IN RE: Nicole J. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I STATEMENT OF CASE

Before the court for decision at this time are the following matters:  grandmother's motion to transfer guardianship, filed December 28, 2009;  petitioner's objection to motion to transfer guardianship, filed January 28, 2010;  grandmother's motion for unsupervised and overnight visitation, filed April 14, 2010;  petitioner's motion to review permanency plan, filed January 29, 2010;  mother's objection, filed February 8, 2010;  and grandmother's objection, filed April 15, 2010.

The parties to this matter are as follows:  the petitioner, Commissioner of Children and Families (DCF or department);  the respondent mother, Elizabeth J.;   the intervening maternal grandmother (MGM), Lisa J.;   and the child, Nicole J. The father of Nicole, Jose D., consented to the termination of his parental rights on May 8, 2009, and is currently incarcerated.

The matter was tried on June 2, 3, 4, 30 and July 20, 2010.   The following witnesses testified at trial:  Rebecca Senzer (licensed clinical social worker);  Vickie Santore (licensed clinical social worker);  Nicholas Murphy (visitation supervisor, Positive Services for Kids);  Lisa (grandmother);  Dr. Bruce Freedman (psychologist);  Cindy Napoleone (DCF social worker);  Roseanne Morrell (therapist, Parent Child Resource Center, Inc.);   Stacy Herbert (licensed clinical social worker, Bridges Community Mental Health Agency);  Pamela St. John (visitation supervisor, Behavioral Health Services previously employed at Kaleidoscope Family Solutions);  Andrea Fisher (parent educator/visitation supervisor/owner, Connect-To-Kids);  Lisa Burns (DCF social worker);  and Marilin Ortiz (DCF social worker supervisor).

The court took judicial notice of this case as well as the cases of the grandmother's children:  Elizabeth J. (Docket No. U06-CP08-006493-A);  Jessica J. (Docket No. U06-CP08-006494-A);  and Ashley J. (Docket No. U06-CP08-006495-A).   On June 4, 2010, the foster parents made a statement to the court pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129(o).

The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction of the matter, notice of the proceeding was provided and no action is pending in any other court affecting the custody of the child.

The court has fully considered the criteria set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes, as well as the evidence, applicable case law, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and arguments of the parties in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that issue in this decision.   After due consideration, the court denies MGM's motion to transfer guardianship, sustains petitioner's objection to motion to transfer guardianship, denies MGM's motion for unsupervised and overnight visitation, grants petitioner's motion to review permanency plan and overrules MGM's and mother's objection.

II FINDINGS OF FACT

The following procedural history and facts are relevant to the disposition of this case and were proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence.¹

The procedural history of Nicole's case includes the following.   The child was born on July 6, 2008.   On July 9, 2008, Nicole was placed on a 96-hour hold by the department, after the minor mother, Elizabeth, who became pregnant with Nicole as the result of being raped by a known sex offender, delivered the child at home, in the toilet.   An order of temporary custody (OTC) was granted by the court (Kahn, J.) on July 10, 2008.

On July 10, 2008, the department filed coterminous petitions.   The neglect petition alleges abandonment.   The Addendum/Jurisdictional Facts to the neglect petition, dated July 9, 2008, stated the following:  “1. Minor mother has indicated she does not want this child. 2. Mother's guardian [grandmother] has indicated she does not want this child. 3. Putative father is denying he is the father of this child. 4. Putative father is a registered sex offender. 5. Putative father is being investigated for sexual abuse of the minor mother.”   The first termination of parental rights petition (TPR) petition alleged abandonment as to mother and no ongoing parent-child relationship with respect to mother and father.

At the preliminary hearing conducted on July 18, 2008, the court (Kahn, J.) sustained the OTC by agreement.

On November 3, 2008, grandmother moved to intervene in the case.   The motion was subsequently granted by the court (Baldwin, J.) on November 25, 2008.

The department moved on January 9, 2009, to amend the neglect petition to add the neglect ground based on conditions injurious.   DCF also moved to amend the Jurisdictional Facts to add the following:  “1. Respondent-mother has cognitive limitations. 2. Respondent-mother is 15 years old. 3. Respondent mother resides with maternal grandmother, who lacks insight, judgment and failed to protective her daughter from the sexual abuse, which resulted in the birth of the above-captioned child.”   Objections were filed.

On March 24, 2009, Elizabeth entered a plea of nolo contendere, and the court (Bear, J.) adjudicated the child neglected based on abandonment and committed the child to the department.   The department withdrew, without prejudice, the first TPR petition as to mother.   The court ordered Elizabeth to comply with specific steps.

On April 3, 2009, the department filed a motion to amend the TPR Petition with respect to father to add a ground under General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(G).  The motion states the following grounds:  “1. The respondent mother reports sexual abuse by Jose D[.] (b.12/28/53) beginning at the age of 10 or 11 years old, and resulting in her becoming pregnant and giving birth to said child, Nicole J[.]. 2. On July 24, 2008, the Ansonia Police Department requested a DNA test regarding Jose D[.] (b.12/28/53) and said child. 3. On August 18, 2008, the Department of Public Safety, Division of Scientific Services, Forensic Science Laboratory, issued a final report indicating that the DNA results obtained are consistent with Jose D[.] (b.12/12/53) being the father of said child, Nicole J[.]. 4. On December 23, 2008, Jose D [.] (b.12/28/53) was convicted on the charge of aggravated sexual assault in the first degree, class B felony, pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1), after entering a guilty plea. 5. On March 13, 2009, Jose D [.] (b.12/28/53) was sentenced to 25 years of incarceration suspended after serving 10 years, and probation for 20 years. 6. The putative respondent father's maximum release date is July 29, 2021.”

A motion to review permanency plan of reunification of the child with the mother, Elizabeth, was filed by the department on April 14, 2009.

On May 1, 2009, the department filed a motion for finding of paternity, which was granted by the court (Bear, J.) on May 8, 2009.   Father consented to the termination of his parental rights on May 8, 2009, and the court (Bear, J.) terminated the father's parental rights.

The court (Randolph, J.) approved a permanency plan of reunification with the mother on May 20, 2009.

On July 1, 2009, grandmother filed the motion to revoke commitment on the following grounds:  “1. That respondent mother and MGM have complied with the Specific Steps ordered by this court. 2. That the child is currently living with a foster family. 3. That both the mother and MGM are suitable and worthy caretakers for the minor child. 4. That no other reasons exist for not allowing the minor child to return to her mother's and MGM's care and custody.”   The department filed an objection to the motion to revoke commitment on July 15, 2009, which states that:  “1. Intervening maternal grandmother and respondent mother have not shown that they have gained anything from services that they participated in. 2. Service providers continue to have concerns for the child's safety while in the care of the family.” 3. A cause for commitment still exists and it is still in the best interest of the child.”   The child's attorney filed an objection to motion to revoke commitment on July 27, 2009.   The MGM's motion to revoke commitment was marked off/withdrawn on October 5, 2009.

A second TPR petition was filed by the department on September 4, 2009, seeking to terminate the mothers parental rights based on failure to rehabilitate (B1).  Grandmother filed a second motion for intervention on September 30, 2009, which was granted by the court (Epstein, J.) on October 5, 2009.   On November 17, 2009, mother filed a motion for revocation of commitment.   In her motion, the mother states the following:  “3. The Respondent-Mother has worked diligently toward reunification, and has engaged in and benefited from the recommended services during the reunification process.   However, DCF continues to myopically pursue termination and adoption, despite the Respondent's progress;  4. A continued commitment is detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of the child, the Respondent-Mother has fulfilled/will fulfill her services and has otherwise demonstrated appropriate efforts toward reunification (including cooperating with all reunification service providers), the cause for commitment no longer exists, and the requested reunification of the child with her mother is in the best interests and welfare of the child.”

