increase her appetite.   On 2/3/10, CCMC recommended a referral to the Birth to Three Program to assess Anvahnay S.'s “feeding difficulties.”   She is developmentally on target in all other areas.

Anvahnay S. is a very bright child with a playful personality.   She has an independent nature, and asserts herself very well with other children, in spite of her small size.

Anvahnay S. has been in one placement since 8/6/08, in the care of her relative foster parents (paternal grandparents).   She appears to have a close attachment to her foster parents, and seeks them out to meet her needs.   They are willing to adopt her should she become legally free for adoption.

Anvahnay H. appears to have a close attachment to her Mother.   She becomes excited when she sees her, and talks about her when she returns home from visits.   She knows her Father through photographs and phone contact.   She talks about her “Daddy,” but does not demonstrate the same level of attachment that she does with her Mother.   On 2/8/10, DCF brought Anvahnay H. to see her Father in prison.   She sat on his lap, but is more reserved with him than she is with Mother.

Anvahnay H. resides with her paternal half-brother Jordan.   She also has a maternal half-sister Dionnah, with whom she has limited contact.   DCF is not involved with Dionnah.   Mother is not the legal guardian of Dionnah, but she has visitation rights.   Mother was able to facilitate a visit between the sisters in Christmas 2009, by bringing Dionnah to visit Anvahnay H. at the home of her foster parents.

E. Relative Resources

Anvahnay S. resides with her paternal grandparents, who are willing to adopt her if she becomes legally free for adoption.   DCF is supportive of the child's paternal grandparents as her adoptive resource.

F. Present Situation

Angela H. has demonstrated limited compliance with her Specific Steps.   She has a significant trauma history, which she has yet to address in therapy, and she continues to struggle with her substance abuse issues.   She has difficulty managing conflict, and needs to significantly improve her coping skills.

Mother's DCF case was opened due to allegations of domestic violence.   Since that time, there have been several incidents that have led to her involvement with the criminal justice system, the most recent on 10/7/09.   DCF received a referral from the East Hartford Police Department stating that Mother was involved in a shoplifting incident with two other women and a young child.   As a result, Mother had the following charges pending:  Conspiracy to Commit Larceny 6th Degree;  Interfering with and Officer/Resisting Arrest;  and Risk of Injury to a Child.

Angela H. has increased her stability by securing housing through the Connection's Supportive Housing program.   She needs to be in compliance with DCF in order to continue her participation in the program, which includes case management services.   Angela H. recently obtained health insurance.

Angela H. has limited resources.   She works under the table as an exotic dancer and her work environment is not conducive to maintaining sobriety.   She recently had a black eye, which she claims happened on the job when a bottle was thrown at her.   She has been seeking other employment, but has been unsuccessful to date.

Mother was referred to the STEP PHP program for substance abuse treatment in February 2010.   Since then she has been inconsistent with her compliance.   She was close to being discharged from the program successfully, but this was changed when she returned a dirty urine.   Mother has continued with treatment but has been inconsistent with her attendance.   At her last court date, she and her attorney requested that a hair test be scheduled for her so that she could prove that she was not using illegal substances.   DCF scheduled this through CHS and an appointment was made for 4/7/10 at 3:30 p.m. CHS sent Mother a letter, with a copy to DCF, reminding her of the appointment.   Mother failed to attend this appointment and DCF was notified that in order to reschedule, Mother would need to call CHS directly.

Mother has been visiting Anvahnay S. over the past few weeks.   On 4/22/10, Mother did not have a visit with her daughter due to a staff shortage at DCF. On 4/29/10, Mother failed to confirm her visit.   On 5/6/10, the DCF case aide went to Mother's home and was unable to contact Mother.   When she knocked on the door, it opened and the case aide called out for Mother.   There was no response and after approximately 15-20 minutes, the case aide left the home.

Father was recently transferred from prison to a halfway house in Brooklyn, Connecticut.   His maximum release date is 7/1/10.   He has not had contact with DCF. DCF learned of this change through the foster parents and the Department of Correction website.   The Department of Correction is not aware of any services in which Father is currently involved.   On 2/2/10, Anthony S. reported that his participation in substance abuse counseling during a previous incarceration was designed to make him eligible for a halfway house.

