IN RE: Aiden S. et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

Before this court are termination of parental rights petitions filed on December 30, 2009, by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in the interest of Aiden S. (DOB 5/28/2003), and Hailie (DOB 8/23/06) and Diana S. (DOB 9/14/2007).   Consolidated with those petitions is a termination of parental rights petition filed on April 14, 2010 as to Alexzandria R. (DOB 7/21/2009).   All four children share the same birth mother, Erin S., whose parental rights are the subject of these petitions and for whom DCF has alleged the adjudicatory ground of failure to rehabilitate.  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3),(B)(i).   With respect to the biological fathers of the children, the petitioner has alleged the grounds of abandonment and no ongoing parent child relationship as to Eddie G., father of Aiden, and Zachary S., father of Hailie and Diana pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A)and (D).  Eddie G. and Zachary S. were defaulted for their failure to appear on March 30, 2010 (Driscoll, J.) following confirmation of service by publication.   As to the biological father of Alexzandria, James R. tendered his consent to the termination of his parental rights which this court accepted on January 24, 2010.   Erin S., who entered her denial to the petitions on January 26, 2010 as to the three older children and on May 11, 2010 as to Alezxandria, was present to defend the petition on all days of trial, and was vigorously represented by counsel.¹  This court presided over the trial in this case on January 24, 25, 2011 and February 9, 2011.

These proceedings are governed by General Statutes § 17a–112 et seq.   In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must first prove, by clear and convincing evidence, in the adjudicatory phase, a ground for termination alleged in the petition, as of the date of filing the petition or the last amendment.  In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63 (1991);  Conn. Practice Book § 32a–3(b);  35a–7.   Only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258 (1984);  In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 234 (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 that termination is in the child's best interest.   As is permitted under our law, the evidence as to both adjudicatory and dispositional phases was heard at the same trial.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 688–89 (1999).

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Having heard testimony and accepted documentary evidence, this court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence and finds that the petitioner has met its burden of proof with respect to the termination of parental rights petitions as to the parents of all four children.

This court granted the petitioner's motion for judicial notice on January 24, 2011.   The court finds that the petitioner filed neglect petitions regarding Aiden, Hailie and Diana on October 22, 2008 and sought and received ex parte orders of temporary custody as to said children on October 23, 2008.   The court subsequently adjudicated the children neglected and committed them to DCF on December 18, 2008.   On July 22, 2009, the petitioner filed a neglect petition and received an ex parte order of temporary custody (Driscoll, J.) as to Alexzandria, born July 21, 2009;  on February 4, 2010, the court (Driscoll, J.) adjudicated Alezxandria neglected and committed her to DCF as well.

On November 24, 2010, the petitioner sought and was granted an ex parte order of temporary custody as to Baby Boy S., whose biological parents are the above-named Erin S. and James R.;   that child is not before this court in these proceedings.

DCF's involvement in this family followed a police investigation of an incident of domestic violence between Erin S. and James R. on June 24, 2008 at around 1:00 a.m. Following an anonymous complaint alleging that a man was beating a woman, officers from the Norwich Police Department arrived at the residence of Erin S. and James R. Prior to entering the residence, Officer Brad Fournier peered through a window of their basement apartment and saw a woman sweeping broken glass and ceramic debris from a kitchen floor.   The woman, Erin S., opened the door and allowed Officer Fournier and his partner to enter the apartment.   In the kitchen, Officer Fournier observed the broken debris on the floor and window blinds that had been pulled off the window.   Erin S. had blood on her shirt and looked as if she had been crying.   In her explanation of the incident, she led the officers to her bedroom, where she showed them a ten-inch-wide hole punched completely from her bedroom wall through to the adjacent bedroom where her son, Aiden, was sleeping.   When the officers and Erin S. walked to the next room, the officer observed Aiden sleeping on his bed, four inches below the hole in the wall, covered with and surrounded by broken sheetrock.   Only at this point did Erin S. express awareness and concern regarding Aiden's safety.   Although she was upset, she did not attempt to remove the debris on her child.   Aiden was five years old at the time.

Erin S. told the officers that James R. had returned to their apartment after drinking all night.   He had thrown a gallon of milk and a pitcher of water at her and also punched her several times on various parts of her body.   He also struck her with the window blinds which he had pulled down.   Finally, he attempted to strangle her, holding her around the neck for thirty seconds so she could not breathe, and then slammed her head against the window.   Then, he went into the bedroom and punched the hole in the wall.

There were six children between the ages of one and nine years old in the home, three of whom were not her own but children she was babysitting for a friend of James R. She did not know the friend's name, nor how to contact this individual nor did she know the full names of each of the children.

In his interview with the police, James R. reported that he had been angry because Erin S. had been on his computer.   He admitted to having thrown a vase and punching a wall during their argument.   He denied physically assaulting Erin S. He was arrested and charged with Risk of Injury to a Minor, Assault in the third degree, Disorderly Conduct and Strangulation in the third degree.   Following this incident, a full no-contact protective order was issued, requiring that James R. have no contact with either Erin S. or any of her minor children.

On October 6, 2008, the Norwich Police Department received a report from a DCF social worker that she found James R. leaving through the back door of the home when she arrived for an unannounced visit, despite the existence of a no-contact protective order.   Evidently, when confronted by the social worker, Erin S. claimed that she did not know how James R. got into the apartment.   Pursuant to their investigation, Norwich police officers arrived at the home and questioned Erin S. Erin S. denied that he was inside the home.   Aiden, however, was listening and said, “You're looking for Dad? He's in my bedroom.”   The officers then located James R. hiding in the bedroom closet, whereupon he was arrested and charged with violation of a protective order.   At that point, Erin S. explained that he was there to help out with the children.   According to the officer, Erin S. did not appear surprised, except to the extent that her son disclosed the presence of James R.

As a result of the above circumstances, DCF sought and received orders of temporary custody on October 23, 2008 for all three children who were later adjudicated neglected and committed on December 18, 2008.   Specific steps were ordered by the court on that day, requiring Erin S. to participate in domestic violence counseling, obtain and/or cooperate with protective orders and avoid further incidents of domestic violence.   Based on persistent issues and concerns which continued to be unaddressed, DCF sought and received temporary custody of Alexzandria R. on July 22, 2009.

When Aiden, Hailie and Diana were placed into DCF care, each one ultimately presented with extreme behavioral issues and specialized needs.   Alexzandria, who was removed from birth, is the only child in the petitions before this court who was spared from the extreme neglect and abuse that is evident from the condition of her half-siblings following their removal.