On December 28, 2009, grandmother filed a motion to transfer guardianship.   The motion states the following:  “1. That the minor child is currently committed to the Department of Children and Families (DCF). 2. That the maternal grandmother has guardianship of the respondent mother, a minor. 3. That the maternal grandmother has three (3) of her biological children living with her. 4. That DCF, after completing a home study, found the grandmother's apartment to be safe and secure for her three (3) minor children. 5. That the maternal grandmother is suitable and worthy to accept guardianship of her grandchild. 6. That it would be in the child's best interest to have her guardianship transferred to her maternal grandmother, for a plethora of reasons to be demonstrated at trial.”

An objection to motion to transfer guardianship was filed by the department on January 28, 2010, and states:  “1. It's DCF position that transfer of guardianship is not in the above-named child's best interest.”

A motion to review permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption was filed by the department on January 29, 2010.   An objection to the permanency plan was filed by the mother on February 8, 2010.   On April 15, 2010, grandmother filed an objection the permanency plan.

On April 14, 2010, MGM filed a motion for unsupervised and overnight visitation.

The relevant procedural histories of the cases involving Elizabeth, Jessica and Ashley are as follows.   On July 10, 2008, the department invoked a 96-hour hold on Elizabeth, Jessica and Ashley.   On July 11, 2008, the department filed for orders of temporary custody for the children, which were granted by the court (Kahn, J.) on July 11, 2008.   The accompanying affidavit from Erlinda Garnes, the DCF investigation social worker, dated July 11, 2008, states in relevant part:  “Mother knowingly allowed all of her children to have frequent ongoing unsupervised contact with a known sex offender.   As a result one of mother's children was raped and impregnated by the sex offender.   Mother admits to knowing the alleged perpetrator was a sex offender.”   The department filed neglect petitions on July 14, 2008.   The Addendum/Jurisdictional Facts states that “1. Mother allowed all of her children frequent ongoing contact with a registered sex offender. 2. Elizabeth J. was raped by the offender, Mr. Jose D [.] and conceived a child as a product of the rape ․” The preliminary OTC hearing was held on July 18, 2008, and the case was continued to August 20, 2008.   During this period, a risk assessment was satisfactorily completed and service providers confirmed that Lisa shared a strong bond with her children.   On August 26, 2008, Lisa J. entered pleas of nolo contendere to conditions injurious, and the children were adjudicated neglected by the court (Madin, J.) and placed on six months protective supervision until February 26, 2009.   Lisa was ordered to comply with specific steps.   On January 21, 2009, the court (Randolph, J.) the court extended the protective supervision to August 26, 2009.   On July 22, 2009, the court (Upson, J.) extended the protective supervision to November 26, 2009.   On October 14, 2009, the protective supervision of Elizabeth only was extended by the court (Upson, J.) to February 26, 2010.   When the protective supervision was extended, it was based on Lisa's lack of compliance with service providers and lack of progress with treatment goals.   The cases related to Lisa's children are no longer pending.

Lisa was born on February 16, 1970.   She is forty years old.   She has three daughters.   The twins, Elizabeth and Jessica, are seventeen years old.   Ashley is 5 years old.   The father of Elizabeth and Jessica is Anthony P., while Ashley's father is Lee F. The children have no contact with their fathers.

Lisa is currently unemployed and receives state assistance.   She was laid off before Nicole was born.   She gets child support.   The family lives in a two-bedroom apartment and receives section 8 rental assistance.   The apartment has a bathroom, living room and kitchen.   Lisa will look for a larger apartment if Nicole comes to live with them.   The children have health insurance through the HUSKY program.   Nicole is also eligible for HUSKY benefits.

Prior to Nicole's birth, DCF had no involvement with the family.   When the department first became involved with the family, the presenting issue was Lisa's inability to protect her children from a registered sex offender.   Despite knowing that Jose was a sex offender, Lisa knowingly let her children have contact with Jose for several years.   Elizabeth was sexually abused by Jose and became pregnant with Nicole.   The original cause for the removal of Nicole was Elizabeth's abandonment/relinquishment of the child.   After Nicole's birth, Elizabeth and Lisa indicated that they did not want Nicole.

The original cause for the removal of Lisa's children was her inability to protect her children and provide them with adequate supervision.   All three of Lisa's children were substantiated as neglected by the department and subsequently adjudicated as neglected by the court on August 26, 2008.   As a result, Lisa is not eligible for a subsidized transfer of guardianship.

As the cases progressed, the department identified several areas of concern regarding the family, including inadequate parenting skills, lack of cooperation with service providers, inability or unwillingness to benefit from services, cognitive limitations, unhealthy nutrition, poor family dynamics, emotional problems, anger management issues and domestic violence.   The department believed that these concerns made for an unhealthy home environment.

The department discussed with grandmother the circumstances surrounding the cases.   On the day Nicole was born, after the family had returned from church, Elizabeth complained about having a stomach ache and went to the bathroom.   Lisa heard a baby crying and went in to see what had happened.   She was shocked to see that Elizabeth had delivered a baby.   Lisa called the paramedics, and Elizabeth and Nicole were taken to the hospital.

At the hospital, both Elizabeth and Lisa were in a state of shock and confusion.   Elizabeth said that she did not want the baby.   The family was not prepared for a baby and did not have any baby supplies or furniture in the home.   Lisa said that she could not afford another child and that Elizabeth deserved a chance to be a teenager.   Elizabeth spoke with the police and reported the sexual abuse by Jose. Elizabeth was released from the hospital and returned home on July 7, 2008.   On July 8, 2008, the department placed a 96-hour hold on Nicole.

Lisa was asked about how Elizabeth came into contact with Jose. Lisa became friendly with Tammy, Jose's girlfriend, when they lived across the street.   Tammy and Jose had children together.   Lisa and Tammy would take turns watching each other's children.   After Lisa had been friends with Tammy for awhile, Tammy told her that Jose was a registered sex offender and provided some details, which later proved to be inaccurate.   Lisa continued to allow her children to go over to Tammy's house where they had contact with Jose. After Nicole's birth, Lisa ended her relationship with Tammy.   Jose subsequently entered into a plea agreement and is currently incarcerated.   Lisa feels terrible about what happened to Elizabeth.   She admits that she made a big mistake.   She did not know what was happening.

Lisa was also asked about how she did not know that Elizabeth was pregnant.   She denies knowing that Jose was sexually assaulting Elizabeth.   Before Nicole's birth, Elizabeth had not disclosed any sexual abuse and did not have any physical signs that she was pregnant.   She had always been heavy-set and did not have any morning sickness.   She did not complain about stomach cramps or missing her period.   Elizabeth was attending school and no issues were reported.   She also had at least one doctor's appointment with no concerns.

On July 10, 2008, Lisa's children were removed by DCF because of what had happened to Elizabeth.   On July 18, 2008, the court ordered the grandmother to comply with preliminary specific steps.   In July and August 2008, Lisa was working towards having her own children returned.   The children underwent forensic evaluations at Yale University.   The evaluations concluded that Jessica and Ashley had not been sexually abused by Jose. On August 26, 2008, the children were returned to Lisa under protective supervision.   Lisa was ordered to comply with specific steps.   After several extensions, the protective supervision was allowed to expire for Jessica and Ashley in November 2009, and for Elizabeth in February 2010.

On or about September 25, 2008, Lisa informed Burns that Elizabeth changed her mind and wanted to keep Nicole.   Up to that point, the family had not requested any visits with Nicole.   Lisa supported Elizabeth's decision.   The family went about buying supplies and furniture for Nicole.   Burns told the family that in order to have Nicole reunited with them, they would have to comply with services and have appropriate visits.   Burns denies telling the family that Nicole was coming home.

The first visit with Nicole was on October 15, 2008.   The visits have always been supervised.   Lisa does not think it is necessary to have supervised visits.   She has raised three children.   Lisa feels that the supervised visitation and length of visits have caused stress in the home.