Anvahnay S. is being very well cared for in the DCF licensed foster home of her paternal grandparents.   She appears to be very attached to them and seeks them out to meet her needs.   She has an attachment to her Mother with whom she has weekly supervised visits in Mother's home.   Mother is also able to visit Anvahnay S. at her placement under the supervision of her caretakers, but she has not taken advantage of this opportunity.   The child also has weekly phone contact with her Father, and DCF took her to see him on 2/8/10.   Her foster parents have offered to take her to see her Father at any time.

Anvahnay S. is developmentally on target, and although there is concern with her nutritional progress, it has been determined by her gastroenterologist that there is no medical reason for this condition and it is simply “just the way she is.”

II

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, Angela H.'s and Father, Anthony S.'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 parents and to reunify the children with their parents, 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).

DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with Angela H. and Anthony S.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Anvahnay S. with Angela H. are no longer appropriate because of Mother's inability to gain insight into her substance abuse, and her proven inability to rehabilitate and to provide the care that the child requires.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Anvahnay S. with Father are no longer appropriate because Father was unable and/or unwilling to engage in services due to being incarcerated for most of the time that the child has been in DCF custody.

The parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts because they have been unable to show progress in their rehabilitation with regard to mental health, substance abuse and parenting.   In addition, Father has been incarcerated for a majority of the time that his child has been in DCF custody.

DCF has been involved with this family since 2002.   The presenting problems with this family were substance abuse, lack of parenting skills, transiency and criminal conduct.

The following reasonable and active efforts were made to prevent removal of the child and/or to reunify the child with her parents:

Mother's Specific Steps require her to participate in parenting classes which she completed at the Klingberg Family Centers on 4/8/09.   A letter received from Klingberg stated that she contributed to the group by sharing her own experiences.

Mother's Specific Steps require her to participate in individual counseling which she began in January 2009 at the Charter Oak Behavioral Health Center.   Her counselor left the agency and Mother began working with another counselor with whom she developed a good rapport.   The counselor attended Mother's Administrative Case Review (ACR) on 8/18/09, and reported that although Mother utilized therapy sessions appropriately, her attendance was inconsistent.   The counselor was unable to establish a set schedule with Mother, but maintained an open door policy with her, scheduling appointments when Mother contacted her.   Mother scheduled an appointment following the ACR on 8/18/09, but did not attend the ACR or the appointment.

Mother's Specific Steps require her to participate in substance abuse evaluation and treatment as recommended, but she has not complied with this step.   Mother completed a substance abuse evaluation at Alcohol and Drug Recovery Centers (ADRC) on 6/23/08, and was recommended for their early intervention program.   She initially denied having a substance abuse problem and was resistant to engaging in services.   Mother was seen again at ADRC on 1/5/09.   She accepted her treatment recommendation at that time, and immediately began participation in ADRC's Early Intervention Program which met weekly.   In January 2009, Mother tested positive for cocaine and then had negative tests from February 2008 until August 2009.   During that time frame, Mother had some issues with attendance.   She was scheduled to graduate from the group, however, her last urine sample given on 8/4/09 tested positive for cocaine.   DCF informed Mother of the results, and she denied using cocaine.

On 8/12/09, ADRC spoke with Mother and recommended her participation in the intensive outpatient program.   A meeting was scheduled that afternoon to make the referral, but Mother failed to keep her appointment.   She was discharged from the program for failing to comply with the treatment recommendation.

In September 2009, Mother reported that she was willing to reengage in treatment.   Due to the fact that she had been discharged from ADRC, a new substance abuse evaluation was required to re-start services.   Mother signed new releases of information for ADRC on 9/24/09, and DCF made a new referral on 9/25/09.

Mother was scheduled to receive individual counseling services at ADRC in Hartford.   She reported for her scheduled evaluation on 10/21/09, but was asked to leave due to her inappropriate behavior.   Mother arrived late for the appointment and when she was confronted about this, she responded that she was in a bad mood, and she used profanity.   She was informed that she was no longer welcome to receive services at ADRC.

