IN RE: Abigail P.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These actions are brought by The Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or “Petitioner”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Abigail P. (hereinafter referred to as “Abigail P.” or “child”).   The biological mother of this child is Sherlie P. (hereinafter referred to as “Sherlie P.” or “Mother”), and the biological father is Martin F., (hereinafter referred to as “Martin F.” or “Father”).

On 5/22/09, DCF filed a motion for an Order of Temporary Custody and Petition of Neglect on behalf of Abigail P. The Order of Temporary Custody was granted on 5/22/09, and was subsequently sustained on 5/29/09.

On 9/22/09, Abigail P. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families until further order of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford.

On 4/16/10, Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights of Sherlie P. and Martin F. were filed as to Abigail P.

On 5/13/10, the Court confirmed service on the parents.   The parents were present and advised of their rights, and denials were entered.   A CMC was set for 6/7/10 at 10:00 a.m., and thereafter a trial was set for 10/7/10.

On 10/7/10, the court commenced trial.   Sherlie P. was not present in court and Martin F. was present in court.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted thirty-one exhibits (A-EE), and Mother's counsel submitted two exhibits (1-2).

Respondent Mother, Sherlie P., testified and eight witnesses testified for DCF. The trial was continued to 11/19/10, for testimony from Dr. Humphrey and closing arguments.

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 for the Petition for TPR as to Mother, Sherlie P., and as to Father, Martin F., are Failure to Rehabilitate-Conn.  Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1);  and as to Mother, Failure to Rehabilitate-Conn.   Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(E) and as to Father, Abandonment-Conn.   Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).

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

Sherlie P. has a DCF history dating back to February 2004, involving issues of physical neglect of her children, Alize and Angel.   DCF has substantiated neglect three times since the first substantiation on 2/2/05.   On 1/7/05, DCF received a report regarding domestic violence, substance abuse and conditions injurious to well-being.   Physical neglect was substantiated against Mother regarding two of her oldest children, Angel C. and Alize P.

On 1/5/07, DCF received another referral indicating that Andrew P. had tested positive for substances at birth and raising concerns about Mother's ability to provide consistent minimal child care for this infant;  neglect was substantiated on this referral.   On 3/4/08, a third referral was made alleging that Mother was homeless with her son, Andrew P.;   neglect was substantiated on this referral.

Sherlie P. has a history of transiency, evictions, unemployment, domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health issues.   Guardianship of mother's two oldest children was transferred to maternal grandmother (MGM) on 11/22/05.   On 10/10/09, a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights as to Mother, Sherlie P. and Father, John Doe was granted on behalf of Andrew P.

While participating in an Administrative Case Review on 3/24/09, Mother made a comment that she would hurt her unborn child should DCF attempt to remove this child from her.   Mother was referred for a mental health assessment through My People's Clinical Services.   On 5/8/09, the DCF social worker spoke with the clinician at this agency who reported that she had many concerns about Mother's ability to care for her newborn and that she would not recommend that the child be left in Mother's care until a psychiatric evaluation could be completed.

Father, Martin F., was whereabouts unknown for some time and did not make himself available to DCF until paternity was determined on 5/13/10.

B. Mother, Sherlie P.

Sherlie P. was born in Rochester, New York, to Maritza S. and Reynaldo P., the second of four children who were raised by their mother.   Reynaldo P. left the family when Sherlie P. was eleven months old.   She met her father for the time when she was about fourteen or fifteen years old and had a sporadic relationship with him.   Sherlie P. was raised by her step father, Jose J. from the age two through age eight.   During that time there was domestic violence in the home, including verbal and physical abuse that was witnessed by Sherlie P. and her siblings.   As a result, she lost respect for her stepfather.

Sherlie P. attended Burns Elementary School, where she received special education services.   She attended Quirk Middle School, where she was able to receive a bilingual education, and Hartford High School up until the tenth grade.

Sherlie P. obtained her first job in February 2008 at Burger King. At that time she was living at a shelter and had a curfew of midnight.   Burger King required later hours so she was dismissed from their employment.

Sherlie P. has never been married nor served in the military.   She is physically healthy but has mental health issues.   At age 16, she was diagnosed with a learning disability and depression for which she was prescribed Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil.   Depression was brought on by combination of her family and relationship issues, as well as suicidal ideation.   She self-mutilated, threw herself from a second floor, and smashed herself in the head with a glass, but was not hospitalized.   Her only hospitalization was for one week in April 2006 at the Institute of Living.   This occurred after her two oldest children were removed from her care.   She was living on the streets and was involved in a serious domestic violence relationship with her boyfriend at that time.

