IN RE: Jayden B.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On January 20, 2010, the petitioner, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112, et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Kayla A., and Justin B. as to the minor children Jayden, born October 21, 2006, and Keltan, born August 3, 2008.   The parents have appeared and are represented by counsel.   Neither biological parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   This court has jurisdiction.   The case file reflects a finding of neglect of the children on February 20, 2009 (Graziani, J.).

The court received numerous documents as full exhibits and heard from seven witnesses which included the respondents.   After considering the testimony of the witnesses and examining the documents in evidence, the court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

The evidence will show that the same problems that existed at the time the children were removed in April 2008, continue to exist today.   Both parents fully understood from the very beginning what was expected of them, they were able to fully articulate what was necessary to achieve reunification and neither of them has purposely and consistently acted to rehabilitate themselves.

Kayla's Social History 2

Kayla is presently twenty-one years of age.   Significantly, Kayla told the DCF social worker who interviewed her that her parents had a good relationship with no domestic violence or substance abuse issues.   In fact, it appears that her father was a heroin addict who committed suicide when Kayla was nine years old.   Her mother was an active alcoholic, who remarried to a domestically violent alcoholic man.   This sort of denial by Kayla of her personal history is a common theme throughout this case.   The court finds that she is not a reliable reporter.

At age thirteen, Kayla was removed from her home by DCF due to her mother's substance abuse and domestic violence within the home.   After nine months Kayla was returned to her mother's care until a Family With Service Needs petition in 2005 authorized Kayla's commitment again due to her many behavioral issues.   Those issues included unmanageable behavior, running away from home, stealing, lying, being oppositional, unruly and exhibiting sexualized behaviors.   In October 2005, Kayla was returned to her mother's care.   She was sixteen years and one month old.   Within three months she was pregnant with Jayden.   Kayla dropped out of high school.

Justin's Social History

Justin is presently twenty-four years of age.   His parents were both substance abusers including crack cocaine.   As a result of his parents' impairment, Justin moved to Texas and lived with his aunt and uncle.   He attended elementary school and middle school in Texas where he reports he was a good student with average grades.   In the ninth grade he moved back to Connecticut.   He found school much more difficult in Connecticut than in Texas.   He reports getting involved with the “wrong crowd” and ultimately dropped out of high school.   He began working painting houses and at age nineteen at about the same time he impregnated sixteen-year-old Kayla.

He has reported to DCF since his first interviews that he would like to have better jobs and realizes his need to complete his General Equivalency Degree (GED).   Justin has worked at a lot of jobs at the bottom end of the labor pool.   He has stocked shelves, washed dishes, painted apartments, cut Christmas trees and built stone walls.   He testified that he presently works “under the table” for his mother's boyfriend painting houses.   He reports that this is seasonal work.   He has told the psychologist that he needs to get a regular job, get an apartment and go to counseling to get the children back.   He says he intends to get his GED so that he can get a better job.   The court finds, as will be developed, that Justin has aspirations without motivation.   In the two and a half years since the removal of the children, without the burden of the children, he has made no substantial progress to improve his position in life.

Removal of the Children:

Jayden was removed on April 9, 2008.   At the time the mother, Kayla, was pregnant with her second child Keltan who was subsequently born on August 3, 2008.   Keltan was hospitalized for more than a month following birth due to premature birth complications.   Keltan left the hospital on October 7, 2008, directly into foster care where the child presently resides.   Keltan is a medically complex child suffering from broncho-pulmonary displasia.

The problems which led to the removal of the children are set forth in the following excerpts from the social worker's affidavit at the time of removal.   The offer of services to the parents, prior to the removal are set forth herein.

Social Worker Affidavit of Kaycee Duclos, April 11, 2008 in support of neglect petition:

Upon review of the record, this social worker learned that the Department first became involved with the A./B. family on 11/09/06, after receiving an anonymous referral reporting concerns for Jayden, who was a newly born infant at the time and was found to be living in unsanitary living conditions.   Upon commencement of the investigation a jar of marijuana was discovered in the home and Justin was arrested for Possession of Marijuana and Risk of Injury to a Minor.   The Department substantiated physical neglect of Jayden by both his parents as they exposed Jayden to conditions injurious to his well being including substance abuse and inadequate shelter and their case was opened for treatment services.