Mother is not presently engaged in any counseling services.   DCF referred her to Intercommunity Mental Health for counseling services on 1/5/10 and she made an appointment.

DCF referred mother to the Genesis Center of Manchester for a substance abuse evaluation and treatment on 10/21/09.   She attended an evaluation on 12/14/09, and was referred to a weekly Early Intervention Group.   She began attending the group on 12/21/09, but was referred to a higher level of care on 12/30/09, after a 12/23/09 urine sample tested positive for cocaine.   The Genesis Center discharged Mother from treatment as they were unable to offer her the recommended Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP).  They encouraged her to self-refer to the STEPS Program offered at Manchester Memorial Hospital.   Mother contacted the STEPS program to request services on 1/12/10.   On 2/9/10, the STEPS program reported that they had attempted to reach Mother on 1/14/10 at the number she provided, but they were unable to reach her or to leave a message.   They have not heard from mother since 1/12/10.   DCF contacted Mother on 2/9/10 and told her that she needed to immediately contact the STEPS program to access services.

Mother disputed the results of the 12/23/09 urine screen, and claimed that she had not used any drugs.   On 1/5/10, mother asked DCF to schedule a hair test for her to prove she has not used.   A referral was made on 12/5/09 for a hair test at Genesis Center which Mother completed on 1/13/10, and the results were negative.   Mother continued to take random drug screens at Genesis Center while awaiting a treatment program.   She provided another urine sample on 2/4/10 at Genesis Center which tested positive for cocaine.

Mother is engaged in case management services through the Connection Supportive Housing program.   She was able to secure housing in October 2009 through the program and must remain in compliance with DCF in order to remain in the program.

Father has not initiated any contact with DCF since his daughter came into care on 8/6/08.   On 8/6/08, Father was on escape status from the CT Department of Corrections and his whereabouts were unknown to DCF. He returned to DOC custody on 4/28/09, and had access to services offered at his correctional facility.   On 2/2/10, his correctional counselor reported that Father was on a waiting list for services, including the Addiction Services Tier II program, however he was not engaged in services at that time.   He claimed that he had attended AA and NA meetings.

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)(B)(1)-as to biological Mother, Angela H. and Biological Father, Anthony S.

The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother and Father have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child had been adjudicated as neglected.   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)(B)(1) 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 ․ 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 [parents have] 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 Angela H. and Anthony S. 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 children's lives].”  (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 Angela H. and Anthony S. have not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Angela H. and Anthony S. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground B1-Failure to Rehabilitate as to Anvahnay S. by biological Mother, Angela H.

See Section I, Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D, and G above.   Mother has a history with DCF since 2002.   She has an older daughter who has not been in her care for over three years.   She was removed as the child's guardian on 2/4/09, and guardianship was transferred to a relative via probate court.

On 9/17/07, Mother's case was reopened when DCF received a referral alleging domestic violence.   DCF substantiated neglect against Mother with regard to Anvahnay S. due to inadequate clothing, inadequate supervision, and circumstances injurious to well-being.   Mother was unwilling to cooperate with the DCF as she provided limited access to her home, refused to schedule appointments, and hung-up regularly during telephone conversations.   The whereabouts of Mother and Anvahnay S. were unknown from 12/26/07 to 3/13/08.   Mother was unwilling to engage in recommended substance abuse services and was arrested in May 2008, and again in June 2008.   DCF invoked an administrative hold with regard to Anvahnay S. on 8/6/08.   DCF filed a Motion for Order of Temporary Custody and a Neglect Petition with regard to Anvahnay S. on 8/8/08 in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford.   The Order of Temporary Custody was granted on 8/8/08.

On 2/24/09, Anvahnay S. was adjudicated neglected in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford.   At the time of adjudication, the presenting problems were domestic violence, lack of stable housing, Mother's criminal involvement, substance abuse, and her refusal to engage in services.   Additionally, Father was on escape status from the Department of Corrections, and his whereabouts were unknown to DCF.

Specific steps ordered by the court on 2/24/09, to facilitate the return of Anvahnay S. to Angela H.'s care have not been complied with.

