IN RE: Vanessa F.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION

The commissioner of the department of children and families (“DCF,” the “Department” or the “petitioner”) seeks the termination of the parental rights of the respondent mother, Kindra C. (“Mother”), and the respondent father, Christopher F. (“Father”), to Vanessa F. (“Vanessa”) pursuant to a termination of parental rights (“TPR”) petition filed on June 16, 2010.

The court has jurisdiction and there is no known action pending in any other court affecting custody of this child.   There is no claim of Native American affiliation of the child.

The proceedings relative to the termination of parental rights are governed by General Statutes § 17a-112 et seq.   In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must first prove, in the adjudicatory phase, a ground for termination alleged in the petition, as of the date of filing the petition or the last amendment, by clear and convincing evidence.  In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63 (1991);  Practice Book § 32a-3(b), 35a-7.   Notwithstanding the foregoing, “[i]n the adjudicatory phase, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time.”  (Emphasis in original.)   In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).

Only one ground need be established for the granting of a TPR petition.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984);  In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 234, 242-43 (2000).   If a ground for termination is proven, the court must next consider the disposition stage.   Therein, the court must consider whether the facts, as of the last day of trial, establish by clear and convincing evidence termination is in the child's best interest.

I

FACTUAL FINDINGS

The credible and relevant evidence offered at trial and a review of the judicially noticed court orders, memoranda and findings supports the finding of the following facts.²  Unless otherwise specified, all facts are found by clear and convincing evidence.

1. Procedural History

Vanessa was born on July 8, 2009 to Kindra C. and Christopher F. At the time of Vanessa's birth, Kindra C. was serving a seven-year sentence on charges of conspiracy with a maximum release date of November 3, 2015.   Father is also serving a seven-year sentence on charges including burglary and larceny with an anticipated release date of November 3, 2015.   The charges for both largely related to arrests in 2008 in which mother and father were codefendants.   On July 10, 2009, the Department invoked a ninety-six-hour administrative hold on the child and removed Vanessa from Lawrence and Memorial Hospital.   On July 13, 2009, the Department filed an ex parte Order of Temporary Custody (“OTC”) and a Neglect Petition.   Mother and father contested the OTC. After a contested hearing, the court sustained the OTC on July 31, 2009.   On October 29, 2009 Vanessa was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of the Department.   She has remained in the same pre-adoptive foster placement since commitment.

2. Family History

A. Mother

Kindra C. was born on June 17, 1987 in Danbury, Connecticut.   She grew up with her mother and half sister and half brother.   She remains close to her brother but not to her mother and sister.   Her father died when she was five, she believes from alcohol and drug abuse complications.   While Kindra C. was in middle school her mother filed a FWSN petition because of her truancy.   Despite receiving community services to maintain in the home, Kindra was committed to DCF. Following an evaluation at Riverview Kindra was placed at Devereaux for 18 months.   She returned home briefly, then dropped out of school in the tenth grade and left home at 17.   She has a sporadic work history as a waitress.

Kindra was 17 when she had her first child Haleigh L. From age 17 to 19, she was transient between the homes of her mother, friends and Haleigh's father.   She eventually left her relationship with Haleigh's father due to ongoing issues with domestic violence and drug abuse.   Haleigh is under the guardianship of Kindra's mother Gail C. Kindra began her relationship with the respondent father, Christopher F., Sr. in 2006.   She gave birth to Christopher F., Jr. on June 18, 2007.   Mother and father had been living together since Christopher's birth and plan to marry after they complete their current sentences.   Christopher F. Jr., is under the care of a friend of mother by order of the probate court.

Kindra C. is generally healthy but was diagnosed with clinical depression at age twelve.   She saw a psychiatrist on an outpatient basis and was prescribed with Wellbutrin for six months.   A substance abuse evaluation in May 2008 was negative.   From May to July 2008, Kindra C. was arrested for incidents of burglary, larceny and criminal mischief.   She was incarcerated at York Correctional Facility until September 2008.   After a 15-day admission to Rushford she began intensive outpatient treatment at St. Mary's Hospital in Waterbury but was discharged for noncompliance.   On November 3, 2008, she was incarcerated on a controlling charge of conspiracy and sentenced to seven years with a maximum release date of November 3, 2015.