Sherlie P. met Angel C., father of Angel C., her firstborn, at Hartford High School in 2001.   Their relationship lasted for one year.   She reported physical fights where she was the aggressor.   She was arrested for hitting Angel C. with her boots and was charged with Breach of Peace in 2002.   They decided to separate because of infidelity.

Sherlie P. met Alex F. in 2004.   He is the father of her second child, Alize P. The relationship ended when he left after finding out that Mother was pregnant.

Sherlie P. met Ernesto A. when she was five months pregnant with Alize P. During their relationship, she gave birth to Alize P. prematurely.   The hospital staff noticed bruises on her body and reported this to DCF. Alize P. and Angel C. were removed and placed in a foster home for three months, and subsequently placed with their grandmother, Maritza S. During that time, Mother stayed in the relationship with Ernesto A. for approximately two years despite domestic violence.   Even though he was abusive, he was also supportive at times, and Mother did not have any other support system.   She decided to leave the relationship because she realized that he was not worth it.

Mother moved to Springfield, MA when she found out that she was pregnant, and lived there for four months before moving back to Hartford with her family.   During this time, she met boyfriend Wesley M. when she was six months pregnant with Andrew P. They claimed to have had a good relationship.   Sherlie P. found her own apartment which she managed to maintain with SSI and TANF benefits.   She has since lost her social security benefits due to her being unable to provide the agency with proof that she was able to meet the criteria for continued benefits.

Sherlie P. was evicted from her apartment in November 2007 when she fell behind in rent.   Since that time she has lived in several shelters and with her mother, but she was unable to stay there due to relationship conflicts.   Sherlie P. has had relationships with several different partners.   She was able to obtain an apartment in March 2009 through Supportive Housing Inc., two months before she gave birth to her fourth child, Abigail P. on 5/21/09.   The child was removed from her care due to Mother's unaddressed mental health issues, as well her making statements at an Administrative Case Review in March 2009 about hurting the baby should DCF attempt to remove the infant from her care.   Mother reported two different men as the putative father, Martin F. and Xavier H. Martin F. was determined to be Abigail's father through a paternity test.

Mother is still unemployed and has no source of income.   She relies on donations from various organizations for food and clothing.

C. Martin F., Father.

Martin F. was born on 12/21/88, in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, to Carmen C. and Martin F., Sr., the second born of three children.   Martin F. never had a relationship with his biological father whom he last saw when he was four years old.   He was raised by Carmen C.'s paramour, Juan R. from the age of seven.   Carmen C. has consistently been involved with DCF since 1996 and her son, Jonathan C., DOB 10/2/92, has been in DCF care for most of his life.

Martin F. attended many schools in the City of Hartford, the last of which was Bulkeley High. He dropped out of school in the ninth grade.

Martin F. began smoking marijuana at age 12 when he was introduced to the drug by a maternal great uncle.   His mother tried very hard to deal with his adolescent behaviors, but he became very defiant, refused to follow the rules and ran away from home.   She sought help through the juvenile justice system and Martin F. spent time in Long Lane and Mount St. John residential facilities.   His mother denied that he suffers from any serious medical, psychological or psychiatric illnesses that would require hospitalization, although there is a significant history of mental health illness in the maternal and paternal family.   Martin F. attributes some of his issues to his childhood and his unstable relationship with his mother as she dealt with her own mental health issues.

Father claims that he has never worked legally but has done landscaping work under the table.   He has never been married nor served in the military.   He does have a criminal history that consists of Sale of a Controlled Substance and Failure to Appear in 2007.   He received a three-year jail term, suspended after one year and three years' probation.

E. Child, Abigail P.

Abigail P. was born on 5/21/09, in Hartford, CT. She is thriving in her pre-adoptive home with her three-year-old brother, Andrew.   She was approved for Birth to Three services and one hour per week of occupational therapy has been provided at her daycare since February 2010.   She is reported to be developing well.

Abigail P. was in a foster placement from 5/23/09 through 10/19/09.   She was then placed with her two half-siblings and her maternal grandmother, Maritza S. (MGM).  After a few days, MGM reported to DCF that she was overwhelmed and could not keep Abigail P. She asked for her removal at that time and another foster home was identified.   Abigail P. was then placed in her third foster home from 11/3/09 through 12/16/09.   The foster family required three weeks of respite, therefore a legal risk pre-adoptive home was identified for Abigail through the permanency teaming process.   She has been in her current pre-adoptive home since 12/16/09.   Abigail P.'s half brother, Andrew, was placed in the same home on 1/14/10.

