IN RE: Jose R. (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 Jose R., Jr. (hereinafter referred to as “Jose R., Jr.”, or “child”).   The biological mother of this child is Wilnelia D. (hereinafter referred to as “Wilnelia D.” or “Mother”).   The biological father is Jose R., (hereinafter referred to as “Jose R.” or “Father”).

On 6/1/09, a 96-Hour Hold was issued on behalf of Jose R., Jr. On 6/4/09, DCF filed Co-Terminus Petitions, Neglect Petitions and Orders of Temporary Custody on behalf of the above-named child.   The Orders of Temporary Custody were granted on 6/4/09 and subsequently sustained on 7/2/09.   On 7/16/09, Jose R., Jr. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department of Children and Families, and a Motion for Psychological Evaluation by DCF was granted and ordered.

On 2/24/10, DCF filed a Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption which was approved on 4/6/10, and a trial was set for TPR.

On 6/21/10, the court commenced trial.   Both Wilnelia D. and Jose R. were present.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted nine exhibits (A-I).   Three witnesses testified for DCF.

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, Wilnelia D., and as to Father, Jose R., 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

A Neglect Petition was filed to Terminate the Parental Rights of Wilnelia D. and Jose R., which was deemed to be in the best interest of the child.   Mother and Father are unwilling or unable to provide competent, safe, and nurturing parenting for their child and have not availed themselves of services to improve their circumstances so that they can be responsible caretakers of their child.   Neither parent has been able to put their child's interests ahead of their own.

A Petition for the Termination of Parental Rights was filed with regard to Jose R., who was born on 5/30/09, and is less than seven years old.   He was a neglected child in that Mother had failed to address her mental health issues which resulted in poor decision making, suicidal ideation and concerns of depression.   She was last offered outpatient counseling services in July 2007, and has failed to indicate a willingness to address her issues.   She has a history of domestic violence and has failed to benefit from support and educational services in this area.   She also has a history of homelessness, failing to secure housing for any significant period of time.   Mother has participated in parenting groups and with parent aide services, but has not demonstrated an ability to retain and utilize that information.   She continues to be in a relationship that is characterized by domestic violence.

Despite a substantial array of services offered to Wilnelia D. over the past five years, she has been unable to address her mental health concerns and demonstrate an increased tolerance level when dealing with her children.

Father, Jose R., is a 20-year-old Father of two children, neither of whom are in his care.   Although it was established by a paternity test that he was not the biological father of Angel R., DOB 1/7/07, he acknowledged paternity.   His parental rights to Angel R. were terminated on 7/1/08, pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Despite services offered to Father over the past two years, he has not addressed his tendencies towards violence and has failed to demonstrate an increased understanding of his children's needs.   He also has a history of homelessness.   He has not demonstrated an ability or a willingness to actively parent Jose R., Jr.'s older sibling.

B. Mother, Wilnelia D.

Mother, Wilnelia D., was born on 11/11/83 in Ponce, Puerto Rico to Maria M. and James D. She moved to Connecticut with her mother when she was eighteen years old.   Her father did not want to move and after 23 years of marriage her parents were divorced.   Up until that time, Wilnelia D. believes they had a good relationship.   Her father resides in Puerto Rico and her mother resides in Hartford, Connecticut.

Wilnelia D. is the second in a sibling line of four, which includes her older brother, Jimmy D. (DOB 1/6/77), and two sisters, Mariselis D. (DOB 9/23/84), and Yakira D. (DOB 1/8/85).

Wilnelia D. claims that she has a good relationship with her mother, and identified her as supportive.   She described a good childhood with everything that she wanted.

Mother reported that she last attended Adult Education on Locust Street in 2002, but stopped going and did not complete the course.

Mother has five children, none of whom are in her care.   Her daughters, Wilmarie R. (DOB 7/27/01 and Aliah R. (DOB 12/20/02) are currently in their maternal grandmother's care.   She obtained guardianship of Aliah R. through the Hartford Probate Court, and guardianship of Wilmarie R. through DCF via a completed subsidized transfer of guardianship on 9/11/08.   Mother's sons, Joshua R. (DOB 10/18/05) and Angel R. (DOB 1/7/07) are in DCF care and DCF is appointed the statutory parent of both boys.