B. Father

Christopher F. was born on December 11, 1985.   His parents separated when he was young.   He lived with his mother who suffered from drug and alcohol addiction until he was seven or eight years old and then with his father.   His father has since remarried three times and his mother suffers from Huntington's disease and is residing in a nursing home.

Christopher F. was involved with the Department of Children and Families as a young teenager.   He was adjudicated delinquent on February 1, 1999 for larceny 6th and was committed to DCF for a period not to exceed 18 months, with direct placement to Connecticut Junior Republic.   During his placement at CJR, his behavior vacillated from stable both academically and behaviorally to challenged in both areas.   He anticipated his CJR placement to be less than twelve months.   However, due to academic and behavioral issues he remained for fourteen months.   Upon his release, he returned to his father's home and did well for approximately three months until he violated probation.   In January 1999, he was sent to Long Lane. Mr. F. was a special education student at Bethel High School.   He planned to attend Henry Abbot Technical School in the 10th grade to be a mechanic like his father.   Due to his detention at Long Lane he did not finish high school.   He ultimately received his GED while incarcerated at Enfield Correctional Institute.

From May through July 2008, Christopher was arrested multiple times on charges including burglary and larceny.   He is currently serving a 7-year sentence until November 3, 2015.   Christopher's relationship with his father is strained.   They do not speak often and his father has not visited him during his incarceration.   Christopher is the father of Vanessa F. and Christopher F. Jr. He confirms that he and Kindra C. plan to marry when they are released from prison.

C.  Child for Whom Petition is Filed

Vanessa was born on July 8, 2009 and is currently nineteen months old.   Prior to her discharge from the hospital, the Department invoked a ninety-six-hour hold, placing her in a non relative foster home where she continues to reside.   Vanessa is attached to her foster family interacts with her foster siblings and has thrived in this home.   She smiles and laughs with her foster caretakers and seeks them out for comfort.

Vanessa is medically up to date, is meeting all developmental milestones and there are no concerns for her at this time.   Both parents participate in separate monthly visitation with Vanessa.   On visitation days, Vanessa is picked up early in the morning by the DCF worker, driven two hours to visit her mother.   After lunch, she travels to her father's prison, visits with him and then travels over two hours back to her foster home.

During the visits mother interacts appropriately with her daughter.   She asks about her daughter's well being and cares for her during visitation.   However, Vanessa becomes distressed during her visitation with her mother.   She cries during the visits and resists her mother holding her without reassurance from the social worker.   Similarly, during visitation with father Vanessa also becomes distressed despite father's attempts to interact with her.   She resists sitting with or being held by her father.   She will not allow him to hold her and pulls away when he tries to touch her.   DCF recently modified the time of the visit and Vanessa's response to her father has improved.   Nevertheless, Vanessa spends the majority of the visits being held by DCF staff.   As noted above, these visits occur after she has already had a long day for any child her age.   The above visitation plan is a long, fatiguing day for a toddler.   It is not surprising that she reacts as described.   Since the parents are serving long sentences at facilities which are relatively close to each other in Niantic and Uncasville, it is unfortunate that the location of Vanessa's foster placement did not consider the need to accommodate visitation for a child born while mother and father were both incarcerated which would be less stressful and more frequent.

D. Relative Resources

Vanessa's maternal grandmother, Gail C. informed the Department prior to Vanessa's birth that she would not be a placement resource for Vanessa due to having Vanessa's older sister Haleigh placed in her care.   Ms. C. does not feel equipped to parent two small children.

Mother presented a family friend as a placement resource for Vanessa.   The Department contacted her by letter on June 9, 2010 to explore her availability but received no response.   Father suggested his father Vanessa's paternal grandfather as a resource for Vanessa but he also has not responded.

3. Specific Steps

A. On October 20, 2009 Specific Steps were issued by the Court for Kindra C. and Christopher F. Due to their incarceration, neither mother nor father have been offered, nor would they be able to participate in, community based referral sources.

B. Present Status

Both parents have participated in services as they become available through the Department of Corrections.   Mother is currently incarcerated at York Correctional Institute.   She was sentenced to serve seven years with a maximum release date of November 3, 2015.   She was not compliant with the Department's and the court's expectations regarding her older daughter, Haleigh.   She was not employed, did not have stable housing, did not comply with parenting education and was unsuccessfully discharged from an outpatient treatment program operated by St. Mary's Hospital in Waterbury.   Since Vanessa's birth while incarcerated, mother completed a parenting class, a coping skills class and the Tier II Program, a substance abuse treatment program.   She has sent Vanessa cards for holidays and has participated in the “Read with Me” program where the inmate reads a story which is recorded and then the book and the tape are provided to the child.