Abigail P. appears very happy in her pre-adoptive home and enjoys the attention and affection from her pre-adoptive parents.   Abigail P.'s pre-adoptive mother transported her for the first visit with her Father on 5/4/10.   She was very appropriate in her interactions with Father and encouraged Abigail P. to go to him so he could interact with her.   She was clinging to foster mother and had a difficult time going to Father.   She appears to be very comfortable in foster father's care and seeks him out for comfort and attention.

F. Maternal Siblings

Mother gave birth to Andrew P. at Hartford Hospital on 1/4/07.   The child remained in the hospital for two weeks and was released to Mother.   He was removed from her care in March 2008, and placed in a foster home where he remained until his current placement on 1/14/10.   A Petition of Termination of Parental Rights was granted on 12/10/09.   His foster family would like to adopt him.

Mother gave birth to Angel C. at Hartford Hospital on 5/27/03.   He went to live with maternal grandmother, Maritza S. when he was removed from Mother's care.   He has visited with his father in New York and there are plans to have him reside with his father in the future.

Mother gave birth to Alize P. at Harford Hospital on 12/13/04.   She was born prematurely as a result of domestic violence trauma.   She stayed in the hospital for a week due to a respiratory infection and was then discharged to DCF. She lived in a foster home for three months and then was placed with MGM. She is attached to her grandmother and has no behavioral issues.

G. Paternal Siblings

DCF met with Father on 5/4/10, and he reported that he has one other child, Mialisse F., DOB 7/8/09 with Sabrina E., who also has an open DCF case.   There is no legal jurisdiction over Mialisse F., however DCF is monitoring the case due to concerns regarding a February 2010 drug arrest at the home of Sabrina E.'s sister where Sabrina E. was residing until 5/1/10.   Sabrina E. has four children.   Her oldest is not in her care and resides with paternal grandparents under a verbal agreement.   She has custody of her three other children, Elijah S., DOB 5/9/02, Yedimez, S., DOB 4/3/04 and Mialisse F.

I. Relative Resources

DCF determined through research that there were no relatives resources available.

J. Present Situation

On 8/23/10, prior to the motion to review the permanency plan hearing, the DCF social worker met with Mother outside of the courtroom.   The worker inquired about Mother's arrest on 7/21/10.   She told the worker that she and Abigail P.'s paternal grandmother Carmen C. (PGM), started spending time together after it was established that Martin F. was Abigail P.'s father.   Mother claimed that Carmen C. drinks, smokes crack and prostitutes herself for money.   According to Mother, PGM arrived at her home intoxicated and wanted to go and get crack but Mother refused.   PGM tried to hit her with a bottle and Mother protected herself with a knife, cutting PGM in the face.   The police were called and Mother and PGM were arrested.   Mother claims that PGM got her into prostituting again and smoking crack cocaine.

On 8/21/10, the DCF social worker spoke to Mother on the phone while she was incarcerated.   She stated that her lease was to expired on 9/1/10, and that she was not able to sign it due to being incarcerated.   She had planned to move in with her mother in East Hartford when she was released from prison.   She was dating a guy named Danny who was a crack dealer who would supply her with drugs when she asked him.

On 9/29/10, the DCF social worker received a report from the Hartford Police Department, dated 5/16/10.   Mother was out with a male friend, Heriberto, and she was intoxicated outside the Silver Dollar Cafe. She apparently became very irate at the establishment so Heriberto tried to get her to leave and she hit him in the back of his head with an empty beer bottle.   While he was en route to her apartment, she tried to exit the vehicle several times and kept striking him in the face.   Once they arrived at her apartment, she refused to exit the vehicle, and due to her violent behavior, Heriberto called for police assistance.   Sherlie P. refused to comply with the officer's verbal commands and ran away.   She was caught and placed in handcuffs.   The officer reported that he smelled alcohol on her breath.   A bump was observed on the back of Heriberto's head, as well as several scratches to the left side of his face.   Sherlie P. was arrested for Assault 3rd degree, Disorderly Conduct and Interfering with Police.   She never reported this arrest to DCF, and when the Department became aware of the arrest in July 2010, she minimized the incident.

On 9/30/10, DCF received notice that Sherlie P. had been released from prison as of 9/30/10.   On 10/1/10, the social worker spoke with MGM, who stated that Mother was unable to keep her apartment and had been residing with her since her release from prison.   MGM claimed that Mother had pleaded guilty to charges in July 2010, and that she had received a two-year suspended sentence after 2 years of probation.   DCF has attempted to contact Mother by phone with no success as the number appeared to be out of service.