Mother consented to the termination of her parental rights to Joshua R. on 4/21/08, and to Angel R. on 7/14/08.   Mother claims that due to her work she did not have any prenatal care for her youngest child, Jose R., Jr. (DOB 5/30/09) until she was 23 weeks pregnant.   He was removed from her care at the hospital and placed in a DCF licensed foster home due to Mother and Father's history of termination of their parental rights of previous children.

Wilnelia D. has been in a relationship with Jose Jr.'s father, Jose R., for almost four years and she acknowledges both good and bad times in their relationship.   She refers to the bad times when they were homeless and living on the streets.   She denied domestic violence in her relationship with Father even though DCF had concerns about this due to the following reports.

On 6/12/06, relatives reported concerns that Father was showing aggressive behavior towards Mother in front of the children.   On 10/12/06, a relative informed DCF that Father had hit Mother who was five months pregnant at the time.   On 11/6/06, a relative reported to DCF that Mother had told her that she was involved in a physical altercation with Father and that her clothing had been ripped, but Mother had refused to call the police.   On 7/10/07, a relative reported that Mother had a bruise on her face and leg due to a fight with Father after she had kicked out a drug dealer that was residing with the family.   On 8/1/07, The Institute for Hispanic Families reported that Mother needed to get out of her current living situation because Father was very abusive.   On 11/1/07, a relative reported that Mother came to a visit with several bruises on her arm, chest and hips, and claimed that she obtained those bruises from playing with Father.   There were also issues of domestic violence when Mother was residing in Puerto Rico with her daughter's father who would get drunk every day and beat her.

Mother had been going to counseling to address issues of depression but stopped in July 2007.

Mother has been involved with DCF since 2004.   She has a history of mental health issues, including suicidal ideation, two inpatient hospitalizations, domestic violence and substance abuse, including marijuana, ecstasy and alcohol.   She has a track-record of non-compliance with DCF services to address substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence.   She has been referred to many programs and has been given contact information to various programs, but has failed to complete court-ordered specific steps.   In addition, she participated in a court-ordered psychological and interactional evaluation with Dr. Franklin on 9/10/09.   Dr. Franklin states that “neither parent has acquired a level of foundation that would otherwise promote the idea that the acquisition of a skill set with respect to parenting can be achieved in a reasonable period of time.”

C. Father, Jose R.

DCF attempted to obtain information from Jose R. during scheduled home visits on 6/17/09 and 6/26/09, but on both occasions he did not make himself available.   On 6/23/09, DCF was scheduled to meet with Jose R. and his attorney, but the visit was canceled due to a conflict.   Basic information was obtained from a previous DCF social study regarding Father's son, Angel R.

Jose R. was born in Ponce Puerto, Rico and lived there until he started elementary school.   He did not complete high school.

He was unable to recall details about his life other than his mother's death from cancer and the fact that he and his sister were raised by their father who is an active substance abuser.

Jose R. has been diagnosed with epilepsy and currently receives disability benefits.   He attributes his inability to earn gainful and legal employment to the eligibility requirements set by the Social Security Administration.   He claims that his SSI benefits and his income from working under the table will support Mother and Angel R. Although he denies any mental health issues, Father has a diagnosis of BiPolar Disorder, but he does not receive any mental health treatment.

Father's parental rights were terminated with regard to two of his children.   He continues to demonstrate a pattern of behavior in which he places blame on DCF as to why he is not participating in services and claims that he never receives voice mail messages left for him.   Jose R. demonstrates domestic violence behaviors that are of concern to DCF. On 11/9/09, the DCF social worker spoke to Father about his inappropriate and threatening message.   However, he minimizes any domestic violence incidents despite multiple providers having observed his controlling and/or intimidating tactics.