Father is incarcerated at Radgowski Correctional Institute (ECI).   He was sentenced on a primary charge of burglary in the 3rd degree for seven years with a maximum release date of November 3, 2015.   Father has completed Fatherhood Project 24/7 Parenting Course (Exhibit A), Beat the Street Relapse Prevention (Exhibit B), earned his GED, High School Diploma (Exhibit C), Thinking for a Change, Voices and Tier II Addiction Services (Exhibit D).  He also submitted work evaluation performance reports, indicating his performance was excellent (Exhibit E, October 16, 2010 and Exhibit F, June 3, 2010).

C. Compliance with Specific Steps

The court finds the following with respect to their compliance with the Specific Steps ordered by the court:

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF

Mother and father have been compliant with keeping appointments with the Department.   She attended the Treatment Planning Conference on August 13, 2009 and she attended the Administrative Case Review on February 3, 2010 via teleconference.

Keep child(ren)'s whereabouts and your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the child(ren).

Both parents have kept their whereabouts known to the Department.

Participate in counseling and make progress towards identified treatment goals.

Mother completed a parenting class and coping skills program in August 2009 and meets weekly with a social worker.

Father completed a parenting class, addiction relapse and anger management programs while incarcerated.   Although it is difficult to fully assess whether parents have made gains in these areas until they are released back into the community, father in particular has demonstrated progress as reflected in his work commendations while incarcerated.

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including in-patient treatment if necessary, after care and relapse prevention.

Mother attended the Tier II Program to deal with her substance abuse issues.   Father attends AA meetings and is also involved with the Tier II Program.

Cooperate with recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family/counseling, in home support services and/or substance assessment/treatment.

Mother completed the Parenting Education Series with Families in Crisis, Inc. She completed a coping skills group and is involved in Tier II through DOC.

Father has completed parenting classes, Beat the Streets, Voices and Thinking for a Change programs.   He is involved in AA groups, earned his GED and he attends the Tier II Program.

Cooperate with court ordered evaluations

Evaluations were not ordered by the court in reference to either parent.

Sign releases within 30 days authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress towards identified goals, and for use in the future proceedings before this court and for her therapist to communicate with home based service providers.

Both parents have signed releases when requested by the Department to communicate with their service providers.

Secure and maintain adequate housing and income

Neither parent is able to obtain or maintain housing at this time due to their incarceration.   Mother is employed at the commissary at York Correctional Institute.   Father is employed at Radgowski Correctional Institute and has submitted favorable work evaluation reports for his current and prior employment.

Not engage in substance abuse

Both parents have complied with this step within the confines of their incarceration.

Have no Involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system.  Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.

Both parents were incarcerated at the time specific steps were issued.   Subsequent to Vanessa's birth, they were sentenced to seven years incarceration.

Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF Permits.

Mother and father both consistently participate in monthly visitation with Vanessa provided by DCF.

E. Child and Family Assessment

Mother is currently serving a sentence at York Correctional Institute due to expire November 3, 2015.   The charges which led to her incarceration resulted from multiple arrests in May, June, July and October 2008 on numerous counts of larceny, burglary, criminal mischief and conspiring to commit the above crimes as well as forgery and issuing a bad check.   Prior to mother's incarceration she was not compliant with the Department's and the court's expectations regarding her older daughter Haleigh in that she was not employed, did not have stable housing, had not complied with parenting education and had been discharged from an outpatient drug treatment program.   Since her incarceration, mother has completed a parenting class and she has completed a coping skills class.   She has also participated in the Tier II Program, a substance abuse treatment program.   Mother visits Vanessa monthly.   Despite Vanessa's distress, mother interacts appropriately with her talking and playing with her.   She feeds and changes Vanessa with equipment provided by the department and asks about the well being of her daughter during her visitation.   Mother also sends Vanessa cards for holidays and she has participated in the “Read with Me” program.