Of the three, Diana initially appeared to present with problems which, while very troubling, were less complicated than those presented by her two siblings.   She was extremely overweight, wearing three- and four-year-old toddler clothing even though she was a little over one year of age when she was removed.   Diana screamed all day and especially when she smelled food cooking.   When she was given food, she would shove the food into her mouth until she vomited, having developed no internal mechanism as to when she should stop.   Diana could not be comforted and according to Erika Striebel, DCF social work supervisor, she had extremely primitive ways of getting her needs met.   Although she has reached age-appropriate levels with respect to her physical development, having had some delays in her fine and gross motor skills, Diana's struggles to get along with her peers have put her daycare placement at risk.   Diana does not interact much with her siblings during visits.   Diana, however, is in a pre-adoptive home.

When Hailie came into care, she was two years old and had been previously referred for Birth to Three services.   Erin S., while claiming that Hailie had received services from Easter Seals while in Texas, failed to follow through with Birth to Three's assessment and recommendations while here in Connecticut.   Following Hailie's removal, DCF sought re-assessment from Birth to Three while the children were at the Waterford safe home and Hailie began receiving services in January 2009.   DCF reported that Hailie refused to engage with anyone when she first came into care;  she could not look people in the eye and she would stiffen and resist anyone who would pick her up or engage her in any way.

Like Diana, Hailie reportedly had significant issues around eating.   According to reports from the foster mother whom Diana and Hailie shared for a period of time, as well as Hailie's current foster mother, the moment either foster parent began cooking, Diana and/or Hailie would begin screaming and pulling at them.   Hailie, in particular, was described as screaming “ME EAT!! ME EAT!! ME EAT!!” over and over again.   Like Diana, Hailie could not be comforted in any way until she was given food.   Both girls were so disruptive that the foster mothers each had to devise ways to ensure the girls were supervised in other rooms so they could not smell food cooking while the foster parents prepared dinner.

According to a developmental evaluation recommended by Birth to Three, Hailie was described as a child “who has difficulty moderating her feelings, and does not use language to communicate, but will scream and cry for a protracted time.”   She was diagnosed with Severe Reactive Attachment Disorder and based on the evaluation, was placed alone on May 9, 2009 in a therapeutic foster home.   This placement was her fourth foster home, which eventually became a legal risk, pre-adoptive home.

Licensed by Community Residences, Inc. as a therapeutic foster home, Hailie's foster mother testified in vivid detail the challenges presented by Hailie's specialized needs.   Hailie's expressive language was limited and indistinct;  foster mother and her husband had to question the child repeatedly before they could understand what she was trying to say to them.   Hailie had cognitive delays, did not know her colors, and thought that every animal was a dog, and that everything round was a basketball.   As a result of her extremely limited communication skills and her apparent frustration, she had frequent tantrums.   She has a very limited attention span;  three minutes on one activity was deemed to be a long period of time for Hailie.

Hailie's motor skills were so delayed that she tripped constantly and nearly fell down the stairs.   If she bumped against another person, she would fall to the ground.   The need to be vigilant and engaged with Hailie was constant.   Eventually, the foster parents brought her to Kidspace, a program run by recreational therapist, Karen Pech. With Karen Pech's expertise and the foster parents' unrelenting dedication to following through with Ms. Pech's recommendations, Hailie made extraordinary gains in every area.

Karen Pech has been nationally certified for 18 years in the area of recreational therapy, a field which helps developmentally delayed children with their physical, cognitive and social goals through play.   Ms. Pech testified that Hailie had difficulty with balance and trunk stability and had very weak upper extremities.   She also had difficulties with sensory integration and motor planning, and had sensory processing issues as well as anxiety.   For example, Hailie had difficulties processing and taking in information from her environment, so that her body could not properly navigate through space.   She had difficulties with her vestibular, or inner ear, functioning causing her to be gravitationally insecure, such that she could not swing, sit on a ball, or keep her feet off the ground.   Her auditory functioning was so impaired that she could not properly filter out noise.   She was sensitive to touch and had difficulty letting anyone other than her foster parents touch her.   Ms. Pech compared Hailie's sensory integration difficulties to the experience of being inside an operating clothes dryer, with all of the attendant noises, banging and chaos.   Ms. Pech noted that it was very difficult for a child to learn under those circumstances.   Hailie also had motor planning difficulties, which Ms. Pech described as an impairment in which the brain is not properly communicating with the body's muscles.   A child with these impairments would have difficulty walking around something that might be in her way.   Hailie's difficulties made her extremely sensitive to her environment and easily overstimulated and overwhelmed.   Given these challenges, Hailie's conduct was marked by tantrums and out-of-control behaviors.   Ms. Pech classified Hailie's developmental difficulties as severe.

One of the first things Ms. Pech needed to do was establish a rapport with Hailie.   For Ms. Pech, this happens relatively quickly for her with most children.   With Hailie, however, it took months for her to warm up to and work with Ms. Pech. Hailie demonstrated a lot of trust issues and anxiety.   Eventually, they were able to work on basic skills, including balance and developing physical strength.   According to Ms. Pech, Hailie needed to work on playswings, monkey bars, balls and pushing up games to develop her upper extremity strength and to integrate her eye movements with each particular physical activity.   Hailie evidenced a lack of “tummy time”;  apparently, she had spent no time in her early development laying on her stomach or engaging in play.   According to Ms. Pech, the absence of “tummy time” is well known to lead to neurological and sensory integration problems.   When a child is not on his stomach and/or not given an opportunity to learn how to crawl, push up, or navigate around his environment, the neural pathways in the brain do not properly develop.   As with Hailie, this can be detrimental to many aspects of a child's development, including physical development and sensory integration.

Crucial to Ms. Pech's work with Hailie was the foster parents' commitment to following through at home with the work done at Kidspace.   Ms. Pech's work with Hailie was limited to one hour weekly.   It was the foster parents who needed to be able to implement at home what was learned during the program.   When caretakers are not following through with what is learned in weekly sessions, the child makes no progress.   Judging from the extraordinary progress Hailie made from week to week, Ms. Pech testified that there was really no question that the foster parents were following through at home with the work that she did with Hailie during the sessions.

Hailie's foster mother also testified regarding the progress Hailie made while in their care.   Now 4.5 years old, Hailie speaks constantly and well.   According to the foster mother, Hailie can now use words and phrases like “eventually, we're going to do this” and because she is fascinated by the Disney character of Mulan, she has expressed her desire to travel to China.   Hailie “has big ideas” and is inquisitive, with “big questions.”   She wants to know things like whether it is day or night in China and how she was born.   The foster mother, who was previously a preschool teacher, testified that Hailie is an extremely bright child.   Now she takes swimming and music classes and attends religious education classes regularly.   She has taken vacations at Cape Cod with her foster family and has traveled to Chicago five times to visit with relatives of the foster family.   They have treated her as part of the family and are committed to adopting her if she is freed for adoption.

