IN RE: Aiden O.1 (2011)

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 Aiden O. (hereinafter referred to as “Aiden O.” or “the child”).   The biological mother of this child is Alicia F. (hereinafter referred to as “Alicia F.” or “Mother”).   The biological father is Justin O. (hereinafter referred to as “Justin O.” or “Father”).

On 8/21/09, DCF filed a Petition of Neglect and a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody on behalf of Aiden O.

On 11/5/09, Aiden O. was committed to the Department of Children and Families until further order of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.

On 7/6/10, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford approved a permanency plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption.

On 9/23/10, Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights of Alicia F. and Justin O. were filed.

On 9/30/10, the Court confirmed service on Mother and Father.   Mother was present, entered denials, and was advised and applied for an attorney.   Father failed to appear and was defaulted.

On 9/30/10, a CMC Was ordered for 11/1/10 and continued to 12/15/10.   Thereafter, at trial on 3/2/11, the court canvassed Mother and found that she knowingly and voluntarily consented to the termination with the assistance of competent counsel.   The court found such termination as to Mother was in the best interest of the child by clear and convincing evidence, and the trial as to Father commenced.   Father was not in attendance and was defaulted.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted one exhibit, Exhibit A. No witnesses testified.

The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting custody of this child and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.

The grounds of the Petition for TPR as to the biological Father, Justin O., are Abandonment, No Ongoing Parent–Child Relationship and Failure to Rehabilitate.

The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights and Neglect Petitions, 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/Present Situation/Reasons for Petition

See above for background information.

Mother, Alicia F., has failed to provide a safe living environment for Aiden O.

On 8/17/09, Mother gave birth to Aiden O. at 34 weeks' gestation and tested positive for PCP at the time of delivery.   On 8/19/09, it was reported that Aiden O. had also tested positive for PCP. Neither parent was able to care for Aiden at the time.   Both parents stated that they planned to remove their legal guardianship of Aiden O. through the Hartford Probate Court in order to avoid having a third child in DCF custody and specific steps ordered by the Juvenile Court.   They also wanted the child to remain in the home where they were allegedly living.

Alicia F. is a young mother of four children ages 7, 6, 5 and 1, all of whom are not in her care.   Blanca and Jahndy are Mother's oldest children who were removed from her care in December 2008;  her rights to these children were terminated on 06/9/10.   Her third child, Gabriela, resides with paternal grandmother.

Mother has an extensive history of substance abuse and mental health issues.   She was given the opportunity to be with Aiden O. while she was at Community Prevention and Addiction Services, Inc.-New Life Center;  however, on 03/30/10, she communicated to the Department that she had decided to leave the New Life Center and requested that Aiden O. be placed in DCF's care.   Mother was subsequently referred by Erin Egan of Advanced Behavioral Health, Inc. to Crossroads Inc.—Amethyst House of New Haven, an inpatient substance abuse program.   She was admitted on 06/04/10, but discharged herself on 06/18/10.   She was referred to the Institute for Hispanic Families (Catholic Charities) for the dual diagnosis intensive outpatient program.   Mother attended her intake appointment on 07/18/10, and was accepted to attend the Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) 4 days a week.   She received a certificate of completion for this program on 08/23/10.   She was recommended to participate in the Aftercare Group, but she attended only one session on 08/25/10.

Mother was referred to mental health services at the Institute for Hispanic Families (Catholic Charities).   Although she has made some progress with treatment in that she successfully completed IOP at the Institute for Hispanic Families and parenting at the Hispanic Health Council, her history of mental health and substance abuse issues requires more encompassing treatment in order for her to demonstrate that she has long-term stability and is in a position to care for Aiden O. without further disruption.

Alicia F. still needs to address matters of domestic violence, and in particular, her role with anger management challenges.   To date, she has not been able to secure appropriate housing and legal income to facilitate the return of Aiden to her care.   She has indicated that she is seeking employment.

In late September 2010, Mother requested visits with Aiden O. at the DCF office instead of her sister's home.   Department records indicate that Mother had been disrespectful to her sister and has a history of intermittent conflict with her, and as a result, the visits were moved back to the Hartford DCF office.   Mother last visited Aiden O. on 10/19/10.