On 9/10/09, Father participated in a court-ordered psychological evaluation with Dr. Franklin.   Dr. Franklin stated that “the examiner is not in the opinion that either Mr. Rosas nor Ms. David are sufficiently capable of providing consistent care to the petition child that would be indeed be in [the child's] best interest.”

D. Child, Jose R., Jr.

Jose R., Jr. was born on 5/30/09 to Wilnelia D. and Jose R. at St. Francis Hospital.   He had elevated biliruben levels at birth, but he was monitored by his primary care physician and this is no longer a concern.

Jose R. Jr. is a thirteen-month-old infant, who has been residing in the adoptive foster home of his sibling since 7/16/09.   He has formed a close relationship with his foster parents and siblings, and has made developmental strides and overcome medical issues.   Jose R., Jr. attended multiple medical appointments and testing to evaluate his Dacryostenosis, a sacral dimple or small hole located on the spine just above the buttocks.   As of 9/23/09, there are no issues/concerns with his spine and no further treatment and/or appointments are needed unless concerns should arise in the future.

Jose R., Jr. receives Birth to Three services at his daycare and foster home to address growth-related issues.   His head is not growing in proportion to his body and he is one month behind in his developmental growth.

E. Relative Resources

Mother provided DCF with maternal grandmother's information as a relative resource for Jose R., Jr. On 6/1/09, maternal grandmother stated she would be a relative resource for Jose Jr., but when DCF delivered the relative placement packet to her, she reported that her husband was not in agreement and she would need to discuss the matter with him further.   Mother later reported that maternal grandmother was willing to be licensed to care for Jose R., Jr.

F. Present Situation

Jose R., Jr. is doing well in his current foster home where he has remained since his birth.   His four-year-old brother also resides in this home.   He is bonded to the family and they have expressed a willingness to adopt him, even in an open adoption with his Mother, should he become free for adoption.

On 4/6/10, Jose R., Jr. was evaluated by Dr. Greenstein, who expressed concerns regarding Microcephaly.   On 5/4/10, the child underwent an MRI to evaluate this condition but the results were normal.   He will have genetic blood testing to rule out additional genetic disorders.   Jose R., Jr. receives Birth to Three services to address his developmental delays.

Father missed three scheduled hair test appointments on 3/5/10, 3/24/10, and 4/12/10, and a scheduled substance abuse evaluation on 5/1/10 at ADRC. Father claims he was unaware of the appointment, however, the DCF case worker personally provided him with a letter for each appointment and mailed the letters to his home address.   DCF has also provided him with monthly bus passes since the inception of this case.   Rescheduling the appointments is pending at this time

On 3/1/10, Father attended an intake appointment at the Dove Program.   He has been accepted into the program to address domestic violence, however, he continues to deny his need for participation and is currently on a waitlist.

Father has not signed a release of information for Social Security or to provide the requested information regarding his receipt of disability benefits.

DCF learned that on 10/14/05, a confidential party obtained a protective order against Jose R.

On 3/31/10, Mother participated in a hair test at ADRC and the results were positive for marijuana.   On 5/12/10, Mother missed a scheduled substance abuse evaluation at ADRC to determine what level of treatment she would need, claiming that she got lost on her way to the appointment.   ADRC informed DCF that they would not schedule any further appointments for Mother unless she was accompanied by a social worker.   Rescheduling of the appointment is pending at this time.

On 3/31/10, the DCF social worker and the domestic violence consultant met with Mother.   She disclosed extensive domestic violence between herself and Father which she claims began during her pregnancy.   The domestic violence has included stalking, and verbal and physical aggression.   Mother was provided with various tools for safety planning but she declined to go to a shelter.

As of 5/5/10, both Jose R. and Wilnelia D. report that they are no longer living together, although Father still retains a key to the apartment.   On 5/26/10, Mother reported that Father was at her house on 5/24/10.

Both parents continue to participate in visits that are supervised by Family Connections at the DCF office.   As of April 2010, DCF requested the parents to visit separately so that they could (a) assess each parent's ability to interact with Jose R., Jr.;   and (b) eliminate Father's dominating control during the visits.   Family Connections report that the visits are going well.   Neither parent has inquired about the status of Jose R. Jr.'s medical condition or the results of his testing.