As the oldest child and the one exposed longest to the toxic conditions in the mother's home, Aiden has, not surprisingly, the most severe issues.   DCF initially attempted to place the children together.   While DCF was successful in finding homes that would accept two or three of the siblings together, the placements themselves were not successful.   Due to his increasingly challenging behaviors, Aiden endured six placements in his first eleven months of foster care.   Ultimately, his siblings' safety and Aiden's own stability and critical need for treatment for his mental health issues became the priority in decisions regarding his placement.

By the time he was placed in his current foster home in October 2009, Aiden's behaviors were marked by extreme aggression, out-of-control conduct and highly sexualized, bizarre behaviors which had put even his sister, Diana, at risk.   Prior to this placement, Aiden had intentionally attempted to push his sister down the stairs.   An October 2009 psychosexual evaluation of Aiden recommended that he not be placed with his sister or with children younger than he.   The evaluation noted a disturbing and “escalating pattern of aggressive and sexualized conduct.”   Aiden had also implicated one of his mother's partners in having touched his “privates” although such allegations remain unclear and unsubstantiated.   He disclosed watching his mother and her male partners have “yucky fights with their clothes off” and do “mean and yucky things” to each other after his mom and her partners finished hugging.   Although the evaluator observed that “it remains unclear whether Aiden has been directly exposed to sexual abuse, ․” he also concluded that “it appears likely that Aiden has been inappropriately exposed to sexual stimulation” and that he has described witnessing “behavior seemingly consistent with adult sexuality in his family home.”   The evaluation concluded that “[r]isk of harm to Aiden's younger sister together with Aiden's need for highly individualized, intensive attention warrants consideration of a therapeutic placement in which he is the only child.”

Aiden's current foster home was a home that had previously provided respite care.   When the foster mother learned that Aiden needed a placement, she offered her home, having developed a great affection for Aiden.   Nevertheless, Aiden reportedly broke down a door, was aggressive toward a dog, turned over desks at school and walked over them.   He would throw things at teachers and was chased around the school.   He engaged in other dangerous behaviors, including opening car doors on the highway, and running in parking lots in front of cars.   His highly sexualized behaviors occurred in school, in the foster home toward the foster mother, foster father and their relatives, and with CRI social workers and other service providers.   The behaviors have even included asking complete strangers to touch his penis or attempting to touch the breasts or vaginal areas of women he did not know.

While in this foster home, Aiden began seeing Mike Kromidas at Wellpath in November 2009.   Wellpath provides a range of mental health services, including family and individual therapy, psychiatric services and emergency crisis stabilization.   In conjunction with CRI, Inc., and DCF, Mr. Kromidas began to assess what level of therapeutic services were appropriate.   Aiden's history while in DCF foster care indicated that Aiden was displaying a wide range of symptoms, including inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, aggression, defiance, and oppositional behaviors.   Aiden's initial evaluation indicated that he had been traumatized by physical abuse inflicted by James R. as well as by witnessing domestic violence while in his mother's care.   Extended day treatment had been considered but there was a long waiting list for those services.

Mr. Kromidas's initial attempts to work with Aiden were ineffective given that Aiden's acute acting out behaviors persisted in school and in the foster home and were interfering with Aiden's ability to function and be maintained in the foster home.   Moreover, as his placement history demonstrated, it was crucial for his treatment that Aiden's placement stabilize, since his constant disruptions served not only to exacerbate his symptoms but also to compromise his ability to begin and/or to continue in treatment.   According to Mr. Kromidas in his report to Dr. Randall, “Aiden has disclosed recollections of witnessing domestic violence in his home, and that this continues to be a traumatic experience for him.   When emotionally upsetting situations come up for him, Aiden has no idea how to calm himself or avoid becoming caught up in the intensity.   He is sometimes able to respond to others' attempts to help him calm down, but at other times, he is so quickly overwhelmed with the emotions that he can not even focus on anything they are trying to help him with.”   As a result, Mr. Kromidas ultimately recommended Intensive, In-home Psychiatric Services for Children and Adolescents (IICAPS) to assist in stabilizing Aiden and to give him the tools to manage his behaviors.

IICAPS's services began in May 2010.   Lisa Abloom, a mental health counselor with IICAPS, described the 4–6 month program as an intensive service which required that she and her team go to the foster home 1–2 times a week, work with the schools, and provide up to three hours of direct care service to the child and family.   IICAPS's goals were to address four different domains:  1) the child domain which involved working with the child to decrease his anger and increase communication;  2) the family domain which involved getting Aiden to follow the rules of the home, listen to his foster parents and develop a stronger relationship with his foster brother;  3) the school domain in which the goal was to improve behavior at school;  and 4) the community domain, which included meeting with behaviorists and clinicians and attending karate.

By the time Aiden was discharged from IICAPS in October 2010, he was able to control his anger on a consistent basis.   He went from being completely oppositional and refusing to participate in work with the clinicians to being easily re-directed by them and the foster mother.   All of Aiden's defiant behaviors were gone, including kicking, hitting and tantrumming.   At seven years old, he is able to manage his anger using breathing techniques, journaling and other strategies which he learned from the IICAPS clinicians.   He was even able to avail himself of coaching over the phone with an IICAPS clinician to utilize breathing techniques during one of his tantrums.   Critical to his success, however, was the need for consistency and follow through with respect to consequences and expectations.   In this respect, IICAPS also needed to work with the foster parents to ensure that they were consistent in how they handled his behaviors.   The foster parents also needed to address and help him process issues following visits with his mother and to address any anxiety he would have as a result of these visits.   Because most of the work Aiden did with IICAPS occurred during the summer, the clinicians did not have an opportunity to work with the school, where he had had significant difficulties with his behavior.   By fall, however, Aiden had made so much progress in controlling his behaviors that the school had only positive reports of Aiden, a dramatic difference from the school year before.   Aiden's treatment also benefited from his karate classes which became important to him as another one of his coping strategies, as well as providing exercise and an opportunity to release extra energy and aggression.

As a result of the progress made with IICAPS, Aiden was stable enough to begin individual therapy with Wellpath, specifically the Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TFCBT).  Aiden's diagnosis had changed from Adjustment Disorder to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder due to classic symptoms he was exhibiting, including the reexperience of thoughts or memories of the trauma, avoidance and hypervigilance.