On 11/16/2007, Kayla took part in a hair toxicology in which she yielded positive results for cocaine dating back thirty, sixty and ninety days.   During her evaluation at Community Prevention Addiction Services (CPAS), Kayla admitted to occasional use (social/recreational) of both alcohol and marijuana but denied being an abuser.   She was recommended to comply with outpatient substance abuse treatment.

Kayla reported that she had tried to contact CPAS to arrange an appointment and left messages in which she stated that no one would return her call.   On 12/27/2007, Mr. Eldridge from CPAS reported to this assigned worker that “I have received no calls from Kayla and there have been no messages left with the secretary.”   Another referral for services was made to New Perceptions on 3/14/2008 and she was discharged on 04/09/2008 due to non-compliance with services.

Justin expressed a need for mental health services and was referred for individual therapy on 10/22/2007 and was scheduled to meet with a therapist at Coyle Psychological Associates in Putnam on 11/27/2007, but to date he has not followed through with these services.   Justin also reported that he was going to take part in a father son group but never followed through with services.

On 10/11/2007, Justin contacted this assigned worker stating that he was no longer in a relationship with Kayla and that he believed that Kayla was smoking pot and was not properly supervising Jayden.   On this date Justin and Kayla signed a service agreement stating that Jayden was to remain in Justin's care until Kayla could secure safe and appropriate living arrangements as well as treatment.

On 12/26/2007, during a home visit with both parents in which issues of them driving Jayden around in a vehicle without either of them having a valid license, lack of services and contact with providers, etc. both Justin and Kayla shouted profanities at this assigned worker and became belligerent during the visit;  Jayden was present at the time of the incident.   Kayla stated “f-k you, I am so angry right now, I am going to hit someone.”   Justin stated “F-k DCF, I have done everything you have asked me to do.”   Justin and Kayla ignored the presence of their son and had total disregard as to the impact that this may have in Jayden.   Further, Kayla went outside to the car and was revving the engine posturing almost like she intended to strike this worker with her car.

Kayla and Justin have a tumultuous relationship in which they will remain with each other for a short period of time and then end the relationship.   Their relationship is wrought with verbal abuse as they will often argue in the presence of the child.

Kayla and Justin continue to lack stable housing and employment in order to care for their son Jayden.   This is a concern as Kayla has been asked to leave two of her previous living arrangements due to disagreements in the home, and Jayden has had to move from location to location lacking any stability or normalcy.

On 2/20/2008, this assigned worker spoke with Ms. Sarah Hebert from the Nurturing Families Program, in which she reported that she would be assigned to work with Kayla and Justin to assist with their parenting skills.   On 3/19/2008, Sarah Hebert from the Nurturing Families Program contacted this assigned worker to report that she would be closing Kayla and Justin's case due to non-compliance with the services.

Justin also reported that on 3/30/2008, Kayla had been drinking wine and smoking marijuana and a verbal dispute ensued between the couple.   Justin reported that Kayla became enraged and fled from the apartment by driving her care, while under the influence of alcohol and without a license.

On the above mentioned date, this assigned worker drove Kayla to Day Kimball Hospital to make a pre-natal appointment as she is several months pregnant and to New Perceptions for a urine test.   Kayla was also advised and provided information to schedule an evaluation appointment.   Kayla was provided with the phone number to service providers along with Med Cab in case she needed transportation to her appointments.   To date, Kayla has still failed to show up for her scheduled appointment at New Perceptions, scheduled for 4/09/2008 for an evaluation, and she has now been discharged from the program for several missed appointments.

Justin also contacted this social worker as well on this date and reported that Jayden had a rash on his arms and although Kayla advised that she had brought him to the doctor, he did not believe her and was concerned about his son.   It was later confirmed that Kayla never did bring Jayden to a doctor to have his arms looked at.