Father, Justin O. has not been available to assume a responsible position in the life of his child.   He has not contacted the Department to inquire about his son since March 2010, and has not engaged in services.   He last visited with his son on 12/21/09.

Aiden is eighteen months old and has been in DCF care since birth.   On 03/30/10, he was placed with his maternal aunt who is committed to his care, and who is providing him with permanency and stability.   His relative foster mother reports that she has become very attached to Aiden O. and intends on adopting him if the TPR is granted.   Aiden O. is placed with his half siblings, Blanca and Jahndy.

B. Mother, Alicia F.

Alicia F., who is of Hispanic descent, was born on 2/16/84, in Hartford, Connecticut to Blanca C. and Augusto F., the youngest of 20 children.   She is bilingual and is comfortable speaking both English and Spanish.   She was raised in Hartford and attended Hartford Public Schools where she received special education services to address her focusing issues.   She dropped out of school in the 9th grade and briefly attended Adult Education.   She claims to have a good relationship with her siblings and maternal grandfather, Augusto F.

Alicia F. has four children:  Blanca F., age 7;  Jahndy N., age 6;  Gabriela O., age 4;  and Aiden O., aged 18 months.   Mother had a normal pregnancy and delivery with all of her children with the exception of Aiden O. who was born prematurely at 34 weeks gestation.

Alicia F. was involved with Blanca's father, Josue R., for two months before she became pregnant and when he found out, he left her.   He has never been involved in Blanca's life.   She was involved with Jahndy's father for six months before becoming pregnant.   Shortly after Jahndy was born, his father went to prison.   Alicia F. was in a four-year intermittent relationship with Justin O., the father of Gabriela and Aiden O. She had previously reported physical and sexual abuse by Justin O. and stated that she had ended the relationship.   She is not involved in any relationship currently.

Alicia F. worked at McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, Burger King, Price Chopper and PSI Pitney Bowes between 2000 and 2008.   Her longest employment was with PSI Pitney Bowes and lasted for seven months, from April 2008 to November 2008.   She became ill on 11/5/08 and briefly lost consciousness.   She claims that since that time she has been extremely depressed and at times has become confused and disoriented.   She has been unable to return to work due to problems with concentration and focusing.

Alicia F. reports a childhood history of sexual abuse and DCF corroborates sexual abuse by maternal grandfather, Augusto F. Alicia F. denies any childhood history of physical abuse or neglect, however, DCF records indicate a history of substantiated abuse and/or neglect of Alicia F. by maternal grandmother, Blanca C. Alicia F. had resided with maternal grandfather in his apartment in Hartford.   He passed away on 10/11/10.

C. Father, Justin O.

Justin O., who is of Hispanic descent, was born on 5/14/87 in Hartford, Connecticut to Josette O. and Jose O. He was raised by his mother and father and had a close relationship with his parents.   He has three siblings:  Julian O., Jaelyn O. and Jayne O. with whom he has healthy relationships.

Justin O. has one other child, Gabriela O. On 02/19/08, the guardianship of Gabriela was transferred to paternal grandmother, Josette O. by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters as a result of DCF's neglect petition.

Justin O. attended East Hartford High School until the 9th grade when he dropped out of school.   He attended adult education for a couple of months.

In the past, Justin O. has been employed by Burger King, Stop & Shop, Dairy Farms, Wendy's and Job Pro.

Justin O. described his relationship with Alicia F. as a good relationship, but one that struggled because of an incident that led to Aiden O.'s removal.   Father claimed that the only incident of domestic violence in which he was involved was in 2007 with Alicia F. Protection Order Registry records indicate that Alicia F. was issued a protective order for family violence against Justin O. on 12/24/07;  it expired on 7/10/08.

Justin O. denied substance abuse issues, although he claims to have used marijuana in the past.   He was referred to ADRC for a drug screen and evaluation but failed to keep his appointment.

Justin O. reported no mental health issues and has never received counseling services.