Lisa has made efforts to have Nicole placed in the home and has participated in services and referrals.   She completed a sex offender education program through the Sterling Center in the fall of 2008.   She has participated in counseling with Rebecca Senzer and Vickie Santore.   Lisa believes that she has learned how to better control her anger and to deal with the stress related to her situation.   Lisa has requested that Birth-to-Three provide services in her home to Nicole in additional to any services being provided in the foster home or daycare.   Birth-to-Three services have recently started in the home.   Lisa believes that the family worked well with Andrea Fisher until the department terminated her services.   Lisa does not believe that the family has sufficient visits with Nicole and has continually requested additional visitation.   Lisa believes that the visits go well.   Nicole has never been hurt during any visit.   Lisa testified that Nicole seems happy to see them when she comes for visits.

A number of concerns related to the home environment have been identified.   Throughout the case, there have been behavioral problems related to the twins, Elizabeth and Jessica.   They argue and fight on a frequent basis and sometimes have physical confrontations.   The physical altercations include slapping and punching.   The twins are moody and volatile and their emotional problems are not necessarily being adequately addressed by Lisa. Lisa has talked to the department about not knowing what to do with the girls.   Lisa's behavior in the home also raises concerns.   She has been verbally abusive and hostile to the twins.   There is a good deal of swearing and yelling.   Nutrition is an issue in the home.   When the department first became involved, Ashley was referred for dental services.   She had rot to 80 percent of her teeth and a number of her teeth had to be pulled and capped.   Elizabeth has always been on the heavy side.

There was conflicting testimony regarding whether the department ever told the family that Nicole was coming home.   Lisa testified that the department did so, while Burns denied ever saying that.   It is more likely that the department told Lisa and Elizabeth that they would have to cooperate with services and have appropriate visits before they would be reunited with Nicole.

Lisa understands that she would be primarily responsible for Nicole if she becomes her guardian, including meeting the child's needs and advocating for the child.   Grandmother testified that she will still accept in home services if guardianship is transferred to her.   Lisa wants guardianship until Elizabeth is old enough and has her own apartment.

When this case was scheduled for trial in late March 2010, Lisa had a seizure and was rushed to the hospital.   She had not experienced a seizure for approximately four years.   She had to go back on her seizure medications.

Elizabeth was born on July 10, 1993, and is now seventeen years old.   She has lived with her mother except for the period between July 10, and August 26, 2008, when she was in foster care.

Elizabeth had not yet turned fifteen when Nicole was born unexpectedly.   With the birth of Nicole, the sexual abuse by Jose became known.   The abuse started when Elizabeth was ten to eleven years old.

Elizabeth has significant cognitive and emotional issues.   In terms of her IQ, she tests in the sixties.   She is a special education student.   Before Nicole's birth, Elizabeth was doing well in school.   Since then, she has done poorly.   Early in the case, Burns spoke to Lisa about applying for developmental services through DDS/DMR, which Lisa initially refused.

Elizabeth has suffered substantial emotional trauma from the events of the last several years:  the sexual abuse by Jose, the unexpected birth of Nicole, her own removal and the process of seeking Nicole.   Elizabeth has talked to Senzer about the sexual abuse.   Lisa has tried to talk to Elizabeth about the abuse, but Elizabeth has a hard time talking to her about it.

During trial, Lisa testified regarding Elizabeth.   Lisa believes that Elizabeth could take care of Nicole by herself.   She feels that Elizabeth needs parenting education.   Lisa wants Elizabeth to get her life back and get services she needs.   Elizabeth wants to learn more and wants to be able to do things on her own.   Elizabeth is trying to learn to be a parent.   Lisa is helping her in several ways including by taking Elizabeth to the library to get books about parenting.   Elizabeth helps with Ashley.   Elizabeth misses Nicole and sometimes gets depressed.   When Elizabeth is parenting Nicole, Lisa tries to help.   The whole family is involved.   Lisa believes Elizabeth is able to take care of Nicole without her.   Lisa believes that it is best for Nicole to be parented by the biological relatives.

In March 2010, the department started providing parenting education and support services to Elizabeth in the home.   Elizabeth is in compliance will all the services and referrals recommended by the department.

Nicole was born on July 6, 2008.   She is two years old.   She is described as a good-natured child.   On July 10, 2008, an OTC was granted.   Nicole has been placed with her current foster parents since she was two days old.   She has never lived with her biological family.   Her first supervised visit with the family was on October 15, 2008.   The child has attended regular supervised visits with the family since then.

Nicole has specialized needs.   She has gross motor developmental delays as well as communication and language delays.   Due to her developmental needs, the department referred Nicole for Birth to Three services.   Birth to Three began providing services to Nicole in the foster home twice per week after an initial assessment was performed in March 2009.   The services were implemented in the foster home to work with Nicole's primary caretakers.   The foster parents are responsible for working with Nicole and doing the recommended exercises on a daily basis.   Nicole has been able to catch up on her gross motor skills.   Since April 2010, the focus has turned primarily to her communication and language delays.   Starting in June 2010, Birth-to-Three services were put in the family home and are scheduled for once per month.

Nicole attends daycare twice per week.   Nicole reportedly does well there and no concerns have been reported.

The department believes that the foster parents have provided a safe and structured environment for Nicole.   They have been able to work with Birth-to-Three services and Nicole on a daily basis to address her developmental delays.   There are no reported incidents of domestic violence in the foster home.   Nicole is bonded with the foster parents.   She recognizes them as her parents and calls them “Mommy” and “Daddy.”   She is very loving and comfortable with the foster parents and goes to them for hugs and kisses.   The foster home is the only home she has ever known.   The foster parents are willing to adopt Nicole.   They are willing to care for Nicole until a decision is made.

The history of the case demonstrates that the department has provided numerous services and referrals to assist the family in its efforts to be reunified with Nicole.   The family has also engaged in services on its own.

Between July and November 2008, Stacy Herbert provided the family with intensive in home support services and visitation supervision through Bridges Intensive Family Preservation.   Herbert is a licensed clinical social worker.   Initially, Herbert initially provided intensive safety planning services (ISP) to address the issues that led to Lisa's children being removed.   After the children were returned, Herbert provided intensive family preservation services (IFP).

Herbert first started providing ISP services to the family on July 14, 2008.   The initial focus was on assisting Lisa with getting her children back.   The children had been placed in foster care.   In July 2008, Elizabeth had expressed that she did not want Nicole.   Lisa felt that she was too old to care for another child.   In August 2008, Herbert recommended that Lisa's children be reunited with their mother.   The children were returned on August 26, 2008.

After August 26, 2008, Herbert was contracted to provide twelve weeks of IFP services and ensure that Lisa was accessing necessary services for each of her girls.   There were several concerns with the home environment.   Herbert planned to work with the family on parenting, weight, nutrition, hygiene and communication issues.   But after the children were returned home, Lisa was not motivated to address the family's issues.   She began complaining about the intensity of the services, the frequency of visits and any discussion regarding her parenting abilities.   Lisa said that she knew everything about raising children.   She told Herbert that she wanted to get her life back.   Herbert was willing to be flexible and reduce the amount of time she was in the home, but to no avail.   Lisa became very irritable when Herbert was around.   She treated Herbert with disrespect and often would not speak with her or make any eye contact.   Lisa was also combative with Herbert.   The twins followed Lisa's example.

Lisa had difficulty accepting Elizabeth's limitations.   Herbert discovered that Lisa was actually not aware that Elizabeth was a special education student.   Herbert discussed a referral for Elizabeth to the department of mental retardation/developmental services.   Lisa was offended by the idea of a referral and said that her daughter was not “a retard” Eventually, Lisa cooperated with the referral.