Kayla was offered the opportunity to go to a shelter with her son as she admitted to having no alternative housing arrangements.   She adamantly refused and offered no viable resources.   Kayla and Justin have clearly demonstrated that they have been unable to afford their son the opportunity to reside in a stable and safe living environment free from abuse, domestic violence and substance abuse.   Justin allowed this pattern to continue when he and Kayla were involved in a relationship, and did not take the necessary steps to protect his son.   Furthermore, Kayla and Justin did not take part in services offered and recommended by the Department.

Since the father, Justin, violated the service agreement by allowing Jayden to live with Kayla and neither parent would engage in services, DCF sought and obtained an order of temporary custody of Jayden.

Kayla A.

The documents and social studies are replete with recommended services.   Similar to the unwillingness of the parents to engage in services prior to the removal, the parents have shown a remarkable resistance to engage in consistent and regular attendance at individual counseling and substance abuse evaluation and treatment.

Examples of Kayla's self-deception or denial are numerous.   Kayla was evaluated by psychologist Mary Cheyne in 2008 and again in 2010.   Dr. Cheyne's observations and psychological assessment assist the court in evaluating Kayla's conduct and her credibility.

1. Substance Abuse

The failure to obtain substance abuse treatment is particularly disturbing.   As will be outlined, Kayla frequently engages in self-deception and denial.   Since the substance abuse treatment relies on truthful and valid self-reporting of substance abuse issues, a person who represents that they do not use alcohol or drugs is not recommended for further treatment.   Neither parent, but especially Kayla, has been candid with the evaluators and therefore, the evaluators have not recommended treatment.   One of the earliest observations of Kayla's behavior was that of lying.   She told both the treatment evaluators and the court-appointed psychologist that she has not used any drugs or alcohol since she was a teenager.

There are no changes to Ms. A.'s medical history and she reports no current health problems.   She is prescribed the medication, Seroquel.   When asked about any recent history of drug or alcohol abuse issues, she replies that she does not drink.   About any recent drug use/abuse she says that her last use of drugs was age 16 or 17.  (Exhibit B-Psychological Evaluation, May 17, 2010.)

Since she reported to the examiner no use of alcohol or drugs, Kayla has not been required to participate in any substance abuse treatment.   The facts are that Justin often told DCF that Kayla abused alcohol and marijuana.   One hair toxicology test of Kayla showed levels of cocaine in her system for three consecutive months (Petitioner's Exhibit H) and on September 8, 2009, as part of her release to an Alternate Incarceration Center, she tested positive for opiates.  (Exhibit J, p. 6.)

2. Keltan's Birth

The Psychological Assessment Report dated October 1, 2008 (Exhibit C) begins as follows:

Jayden (2years old) and Keltan (one month old) are the children of Kayla A. Justin B. is the father of Jayden;  no information is available as to who is the father of Kelton.   Kayla and Justin have not been in a relationship together for over a year.

The truth is that Kayla and Justin had been in some kind of relationship within the preceding year, since it was Justin who had impregnated Kayla.   Paternity testing later confirmed that Justin was the father.

3. Relationship with Damen

Kayla knows that the child protection agency will not consider reunifying the children with her as long as she is involved with Damen M. Damen is a thirty-two-year-old man from Worcester, Massachusetts.   He is a convicted felon;  he has fifteen Connecticut arrests for a multitude of charges including possession of narcotics, burglary, violation of protective orders and assault.  (Exhibit N.) Kayla vigorously asserts to DCF that she is not in a relationship with him, he does not live with her, he is an off and on boyfriend, she does not know where he lives.   He works in Vermont according to Kayla.

When questioned about whether she is currently in a significant relationship Ms. A. replies, “No. I want to worry about myself.   I am doing good and I don't need anybody to come into my life and mess it up.   I don't have time for a relationship.”

(Petitioner's Exhibit B, April 28, 2010-Questioned by Dr. Cheyne)

Kayla and Damen have been arrested and have pending criminal charges for allegedly stealing $2,700 of merchandise from Kayla's last employer.   The arrest is for a series of events which occurred in June and July 2009, when Kayla, the cashier, allowed Damen to fill shopping bags with items from the Home Depot and then she would only charge him for the cost of the shopping bag.   On November 22, 2009, Damen was arrested for interfering with a police officer/resisting arrest.   On the occasion of both arrests, he listed Kayla's apartment as his address.