During the court hearing on 8/13/10, Father stated that he would not agree to the termination of his parental rights and that he would fight for Abigail P. He knew she was with a good family and acknowledged that they care about her.

On 9/29/10, the DCF social worker received a copy of a Hartford Police report dated 4/24/10 which involved Father.   The report indicated that his girlfriend and mother of his youngest child, Sabrina E., had arrived at Hartford Hospital ER for treatment to a laceration on her right forehead.   She stated that she had been assaulted by Martin F. after a verbal argument when she refused to allow him to use her motor vehicle.   During the argument he slapped her across the face with an open hand causing her to hit the door frame.   He then took her cell phone out of her hand, left the apartment and put his foot through the front windshield of her vehicle.   An arrest warrant was issued charging Martin F. with Assault 3rd degree, Criminal Mischief 2nd degree and Larceny 6th degree.   The DCF social worker had addressed this assault previously with Martin F., and he minimized it by stating that he and his girlfriend had had an argument.

Martin F. was on probation at the time of his arrest and this resulted in his re-arrest on 7/9/10.   He wanted to accept a year in prison rather than three years of probation.   He remained incarcerated as of 10/1/10, and had not made any attempt to contact DCF since the court hearing.

Abigail P. continues to thrive in her current pre-adoptive foster home with her half-brother, Andrew.   She had adjusted well to her new classroom at her daycare facility.   She is a happy and health toddler and seeks comfort from her pre-adoptive family and brother.   Her pre-adoptive parents would be willing to adopt her if she becomes legally free for adoption.

II

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION

The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Mother, Sherlie P.'s and Father, Martin F.'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 child with her 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 Sherlie P. and Martin F.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Abigail P. with Sherlie P. are no longer appropriate because Mother has consistently failed to cooperate and complete most of the services identified in the court-ordered steps.   She admits that she continues to abuse alcohol, marijuana and cocaine.   She is not willing to cooperate with substance abuse services to address her long-standing substance abuse issues.   She is not actively seeking employment to address her on-going lack of food, clothing and finances to support her basic needs.   She has failed to consistently attend individual therapy to address her past and current mental health issues, although she admits that she is emotionally unstable and needs help.   She has failed to consistently attend supervised visits with Abigail P. from 2/8/10 to the present.   She has a history of being involved in volatile relationships.   The record further indicates that Sherlie P. has a history of failing to comply with services to address the neglect of her children.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Abigail P. with Martin F. are no longer appropriate because he has known since Sherlie P. was pregnant with Abigail P. that he might be her father and he did not come forward in a timely manner to verify paternity or cooperate with any specific steps.   He has stated that he is in no position to provide for Abigail P. as he is unemployed and dealing with some court issues related to criminal charges.

B. Grounds for the Termination:  Failure to Rehabilitate-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1)-as to biological Mother, Sherlie P. and Biological Father, Martin F.

The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother, Sherlie P., and Father, Martin F. have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child has been adjudicated as neglected.   This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1) states in part that:

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

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

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

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Sherlie P. and Martin F. have yet to achieve a sufficient “level of rehabilitation ․ which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their children's lives].”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000).   See In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005);  In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001).   The credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study and exhibits, clearly and convincingly establishes that Sherlie P. and Martin F. have not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Sherlie P. and Martha F. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground B1-Failure to Rehabilitate as to Abigail P. by biological Mother, Sherlie P.

See Section I, Factual Findings, and Section II, Reasonable Efforts.

Sherlie P. has been informed by the court and DCF that in order to be successfully reunified with her child she needed to consistently engage in services by demonstrate adequate progress and insight with regard to her ongoing issues of mental health;  engaging in appropriate and consistent treatment;  maintaining appropriate and adequate housing;  securing legal income;  enhancing her parenting skills;  demonstrating an understanding of basic care for her child;  remaining clear of criminal involvement;  maintaining a meaningful relationship with her child and demonstrating that she is aware of and understands her child's needs, and that she could address those needs should the child be placed in her care.

Specific Steps were ordered on 9/22/09 to facilitate the return of the child to Mother's care, but she has not complied with them.

Mother has failed to visit Abigail P. on a consistent basis, missing one-half of the opportunities to visit her daughter.   Also, when visiting, she has been notably disinterested and inappropriate in caring for the child.

Sherlie P. has not been able to obtain and maintain consistent housing or appropriate employment to meet the needs of the child.