II

NEGLECT AND UNCARED FOR ADJUDICATION

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

The court finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that DCF has proven all of the allegations alleged in its neglect and uncared for petition.  (See FACTUAL FINDINGS, Paragraph A, above.)

“Courts have long been supportive of neglect adjudications which are, in effect, based on the prediction that the parent would neglect the child based on the parent's prior conduct or mental illness and the danger such conduct would present to a child left in her care.  In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 613 A.2d 748 (1992);  In re Kelly S., 29 Conn.App. 600, 616 A.2d 1161 (1992).   No court is required to leave a child in the custody of a parent who is clearly incapable of providing even basic care for the sole purpose of demonstrating that he will suffer actual harm.  In re Kelly S., supra 615.”  In Re Eric A., 1999 Ct.Sup. 16718 (1999) [24 Conn. L. Rptr. 420].   See also In Re Michael D., 58 Conn.App. 119 (2000).

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

III

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION

The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Mother, Wilnelia D.'s and Father, Jose R.'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 Wilnelia D. and Jose R.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Jose R., Jr. with his parents are no longer appropriate because of their inability to gain insight into their substance abuse, and their proven inability to rehabilitate and to provide the care that the child requires.   In addition, both parents were unable and/or unwilling to engage in services that were provided for them.

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.

DCF has been involved with this family since 2004.   The presenting problems with this family were substance abuse, lack of parenting skills, transiency and criminal conduct.

Mother and Father are not currently involved to any extent with any services, and current steps that have been ordered have virtually been ignored by both parents.

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

4/2/04 Institute for Hispanic Families for a substance abuse evaluation.

6/05 Hispanic Health Council for mental health services.

8/05 Institute of Living for mental health services.

9/9/05 My Sister's Place for housing and case management.

11/05 Salvation Army for assistance with budgeting and life skills.

11/05 DCF paid $1200 for security deposit.

12/1/05 Capital Region Education Council (CREC) for parent aide services.

8/06 DCF paid $700 towards rental assistance.

10/06 My Sister's Place for housing.

12/6/06 Hartford Behavioral Health

12/6/06 Interval House for domestic violence services.

1/16/07 CREC for parenting support groups and supervised visitation.

Supervised visits Wilmarie, Joshua and Angel, supervised by DCF and relative foster parents.

1/22/07 Catholic Family Services for outpatient therapy.

4/6/07 Salvation Army Marshall House for shelter.

7/07 Institute for Hispanic Families to address mental health concerns and parenting.

In the past Father has been offered the following services:

2/07 NOVA

1/16/07 CREC parenting support groups and supervised visitation.

B. Grounds for the Termination:  Failure to Rehabilitate-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(E)-as to Biological Mother, Wilnelia D., and Biological Father, Jose R.

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 and their parental rights of another child were previously terminated.   This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(E) states in part that:

[t]he Superior Court ․ may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ the child under the age of seven years ․ has been found by the Superior Court ․ to have been neglected ․ in a prior proceeding ․ and the parent ․ has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child and such parent's parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of Child and Families

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

Ground E-Failure to Rehabilitate with Child Under Seven Years as to Jose R., Jr. by biological Mother, Wilnelia D.

See Section I-Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D, E and F above.

Jose R., Jr. was born on 5/30/08, and is therefore less than seven years old.   He is a neglected child in that Mother has failed to address her mental health issues, resulting in poor decision making, suicidal ideation and concerns of depression.   She was last offered outpatient counseling services in July 2007, and has yet to indicate a willingness to address her issues.   She has a history of domestic violence and has failed to benefit from support and educational services in this area.   She also has a history of homelessness, failing to secure housing for any significant amount of time.   She has participated in parenting groups and with parent aide services, but has not demonstrated an ability to retain and utilize the information provided.   Mother continues to be in a relationship that is characterized by incidences of domestic violence.