According to Mr. Kromidas, the TFCBT model works on alleviating or decreasing trauma-related symptoms by helping the child change the way he thinks about past trauma.   The skills and knowledge imparted to the child include psychoeducation, which gives the child an understanding of terminology for various types of trauma as well as how common it is.   Mr. Kromidas testified that giving children the language and understanding of various types of trauma helps decrease their “emotional reactivity” to the terms by helping them get used to hearing these terms and ideas.   Another component of this treatment includes teaching the child relaxation skills.   Children learn how to identify and regulate their feelings and how their thoughts, feelings and actions are all connected and influence each other.   The children are encouraged to understand that while they cannot change their past, they can change the way they think about past trauma, and work toward thoughts that are less negative and more positive and helpful.   Eventually, the child gets to the point of developing a trauma narrative, which is the child's subjective recollection of his experience of trauma.   In developing a trauma narrative, the child is empowered to identify his past traumas and then, with the support of his therapist and caregiver, correct what Mr. Kromidas called “cognitive distortions” in which the child feels guilt, shame, self-blame.   One of the goals of TFCBT is to help the child not feel guilty for something for which he was not responsible.   Finally, the program works toward enhancing future safety should the child encounter similar events.

In order for the TFCBT model to be effective, particularly for a younger child, the caregiver needs to be involved throughout the course of treatment and the child's home environment needs to be stable.   When the trauma narrative is being developed, a caregiver is expected to participate in parallel sessions with the therapist so that he or she can respond appropriately to the child and not, even inadvertently, reinforce what feelings of guilt, shame or self-blame a child has a tendency to experience.   While the evidence before the court amply demonstrates that Aiden's current foster home has been extraordinarily committed to supporting Aiden's mental health treatment, the same cannot be said for Erin S. Among Erin S.'s most glaring deficiencies in this regard is her failure to acknowledge any of her son's difficulties and the extent to which trauma resulted from the home environment in which she raised him.   Instead, she claims that Aiden, and all of her children, had no behavioral problems until they went into foster care.   She adamantly denies that domestic violence had any impact on the children and denies that Aiden was physically abused by James R. Her denial is so intractable that, even with James R.'s criminal conviction for abusing Aiden and the lifetime protective order prohibiting contact between James R. and Aiden, Erin S. chose to live with James R. following his release and, according to some reports, they were engaged to be married.   Additionally troubling are Aiden's disclosures that James R.² may have sexually abused him.

Clearly, Aiden has been the victim of multiple traumas while in the care of Erin S. He was then subjected to further trauma by his removal from her care and multiple placements, which this court understands are an unfortunate byproduct and then exacerbation of his extreme emotional and psychological suffering.   With the help of the highest quality of mental health services and the crucial support of a committed caregiver in the foster parent finally in place, Aiden is just starting the long, difficult but critical work of addressing his experiences of trauma.   At the same time, Mr. Kromidas testified that a caregiver's failure to believe and support a child's trauma can undermine a child's ability to engage in the therapeutic process.   In order for a child to muster the courage and strength to get to the point of sharing his story of trauma, he must feel supported, understood and believed;  he must feel safe emotionally and physically.

The degree to which a caregiver must be attuned to or at least responsive to the nuances of participating in TFCBT treatment contrasts sharply with what Erin S. offers this child.   Instead, Erin S.'s refusal to believe Aiden, her decision to live with James R. upon his release from incarceration, and her intention to marry him, amount to a betrayal of her responsibility to ensure that Aiden feels safe in her care, one of her most fundamental functions as a parent.   The evidence is not clear whether Aiden knows of any of his mother's choices, but this court cannot fathom how Aiden could trust that his mother would keep him safe if he did know these things.   Given the pre-conditions for successful treatment, as articulated by Mr. Kromidas, it is inconceivable to this court that Aiden could continue his progress in therapy if returned to mother's care.   Indeed, this court is convinced that given Erin S.'s choices, even the prospect of returning to mother's care would compromise the therapeutic work he has been doing in foster care.

Erin S.'s failings are further underscored by evidence that she cannot or will not meet the relatively uncomplicated needs of even her youngest child, Alexzandria.   As noted above, Alexzandria was removed at birth from Erin S.'s custody and has none of the severe specialized needs or developmental delays exhibited by her older half-siblings.   She is a healthy child who is developmentally on target for her age.   Requiring no special services for her care, Alexzandria had supervised visits with her mother at a public library.   Jennifer Blinderman, who supervised visits between the child and Erin S., testified that Erin S. would essentially ignore the child, especially as she got older.   She refused to soothe the baby when she needed soothing and refused to accept suggestions that she rock Alexzandria in her arms.   When Alexzandria was old enough to walk, she would approach Erin S. wanting to play or have books read to her.   Ms. Blinderman attempted to model for mother how she should respond to the child but Erin S. consistently refused.   Consequently, Alexzandria would resort to going to the supervisor for attention.   In one visit, she actually approached another mother with the books she wanted read to her and that mother read to Alexzandria while Erin S. just sat there and did nothing.

Erin S. was equally incompetent in her visits with Aiden, Hailie and Diana.   Supervised by a masters level parent educator, Erin saw the children separately and together.   Each visit was consistently problematic whether she visited with the children separately or as a group.   The children were out of control, refused to listen to Erin S. and would run away from her.   To address these issues, the parenting educator would give Erin S. feedback as to how to re-direct the children.   Erin S. was receptive to feedback and would follow through with advice she was given but week after week, she needed constant prompting and re-direction for the same behaviors.   Notably, the children were receptive to the re-direction from the parenting educator, but refused to listen to Erin S.

In parent-child evaluations conducted by Dr. Nancy Randall, Erin S. showed no ability to engage effectively with her children.   In her first evaluation of the interaction between Erin S. and the children in March 2009, Dr. Randall observed the children completely out of control while with their mother.   Aiden became angry and started kicking things and throwing toys around the room.   He became openly defiant and repeatedly walked out of the room when Erin S. told him not to do so.   Hailie repeatedly screamed anytime something did not go the way she wanted.   Diana, who played by herself, hit Erin S. if she did something Diana did not like.

In the second evaluation of the parent-child interaction dated January 22, 2010, Dr. Randall had to end the session after a half hour because it was so chaotic and out of control.   Aiden had become extremely aggressive and angry and Hailie was sitting in front of the door crying because she wanted to see her foster mother.   When Erin S. closed the door in the evaluation room to prevent Aiden from leaving, Aiden turned to the evaluator and started pleading and crying with her that he be allowed to leave in order to rejoin his foster mother.