It is curious to note two recent arrests for Kayla by the Putnam Police Department.   On March 8, 2010, Kayla was arrested for breach of peace and cruelty to animals.   Damen M., “the accused boyfriend” (according to the police report) was present.

On June 12, 2010, Putnam police responded to Kayla's apartment at one o'clock in the morning.   Kayla was “repeating herself, acting hysterical, crying loudly, and smelled strongly of alcoholic beverage.”   She was arrested for breach of peace, interfering with a police officer and possession of a controlled substance.  (Exhibits L and K.) In both arrest reports, her appearance is noted to include four tattoos.   One on her neck reads “Damen.”   Note also, that in June 2010, she is arrested redolent of alcohol and in possession of controlled drugs, yet she professes to no use of drugs or alcohol.

So despite her representation that she is not involved with Damen, he lists her address as his address, he has been arrested at her apartment twice, he was involved in a conspiracy to steal from Home Depot with Kayla, she went to Vermont to live with him for several months in 2009, and she has his name tattooed on her neck.   She did admit in testimony that Damen spent the night preceding her testimony “at my Mom's house with her.” (i.e. the night of November 14, 2010, the first night of trial.)

The court finds that notwithstanding her many denials, she is in a relationship with Damen and that placement of children in the home of Kayla and Damen would not be in the children's best interests.

4. Compliance With Treatment

Kayla represents that she has been compliant with treatment.   As previously described she has lied to the substance abuse evaluators to avoid treatment.   But her most significant need is for consistent, focused and sustained mental health counseling.

This clinical/personality profile is consistent with that obtained during the evaluation completed by this evaluator in September 2008.   As was stated then, it is clear that Ms. A. has had a difficult childhood and young adulthood.   She has long-standing issues of PTSD, as well as depression and anxiety.   Evidence of her difficulties began at an early age when she began running away from home and abusing substances in what were most likely efforts at self-medication.   Additionally, she has difficulties with emotional control and with the appropriate expression of anger.

Dr. Cheyne concluded that it was clear that Kayla had significant emotional issues including post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and poor judgment which “require attention.”

Inexplicably, Dr. Cheyne did not have the benefit of a psychiatric report of Dr. Peter J. Smith, conducted on October 22, 2009 (Petitioner's Exhibit O).

Kayla presents as having significant depression.   She is currently struggling with marked vegetative symptoms of depression.   This includes difficulty falling asleep and midnight awakening with fairly severe insomnia.   She has nightmares about the death of her father.   Sleep is reduced to five or less hours per night.   She also complains of a high degree of anxiety expressed in somatic complaints, most notably headaches.   She is irritable with a labile effect.   She has crying spells, as she is often tearful.   She is isolative with decreased contact with others.   Concentration is decreased.   She also complains of an increase in appetite and weight.   There are periods of impulsivity with notable increases in spending.   She also has times of excessive housecleaning.   There is psychomotor agitation.   She notes that she has a history of a positive response to the combination of Seoquel and Xanax.   She is not sure which has been more hopeful.   She had quite negative response to Zoloft.   Prozac and Lexapro were not helping.   Remeron made her a “zombie” as did Trazodone.   Ambien was not helpful.

Kayla reports her mood is “off and on.”   Her mood is highly reactive.   She complains of depression although she notes that it does not last more than one day.   She also complains of anxiety with feelings of shakiness.   She is frequently angry and irritable.   She also reports times when she is “super happy.”   At these times, she has a high degree of energy.   She complains of racing thoughts and tangential thoughts.   She does not have any changes in libido.   She has times when there is pressured speech.   She also has a history of an arrest for impulsive larceny.   There is a serious sleep disturbance with difficulty falling asleep and mid night awakening.   Sleep is not restful.   However, at times when she does not sleep she has a high energy level.   There is moderate anhedonia.   Self-esteem is quite poor.   Energy is either high or “nothing.”   Concentration is good.   There is a very significant increase in appetite.   Weight increased over the past year from 130 pounds to 180 pounds.   Thought processes are intact.   There is no suicide or homicide ideation.   There is moderate psychomotor agitation.  (From Psychiatric Evaluation 10/22/09.)