Police records indicate that Justin O. was arrested on 07/18/07 and charged with disorderly conduct.   He was last arrested on 02/25/10 for charges of Assault 3rd degree.   According to the incident report, he was accused of assaulting his girlfriend several times with a closed fist.   A protective order which was issued on 02/25/10, expired on 04/16/10.   On 04/16/10, Justin O. was sentenced to one year in jail, execution suspended, with 2 years probation.

D. Child, Aiden O.

Aiden O. is an 18–month–old Hispanic boy.   He was born at 34 weeks gestation and tested positive for PCP at birth.

Aiden O. is generally in good physical health.   He has been monitored by the Interim Health Care VNA as he is at risk for RSV due to his prematurity.   His last physical exam was on October 4, 2010 with Dr. Gorin.

Aiden O. has no emotional or behavioral issues and his development is on track.   He will need to be monitored for developmental delays due to his prematurity and prenatal substance abuse exposure.

Aiden O. has been in DCF care since his birth.   He was placed with his paternal grandparents, Jossette and Jose O. from 09/06/09 to 12/18/09.   On 12/18/09, DCF removed him from their care due to violation of a service agreement in which the grandparents had allowed the parents unsupervised visits with the child.   Aiden O. was placed with his older siblings, Blanca F. and Jahndy N., in the relative foster home of Rosa R. On 03/11/10, he was placed with Mother at an inpatient substance abuse treatment program.   On 03/30/10, Mother communicated to DCF that she could no longer remain at the treatment facility and requested that Aiden O. be placed back in DCF's care.

On 03/30/10, Aiden O. was placed back in the relative foster home of Maternal Aunt Rosa R. The placement is appropriate to meet the daily, emotional and developmental needs of the child.

E. Relative Resources

Paternal Grandparents, Jose and Josette O. came forward as a relative resource for Aiden O., but further information gathered by the Department revealed incidents that precluded the placement.   Maternal Aunt, Rosa R., has come forward as well.

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 biological father, Justin O.'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 parent and to reunify the child with their parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  C.G.S. Sec. 17a–112(j)(1).   “Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).

Reasonable efforts to unify Aiden O. with Justin O. are not possible because Father has not seen his son for an extended period of time and he has not engaged in any treatment services that might be offered by DCF. He has not been in contact with DCF regarding the well-being of the child or the status of his case.

Father is unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts in that he has not made himself available to DCF despite attempts to engage him in services.   It is unknown whether Father is actively using substances as he is not presently in treatment.   He has not shown any interest in caring for his child as he has not seen him since 12/21/09, nor has he inquired about his well being.

Reasonable efforts to reunify the child with Father are no longer appropriate because he has failed to visit the child in order to establish an on-going relationship with him.

A multitude of reasonable and active efforts were made to prevent removal and/ or to reunify the child with his Mother and Father as set forth in Exhibit A.

B. Grounds for Termination:  Abandonment—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A) as to Biological father, Justin O.

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 Aiden O. by Biological Father, Justin O.

1.  Father has seen his child only occasionally.

2. Father has not provided financial support for his child.

3. Father has never sent cards, gifts or letters to his child.

4. Father has never participated in his child's education or shown an interest in his health or welfare.

5. Father has never inquired about his child or requested visitation with him officially.

C. Grounds for Termination:  No Ongoing Parent–Child Relationship—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(D) as to Biological Father, Justin O.

This ground alleged by DCF requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means “the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child.”

This statutory definition, as it has been interpreted in case law, requires a finding that “no positive emotional aspects of the relationship survive.”   In re Jessica M., 217 Conn. 459, 470, 586 A.2d 597 (1991).  “It is inherently ambiguous when applied to noncustodial parents who must maintain their relationship with their child through visitation.”  Id., 459;  In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 531, 613 A.2d 748 (1992).   Although the ultimate question is usually whether the child has any present memories or feelings for the natural parent, the existence of a loving relationship or a “psychological parent” relationship with one other than the natural parent does not, of itself, establish the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination.  In re Jessica M., supra, 473–75.