The disparity between what each of these children requires for his or her care, and what Erin S. is willing or able to do to meet their needs could not be more stark.   The court notes, however, that Erin S. has herself a tragic personal history.   Her own mother was drug-addicted through most of Erin S.'s childhood, during which Erin S. was physically and sexually abused by her mother's drug-addicted friends.   Subsequently, Erin S. lived with her maternal grandmother and her husband, who were alcoholics.   Their household was also turbulent although not actively abusive.   Eventually, Erin S. became involved with the fathers of her children, all of whom were physically abusive to her.   In her May 2009 evaluation by Dr. Marvin Zelman, the court-appointed psychiatrist, she minimized the effect of her abuse history and saw no negative impact on either herself or her children.   Dr. Zelman, however, concluded that Erin S. is “an extremely traumatized person” and while she does not have a psychiatric condition that requires medication, “[h]er major psychopathology is limited insight and poor judgment.   She does not learn from experience.”

Dr. Nancy Randall, who had performed an earlier psychological evaluation in March 2009, had come to a similar conclusion:  Erin S. has “very limited insight into the ways that her own choices and psychological issues impact upon her and her family” and that her “minimization of the seriousness of the problems facing her family is a major barrier to her ability to appropriately parent her children.”

Although Dr. Zelman recommended long-term psychotherapy for abuse victims, Erin S. failed to comply with these recommendations.   In May 2009, she was unsuccessfully discharged from individual therapy at United Community and Family Services [UCFS] for lack of attendance.   She was re-referred to UCFS for mental health services in September 2009 and failed to attend her intake appointment.   She was re-referred and scheduled for an intake appointment in November 2009, when she opted to go to a job interview instead.   She was rescheduled again for December 2009 and failed to attend.   Finally, by January 2010, she attended and intake appointment and began attending individual therapy.

In Dr. Randall's second evaluation issued at about that time, Dr. Randall observed Erin S.'s “motivation for change is low, as she does not believe that there is anything wrong with the way that she has cared for the children so far.”   Dr. Randall noted that while Erin S. downplayed any firm plans of reuniting with James R., she “acknowledged that she would like to explore the relationship and see if they could be together as a couple again.”   Dr. Randall concluded that “it is very likely that this couple will reconcile once the protective order is lifted.   To the extent that both of them have failed to make sufficient changes in their impulsivity and understanding of domestic violence issues, the risk for further violence between them is significant ․ While [Erin] S. chafes at [James R.'s] controlling behaviors at times, she also finds them comforting, as they contribute to her feelings of being taken care of ․ Although [Erin S.] may be willing to participate in treatment required of her, her participation is likely to be superficial and inadequate to make the lasting changes needed.”   Dr. Randall's prescience in this regard, as well as the likelihood of future violence, is notable.   In fact, notwithstanding Erin S.'s attendance in individual therapy since January 2010, the report from her therapist is that her participation is superficial.

Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that throughout the history of this case, notwithstanding a protective order that was in place prohibiting contact with James R., Erin S. continued to have contact with him.   Specific steps ordered in October 2008 and in February 2010 made clear that she must cooperate with restraining and/or protective orders and participate in domestic violence counseling and/or individual therapy.   As earlier noted, James R. was not only convicted for abuse of Aiden, but a lifetime protective order is in place to protect Aiden.   Although Erin S. has vehemently denied having contact with James R., she has given birth to two children fathered by James R.:  Alexzandria, who was born on July 21, 2009 and Baby Boy S., who was born November 24, 2010.

To the extent that Erin S. admits she has had contact with James R., which is now difficult to dispute in light of his established paternity, she claims she did not know of the existence of the protective orders.   In fact, although the removal of her children was premised on her violation of the protective order in October 2008, she claimed that the first time she knew the protective order was in place was in January 2010.   Given that Baby Boy S.'s birth date of November 24, 2010, such an admission, even if believed, hardly helps her case.   She adamantly denied at trial that DCF had kept reminding her that the protective order was in effect.   At various times, she has also given many other, often contradictory, excuses which this court finds confusing and which seriously undermine her credibility.   As this court has already found, the children came into custody because Erin S. allowed James R. back into the home in violation of the existing protective order.   At the time, she attempted to deny, then minimize, his presence.   This pattern simply has not changed.

On two different occasions in January and then March of 2010, service providers reported that Erin S. had black eyes.   Although she claimed she received the injuries at work, Erin S. provided to DCF no documentation to support her claims despite its reasonable request for proof.   When Erin S. and James R. were both living on the property of a church to which they both belonged, Erin S. claimed they did not have contact.   Their pastors, who were advocates for the couple for a period of time, ultimately reported that the parents had been sleeping together in a shed on church grounds.   James R., on the other hand, was relatively more candid.   He admitted that the couple was pooling their rent money and when he was evaluated by Dr. Randall, James R. stated that he and Erin S. “ ‘are, but we're not’ together as a couple now.”   Erin S. has consistently worn an engagement ring and the couple has said they would marry after the protective order between them was lifted.   Only at trial, when she testified, did Erin S. claim that she would not live with James R. given the existence of the protective order between Aiden and James R. Of course, even if the court credited this claim, which it does not, it would be too little, too late.

Given the history of this case, Erin S.'s own exposure to James R.'s violence, as well as the abuse inflicted on Aiden, should be motivation enough to seek and comply with protective orders.   Yet neither her own safety, nor her children's welfare, nor the possibility that her children might never be returned to her care has been enough to compel Erin S. to comply with this important provision.

Significantly, one of Erin S.'s diagnoses included Mixed Personality Disorder with dependent features.   According to Dr. Zelman, this meant that Erin S. had a tendency to depend on individuals at any price, even when those relationships are harmful to her.   He added that treatment for this kind of disorder is difficult when the individual denies she has any problems.   Dr. Randall diagnosed Erin S. with posttraumatic stress disorder and stated that Erin S. was replicating in her own life the same pattern of abuse she endured when she was a child, i.e. engaging in relationships with abusive partners who were abusing substances.   She has chosen to remain in relationship with James R. despite the fact that he was convicted of physically abusing Aiden and despite the fact that Aiden has identified James R. as one of the individuals who may have sexually abused him.   She remains with James R. despite the fact that James R. has a lifetime protective order prohibiting his contact with Aiden.