Dr. Smith concluded his evaluation finding that Kayla had bipolar disorder, type 2, mixed, as well as obsessive compulsive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder.   He found her global assessment of functioning (GAF) as 40.

How did Kayla respond to the need for treatment and the court order for her to comply with treatment recommendations?   In April 2008, DCF recommended classes in parenting at CareNet (Petitioner's Exhibit I.) Kayla attended three of ten appointments.   DCF recommended behavioral health services for Kayla at Generations Family Health Center in 2009.  “Out of 13 appointments patient kept 4 appointments for therapy.   Patient was to engage in weekly individual therapy.”  (Petitioner's Exhibit P.)

DCF implemented a Permanency Placement Services program for reunification.   Kayla was terminated from the program in October 2009, for lack of progress and her September arrest.   DCF has made five unsuccessful referrals for substance abuse treatment.

Kayla has made some limited progress in areas other than substance abuse and mental health.   She has completed a six-week parenting class at Putnam Family Resource Center for which she received a certificate (Respondent's Exhibit 2A).

5. Criminal involvement.

Specific Steps to achieve reunification with the children were provided as required.  (Petitioner's Exhibit F.) In addition to the requirement that Kayla participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals, Kayla was, inter alia, to avoid involvement with the criminal justice system.   Since the removal of the children in April of 2008, Kayla has been arrested eight times for criminal and motor vehicle charges including Larceny 4, Larceny 3, cruelty to animals, failure to appear, and operating a vehicle under suspension (3 times).   She was most recently convicted of larceny on February 3, 2010, and sentenced to one year in jail, suspended with eighteen months probation.

Kayla's probation officer testified that since her February conviction she has been arrested for three criminal and three motor vehicle charges.   She was referred to New Perceptions for substance abuse counseling and has missed her appointments from May to June. The probation officer said that Kayla has provided her with seven different address changes since February 2010, when she became Kayla's probation officer.

Justin B.

The children's father, Justin B., had exclusive custody of Jayden for a short time when Jayden was about eighteen months.   At the time he was living with Jayden at his sister's apartment.   He was aware that Kayla had her issues.   He himself, had told DCF about her use of marijuana and alcohol.   He signed a safety plan with DCF to take care of Jayden, but he allowed Kayla to take Jayden back in violation of his safety agreement to personally care for the child.

Kelton was born in August 2008.   At the time, Justin did not robustly assert himself as the father.   He waited five months until the child was old enough to submit to a paternity test, which confirmed his paternity.

Jayden has consistently resisted individual counseling, substance abuse evaluation and parenting education.   He has told DCF that he does not need counseling and that he thought Kayla would be able to care for the children.   (Petitioner's Exhibit A.) He has for the past two years lived either with a girlfriend or with his mother.   Before that he lived with Kayla in her apartment.   He is twenty-four years of age and has never maintained his own residence.   His mother has recently died.   He now resides with his deceased mother's boyfriend and works for him as a painter, under the table for $10 per hour.

During his testimony he eagerly testifies to recently completing a parenting course on October 27, 2010.   The course required his attendance once a week for four weeks from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm.   The workshop series teaches adults to interact with children.  (Respondent's Exhibit 1.) Further, he testified that he has an appointment for a drug evaluation on Wednesday (November 24, 2010).   Too little, too late.

Justin's children have been in care for two years, seven months and sixteen days.   During that time the children have bonded to foster parents.   Other people have been providing the nurture, affection, security and attention for these children.   A parent eager to resume the parental role has an affirmative obligation to act with reasonable vigor to remediate the issues that led to removal.   Justin waited two years and six months to enroll in the parenting class.

As with Kayla, Justin underwent psychological testing in 2008 and 2010 with Dr. Mary Cheyne.   His psychological profile is revealing.