Wilnelia D. is a 26-year-old mother of five children, none of whom are in her care.   Despite a substantial array of services offered to Mother over the past five years, she has been unable to address her mental health concerns and demonstrate a decreased tolerance level when dealing with her children.   Even though she has experienced domestic violence and has been offered services to support her through this, she continues to maintain a relationship with Father, Jose R.

Wilnelia D. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of her child within a reasonable time period given his age and needs.   He is an infant and is completely dependent on a competent caregiver for his survival, safety, well-being and care.   He is not readily visible in the community and cannot summon for assistance should the need arise.   He should not be required to wait into the indefinite future for his Mother to engage in services in an effort to gain control of her mental health issues.   Jose R., Jr. is the fifth child born to Wilnelia D. She has demonstrated neither an ability nor a willingness to actively parent any of Jose R., Jr.'s older siblings.   It is not in his best interest to wait for Mother to begin to address what she has failed to address for the past five years.

Specific steps ordered by the court on 7/2/09, to facilitate the return of Jose R., Jr. to Wilnelia D.'s care have not been complied with.

Wilnelia D. 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 4/4/04, but she has failed to take advantage of those services.

Ground E-Failure to Rehabilitate with Child Under the Age of Seven Years, Jose R., Jr. by Biological Father, Jose R.

See Section I-Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D, E and F, above.

Jose R., Jr. was born on 5/30/09 and is therefore less than seven years old.

He is a neglected child in that Father has failed to address his issues of domestic violence.   He has a diagnosis of Bi Polar Disorder and is not involved in any mental health treatment.

Jose R. is a 21-year-old father of two children, neither of whom are in his care.   Although it was established by a paternity test that he was not the biological father of Angel R., DOB 1/7/07, he acknowledged paternity.   His parental rights to Angel R. were terminated on 7/1/08, pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Despite services offered to Father over the past two years, he has not addressed his tendencies towards violence and has failed to demonstrate an increased understanding of his children's needs.   He also has a history of homelessness.

Jose R. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his child within a reasonable time period given the child's age and needs.   Jose is an infant and is completely dependent on a competent caregiver for his survival, safety, well-being and care.   He is not readily visible in the community and cannot summon for assistance should the need arise.   He is the second child of Jose R. and he should not be required to wait into the indefinite future for his Father to engage in services in an effort to gain control over his violent tendencies and mental health issues.   He has demonstrated neither an ability nor a willingness to actively parent Jose R., Jr.'s older sibling.   It is not in the child's best interest to wait for Father to address what he has failed to address for the past two years.

Specific steps ordered by the court on 7/3/09, to facilitate the return of Jose R., Jr. to Jose R.'s care have not been complied with.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Mother, Wilnelia D., and Father, Jose R., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Jose R., Jr.

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 Wilnelia D.'s and Jose R.'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 Jose R., Jr. with his 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 Wilnelia D. and Jose R. 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).

Wilnelia D. and Jose R. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return Jose R., Jr. 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.

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 child'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.

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 his parents, due to his parents' substance abuse, reluctance to accept their roles as parents and the unavailability of Father.   He has developed a strong bond with his foster parents with whom he has lived since his removal by DCF. The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt him.

5. “The age of the children.”

Jose R., Jr. is thirteen months old.

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

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

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

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for 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 Wilnelia D. or Jose R. 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.

In order to improve their parenting bond with their child, Mother and Father are in need of adequate parenting classes, and significant visitation with their child.

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

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Wilnelia D.'s and Jose R.'s parental rights to Jose R., Jr. would be in his 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 Wilnelia D.'s and Jose R.'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 his environment;  his length of stay in foster care;  the nature of his relationship with his biological parents;  and the degree of contact maintained with his 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 his 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 his 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.

Jose R., Jr. cannot delay his need for permanence and stability in exchange for his 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 his 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 his 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 his 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 his 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 Wilnelia D. and Jose R. as to Jose R., Jr. is in the best interest of the child in question.

IV

CONCLUSION

The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Jose R., Jr.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Wilnelia D., the biological Mother of the child and Jose R., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Jose R., Jr. 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.