Erin S. testified that she had attended two years of college in Texas.   She was articulate and clearly intelligent.   Unfortunately, it is also clear that Erin S. is a profoundly impaired woman who is completely incapable or unwilling to meet even the basic needs of her children.   Given how Erin S., in a supervised setting, failed to respond to Alexzandria's simple request to have books read to her, this court readily infers the same non-responsiveness to her children's needs when she had the opportunity to parent them without the watchful eyes of DCF and its surrogates.   This court heard vivid testimony of the girls screaming, unrelentingly, to get fed when they went into foster care.   This court heard shocking testimony that Hailie's severe neurological and other developmental delays were attributed to the likely absence of “tummy time” as an infant.   In other words, the evidence indicates that as a baby, she was laying on her back, getting inadequate stimulation when she should have been on her stomach, lifting her neck, using her upper body, and looking and reaching for things in her environment.   According to Ms. Pech, someone simply needed to play with Hailie, so that her muscles strengthened and evolved in coordination with the development of the neurological pathways of her brain.   Given how limited were Hailie's expressive and receptive language abilities, the evidence strongly suggests that mother was not even talking with Hailie, much less to read to her.

Finally with respect to Aiden, the evidence indicates that he was exposed to domestic violence, physical abuse, inappropriate sexual activity and likely sexual abuse as well.   Even if Erin S. did not intentionally inflict this parade of horrors upon Aiden, who was five years old when removed from her care, her failure to protect him from this grossly toxic environment has had a profoundly damaging impact on Aiden.   Despite all of the reports from service providers, foster parents, schools and evaluators, Erin S. attributes Aiden's problems to his removal.   In so doing, she completely fails to acknowledge, understand and, just as importantly, accept responsibility for the environment to which she exposed him.   It is difficult to overstate how much these children suffered in her care.

The court acknowledges that it is a tall order to require a parent to acknowledge, understand and accept responsibility for a child's neglect and abuse in her care, especially for a person like Erin S. whose own childhood may have been equally as traumatic.   As DCF has attempted to piece together its understanding of what has happened to these children, it has tried with unabated effort to help Erin S. get the services she needs to deal with her own trauma, to understand her children's needs and to acquire the skills needed to parent them.   Indeed, Erin S. has gone through the motions, participated in some services and attended visitation regularly.   She, however, will not or cannot benefit from the services offered, and she has simply ignored DCF's concerns regarding James R. and the degree to which her ongoing relationship with him jeopardizes reunification with her children.

Notwithstanding the chaotic and painful parent-child interaction as described by Dr. Randall in her last evaluation, this court is aware that Aiden has expressed his affection for his mother and his desire to return to her care.   It is not clear that he is yet aware of Erin S.'s intention to remain in relationship with James R. and/or to marry him.   Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for this court to have before it children like Aiden, whose need for protection and nurture is in conflict with their residual loyalty for a parent, even if he or she has abused or failed to protect them.   A young child's wishes, and indeed, fantasy, that his parent could someday take care of him, cannot supersede his need to heal from past trauma.   It is why this court has long recognized that a child's wishes and his best interests are not necessarily the same and is reflected in the dual roles of counsel for the child.

Unfortunately, Aiden's trauma has been manifest in a myriad of ways and degrees over his time in foster care.   Remarkably, however, his behaviors and placement have stabilized such that he is ready to embark on the next, undoubtedly difficult, stages of mental health treatment using TFCBT.   That he has come this far is nothing short of extraordinary, and is a testament to the efforts of DCF, his various therapeutic providers and most of all, to his current foster parents and pre-adoptive home as well as Aiden himself.   Aiden has made tremendous gains in his ability to trust and to move from being guarded to a child who is willing to let someone take care of him.   He has come from being a child whose behaviors were both unsafe and dangerous to himself and others, to a child, at the tender age of seven years old, who is capable of utilizing breathing techniques, journaling and other strategies to calm himself and manage his behaviors.   Aiden now seeks comfort from his foster parents and is affectionate.   He takes karate, is an accomplished skate boarder and has a mentor who has taught him how to play the guitar.   Instead of being chased around his school and turning over desks, he sits in the front of his classroom where his present challenge is keeping focused.

According to the current DCF social worker, Aiden's current foster parents are exemplary, communicating regularly with service providers and they are proactive in seeking to ensure his needs are met.   Like each of his sisters, Aiden has been placed in a home willing to be an adoptive home, with all the commitment that entails given the long-term nature of Aiden's mental health needs.   According to Mr. Kromidas, Aiden's need to work with his trauma will be ongoing and will re-emerge with the inevitable changes and challenges of growth and development over his life.   While the court is fully aware that Aiden's future is not without risk, this court finds that his best hope for the future is with a family who has a proven record of providing him the total support and understanding he requires and who, unlike Erin S., has in nearly a year and half of round-the-clock care, worked to earn Aiden's trust and affections.

With respect to the father of Aiden, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Eddie G. has had only one contact with Aiden since his birth, when Aiden was three and a half years old.   He has had no contact with Aiden, Erin S., DCF or any of Aiden's caregivers since that time.   The court takes judicial notice of the efforts DCF has taken to locate Eddie G., including various internet searches and inquiries of the criminal justice system in Texas, in light of his last known address in Midland, Texas.   He has provided no support for his son, financially or otherwise, and provided no gifts, cards or letters to him.

Regarding the father of Hailie and Diana, this court finds that Zachary S. has also had no contact with his daughters, Erin S., DCF or any of the girls' caregivers since his relationship with Erin S. ended.   Zachary S. had a violent relationship with Erin S., and was either unavailable or incarcerated.   Erin S.'s relationship with Zachary S. resulted in some child protection agency involvement when she was in Texas;  that relationship ultimately ended while she was in Texas and before she began her relationship with James R. DCF's last known address for Zachary S. was San Antonio, Texas.   The agency utilized various internet searches and made inquiries of the criminal justice system in Texas.   Zachary S. has provided no financial support, gifts, cards or letters to either Diana or Hailie since he abandoned the family.

With respect to the father of Alexzandria, James R. consented to the termination of his parental rights on December 1, 2010.   This court thoroughly canvassed James R. and accepted his consent as knowingly and voluntarily made.

III. ADJUDICATION

A. REASONABLE EFFORTS

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, that it made “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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 47, 887 A.2d 415 (2005).   See In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).   Moreover, “such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to section 17a–111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).

“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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shaiesha O., supra, 93 Conn.App. 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.)  In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 619, 926 A.2d 690, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 923, 924, 933 A.2d 724 (2007);  In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 255, 763 A.2d 71 (2000).   The court must look to events that occurred prior to the date the petition was filed, to determine whether reasonable efforts at reunification were made.  In re Shaiesha O., supra, 93 Conn.App. 47.