Results of clinical/personality measures indicate that Mr. B. attended appropriately to item content and responded in a consistent fashion to similar items.   His pattern of responding suggests that he tended to portray himself as being relatively free of common shortcomings and is somewhat reluctant to recognize faults or problems in himself.   Consequently, the profile obtained may under-represent the extent and degree of any clinical findings.   Mr. B.'s responses suggest that he is satisfied with himself, that he is not experiencing marked distress and he sees little need for changes in his behavior.

Despite the defensiveness noted above, there were some areas where Mr. B. described problems of greater intensity than is typical of defensive respondents.   These areas include:  history of antisocial behavior;  physical signs of anxiety;  poor sense of identity;  hostility and bitterness;  suspiciousness;  tension and apprehension;  and distrust.

Given his response tendencies and his personality profile, he may be unwilling or unable to acknowledge difficulties.   It is also possible that his difficulties are more characterological in nature.   In all likelihood, his emotional profile indicates more pathology than he cares to admit.   He tends to be irritable, insecure and self-centered.   He blames others for his difficulties.   He fears appearing weak;  thus he presents a facade of invulnerability and arrogance to mask his underlying dependency needs.   His clinical profile most closely suggests the presence of a general anxiety disorder along with personality-disordered symptoms.

His goals are:  My number one goal is to get my kids back.   Then I want to get my high school diploma and get a good job.

When asked what he wants to have happen as the result of the court proceedings he says, “I want the children to be in my and Kayla's care.”   Asked what he needs to do to get that result he answers, “Hold a job, go to counseling, go to parenting classes and get my own place.   It is hard to find a job around here.   I really don't think I need counseling.   I am not going to open up to someone I don't know.”

This profile informs the court that Justin knows what is required.   Nonetheless, he has not gone to counseling and doesn't believe he needs counseling.   He knows he should complete his high school equivalency testing for a better job, yet hasn't done it.   He knows he needs his “own place,” and hasn't secured one.   He knows he was required to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and treatment, if needed.   He has an appointment, likely to be on the release date of this memorandum of decision.

So Justin maintains his face by aspirations of parental reunification, but even the loss of his children, the urging of DCF, the orders of the court to participate in personal and substance abuse evaluations, has not been sufficient to motivate him to action.   Completing one four-week program in parent-child interaction, undertaken thirty months after the children were removed, is hardly compliance.

He has not obtained suitable quarters for the children to live, he did not attend counseling, he did not obtain a car (transportation) until his mother recently died and he took her car, he has not been able to find and maintain a regular job.   Dr. Cheyne concluded that Justin is in no better position to care for his children at this time than he was in at the time of removal.

Although there are issues he would be able to address in individual therapy, it seems unlikely that he would actually engage in treatment;  instead he would most likely just “go through the motions.”   Should he begin in individual treatment, a copy of relevant portions of this evaluation may be helpful to his therapist.

Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

The first ground alleged against both parents is failure to rehabilitate C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).   This ground alleged in the petition as to respondents is that the children were found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the children, either of them could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   The factual determination for this court is whether the parents have achieved rehabilitation as contemplated under C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B), that is, rehabilitation sufficient to render either of them able to care for Trevor.

“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 analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ [The statute] requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [she] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in her child's life.”  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674 (1999) at 706.

The case file reflects a finding of neglect of the children on February 20, 2009 (Graziani, J.).   In assessing rehabilitation, “[T]he issue is not whether respondent(s) haves improved (their) ability to manage (their) own life(s), but rather whether (they) have gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the children.”  In re Halle, supra, 838, In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. at 180;  In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. at 448.

Here, respondents have not made sufficient efforts to rehabilitate and remain unable to provide the day-to-day care these children need within a reasonable time.   The children now are appropriately placed in foster care with families with whom they have thoroughly bonded.   The families are committed to the children and would like to adopt them.

Thus, in its totality, the clear and convincing evidence compels the conclusion that respondent mother and father remain unable to successfully parent the children and lack the ability to assume responsible positions in the children's lives within a reasonably foreseeable time in the future.   Accordingly, the court finds that the petitioner has proven both respondents' failure to achieve rehabilitation.