Angela H. was homeless until 10/16/09, when she secured her own apartment through the Connecticut Supportive Housing program.   She must remain in compliance with DCF and with her substance abuse treatment to maintain her eligibility with Supportive Housing.   She has not yet demonstrated that she can maintain her housing, and has had difficulty complying with substance abuse treatment.

Angela H. does not have a legal income.   She works under the table as an exotic dancer.

Angela H. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of her child within a reasonable time period.   DCF has offered Mother multiple services since September 2007, but she has failed to take advantage of those services.   She has been unable to parent either of her children due to unresolved substance abuse and mental health issues.   She has been arrested three times since September 2007, and recently had criminal charges pending.

Anvahnay S. is a two-year-old child who requires a stable and competent caretaker to meet all of her basic needs.   She is followed by a gastroenterologist due to her being underweight, and takes nutritional supplements.   She has been in the care of her relative foster parents (paternal grandparents) since 8/6/08.   Anvahnay S. appears to have a close attachment with her caretakers, and seeks them out to meet her needs.   They are willing to adopt her should she become legally free for adoption.

Ground B1-Failure to Rehabilitate with Anvahnay S. as to Biological Father, Anthony S.

See Section I, Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D and G, above.

Father has a history with DCF since November 2006.   His parental rights were terminated with regard to his son Jordan in 2008.

On 9/17/07, DCF received a referral on behalf of Anvahnay S. alleging exposure to domestic violence while in Mother's care.   DCF substantiated neglect against Mother with regard to Anvahnay S. due to inadequate clothing, inadequate supervision, and circumstances injurious to well-being.   Father's whereabouts were unknown.

On 2/24/09, Anvahnay S. was adjudicated neglected in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford.   At the time of adjudication, the presenting problems were domestic violence, lack of stable housing, Mother's criminal involvement, substance abuse, lack of parenting skills and Mother's refusal to engage in services.   Father was on escape status from the Department of Correction, and his whereabouts were unknown to DCF.

Specific steps ordered by the court on 2/24/09, to facilitate the return of Anvahnay S. to Anthony S.'s care have not been complied with.

Anthony S. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his child within a reasonable time period.   He has had minimal involvement in the life of his daughter.   He was not available to her during the time he was on escape status from the Department of Correction, and he has been recently incarcerated.   He has not contacted DCF with regard to his daughter since she came into DCF care.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Mother, Angela H., and Father, Anthony S., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Anvahnay S.

III

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 Angela H.'s and Anthony S.'s parental rights, as they did not consent, 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 Anvahnay S. with her parents.   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 Angela H. and Anthony S. 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).

Angela H. and Anthony S. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return Anvahnay S. to their care and the referrals were made in a timely manner to facilitate a successful reunification.   They were referred to services multiple times to encourage cooperation.   Anthony S. has not been able to take full advantage of services as he has been incarcerated for most of the current DCF involvement and has just recently been released from jail.

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 children's parents are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as was contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF has previously offered multiple services to Mother and Father.   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 Mother and Father have failed to fully comply with most of the steps ordered by the court and Father has been incarcerated for much of the time.

4. “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his 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 only limited bonding with her parents, due to her parents' substance abuse, reluctance to accept their roles as parents and the unavailability of Father.   She has developed a strong bond with her foster parents with whom she has lived since her removal by DCF on 8/6/08.   The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt her.

Since Father, Anthony S., has not been available much of the time, the child was unable to bond with him.

5. “The age of the children.”

Anvahnay S. is three years 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 the parents have continued to abuse substances up to the present time and have refused to cooperate 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 their child.   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 Correction or third parties prevented Angela H. or Anthony S. from maintaining a relationship with their child, nor did their economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

Father has maintained little contact with the child and the petitioner.   In order to improve his parenting bond with his child, he is in need of adequate parenting classes, and significant visitation with his child.   However, since he has been incarcerated for much of the time and was only recently released from incarceration, time will not permit the necessary compliance.

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

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Angela H.'s and Anthony S.'s parental rights to Anvahnay S. would be in her best interest.¹  Applying the appropriate legal standards ² 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 Angela H.'s and Anthony S.'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.³  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 the child'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) (the 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 the child's best interest to continue to maintain any legal relationship with her parents.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that the child's parents have failed to gain insight into becoming safe, nurturing and responsible parents for the child.   The clear and convincing evidence shows that their judgment and conduct remains questionable, and has not improved since the 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 the child'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.