Father is currently serving a seven-year sentence at Enfield Correctional Institution which expires November 3, 2015.   Like Ms. C., the charges which led to his current incarceration resulted from multiple arrests in May, June, July and October 2008 on charges including burglary, larceny and criminal mischief.   While in prison, he completed parenting classes, attended Voices, Thinking For a Change and the Tier II substance abuse program.   He earned his GED and has established an exemplary work record.   At the monthly visits father attempts to interact with Vanessa but as noted previously Vanessa becomes distressed, cries and will not allow him to hold her.   Vanessa has generally reacted poorly to father until a recent schedule modification.

Vanessa was born on July 8, 2009, and is currently 18 months old.   She has been residing in her current foster home since her birth.   Vanessa has thrived in this foster home and is very attached to her foster family, including her foster siblings.   Vanessa appears to be content and happy where she is.   There are no medical concerns for her at this time and she is meeting developmental milestones on time, walking, eating regular food and sleeping through the night.

II.

LAW APPLICABLE TO TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASES:A. Definition and Grounds for Termination

A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ․ In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [under § 17a-112(j) exists by clear and convincing evidence.   If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase.   In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child.   In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 469-70, 816 A.2d 707 (2003) (Internal quotation marks omitted).   See also In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. at 163;  In re Selena O., supra, 104 Conn.App. at 643 n.8;  In re Shaun B., supra, 97 Conn.App. at 206-07.

The difference in focus between adjudication and disposition has been explained as follows:

In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, “the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child.”  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 356-57, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).   During this dispositional phase, “the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent's parental rights is not in the best interest of the child.   In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in § 17a-112(k).”  In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 361-62, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995).   We note that those “seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ․ There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).  In re Davonta V., supra, 98 Conn.App. 46-47 (footnote omitted).   See also In re Janazia, 112, Conn.App. 69, 98 (2009).

General Statutes § 17a-93 (and General Statutes § 45a-707(8)) defines “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 his parent or parents so that the child is free for adoption except it shall not affect the right of inheritance of such child or the religious affiliation of such child.

General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3) provides that the prerequisites to a determination that any TPR petition should be granted are that the court must find by clear and convincing evidence:

(1) that [DCF] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, and that

(2) termination is in the best interest of the child ․

The third requirement is that the court find, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF has proved at least one of seven statutory grounds for termination.  In re Melody L., Conn. 483 (2008);  In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 214, 903 A.2d. 246 (2006);  In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 473, 816 A.2d 707 (2003).   The grounds alleged in this case as to the mother and father are:

․ (B) the child (1) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to be neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ․ and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and 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 ․

Despite the order in General Statutes § 17a-112(j) in which the statutory prerequisite to be provided are set forth, prior to any termination of parental rights [i]f the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, then it proceeds to the dispositional phase.   During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689, 741 A.2d 873 (1999).

B. Explanation of Ground C.G.S. 17A-112(j)(B)(ii), failure to rehabilitate:

1. General standards:

In Re Halle T., 96 Conn.App. 815, (2006), [cert. denied.  280 Conn. 924 (2006) ] the Appellate Court stated:

[T]he adjudicatory determination to be made by the trial court is whether the parent of a child who has been found by the [S]uperior [C]ourt to have been neglected [or] uncared for in a prior proceeding 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 ․ In conducting this inquiry, the trial court must analyze the respondent's rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child ․

Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than any rehabilitation ․ Successful completion of the petitioner's expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation ․ [I]n assuming rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue ․ Thus, even if a parent has made successful strides in her ability to manage her life and may achieved a level of stability within her limitations, such improvements, although commendable, are not dispositive on the issue of whether, within a reasonable period time, she could assume a responsible position in the life of her children.  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259-60, 881 A.2d 450 (2005);  see also In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 383-84, 784 A.2d 457 (2001);  In re John G., 56 Conn.App. 12, 17-18, 740 A.2d 496 (1999) at 835-36.

2. The best interest of the child requirements:

As set forth above, the court first determines whether DCF has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the grounds alleged in its TPR petition.   In this case, the department elected to proceed against the mother and father on the basis of C.G.S. 17a-112(j)(B)(ii), failure to rehabilitate.   The court looks separately at the proof as to each parent.   Its options are that DCF has not proved such ground against either parent;  that DCF has proved such ground against one but not the other parent;  or that DCF has proved such ground against both parents.   After making such adjudicatory determinations, before the court can terminate parental rights, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so is in the best interest of the child:

After determining whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights under General Statutes § 17a-112(j) exists by clear and convincing evidence, a judge is required to evaluate whether severing the legal tie between parent and child is in the child's best interest.   That task is among the most sensitive and difficult with which a judge is charged.  In re Davonta V., supra, 98 Conn.App. at 42.