DISPOSITION

As to the dispositional phase of this hearing on the petition for termination of parental rights, the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events up to and including the date upon which the evidence in this matter was completed.   During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the children.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689 (1999).

The court makes the following seven written findings:

(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with respondents, the court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts over two years for both parents.   The court finds that neither the father nor the mother are willing or able to benefit from the offered services.   The services offered, beyond those specifically set forth herein are fully itemized in Petitioner's Exhibit A pages 14, 15 and 16, to which specific reference is made.   Additionally, Justin failed to follow through with individual counseling at Coyle Psychological in November 2007, United Services in 2008 and completed an intake in June 2009, at United Services but failed to return.   He is unwilling to cooperate, even if it means he will not be reunited with his children.

(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF offered appropriate, available and accessible services.

(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds that specific steps were entered in this case to inform the parents of their obligations to obtain a reunification with the children.   Both parents failed to fully comply with the specific steps as earlier indicated.

(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.   The court finds that although the parents have not acted aggressively to remedy their own limitations, they have been faithful and diligent in attending visitation.   The parents have maintained a visiting relationship with the children, especially Jayden.   Kelton has never been in their care and has been with his foster family all his life.   Kelton does not have a parent-child bond with the respondents.   The parents have behaved appropriately at visits.   They have demonstrated affection to the children during the limited time they have with the children.   That is not to say that they could provide twenty-four-hour care, day in and day out for these children, nor does it follow that they could provide a stable and safe environment for the children.   The evidence suggests otherwise.

Jayden is happily situated with a large family with seven children.   Four are biological children, one child is adopted and Jayden is a foster child in the family.   The family is willing to adopt Jayden should he be free for adoption.   He is closely bonded to the family.   He is current on all medical and dental appointments.

Kelton has resided with his current foster family since birth.   He is medically complex and requires careful supervision and attention.   He has frequent medical visits and often misses visits due to recurrent illnesses.   He is closely bonded with the foster parents who are willing to adopt him.

(5) As to the age of the children, Jayden was four years of age on October 21, 2010.   He has spent the majority of his life in foster care.   Kelton was two on August 3, 2010.   The children's attorney recommends permanency which can only be achieved in this case through termination of the parent's rights.³

(6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child, the court has previously addressed this issue.   The parents have regularly visited with the children.   Giving the parents additional time would be harmful to the children and would not likely enable them to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to be reunited within a reasonable time.  In re Luis C., 210 Conn 157, 167, 554 A.2d 722 (1989);  In re Juvenile Appeal, 183 Conn. 11, 15, 438 A.2d 801 (1981).

(7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties.

With respect to the best interests of the children contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Kayla A. and Justin B. to the children is in the best interest of Jayden and Keltan.   Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for children.   The children are now in foster homes where they are very well cared for by foster parents who are fully committed to their growth, education, and safety.

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the children's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of environment;  the length of stay in foster care;  the nature of the relationship with foster parents and biological parents;  the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents;  and their genetic bond to respondents.  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).

ORDER

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Kayla A. and Justin B. are hereby terminated as to the minor children Jayden and Keltan.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for these children.

With regard to the permanency plan for the children, the court hereby approves the plans of termination of parental rights and adoption and finds that such plans are in the best interest of the children.   The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans.   A case report shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.

The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Willimantic, 81 Columbia Avenue, Willimantic Ct 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

Foley, Sr. J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. For the sake of clarity and to maintain confidentiality, the parents will always be referred to by their first names, even though the documents may have identified them by their formal surnames..  FN2. For the sake of clarity and to maintain confidentiality, the parents will always be referred to by their first names, even though the documents may have identified them by their formal surnames.

FN3. Our Supreme Court has long recognized the deleterious effect of prolonged temporary care of abused and neglected children.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).   The Appellate Court has also noted, “[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence ․ “ In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 930 (1992), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1994)..  FN3. Our Supreme Court has long recognized the deleterious effect of prolonged temporary care of abused and neglected children.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).   The Appellate Court has also noted, “[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence ․ “ In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 930 (1992), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1994).

Foley, Francis J., S.J.