Anvahnay S. cannot delay her need for permanence and stability in exchange 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 child 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 this child.

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 proceedings on young children, time is of the essence” when resolving issues related to the permanent 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 the child 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 the child'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 Angela H. and Anthony S. as to Anvahnay S. is in the best interests of the child in question.

The linchpin to a determination of rehabilitation necessarily includes a finding that the parent can begin parenting within a reasonable period of time.   Father has only recently been released from prison and so any reunification that might be further explored would have to wait for however long thereafter it may take him to rehabilitate himself so as to be able to provide safe and nurturing parenting to this child and to attend to her developmental needs and provide her with an appropriate home.   This would include a substantial period of sobriety, adequate housing, gainful employment, no further involvement with the criminal justice system and an unknown amount of therapeutic services to facilitate a relationship with this child who may well be 2-3 years older before all of these events could conceivably unfold.   To allow for such a further additional and significant period of time, easily more than one year for Father to achieve a degree of reasonable rehabilitation, runs counter to our court's long recognized preference for permanency.   Indeed, it would result in this young child being raised with not only the specter of upheaval but the goal of such.   This, the court cannot allow.   The question is not simply one of rehabilitation;  it is whether the particular needs of the child can be met within a reasonable timeframe.   See In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App., 384-85.

The trial of this case was conducted in conjunction with a motion filed by Respondent Mother for Revocation of Commitment and Transfer of Guardianship.   The thrust of the motion was to confer guardianship to paternal grandmother rather than a Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption.   Paternal grandparents had expressed a willingness to adopt Anvahnay S., and although it appeared that the child's attorney, Mother's attorney and Father's attorney were all in favor of guardianship, and presented arguments to the Court to accomplish the same, paternal grandmother, during testimony, stated that she only wanted to make certain Anvahnay S. was properly cared for and safe so that she might mature and advance in the best possible way.

Paternal grandmother had adopted Jordan S., Anthony S.'s son, and was the caretaker for Anvahnay S.'s four-year-old cousin.   She was determined to protect these children from any possible danger at all costs.   When she was asked whether she preferred to adopt Anvahnay S. or be granted guardianship, she was indifferent as to which form of custody should be granted so long as she had control of the child and could raise her as she deemed appropriate.

It became abundantly clear to the court that the intention of the parties was to transfer guardianship to the paternal grandparents in order that the parents would be able to convince paternal grandmother that they had rehabilitated to the point where they should have guardianship transferred back to them.   Although the arguments by the parties that the possibility of return of Anvahnay S. to her parents might encourage them to work toward that end, and the hope of that happening might help them overcome some of the issues that exist and were the cause of their inability to parent their child properly, they did not convince the court of this, especially in light of their extensive history and indifference toward their parental responsibilities.

A parent whose guardianship rights have been removed and transferred to another may seek reinstatement of guardianship rights at any time.   The parents' option to seek reinstatement voids the notion of permanency as the child's placement is always capable of being disrupted.   A parent may seek reinstatement by filing a petition averring that the conditions that led to the removal of guardianship have been remedied.   If there is no agreement, the matter may proceed to a contested hearing.   The child will be forced to live with the disharmony that may result between the caretakers and the parents.   If unsuccessful, the parents may file another petition to reinstate, and the process continues to the detriment of the child and her caretakers.

The court also related concern for the paternal grandmother of an incessant pressure upon her to reunite the child with her parents.   From what the court gleaned from the argument of the parties, that was certainly the intention of the parents.   The court did not find that continued attempts to persuade the paternal grandmother to relinquish control of the child were in the best interest of paternal grandmother or the child.   With all this in mind, the court denied the Motion for Revocation of Commitment and Transfer of Guardianship.

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 Anvahnay S.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Angela H., the biological Mother of the child and Anthony S., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Anvahnay S. 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

FN1. 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 must find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”.  FN1. 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 must find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”

FN2. “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. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000)..  FN2. “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. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).

FN3. “[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)..  FN3. “[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.