During this period, the department engaged Herbert to supervise visits with Nicole.   Visits started on October 15, 2008.   Due to the lack of cooperation, Herbert was no longer working on the family's issues but was just supervising visits.   Herbert supervised approximately six visits.   During visits, there were a lot of people in the house and it was noisy.   Herbert observed that Elizabeth needed assistance with caring for Nicole.   She needed to learn ways to soothe Nicole.   Lisa did not intervene much.   There was an incident where Elizabeth had Nicole in her arms and was arguing about something with Jessica.   IFP services ended on November 20, 2008.

Herbert had many opportunities to observe the home environment and had several concerns.   The family lacked basic communication and anger management skills.   Outbursts in the home were common for the slightest irritants.   There was frequent fighting and conflict.   The twins were rude to each and Lisa. The twins were described as being shy, immature and often sullen.   Herbert made attempts to re-engage grandmother, which were not successful.   Lisa was unable to identify any issues she needed help on, despite the upset in the home.

Herbert recognized that the family had been through some very difficult times.   Lisa believed that she was being punished for what had happened to Elizabeth.   Lisa felt both angry and guilty about what happened.   Herbert believes that Lisa lacks communication skills and has low self esteem, which make it difficult for her to work with service providers.   Lisa's lack of knowledge presents problems and causes her to make poor decisions regarding her children.   Lisa could not identify even obvious parenting issues in the home, including the emotional turmoil exhibited by her and the twins on a regular basis.   She was unable to discuss the communication problems between family members.   Lisa has difficulty accepting Elizabeth's cognitive limitations and does not recognize how that might affect Elizabeth's ability to function independently.

Elizabeth lacks basic parenting skills.   She has poor social skills and low self-esteem, which cause her to feel inadequate and become easily frustrated.   Elizabeth exhibited a very low frustration tolerance and was very combative with Lisa and Jessica.

Between July, and December 2008, Elizabeth participated in individual therapy with Roseanne Morrell through the Parent Child Resource Center (PCRC).  Morrell is an expert in child therapy, including modalities related to child therapy and observations and conclusions involving parents behavior and interaction.   Morrell maintained contact with DCF during the therapy period.

Morrell met with Elizabeth twice per week until late December 2008.   Sometimes she met with Elizabeth and Lisa together and sometimes apart.   Morrell also conducted family therapy sessions.   When Morrell first met with Elizabeth, Elizabeth said that she did not want the baby.   Lisa also indicated that she did not want the baby.

The presenting issues were the delivery of Nicole, disclosure of sexual abuse, and removal from the home.   The therapy focused initially on the trauma related to Elizabeth's removal from her mother's care.   Morrell addressed attachment, emotional regulation and cognitive issues.   Elizabeth was not terribly responsive to verbal approach, so Morrell used a more concrete approach.   She needed a lot of help understanding what happens regarding the legal process and expressed being frustrated and upset.

Elizabeth's ability to regulate her emotions and feelings was an issue from the start.   Elizabeth had difficulty managing her moods and feelings especially feelings of anger.

In August 2008, Morrell recommended that Lisa's children be returned.   The recommendation was based primarily on the children's attachment to Lisa. On August 26, 2008, the children were returned to Lisa.

On or around September 25, 2008, Elizabeth came forward and said she wanted Nicole.   Lisa said she wanted to support mother if mother wanted the baby.

During therapy, Morrell observed that Lisa had the ability to act as co-regulator of Elizabeth's emotions.   Lisa made attempts to calm Elizabeth.   However, Morrell had concerns regarding Lisa's ability to manage her own anger and emotions and how that affected Elizabeth.   Lisa sometimes expressed emotions that escalated Elizabeth's emotional trauma, rather than helped Elizabeth feel safe, secure and calm.   Morrell tried to help grandmother keep her emotions in check for sake of Elizabeth.   Lisa needed to have a greater sensitivity to helping her daughter.   Prior to December 2008, grandmother and mother's attendance was excellent and they generally had good sessions.

On December 16, 2008, Morrell went to the family home for the purposes of a home visit and to meet Nicole.   It was a small apartment.   Neighbors were coming in and out.   Morrell described the home as being chaotic.   Elizabeth was very angry that day.   She did not respond to Morrell's greeting.   Lisa said that Elizabeth was in one of her moods.   Doors were being slammed.

During the visit, Nicole cried the whole time.   While the baby was crying, Elizabeth carried Nicole like a football from room to room.   Elizabeth was angry while doing this.   Morrell was concerned that Elizabeth was holding Nicole in such a precarious manner.   There were no real attempts to soothe Nicole when she was crying.   Elizabeth did not speak to the baby, make sounds or play with the baby, endeavor to make eye contact, cradle, rock, pat or stroke the baby.   She did not change the position she was holding the baby in or otherwise attempt to soothe Nicole.   Even though the baby was crying, Elizabeth was trying to dress her in a Christmas outfit so that she could be photographed.   Elizabeth was using Nicole more like a doll to make herself feel better.   She was not attuned to the effect of her behavior on the child.   Elizabeth's lack of control of her emotions impaired her ability to make good decisions.

During the visit, Lisa did not really intervene to assist Elizabeth in addressing Nicole's distress.   Lisa did not make any suggestions or teach Elizabeth to nurture Nicole.   Instead, she was out on the back porch smoking cigarettes most of the time.   Lisa felt that it was Elizabeth's time to bond with Nicole.

Morrell had concerns for the safety and well-being of Nicole given Elizabeth's difficulties in managing her anger and emotions.   Morrell had concerns regarding the intensity of Elizabeth's emotions while she was supposed to be caring for Nicole.

After home visits, Morrell discussed her concerns with Lisa. Morrell told her that if Elizabeth was going to parent the child, she had a lot of work to do.   Lisa had difficulty dealing with Morrell's concerns.   Lisa wanted Morrell to put in a good word for mother with DCF. After Morrell expressed her concerns, the therapeutic relationship was fractured, and the family became alienated from Morrell.   Lisa wanted to reduce the frequency of the visits and then told Morrell on January 22, 2009, that they had identified an alternative therapist.   Morrell finished working with mother at end of January 2009.

In Morrell's opinion, mother had a lot of work to do before she would be able to properly care for Nicole.   Morrell had serious concerns regarding Elizabeth's anger.   The assessment was based primarily on Nicole's safety.

From August 2008, to the present, Lisa participated in individual counseling on a weekly basis with Vickie Santore.   Santore is a licensed clinical social worker and an expert in individual and family therapy and in child custody and visitation.   She used to work for Behavioral Health but now works for Catholic Charities.   Santore was referred by DCF.

When Lisa started therapy with Santore, they initially discussed Lisa's anger and emotions related to the disclosed sexual abuse of Elizabeth and the birth of Nicole.   Over time, they discussed her stress and anger regarding the ongoing legal process.   Lisa is attending therapy and is appropriately engaged.   She has cooperated with therapy.   Lisa has expressed the need to work on anger issues.   Lisa is making progress in therapy.   Santore believes that grandmother needs to continue therapy, given the stress.   In Vickie Santore's opinion, Lisa can parent Nicole and help Elizabeth, and Lisa would be an appropriate guardian.

Santore has also conducted family therapy sessions.   Santore helps the family deal with the stress related to the legal process.   Both Lisa and Elizabeth are struggling with the process.   They are angry and frustrated about losing time with Nicole and missing out on her milestones.   Santore is working with family on expressing anger.   She is working with the twins to address the emotional focus on the family being on Elizabeth.   There is a level of fighting between the twins and both also have certain developmental or specialized needs.