Unlike the other nonconsensual grounds to terminate parental rights, the absence of a parent-child relationship is considered a “no fault” ground for termination.   To establish this ground requires the trial court to make a two-pronged determination.   First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists;  and second, the court must look to the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop.   The absence of a parent-child relationship can be demonstrated in situations where a child has never known his or her parents so that no relationship ever developed between them, or where the child has lost that relationship so that despite its former existence, it has now been completely displaced.  In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).

Judicial interpretation has imposed a requirement that a child have “present memories or feelings” for the parent, and “at least some aspects of these memories and feelings are positive” to overcome this ground.  In re Jessica M., supra, 217 Conn. 475;  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 195 Conn. 801 (1984).   The existence of positive feelings usually depends on the viewpoint of the child.  In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 35, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).   As the Appellate Court recently noted, “the feelings of the child are of paramount importance.”  In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 602 (1999).  “Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only.”  Id.

Ground D—No Ongoing Parent–Child Relationship as to Biological Father, Justin O.

1.  Paragraphs 1 through 5 of Ground A by Father are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

2. Father has only seen his child minimally and not since 12/21/09.

3. The child would not recognize his Father.  (See number 6 below).

4. Father is a stranger to the child.

5. The child has no present positive memories of Father.

6. To permit additional time to develop a parent-child relationship will not be in the child's best interests because he has bonded with his foster mother.   Father has rarely seen or had contact with the child.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  (1) that the biological Father, Justin O., has abandoned Aiden O., and that there is no-ongoing parent-child relationship between Father and Aiden O.

Mother consented to the termination of her parental rights in open court.   She filed written consent.   This court found that Mother voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of her rights, having received the advice and assistance of competent legal counsel and having understood the consequences of her actions.   Her consent was accepted by this court.

The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes and the Practice Book.

The court took jurisdiction in this matter;  there is no pending action affecting custody of the child in any other court.

The petition has been amended to allege as the sole ground for termination of the Mother, her consent to the termination.

The court having read the verified petition and the social studies, made the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

Adjudication. The Mother has consented to the termination of her rights to her child and the consent was accepted by the court.

No findings are necessary to be made pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a–112 with regard to the Mother due to her consent.

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 Justin O.'s parental rights, as he 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 the child with his Father.

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 Justin O. is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.  CGS § 17a–112(j)(1).   His non-concern clearly and convincingly make him 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).

The parents have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return the child to their care and the referrals were made in a timely manner to facilitate a successful reunification.   Justin O. has not been able to take full advantage of services as he has been unwilling to cooperate with the Department in any way.

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 Father is 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 made reasonable efforts to maintain contact with both parents.

3. “The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order.”

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Father has failed to comply with steps as 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 no bonding with his Father due to his reluctance to accept his role as parent and his unavailability.   This child has developed a strong bond with his foster parent with whom he has lived since birth.

Since Father has not been available much of the time, the child was unable to bond with him.

5. “The age of the child.”

Aiden O. (DOB 8/17/09) is nineteen 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 they have refused to cooperate with DCF or programs presented.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for their child.   To permit the child to return to the parents' care would compromise the safety of the child.

7. “The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.”

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, foster parents, Department of Corrections or third parties prevented Justin O. from maintaining a relationship with his child, nor did his economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

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

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Alicia F.'s and Justin O.'s parental rights to Aiden O. would be in his 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 Father's parental rights would be in the child's best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his environment;  his length of stay in foster care;  the nature of his relationship with his biological parents;  and the degree of contact maintained with his biological parents.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 [his] parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (the child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).

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

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that his parents have failed to gain insight into becoming safe, nurturing and responsible parents for him.   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, and in view of the rehabilitation history, much time would be required for Mother and Father to show that they have 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 for their child.

Aiden O. cannot delay his need for permanence and stability in exchange for his parents' uncertain future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV

CONCLUSION

The court having considered all statutory considerations, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Aiden O.'s best interests to terminate the parental rights of Alicia F., the biological Mother of the child and Justin O., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Aiden O. 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 him.

The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as is 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.