C. Closure and permanency for the child:

In determining the best interest of a child in a TPR context the court also considers and applies, inter alia, the concepts of closure and permanency:

In its decision, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children's best interests would be served by granting the petitions to terminate the respondent's parental rights.   In support of that finding, the court noted that much of the children's short lives had been spent in the custody of the commissioner, and that the children needed stability and permanency in their lives.   On the basis of those facts, we conclude that the court's determination that the respondent's parental rights should be terminated was not clearly erroneous.  In re Alejandro L., supra, 91 Conn.App. 262.

D. The standard of clear and convincing evidence:

The standard of proof applicable to termination of parental rights is explained;  in Miller v. Commissioner of Corrections, 242 Conn. 745, 794-95 (1997):

The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence, but less than the highest legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.   It “is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.”  (Citations omitted.)

III

ADJUDICATION

The TPR petition filed by DCF for the termination of respondents' parental rights to Vanessa alleges grounds as stated in General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(B)(ii), ground B-1 Failure to Rehabilitate, for Mother and Father.

A. Location and Reunification § 17a-112(j)(1)

In order to terminate parental rights, unless the court grants the petition due to the consent of the respondent parent, DCF must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory element requiring “reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent.”  General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1).  “The court need not make that finding, however, if the evidence establishes that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 47 (2005).

“The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof.”  Id. 48.  “Although [n]either the word reasonable nor the word efforts is ․ defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn ․ [r]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted;  citation omitted.)  In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 619 (2007);  In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 255, 763 A.2d 71 (2000).   The court must look to events prior to the date the petition was filed, to determine whether reasonable efforts at reunification were made.  In re Shaiesha O., supra, at 47.   Based on the evidence summarized above, the court finds that, subject to the limitations imposed by the fact of the parents' incarceration, the petitioner made reasonable efforts to reunify Vanessa with her parents.

B. Grounds for Termination

The grounds upon which the department relies for termination of parental rights is C.G.S. 17a-112(j)B(ii), the child having been found in a previous proceeding to have been neglected and the mother and father having failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, that the mother and father could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.

The court heard testimony from DCF worker Lauren Tannone.   Ms. Tannone provided a history of DCF involvement with respondent mother the year prior to Vanessa's birth.   In July 2008, the New Milford Probate Court granted a bench OTC to the department due to claims of inadequate shelter, exposure to domestic violence and inadequate supervision as to Haleigh, half sibling of Vanessa.   At the time respondent mother was incarcerated on burglary and larceny charges.   Upon mother's release in September 2008, the department offered substance abuse services and visitation with Haleigh but she was discharged for non-compliance.   She was again incarcerated in November 2008.   At that time, mother was pregnant with Vanessa who was born on July 8, 2009 while both her parents were incarcerated.   They have remained continuously incarcerated since then.   Father and mother's current sentences are seven years, their maximum release date is November 3, 2015.

Mother is twenty-three years old.   She dropped out of school in tenth grade and left home at age 17.   She does not report a supportive relationship with either her mother or half sister.   She has a limited employment history as a waitress.   She has been incarcerated twice from July 17, 2008 until September 15, 2008, and from November 3, 2008 for the current seven-year sentence.   Vanessa was born during her mother's current prison term.   Kindra C.'s oldest child Haleigh is under guardianship of her mother, Gail C. and her older son Christopher, Jr. is under guardianship of her friend pursuant to probate court order.   Petition asserts that mother lacks education and employment as well as any family resources to enable her to care for her third child.

At trial mother indicated she intended to apply for a sentence modification which would enable her to be released in six months, sometime in the spring of 2011.   She is also eligible for parole eighteen months from October 2010, approximately April 2012.   Although mother has participated in monthly supervised visitation while in prison, completed parenting and coping skills classes, and been accepted in the Tier II substance abuse program, she has not taken steps during her incarceration to complete her high school education or to develop work skills that will enable her to be employed when she returns to the community.