Santore has ongoing contact with DCF. Lisa Burns asked Santore to visit the home, and Santore has made three visits.   During visits, Santore observed the family acting appropriately.   Santore last visited the home in July 2009.   For the most part, the visits went well.   There was one visit when Lisa got upset with a DCF aide and left the house.   Lisa eventually got herself together and came back.   In Santore's opinion, the home is an appropriate and safe environment for children.   The home was clean and there were no safety concerns.   Lisa appropriately cares for Nicole.   In Santore's opinion, the family does not have sufficient visitation with Nicole.   There is a bond with Nicole, but it would be stronger if there was more visitation.

Between November 2008, and July 2009, Pamela St. John provided parenting education and supervised visitation services through Behavioral Health Services, which was previously Kaleidoscope Family Solutions.

When St. John first started supervising visits, the home environment was chaotic.   Many people were coming in and out of the apartment.   It was very noisy.   Music was played very loudly.   Nicole would cry throughout visits.   St. John tried to take a positive approach towards the family's needs, but the family exhibited a great deal of hostility towards her.   Lisa refused to listen to St. John and would swear at her.   Lisa would storm around the house.   St. John believed that Lisa's behavior set the climate of hostility.   St. John was so concerned during one visit that she called the hotline to report an incident when Nicole's head flopped back.   The visit was ended early.   On a regular basis, St. John reported her concerns to DCF.

During this period, St. John tried to maintain a professional approach and ensure the safety of Nicole, but there were many issues with the home environment.   Lisa seemed to lack basic knowledge about nutrition.   For example, Ashley had serious dental problems due to decay.   Nevertheless, on one occasion, Lisa gave Ashley soda for breakfast.   Lisa was furious at St. John for expressing concerns regarding Ashley drinking soda for breakfast.   There were several other incidents when Lisa reacted very negatively to criticism.   Lisa continued to be hostile to St. John and swear at her during visits.   Lisa's hostility was also directed at others.   During one visit, a friend of the family, Lisa Eaton, raised a concern regarding whether formula was too old to feed to Nicole.   After that visit, St. John never saw Eaton at another visit.   Previously, Eaton was regularly present during visits.   Lisa's troublesome conduct included her falsely telling a social worker that St. John thought that Nicole should be returned to them.   St. John never told Lisa or Elizabeth that Nicole should be returned to them.

St. John also had several concerns regarding Elizabeth's ability to care for Nicole and her judgment.   Elizabeth was very rigid if there was a deviation from what she wanted.   When St. John came with Nicole for a visit a few minutes early, Elizabeth would not come out of her room.   Elizabeth's anger would often prevent her from interacting with the baby.   St. John had to tell Elizabeth that if she did not come out of her room during a visit, St. John would end the visit early.   Elizabeth seemed to see Nicole as a doll and to be more concerned with her own needs than with Nicole's needs.   Elizabeth sometimes seemed to be more receptive to her when Lisa was not around.

The family dynamics was a major concern.   Family members fought during almost every visit.   The fighting contributed to the chaotic home environment.   The family did not follow instructions.   Nicole needed to be comforted when she cried, rather than to be handed around from person to person.   St. John stopped supervising visits in July 2009.

St. John thought that when she first started working with family, there was some rapport, but as soon as St. John started expressing concerns regarding the family, the family became hostile towards her.   St. John tried different approaches with the family without much success.   The family made some improvement, but not lasting progress.   The family was sometimes nurturing with Nicole, but generally seemed incapable of recognizing her needs and putting her needs first.   There was a problem with the climate of the home.   Most of time, the home was chaotic.   St. John left with concerns regarding the risk to Nicole's safety if she were reunited with the family.

In January 2009, Dr. Bruce Freedman, Ph.D., conducted a court ordered psychological evaluation of the family.   He is an expert in clinical psychology.   He has not seen the family since the evaluation.

Lisa hoped to have Nicole reunified with the family.   She planned to take primary care of Nicole.   Lisa handled Nicole well, but Nicole had a level of discomfort.   Dr. Friedman was aware that there had been limited visitation.   In his opinion, Lisa has cognitive issues and is slow to learn new things.   Her lack of awareness regarding the sexual abuse of Elizabeth was troublesome.

Dr. Friedman observed Elizabeth interact with the child.   Elizabeth could learn parenting skills from the grandmother in a home setting.   She has cognitive issues and is slow to learn new things.   In his opinion, there could be friction in the home if Elizabeth had to accept a parenting role for Nicole that was subordinate to Lisa's role.   Dr. Friedman recommended that Nicole live in the home under Lisa's primary care.   Lisa has the capability of caring for Nicole, helping Elizabeth parent the child and teaching Elizabeth parenting skills.   He recommended that visitation be increased if reunification was being considered.   Any transition would need to include in home support services.   Once the child was living in the home, Lisa would need to supervise Elizabeth's contact with Nicole.   If Nicole was reunited with the family, he believed it would be advantageous to allow Nicole to have continued contact with the foster parents.

Several concerns regarding placement with the biological family were discussed.   Dr. Friedman recognized that removal from the foster home would be a huge stress on Nicole's psychological well-being.   He believed that visitation would assist in creating a stronger relationship that would enable any transition to go more smoothly.   In his opinion, a child should not be in placement for two years.   It was not beneficial for the child to be in limbo for so long.   Dr. Freedman agreed that domestic violence may adversely affect a young child if the violence is a persistent problem.   He recognized that there may be a difference between adequate care in the home environment and the best interest of the child.   In addition, blood relationship is a factor to consider.

After Dr. Freedman's evaluation, the visits increased from once to twice per week.   Lisa and Elizabeth have asked for additional visitation but that request has not been granted.   They have also requested unsupervised visitation but that has not been deemed appropriate.   The department believes that the negative aspects of the visits have outweighed the positive aspects.

From July to October 2009, Andrea Fisher provided supervised visitation and parenting education through Connect to Kids. Fisher was contracted by DCF to provide general parenting education, work on family conflicts and make sure parenting was appropriate during visits.   Fisher met with the family once or twice per week for a few hours.

Fisher tried some different approaches with the family that seemed to work.   The family seemed motivated at times.   They seemed to work well with Fisher and would often listen to and follow her suggestions.   During visits, Nicole would laugh and play.   Elizabeth was good at playing with Nicole.

The family exhibited several behavioral issues including angry outbursts, door slamming, leaving the room in a huff, refusal to communicate, yelling and ranting and raving.   Fisher observed angry outbursts between Lisa and Elizabeth.   On a number of occasions, Lisa was non-communicative during visits.   There was a significant undercurrent of anger and frustration.   Lisa would often express her frustration with the department and St. John and make threatening remarks.   The household was tense, uncomfortable and emotionally stressful.   On one occasion, when Nicole was being put in the car, Lisa said something to Elizabeth along the lines of “It's almost over.”   Elizabeth said in response, “It's never going to be fucking over.”   Given the behavioral issues, there were safety concerns.   Fisher reported regularly to DCF about the family's strengths and weaknesses.   Over time, the family started doing more activities together, like picnics, and started having family meetings.

In October 2009, the department terminated Fisher's services after deciding unexpectedly that she was not actually credentialed to provide the services.   Fisher would have continued to work with family if allowed.

Based on her experience working with the family, Fisher identified several strengths.   The family had been through a great deal and demonstrated some progress.   They were committed to each other.   Elizabeth was conscientious about caring for baby.   There was improvement in the cleanliness of the home.

Fisher also recognized that the family faced several challenges.   The home environment was sometimes chaotic.   There was an undercurrent of tension and stress.   The family exhibited behavioral concerns.   They alternated between working together and fighting.   The home environment seemed likely to have a negative impact on Nicole.   Fisher recommended that Elizabeth participate in more anger management, family therapy and additional parenting education.

From October 2009, to the present, Nicholas Murphy has provided visitation supervision and transportation services through Positive Services for Kids. He receives referrals from DCF. The visits are twice per week for three hours each.   Murphy has supervised approximately fifty visits.   Murphy made reports regarding visits which were sent to DCF and spoke on a weekly basis with Cindy Napoleone, a DCF social worker.