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that by December 30, 2009 when DCF filed the termination of parental rights petition, it had made reasonable efforts to reunify Erin S. with her three children, Aiden, Hailie and Diana.   As of April 14, 2010, when DCF filed the termination of parental rights petition as to Alexzandria, it had made reasonable efforts to reunify Erin S. with this child as well.   In the alternative, the court also finds based on the above findings that Erin S. is both unable and unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.   Since the children's initial removal, Erin S. was ordered in specific steps to participate in domestic violence counseling, cooperate with the applicable protective orders and participate in parenting counseling.   Subsequently she was ordered to cooperate with individual counseling.   Despite referrals, she attended only three domestic violence classes and was discharged from individual therapy at UCFS. After more intensive efforts, Erin S. finally began individual therapy with Lisa Douzy in January 2010, but by September 2010, DCF had received reports that Erin S. only superficially participated in therapy.   Despite visits with hands-on parenting training for all of the children, visits were routinely chaotic for the older three and with respect to Alexzandria, Erin S. spent much of the visit ignoring her daughter's solicitations.   Finally, Erin S. has persistently been in a relationship, sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely, with James R. notwithstanding protective orders issued for her, her children and for Aiden.   This court finds that DCF's efforts have been reasonable and appropriate, but that Erin S. has either been unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

The evidence also clearly and convincingly indicates that Eddie G. and Zachary S. were both aware of the existence of their children and abandoned them early in their lives.   The court thus concludes that, based on the above findings, DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the fathers of all three children and that due to their absence from their children's lives, they have been unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

B. ABANDONMENT

“A parent abandons a child if the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child ․ General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A).   Abandonment focuses on the parent's conduct ․ Abandonment occurs where a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare ․ Section 17a–112[ (j)(3)(A) ] does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child.   A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child.   Maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Ilyssa G., 105 Conn.App. 41, 46–47, 936 A.2d 674 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 918, 943 A.2d 475 (2008);  In re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 514 (2008).

1. Eddie G.

As found above, this court reiterates its findings by clear and convincing evidence Eddie G. had minimal contact with Aiden when he was born and that the last time he saw his son was when Aiden was three and a half years old.   He has provided no financial or emotional support, gifts, letters or cards to Aiden and has not contacted DCF, Erin S., or any of Aiden's caregivers to inquire of his wellbeing.   Eddie G. has abandoned Aiden within the meaning of General Statutes Section 17a–112[ (j)(3)(A) ].

2. Zachary S.

Similarly, Zachary S. has had minimal contact with his daughters, Hailie and Diana and has made no inquiries on their behalf since well before Erin S. left the state of Texas.   He has provided no support, financial or otherwise, and has sent no gifts, cards or letters.   Zachary S. has also abandoned Hailie and Diana within the meaning of General Statutes Section 17a–112[ (j)(3)(A) ].

C. FAILURE TO REHABILITATE as to Erin S.

“General Statutes § 17a–112(j) provides in relevant part, that the court may grant a petition for termination of parental rights ‘if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ (B) the child ․ has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ․ 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 ․’ ‘Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [Section 17a–112] 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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Jordon T., 119 Conn.App. 748 (2010), citing In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706 (1999).

In assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved his or her ability to manage his or her life, but rather whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.  In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 157, 180, 743 A.2d 165 (1999).   However, “[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.”  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).

In light of the statutory elements of this ground as well as the caselaw interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has met her burden as to Erin S. As noted in its findings of fact, each of the four children was adjudicated neglected.   Once the three oldest children were removed from her care, their significant developmental and behavioral issues more clearly manifested themselves and reflected an environment of severe neglect, exposure to domestic violence and especially for Aiden, exposure to physical abuse, sexual activity, and sexual molestation.   As DCF's understanding and assessment of each child's specialized needs evolved, it became clear that it needed to stabilize each child's placement and ultimately, place the children in separate foster homes.   The children each needed individualized attention as well as safety from Aiden's aggressive and sexualized behaviors.   They needed caregivers willing to commit the enormous amount of time and energy necessary in order to understand the children's needs, work intensively with service providers and therapists and consistently and faithfully implement the recommendations made.   With Hailie and Aiden in particular, DCF needed caregivers who were capable of being exquisitely attuned and responsive to the needs of the children.

Given these highly specialized needs as well as all four children's need for permanency and stability, this court finds that Erin S.'s ability to parent any of her children, either separately or alone, is grossly inadequate.   There have been specific steps, an array of services, one-on -one parenting instruction and counseling, the existence of protective orders and repeated warnings, but none of these interventions have made any difference in Erin S.'s capacity to parent and provide a safe and nurturing home.   Even for Alexzandria, whose needs are no more demanding than those of any other healthy toddler and not nearly as complex as those of her siblings, Erin S. has made no improvement.   Notwithstanding the existence of protective orders, undisputed, severe domestic violence, James R.'s conviction for physical abuse of Aiden and a lifetime protective order for her son, Erin S. has persisted in a relationship with James R. and with him, gave birth to both Alexzandria and Baby Boy S. Only a month or two before the trial on these termination petitions, Erin S. conceded that the father of Baby Boy S. was James R.

To the extent that Erin S. acknowledges any difficulties stemming from her relationship with James R., she attributes the violence to his substance abuse and drinking and has suggested that, because he has now tested negative in substance abuse tests, her relationship with him is acceptable.   In this way, on those occasions when she has not denied being in relationship with him, Erin S. has justified her relationship with James R. Given James R.'s consent to the termination of his parental rights as to Alexzandria, his rehabilitative potential is not squarely before this court.   Nevertheless, it is, to some extent, relevant given Erin S.'s declared intentions to resume her relationship with him.   In fact, James R.'s rehabilitation continues to be seriously in doubt.   This court notes that James R. was just recently released from six months' incarceration following his conviction for abusing Aiden.   In that sense, he has only resolved his criminal issues;  he has not resolved the multitude of issues flowing from the underlying conviction nor his viability as a partner and parenting figure with Erin S. In the months preceding his incarceration, James R. merely attended individual therapy, as opposed to benefited from it, indicating to his therapists that he had no issues to address and that he only attends because DCF requires him to do so.   Moreover, his alcohol use continues to persist;  DCF personnel and other service providers have smelled alcohol on his person during visits.   While James R. has attended services, although inconsistently, and has technically completed some programs, his insight has been poor and/or superficial.   Not only have both parents blatantly violated the protective order that was in effect, Erin S. sustained two inadequately explained injuries to her eyes in January and then March 2010.   In addition to the evidence that James R. was the source of a significant amount of trauma endured by Aiden, Erin S. blithely ignores how her relationship with James R. compounds the multitude of problems she already has in addressing her trauma and meeting the extraordinarily complex needs of her children.   This court notes that her current therapist testified that Erin S. was starting to address her own trauma.   This court however, listened to Erin S.'s testimony and finds that she lacked candor, and an empathy for and understanding of her children's needs.   In that light, what little work Emi S. has done has resulted in no insight into how her own issues affect her capacity to parent children safely.   Having been largely responsible for creating and/or tolerating the conditions in which her children endured severe abuse and/or neglect, Erin S. is also completely unable to acknowledge and address the consequences of her failures.