Respondent father testified and the court finds that he has been compliant with the specific steps he signed, i.e. he has completed parenting classes, is involved in AA groups, participated in counseling, cooperated with recommended service providers, earned a high school diploma, established an exemplary work record, maintained sobriety in prison, and visited with his child Vanessa on a monthly basis.   Father submitted certificates of completion for the above programs and letters of recommendation indicating he was a “polite, quiet and professional ․ a model worker ․ sets a good example for others, while at Radgowski.”   Exhibit E. His performance evaluation from Northern C.I. dated June 13, 2010 is “excellent” in all categories with comment that he “shows excellent initiative and is a hard worker, completes all tasks in a timely manner and will seek additional job tasks.”  (Exhibit F.)

Petitioner submitted mother and father's criminal conviction records, (Exhibit 2A and 2B) which indicate that they were jointly involved in multiple incidents of theft concentrated over a three-month period from May through July 2008.   At the time, mother was twenty-one and father was twenty-two years old.   Both lacked education, work experience or family support and suffered from substance abuse.   Father's conviction during this period record lists his addresses as 466 W. Main Street, Waterbury, Connecticut, the address of Connecticut Renaissance, a substance abuse treatment and supportive social service program, in May 2008 and New Milford City streets in July 2008.   Mother's conviction record lists multiple addresses including Danbury City streets as of July 2008.   At the time of mother's most recent arrest, she was living at 114 Benedict Street in Waterbury, the homeless shelter run by the St. Vincent dePaul Society.   The court has considered the conviction record of both parents.   It is evident that the arrests which resulted in their current incarcerations were largely the result of a joint effort for survival by two young people who had sought but not yet successfully achieved drug rehabilitation.   Both were uneducated, unemployed, and likely unemployable.   Mother was diagnosed at age twelve with clinical depression which has not been effectively addressed.   Both have a history of substance abuse.   Their lack of resources and desperate financial situation do not excuse what appears to be joint crime sprees in the summer and fall of 2008, but they do provide insight and a reason to believe that both are capable of rehabilitation.   Unfortunately, they need to complete their prison sentences, establish themselves and maintain sobriety upon release to successfully rehabilitate.   Counsel for father argued that father has done everything possible, gone above and beyond the specific steps but that the department has not afforded father the time nor put forth the sufficient effort with respect to visitation to satisfy its obligation to make reasonable efforts.   Similarly, counsel for mother argued that since her incarceration, mother has matured but that she also has not been given the opportunity to communicate with Vanessa.   Every time DCF was unable to provide visitation, mother complained to her lawyer.   Although mother indicated she planned to apply for parole, no date or further information was provided to the court.

Counsel for the child argued that Vanessa, who has been in foster placement since birth, July 2009, is attached to her foster family, has and will continue to pass developmental milestones while in her foster family's care, needs security both within her family and as she begins to socialize with peers and other adults.   Both parents have made substantial progress since Vanessa's birth.   However, this progress has not been accompanied by development of the parent child bond which is the cornerstone of security to which every child is entitled.   Due to Vanessa's age and the length of her parents' incarceration she has failed to establish a parent child bond with either her mother or father.   Such attachment is a key element for healthy and normal child development.   Having been born while both of her parents were incarcerated, neither they nor Vanessa have been able to develop this important relationship.   It is not fair to Vanessa to remain in a temporary setting until her parents complete their prison sentence, and thereafter allow time for them to demonstrate the ability to meet her needs.

The court accepts that father loves Vanessa, and that his participation in substance abuse relapse prevention, anger management, parenting and education programs while incarcerated were motivated at least in part by his desire for reunification.   Furthermore, he has taken steps during his incarceration to maintain a relationship with her, and to obtain education and employment necessary to provide for her needs.   However, the court cannot ignore the fact that father has been incarcerated since before Vanessa's birth.   She will be six years old at the time of his release date in November 2015.   He did not offer any evidence at trial in support of an early release date.   Even if he were to be released early, Vanessa would have passed numerous significant developmental stages without him as a continuous, nurturing influence on her life.