When Murphy started supervising visits, it took awhile for the parties to get to know each other and feel comfortable.   Lisa and Elizabeth were frustrated with the process and felt that although they had done what they were asked to do, Nicole was still not reunited with them.   They felt that they were disrespected and treated unfairly.   Their relationship with the department and service providers had broken down, especially with St. John. Lisa felt that St. John talked down to them and crossed the line in terms of what she was supposed to be there for.

Between October 2009, and late March 2010, the visits with Murphy generally went well, although there were occasional arguments and fights between the family members.   The family had the basics in terms of baby food and diapers.   Neighbors, friends and people from church would stop by.   Lisa felt more confident after her own case was over.   Murphy did not observe any safety concerns in the first few months.   Murphy started thinking about having unsupervised visits and thinks he mentioned that to Napoleone.

During visits, Lisa is appropriate with Nicole.   Murphy has no concerns with Lisa taking care of Nicole.

Nicole knows when she is going on visits.   She does not put up a fuss.   She recognizes the family.   The visits are pretty simple.   Nicole walks around and is fed and bathed.   She goes from room to room and plays with toys.   She is quiet and does not say much.   Nicole does not express much emotion.   She smiles, sometimes cries, and laughs from time to time.   She does not mind hugging and kissing.

The case was originally scheduled to start trial on March 25, 2010.   As the time for trial drew near, Murphy observed an escalation of behavioral issues.   The stress was getting to the family and tempers started to flare.   The family members were increasingly at odds-shouting, cursing and threatening each other.   The atmosphere in the home during visits grew increasingly stressful.

During the last few months, Elizabeth is having greater difficulty controlling her anger and frustration.   She seems to have a number of emotional issues which have not been adequately addressed through therapy related to her sexual abuse and her situation in terms of Nicole.   During many visits, Elizabeth would go into her room and refuse to come out.   She has slammed doors in anger and on one occasion knocked over the high chair on her way to her room.

Elizabeth frequently fights with Lisa and Jessica.   They say nasty things to each other.   Elizabeth gets into physical confrontations with Jessica.   Many of the fights arise over Elizabeth's view of her maternal role.   She struggles with wanting her own authority.   She becomes resentful when she perceives that Lisa or Jessica are interfering with her role and that triggers many of her outbursts.   Murphy observed that Elizabeth seems to provoke much of the arguing and fighting.   When others try to help out, Elizabeth rejects their help and starts an argument or fight.   Elizabeth has said hurtful things to Lisa and Jessica.   For example, during the visit when Elizabeth knocked over the high chair, she later came out of her room and was upset by how Lisa was taking care of Nicole.   Elizabeth then threw a baby bottle across the room and said to her mother, “I hope you fucking die and she never fucking comes home.”   Elizabeth then went back to her room and slammed her door.   When Elizabeth disengages from the visit, Lisa picks up the slack.   The other family members have tried not to provoke Elizabeth.   Murphy has talked to Senzer several times regarding his concerns about Elizabeth.

The family dynamics have worsened recently.   During almost every visit, Elizabeth, Lisa and Jessica argue and fight with each other.   They also curse and threaten each other.   At a recent visit, after Elizabeth and Lisa got into a big blowup, Lisa told Elizabeth to get the “fuck” out and that when she turned 18, she would be thrown out of the house.

In order to address some of the concerns, Murphy has recommended that some of the visits take place in the community with only Elizabeth.   These visits have gone better.   Over time, Murphy has tried to take on more of a mentoring role with Elizabeth.

Nicole has been present during the arguing and fighting between the family members.   She has never really been in any danger.   Murphy gets Nicole out of the situation while waiting to see where the argument is going.   Most of the time, Nicole just keeps playing with her toys and does not cry.   Nicole does fine when she leaves the visits.

Murphy has seen Nicole at her foster home and at daycare.   Nicole has lived at the foster home for a long time.   She calls the foster parents “Mommy” or “Daddy.”   The foster parents are caring people and have worked hard on addressing Nicole's developmental issues.   Nicole also seems to do well in daycare and no problems have been reported.

Murphy has tried to help Lisa and Elizabeth with strategies to address Elizabeth's anger issues.   Murphy has also made suggestions regarding working with Nicole on developmental issues.   Birth-to-Three services have recently been implemented in the home.

Since October 2009, Rebecca Senzer has met with the family on a weekly basis.   Senzer is a licensed clinical social worker and an expert in family, adolescent and individual therapy.   The family engaged her services on its own.   They have worked on a number of issues including the trauma of Elizabeth's removal from her mother in July 2008, mother's sexual abuse history and issues related to Nicole and how the family struggles to meet the department's expectations and requirements.

Senzer has also been to the home several times and has observed visits with Nicole.   During these visits, Senzer has observed the family care for Nicole and keep her safe and happy.   The family had the necessary supplies for Nicole including baby food, diapers, clothes and a crib.   There are no safety issues in the home.   In Senzer's opinion, the family is responsive to her suggestions and open to her services.   Senzer has had contact with the department and feels that DCF is extremely negative about the family and their capacity to rehabilitate.   Senzer believes it is possible to have successful services with the family if they are treated with respect and given credit for their life experiences.   Providers need to take into account their individual learning styles.   The family has attended parenting workshop at the Family Resource Center.   Lisa has accessed resources in the community.

In Senzer's opinion, the family has a number of assets.   The family is loving, supportive, kind, generous, honest, committed, devoted and accepting.   Senzer believes that Lisa and Elizabeth are very connected to Nicole and determined to have her returned.   They are appropriate with the child.   Senzer believes that Nicole is bonded with the family despite their limited time together.   Since Senzer started working with the family, she has observed Elizabeth make strides.   Elizabeth interacts appropriately with the child.   She has made some progress in addressing her emotions.   She tends to be less reactive.   There is less yelling and more frequent use of strategies.   She is calmer, but it is a process.   Senzer has no concerns with Nicole being in the home, although the family still has work to do.

Senzer is aware of conflict in the home including verbal confrontations and physical altercations.   Conflict has occurred during visits.   Senzer recognizes that there are still issues.   Family has agreed to continue to work on the issues.   Senzer believes that the family has demonstrated change.   The family has made progress and has the ability to care for the child.   She thinks that family dynamics should not prevent the transfer of guardianship with a thoughtful transition.   A transition should include necessary services in place.   A gradual transition would include extending visitation and adding overnight/weekend visits.

In Senzer's opinion, mother is capable of parenting the child with support.   Grandmother and mother have demonstrated appropriate parenting.   Learning to parent is a process.   Senzer believes the family has the capacity, and that you do not wait until life is perfect.

Additional facts, proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, will be provided as needed.

III DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Transfer of Guardianship

The issue at this phase of the proceeding is whether to grant the grandmother's motion to transfer guardianship of Nicole to the grandmother.   The grandmother filed the motion on December 12, 2009, and DCF filed an objection to it on January 28, 2010.  Practice Book § 35a-20(b) provides:  “A parent, legal guardian or other interested party seeking guardianship of the child or youth after guardianship rights to that child or youth were transferred to another person by the superior court for juvenile matters may file a motion with the court that ordered the transfer of guardianship.”   The legal standard for determining whether to transfer guardianship is, in effect, a two-prong test.

First, the court must determine whether the proposed guardian is a suitable and worthy person.  General Statutes § 46b-129(j) provides in relevant part:  “Upon finding and adjudging that any child ․ is uncared-for, neglected or dependent, the court may commit such child ․ to the Commissioner of Children and Families.   Such commitment shall remain in effect until further order of the court, except that such commitment may be revoked ․ at any time by the court or the court may vest such child's ․ legal guardianship ․ with any other person or persons found to be suitable and worthy of such responsibility by the court, including, but not limited to, any relative of such child ․ by blood or marriage.”