As this court has already found, each of these children has a critical need for permanency.   As our courts have long observed, the deleterious effects of prolonged temporary care is well known.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).  “It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents.   There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty ․” Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982).   Remarkably, each child is in a pre-adoptive home, and doing exceptionally well, especially given the specialized needs of Aiden and Hailie in particular.   With the termination of the parental rights of their parents, each child will be freed to move forward in the bonding process that is fundamental to their development and to the healing and recovery process which Aiden, in particular, must be allowed to continue.

IV. DISPOSITION

The court concludes that it is in the best interests of Aiden S., Hailie and Diana S. and Alexzandria R., to terminate the parental rights of Erin S., Eddie G., Zachary S. and James R. In support of its findings made by clear and convincing evidence, the court reiterates the above findings of facts, all of which are relevant to the best interest factor in termination of parental rights petitions.   The children are in loving, committed pre-adoptive homes and have made significant progress developmentally while in the nurturing care of their foster parents.

In arriving at this conclusion, the court also considers the seven factors outlined in General Statutes § 17a–112(k) as to Erin S., Eddie G. and Zachary S.:

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.

Eddie G. and Zachary S. have never presented themselves to the agency or to this court and therefore, services could not be offered to them.   As to Erin S., DCF has provided services from the outset of its involvement in the case, including domestic violence counseling, individual counseling, parenting classes and counseling, including one-on-one parenting instruction in a supervised hands-on visitation setting for all four children.   Erin S. has been repeatedly warned by DCF that her relationship with James R., in violation of existing protective orders, would undermine reunification with her children.   Given her failure to benefit from these services and her persistent need to be in relationship with James R., all reasonable services have been offered and exhausted.

2. Finding regarding whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended

Based on the above findings, the court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Erin S. pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980 and that Erin S. is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from those efforts.

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

The court notes the existence of protective orders which Erin S. repeatedly ignored and that specific steps were in place for Erin S. Erin S. never fully engaged in individual counseling and thus, despite her apparent intelligence, did not benefit from all the services put in place for parenting.   Erin S. did faithfully attend visitation.   Given that she never acknowledged that her children had suffered from neglect or abuse or that they had any problems prior to foster care, however, the likelihood that Erin S. would benefit from services was limited.   No such orders are applicable or in place with respect to Eddie G. and Zachary S.

4. Findings regarding the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to their parents, any guardian of his 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

Each of the children is bonded to his or her current foster parents and looks to them for nurturance, support and to meet all of his or her basic needs.   Hailie and Aiden also have made extraordinarily significant gains with respect to the multi-faceted nature of their specialized needs, in large part due to the commitment of their respective foster parents to participate and fully engage in their services and to follow through with recommendations of those service providers in their everyday care of the children.   As noted above, Aiden has residual feelings of love and/or affection for Erin S.

Aiden, Hailie and Diana have no relationship with their respective fathers.

5. Finding regarding the age of the child

Aiden was born May 28, 2003 and soon will be eight years old;  Hailie was born August 23, 2006 and is four and one-half years old;  Diana was born September 14, 2007 and is three and one-half years old;  Alexzandria was born July 21, 2009 and is one and one-half years old.

6. Finding regarding the efforts the parent has made to adjust her circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return him to his 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

As noted in the main body of this court's finding of facts, the fathers of Aidan, Hailie and Diana have had no contact or visitation with the children, their mother, their caregivers or DCF since their abandonment of them years ago.   Erin S. has regularly visited the children, although those visitations have been problematic to the extent that Erin S. does not seem to retain parenting advice and interventions from week to week, if she acquires them at all, and the children either ignore her or are in chaos and out of control during those visits.

7. Finding regarding 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.

None of the parents has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent or of any other person, nor by their economic circumstances.

In accordance with the best interests of the children pursuant to General Statutes § 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 Erin S., Eddie G., Zachary S. and James R. are hereby terminated.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Erin S., Eddie G., Zachary S. and James R. are hereby TERMINATED as to their respective children, Aiden S., Hailie and Diana S., and Alexzandria R. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed statutory parent for the children.   The agency is directed to facilitate the adoption of the children as expeditiously as possible.   The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of each child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford of the date when said adoption is finalized.

A case plan shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment, and further reports shall be timely presented to this court as required by law.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

ELGO, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. On December 1, 2010, which was the first date this matter was originally scheduled for trial, both James R. and then Erin S. claimed Native American heritage.   Although the issue of whether the parents had previously disclosed this issue was the subject of dispute, this court was nevertheless required to delay the proceedings to allow the state to send the required notice to Bureau of Indian Affairs and the various tribes implicated by the parents' claims under the Indian Child Welfare Act [25 USC §§ 1901 et seq].   Subsequently, on January 24, 2011, the petitioner presented to this court verification of said notice and information from said tribes that none of the children could be considered an “Indian Child” as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).   Therefore, none of the tribes noticed sought to intervene in the current proceedings, which resumed on January 24, 2011..  FN1. On December 1, 2010, which was the first date this matter was originally scheduled for trial, both James R. and then Erin S. claimed Native American heritage.   Although the issue of whether the parents had previously disclosed this issue was the subject of dispute, this court was nevertheless required to delay the proceedings to allow the state to send the required notice to Bureau of Indian Affairs and the various tribes implicated by the parents' claims under the Indian Child Welfare Act [25 USC §§ 1901 et seq].   Subsequently, on January 24, 2011, the petitioner presented to this court verification of said notice and information from said tribes that none of the children could be considered an “Indian Child” as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).   Therefore, none of the tribes noticed sought to intervene in the current proceedings, which resumed on January 24, 2011.

FN2. Like Erin S., James R. also had a tragic history of exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse between his parents, and at age six, was sexually abused himself by his mother's boyfriend.   His mother ended up leaving him and his brothers with a family friend to look for an apartment and did not come back for six years..  FN2. Like Erin S., James R. also had a tragic history of exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse between his parents, and at age six, was sexually abused himself by his mother's boyfriend.   His mother ended up leaving him and his brothers with a family friend to look for an apartment and did not come back for six years.

Elgo, Nina F., J.