The Department has been involved with this family since May of 2008.   The Department became involved with mother and father due to a myriad of issues that ultimately caused them to lose custody of Vanessa's older siblings.   Both acknowledged that they were homeless and unable to provide for the needs of their children.   Other issues which led them to lose custody of their children were unaddressed substance abuse issues, domestic violence, habitual criminal behavior, and the inability to demonstrate that they could provide a stable environment for the children.   At this time both parents have been incarcerated since Vanessa's birth with maximum release dates of November 3, 2015.   Although they have engaged in services while incarcerated, and appear to be demonstrating compliance within the confines of their incarceration historically, they have not been able to demonstrate an ability to provide stability to their children.   They have been homeless and have engaged in habitual unsafe behaviors that have placed the children in precarious positions.   Due to the parent's history with the department, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that once released from jail these parents will be able to provide a safe and stable environment for this child.   Vanessa was born to these parents while they were incarcerated.   Mother and father love their child and would like to have her returned to their care when they are in a position to provide for her.   They have visited with Vanessa monthly and have demonstrated appropriate interactions with her.   Unfortunately, both parents are currently serving seven-year prison terms which have inhibited development of normal parent child relationships.   Although they have participated in numerous rehabilitative services, due to the length of their sentences and Vanessa's age, they will not be able to demonstrate in a timely fashion whether they have internalized what they have learned or to demonstrate the ability to alter their lifestyle to provide safe and adequate care for their child.   Although she has visited with her parents on a monthly basis, a parent child relationship has not developed and it is not feasible that will develop.   It is not in Vanessa's best interest to be in temporary care for the length of time that it would require for them to complete their sentence and demonstrate to the Department that they can maintain stability and provide this child with a safe, stable appropriate environment.

E. Written Findings as Required to be Made by the Court

(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 child with respondents, the court finds that DCF offered very extensive services including referral to Exchange Club, and St. Joseph parenting education, individual mental health counseling, Connecticut Renaissance, Project Reward Family Center, Dubois, Greenwich Hospital, medication management, psychiatric referral and evaluation visitation and in-home services.  (See Exhibit A, p. 4.) The court relies upon the findings above regarding the parent's cooperation with these offered services.

(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Ct of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF has made such efforts in the past for mother relating to Vanessa's siblings.   Due to mother's incarceration since before Vanessa's birth, the department has been unable to provide services other than case management, supervised visitation and relative assessment.

(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 specific steps were ordered as to both parents.   As set forth above, there was compliance by the parents with steps to the extent that they were able to access services during their incarceration.

(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child 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 any child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.

Both parents have a visiting relationship with Vanessa.   She has been placed with her pre-adoptive foster parents since birth and has bonded with them and their children and thrived under their care.   They are her psychological parents.

(5) Age of the child, previously noted, Vanessa is nineteen months old.

(6) Efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child 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 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 finds as follows:  As noted above, both parents are currently serving prison sentences expiring on November 3, 2015.   Although they have participated in programs which imprisoned, the fact of their incarceration has prevented them from any further efforts to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make placement in their care in the best interests of Vanessa.

(7) As to 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, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties.

Due to the exigencies of their incarcerations which began before Vanessa was born and extend until 2015, neither parent is able to care for Vanessa now or in the immediate future.   With respect to the best interests of the child 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 Kindra C. and Christopher F., Sr., is in the best interest of the child.   Permanency, consistency, affection and stability are crucial for this child.   The biological parents are incapable of providing the quotidian warmth, affection, consistency, stability and mature care that this child needs.   See In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (2009).

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and stability;  her length of stay in foster care;  her need for a structured, stabile, abuse-free, child-focused setting, the nature of her relationship with her foster parents, and the degree and quality of contact maintained with her biological parents.

The court has also balanced the child's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a legal connection with the biological parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (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 termination of respondent's parental rights is in the child's best interest.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Kindra C. and Christopher F., Sr. are hereby terminated as to Vanessa F. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child.

With regard to the permanency plans for the child, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as being in the best interest of the child.   Any outstanding objections to the plans are overruled.

To the extent not previously found, the court also finds that the department has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans and to reunify the parents with the child.

The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of this child as required by statute 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 this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 25 School Street, Rockville, Connecticut 06066 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 17th day of February 2011.

BY THE COURT

SOMMER, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The court has also taken judicial notice of court records including court memoranda and orders made in these cases for their existence, content and legal effect.   See Colin C. Tait & Eliot D. Prescott, Tait's Handbook of Connecticut Evidence §§ 2.3.4(d), 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 (4th ed.2008)..  FN2. The court has also taken judicial notice of court records including court memoranda and orders made in these cases for their existence, content and legal effect.   See Colin C. Tait & Eliot D. Prescott, Tait's Handbook of Connecticut Evidence §§ 2.3.4(d), 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 (4th ed.2008).

Sommer, Mary E., J.