Second, the court must determine whether transfer of guardianship is in the best interest of the child as set forth in In re Haley B., 81 Conn.App. 62, 64, 838, A.2d 1006 (2004).   There, the respondent grandmother appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to transfer guardianship.  Id., 64.   The trial court found that the grandmother “did not satisfy the court that her long pattern of substituting her own judgment against an expressed agreement will change.”  Id. On several occasions, MGM had not complied with guidelines issued by the department limiting visitation between the child and her parents.  Id., 65-66.   She allowed the mother to have unauthorized visits or contact with the child, and “then failed to disclose or misrepresented these facts to [the department].”  Id., 66.  “[MGM] also failed to seek prior approval for any of these acts and, in some cases, took them despite [the department's] direct prohibition.”  Id. The court also raised concerns regarding the MGM's credibility, including as to whether the child had been exposed to a convicted sex offender.  Id. MGM demonstrated a lack of credibility and made misrepresentations regarding the child and her parents.   Id. The trial court found that the grandmother had “failed to meet her burden that Haley's best interests require the physical return of the child.”   Id., 64-65.

The Appellate Court found that the best interest of the child standard was correctly applied by the trial court in determining whether to transfer guardianship.  Id., 66-67.  “To determine whether a custodial placement is in the best interest of the child, the court uses its broad discretion to choose a place that will foster the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and in the continuity and stability of its environment.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Id., 67.

In another case, In re Anthony A., 112 Conn.App. 643, 647, 963 A.2d 1057 (2009), the trial court terminated the parental rights of the parents and denied the mother's motion to transfer guardianship of the child, who had been in the care of his foster parents for over a year, and from the time he was nine months old, to the intervening maternal grandmother.   The trial court concluded that the transfer of guardianship was not in the child's best interest.  Id., 654.   In affirming the denial of the motion to transfer guardianship, the Appellate Court noted the following:  “The court reasoned that no evidence was presented that would warrant the disruption of Anthony's life from his current placement to a new placement.”   The court found that Anthony's [paternal great-aunt and uncle] foster parents were his psychological parents, with whom he had bonded and referred to as ‘Mommy’ and ‘Daddy.’   The court apparently credited the testimony of Regina Wilson, a clinical psychologist, who testified that it would not be in Anthony's best interest for him to move out of his current foster home to the home of another relative.”   Id., 654-55.   The Appellate Court found that “the court reasonably concluded that it was in the best interest of Anthony to remain with his foster family and not to have guardianship transferred to the intervenor.”  Id., 655.

(1) Suitable and Worthy Guardian

The court must first determine whether the grandmother is a suitable and worthy guardian for Nicole.   A guardian stands in the place of a biological parent and assumes the parental role.   A guardian must have the ability to care for the child, just like a parent.   Therefore, guardianship is synonymous with parenthood. in determining this issue, the court has considered that “[t]he commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes:  (1) “express love and affection for the child;  (2) express personal concern for child's health, education, and general well being of the child;  (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing, and medical care;  (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile;  and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   In re Angelica W., 49 Conn.App. 541, 551, 714, A.2d 1265 (1998).   In regards to whether a person is appropriate for a certain role, the court also notes that the term “suitable” is ordinarily defined as “able, qualified.”   Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suitable (last visited July 2010).   While “worthy” is commonly understood to mean “honorable, meritorious.”  Id., http:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worthy (last visited July 2010).

In August 2008, grandmother's children were returned to her under protective supervision.   After several extensions, protective supervision was allowed to expire.   At that point, Lisa was deemed a suitable and worthy caretaker at least for her own children.

During the trial, a number of witnesses testified regarding Lisa's ability to be Nicole's guardian.   In Vickie Santore's opinion, Lisa would be an appropriate guardian for Nicole.   Nicholas Murphy had no concerns with Lisa taking care of Nicole.   In Dr. Freedman's opinion, Lisa demonstrated adequate qualifications to assume guardianship and primary care of Nicole.

Although it is certainly possible that a person could be considered a suitable and worthy caretaker for one child and not another, the evidence demonstrates that the grandmother satisfies the minimum attributes for a suitable and worthy guardian of Nicole.   Grandmother has expressed her love and affection for Nicole and is concerned for her development, health and welfare.   Lisa understands that she would be responsible for providing for Nicole.   She has been able to meet her children's basic needs.   She indicated that she would look for a larger apartment if Nicole was reunited with the family.   The family regularly attends church and has support in the community.

The court finds that the grandmother has satisfied the first prong of the transfer of guardianship test.   While grandmother meets this threshold, there are concerns regarding her parenting ability and the home environment which will be addressed in the best interest section.

(2) Best Interest of the Child

As previously noted, in In re Haley B., the Appellate Court found that in order to determine, in a transfer of guardianship situation, “Whether a custodial placement is in the best interest of the child, the court uses its broad discretion to choose a place that will foster the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and in the continuity and stability of its environment.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Haley B., supra, 81 Conn.App. 67.

In addition to these considerations, the court has identified a number of other factors that are relevant to the determination of the best interest of Nicole.   These factors include the following:  child's age;  child's behavior surrounding visits;  child's bond to biological relations;  child's bond to foster parent;  child's developmental delays;  child's emotional well-being;  child's exposure to domestic violence;  child's length of stay in foster care;  child's need for a supportive, safe, structured, stable, and nurturing caretaker;  child's safety;  cognitive limitations, communication issues;  domestic violence;  family dynamics;  family functioning;  family integrity;  foster care history;  foster parents' willingness to provide long-term care and/or adopt the child;  genetic bond;  home environment;  housing;  length of time the child has been in foster care;  nature of the relationship of the child with biological relations;  nutrition;  other caretakers in the home;  parenting skills;  permanency;  proposed guardian's ability to cooperate and benefit from services provided;  proposed guardian's ability to meet child's basic needs;  proposed guardian's child protection history;  proposed guardian's track record of raising other children;  reasonable efforts made by the department to reunify the family;  removal circumstances;  sexual abuse history, transition issues;  and visitation history.

After due consideration, the court concludes that the evidence and above-mentioned factors weigh in favor of denying grandmother's motion to transfer guardianship.

There are legitimate reasons why Nicole has not yet been reunified with the family.   The evidence shows that Lisa and Elizabeth continue to struggle with a number of concerns, including inadequate parenting skills, lack of cooperation with service providers, inability or unwillingness to benefit from services, lack of insight, family dysfunction, cognitive limitations, poor family dynamics, emotional problems, anger management issues, and domestic violence.

A number of witnesses have testified regarding the family dynamics and home environment.   Lisa and her daughters continue to fight with each other during visits.   The family lacks basic anger management and communication skills.   During fights, the family members yell, curse and threaten each other.   Doors are slammed and objects are thrown.   On numerous occasions, the fighting has become physical between Elizabeth and Jessica and has included slapping and punching.   Although some conflict within a family is expected and may be a natural part of family dynamics, the court is very concerned regarding the nature and severity of the conflict and the inability of the family to resolve conflict in an appropriate way.   There are real safety concerns in the home environment related to the family dynamics, anger management and domestic violence.

The department has offered the family numerous services and referrals including parent education;  intensive family preservation;  individual counseling;  supervised visitation;  case management;  family conferencing and treatment planning;  parent coaching and education;  developmental services for Nicole, childcare;  and court-ordered psychological evaluations.   The family has also sought out other services on its own.   During the history of the case, Lisa has not always cooperated with efforts to reunify Nicole with the family.   After her own children were returned, Lisa lost interest in cooperating with reunification efforts and was more concerned with getting service providers out of her life.   Lisa also has a pattern of becoming hostile toward service providers who raise issues regarding her parenting skills, the family or the home environment.   In addition, on enough occasions to raise a concern, Lisa did not intervene when it seemed apparent that Elizabeth needed help or guidance in caring for Nicole.