Despite the numerous services offered to Sherlie P., she has not changed her circumstances to permit her child to be returned safely to her care.

Mother has failed to rehabilitate from her issues and has not demonstrated the likelihood that within the foreseeable future she could assume a responsible position in the life of her child.   Given the age and needs of the child, to allow her further time to attempt to rehabilitate and assume a responsible position in their lives is not in her best interest.

Ground B1-Failure to Rehabilitate with Abigail P., as to Biological Father, Martin F.

See Section I, Factual Findings, and Section II, Reasonable Efforts.

Martin F. has been informed by the court and DCF that in order to be successfully reunified with Abigail P. he needed to address his mental health issues, secure legal income, maintain stable housing, enhance his parenting skills;  remain free from criminal involvement;  demonstrate an understanding of basic care for the child;  demonstrate that he is aware and understands the child's needs, and could address these needs should the child be placed in his care.

Specific steps ordered on 9/22/09 to facilitate the placement of Abigail P. in Martin F.'s care, have not been complied with.

Martin F. has failed to demonstrate that he can financially support himself.   Despite the numerous services offered to Father, he has not changed his circumstances to permit Abigail P. to be returned safely to his care.

Martin F. has thus far failed to rehabilitate and has not demonstrated the likelihood that he could assume a responsible position in the life of Abigail P. within the foreseeable future.   Given the age and needs of the child, to allow Martin F. further time to attempt to rehabilitate and assume a responsible position in the life of the child, would not in her best interest.

C. Grounds for the Termination:  Abandonment-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)-as to biological Father, Martin F.

This ground is established when the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.   Sporadic efforts are insufficient to negate the claim of abandonment.   The test for determining abandonment of a child for purposes of termination of parental rights is not whether a parent has shown “some interest” in his or her child, but rather, whether the parent has maintained any reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare.  In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 36, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).

Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts and financial support are indicia of “interest, concern or responsibility.”  In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 209, 504 A.2d 533 (1986).

The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes:  (1) express love and affection for the child;  (2) express personal concern over the 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.  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17-18, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993);  In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).

Ground A-Abandonment as to Abigail P. Martin F. by Biological Father, Martin F.

Abigail P. has been in DCF care continuously since 5/22/09.

Father has been whereabouts unknown until he came forward for a paternity test on 4/12/10, despite knowing he might have been Abigail P.'s biological father.

Father has attended a few supervised visitations with Abigail P. and was not entirely appropriate with the child.   He has missed scheduled visits since 4/12/10.

Father has not supported Abigail P. physically, emotionally, or financially since her birth.

Father has made no financial contributions to the maintenance of Abigail P.

Father has not demonstrated skill or capability in dealing with the child on a daily basis.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Mother, Sherlie P., and Father, Martin F., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected their child and Father, Martin F., has abandoned his child, Abigail P.

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 Sherlie P.'s and Martin F.'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 this child with her parents.   Services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

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

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Sherlie P. and Martin F. 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).

These parents have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return their child 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.   Martin F. has not been able to take full advantage of services as he has been whereabouts unknown for most of the current DCF involvement.

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 the 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 her parents, due to her parents' substance abuse, reluctance to accept their roles as parents and the unavailability of Father, Martin F. The child has developed a strong bond with their foster parents with whom she has lived since 12/16/09.   The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt this child.

Since Father, Martin F., has been whereabouts unknown much of the time, his child was unable to bond with him.

5. “The age of the child.”

Abigail P. was born on 5/21/09 and is seventeen 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 continue to be transient and virtually unemployed;  they lack interest in their child;  and they 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, the Department of Correction or third parties prevented Sherlie P. or Martin F. from maintaining a relationship with their child, nor did their economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

Father, Martin F. has maintained little contact with his child and the Petitioner.   In order to improve his parenting bond with his child, he is in need of adequate parenting classes, and significant visitation with his child.   However, since he has been whereabouts unknown for much of the time and remains illusive, time will not permit the necessary compliance.

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

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Sherlie P.'s and Martin F.'s parental rights to this child would be in her best interest.²  Applying the appropriate legal standards ³ to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of the State of Connecticut and DCF.

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

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

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

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

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

This child cannot delay her need for permanence and stability in exchange for her parents' uncertain future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 the best interest of this child to terminate the parental rights of Sherlie P., the biological Mother of the child;  and Martin F., the biological Father of Abigail P. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to this child are hereby terminated.

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

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

BY THE COURT,

WOLLENBERG, J.

FOOTNOTES

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

FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action.  In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33-5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000)..  FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action.  In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33-5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).

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

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