The department views the family members as having many limitations and not benefiting from the services that were provided to them.   The family has struggled to meet the department's expectations and requirements.   The court recognizes that there are issues regarding the case.   There are different opinions among the service providers regarding the family's progress.   Some of the providers may have not worked well with the family.   The department's reason for terminating Andrea Fisher's services was questionable at best.   In addition, some in the department may have felt that transfer of guardianship should have been more seriously pursued.   These issues, however, do not overcome the fact that under the totality of the circumstances, the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify Nicole with the family and that the family was unable or unwilling to sufficiently benefit from these efforts.

The court has some additional concerns regarding Elizabeth.   Elizabeth has suffered horrific sexual abuse and will likely be traumatized for the rest of her life.   It is understandable that she has great difficulty managing her emotions and feelings.   Her anger often gets the best of her and prevents her from interacting with Nicole during visits.   If Lisa is appointed Nicole's guardian, it is unclear whether Elizabeth would be willing to accept a lessor role in caring for the child.   Elizabeth is cognitively and emotionally challenged to such a degree that there is a risk to Nicole's emotional and physical well-being if she were to be reunified with the family.   The court has concerns whether Nicole may become the focal point of Elizabeth's anger if Nicole is in the family's care.   Elizabeth needs to adequately address her own issues before she would be in a position to care for Nicole.   She has a long way to go before she would be able to do so.

The evidence shows that Lisa and Elizabeth have participated in reunification services but have failed to make sufficient progress.   The family has some strengths and is doing what it is able to do within its limitations.   Lisa deserves credit for raising her own children but lacks insight into her own parenting shortcomings and problems with the home environment.

Nicole is now two years old.   She has been in foster care her entire life.   Nicole is at a different point in her development and has different needs than Lisa's children.   Nicole views the foster parents as her parents.   She relies on them to meet her daily needs.   The conflict in Lisa's home is not conducive to Nicole's well-being.   Nicole already has significant developmental obstacles to overcome.   Returning her to Lisa's home will increase, not lessen, her burdens.   The foster home provides Nicole with an opportunity for permanency.   Nicole will have a better chance of thriving in the foster home.   Nicole needs permanency now.   She has been in foster care for over two years.   It is not in Nicole's best interest to wait any longer for Lisa and Elizabeth to make progress.

As in In re Anthony R., the evidence does not support the disruption of Nicole's life from her current placement, which is the only home she has ever known.   Her foster parents are her psychological parents with whom she has a very close and nurturing bond.   Like the grandmother in In re Haley B., Lisa has failed to meet her burden of proving that Nicole's best interest requires reunification with Lisa and Elizabeth.   The foster home is the place that will best foster Nicole's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and in the continuity and stability of her environment.   Therefore, the grandmother's motion to transfer guardianship is denied, and the objection to it is sustained.

B. Motion for Unsupervised and Overnight Visitation

On April 14, 2010, Lisa filed a motion for unsupervised and overnight visitation.

General Statutes § 17a-10a(a) provides:  “The Commissioner of Children and Families shall ensure that a child placed in the care and custody of the commissioner pursuant to an order of temporary custody or an order of commitment is provided visitation with such child's parents and siblings, unless otherwise ordered by the court.”  “In juvenile matters, the Superior Court shall have authority to make and enforce such orders ․ as the court deems necessary or appropriate to secure the welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support of a child ․ subject to the court's jurisdiction or otherwise committed to or in the custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families.”  General Statutes § 46b-121(b)(1).

For the reasons stated in the best interest subsection of the previous section of this decision, the court finds that it is not in Nicole's best interest to have unsupervised and overnight visitation with Lisa and Elizabeth.   Accordingly, the motion is denied.

C. Motion to Review Permanency Plan

A motion to review the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption was filed by the department on January 29, 2010.   An objection to the permanency plan was filed by the mother on February 8, 2010.   On April 15, 2010, MGM filed an objection to the permanency plan.

General Statutes § 46b-129(k) governs the approval of permanency plans.   The statute provides in pertinent part:  “[T]he court shall approve a permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child or youth and takes into consideration the child's or youth's need for permanency.   The child's or youth's health and safety shall be of paramount concern in formulating such plan.”  General Statutes § 46b-129(k)(2).

Based on the evidence presented, the court approves the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption and finds that the department has made reasonable efforts to achieve the identified permanency plan.   Accordingly, the department's motion to review permanency plan is granted and the objections are overruled without prejudice.

IV CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the above-stated reasons, the court renders judgment and enters the following orders:

A.  MGM's motion to transfer guardianship is DENIED and petitioner's objection to the motion to transfer guardianship is

SUSTAINED;

B. MGM's motion for unsupervised and overnight visitation is DENIED;

C. Petitioner's motion to review permanency plan is GRANTED and Mother's and MGM's objections are OVERRULED without prejudice.   The court finds the department has made reasonable efforts to achieve the identified permanency plan.

BY THE COURT

Bentivegna, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. “The [fact-finding] function is vested in the trial court with its unique opportunity to view the evidence presented in a totality of circumstances, i.e., including its observations of the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and parties ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Cavolick v. DeSimone, 88 Conn.App. 638, 646, 870 A.2d 1147, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 906, 876 A.2d 1198 (2005).“It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony ․ It is the quintessential function of the fact finder to reject or accept certain evidence ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000).  ‘The sifting and weighing of evidence is peculiarly the function of the trier [of fact].   Nothing in our law is more elementary than that the trier [of fact] is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded their testimony ․ The trier is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony offered by either party.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Smith v. Smith, 183 Conn. 121, 123, 438, A.2d 842 (1981).The trial courts function as the fact finder “is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Christine F., 6 Conn.App. 360, 366, 505, A.2d 734, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 808, 809, 508, A.2d 769, 770 (1986).  “[T]riers of fact must often rely on circumstantial evidence and draw inferences from it ․ Proof of a material fact by inference need not be so conclusive as to exclude every other hypothesis.   It is sufficient if the evidence produces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief in the probability of the existence of the material fact.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Coville v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 57 Conn.App. 275, 285, 748, A.2d 875. cert. granted on other grounds by 253 Conn. 919, 755 A.2d 213 (2000) (appeal withdrawn March 30, 2001).The standard of proof, a fair preponderance of the evidence, is “properly defined as the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing force in your mind.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394, 440 A.2d 952 (1981)..  FN1. “The [fact-finding] function is vested in the trial court with its unique opportunity to view the evidence presented in a totality of circumstances, i.e., including its observations of the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and parties ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Cavolick v. DeSimone, 88 Conn.App. 638, 646, 870 A.2d 1147, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 906, 876 A.2d 1198 (2005).“It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony ․ It is the quintessential function of the fact finder to reject or accept certain evidence ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000).  ‘The sifting and weighing of evidence is peculiarly the function of the trier [of fact].   Nothing in our law is more elementary than that the trier [of fact] is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded their testimony ․ The trier is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony offered by either party.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Smith v. Smith, 183 Conn. 121, 123, 438, A.2d 842 (1981).The trial courts function as the fact finder “is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Christine F., 6 Conn.App. 360, 366, 505, A.2d 734, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 808, 809, 508, A.2d 769, 770 (1986).  “[T]riers of fact must often rely on circumstantial evidence and draw inferences from it ․ Proof of a material fact by inference need not be so conclusive as to exclude every other hypothesis.   It is sufficient if the evidence produces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief in the probability of the existence of the material fact.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Coville v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 57 Conn.App. 275, 285, 748, A.2d 875. cert. granted on other grounds by 253 Conn. 919, 755 A.2d 213 (2000) (appeal withdrawn March 30, 2001).The standard of proof, a fair preponderance of the evidence, is “properly defined as the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing force in your mind.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394, 440 A.2d 952 (1981).

Bentivegna, James M., J.