IN RE: Matthew M. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

Before this court is the termination of parental rights petition filed on October 27, 2009 and amended on February 16, 2010 in the interest of Matthew M. (DOB 11/2/07).   In this case, the petition was filed by counsel and guardian ad litem for the child.   Although the Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed its notice to join the petition on December 17, 2009, the petitioner retains the burden of proof.   The petitioner has alleged the adjudicatory grounds of failure to rehabilitate and acts of omission and commission as to the respondent-mother, Trina M. General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3), (B)(i) and (C).  With respect to the biological father, Scott R., this court notes that on June 23, 2010, the court (Baldwin, J.) made a finding of paternity following the results of paternity testing.   On July 28, 2010, Scott R. tendered his consent to the termination of his parental rights, which the court (Bentivegna, J.) accepted after a canvass and a finding that his consent was knowing and voluntary.   All non-consensual grounds were withdrawn and the court granted the motion to amend to allege consent as to Scott R. Trina M., who entered her denial to the petition on November 20, 2009 was present to defend the petition on all days of trial, and was vigorously represented by counsel.   This court presided over the trial in this case on February 16, 17, 18, 22, and 28, 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 petition insofar as he has alleged failure to rehabilitate.   The court dismisses the ground of acts of omission and commission given that no withdrawal nor any evidence in support of that ground was presented by the petitioner.

This court granted the petitioner's motion for judicial notice on February 16, 2011.   The court finds that DCF filed a neglect petition and sought and received an ex parte order (Esposito, J.) of temporary custody (OTC) on behalf of Matthew M. on September 2, 2008.   Trina M. had left Matthew in the care of a friend and never returned for her nine-month-old son, who was living in a condemned apartment filled with garbage, feces, and hypodermic needles.   Trina M. had a significant substance abuse problem and a long history of abusing drugs.   Although she had used marijuana and cocaine, her drug of choice was heroin.   During her pregnancy with Matthew, Trina M. admitted to using five to eight bags of heroin a day.   Matthew was adjudicated neglected on January 6, 2009 and committed to DCF. He was placed in his current, and now, preadoptive home, in November 2008.   During that period of time, Trina M. was incarcerated for 45 days and then released for in-patient treatment at Connecticut Valley Hospital and then to Clayton House, a residential facility providing an intermediate level of care for substance abusers.

By July 11, 2009, when court-appointed evaluator, Dr. Andrew Magin, issued his psychological evaluation of her, Trina M. had made remarkable progress in addressing her substance abuse addiction.   She had been substance free since August 2008, had developed a significant network of support and was engaged in NA/AA with a sponsor.   Trina M. had successfully completed her substance abuse programs and received excellent reports from her counselors.   After consulting with her service providers and probation officer as well as Matthew's Birth to Three providers, Dr. Magin recommended a detailed reunification program.   In his evaluation, he noted that Matthew had significant developmental delays which required a caregiver willing to acknowledge his limitations and work faithfully with service providers to address his needs.   Dr. Magin also observed that Matthew was extremely bonded to his foster mother and preferred her strongly over Trina M. At the same time, Trina M.'s personal recovery as well as her expressed willingness to work with Matthew's providers and to understand his needs justified ongoing efforts toward reunification.

In light of these considerations, Dr. Magin recommended that Matthew's transition back to Trina M.'s care “occur very slowly and with the oversight of a child psychologist and/or psychiatrist who can assess his response to the change and help him as well as his biological mother in this transition.   Additionally, such a change should occur with every effort being made for him to continue to maintain the connection with his foster family, even if it becomes reduced.”   More specifically, Dr. Magin recommended that both Trina M. and Matthew be “involved in therapy with a trained and skilled clinician in the developmental needs of a child Matthew's age.   This clinician should be available to assess the progress and the impact on Matthew.   Ultimately this clinician should evaluate the progress being made and whether alterations are needed to accommodate Matthew's needs in this transition process.

Although it was clear that Trina M. was making strides in her recovery from substance abuse, she was resistant to individual therapy.   As early as September 11, 2008, when the preliminary specific steps were ordered by the court (Esposito, J.), Trina M. was required to participate in individual therapy.   That expectation was reaffirmed on January 6, 2009 when the court (Esposito, J.) ordered the final specific steps in the case.   DCF had recommended individual therapy due to Trina M's history of trauma and substance abuse, including her own adoptive parents' substance abuse and her deceased husband's own substance abuse history and subsequent suicide.   Following her discharge in May 2009 from Clayton House, where she was receiving substance abuse treatment, Trina M. told DCF that she was receiving individual therapy at a program called Good Works.   Despite their efforts, DCF was unable to get a signed release from Trina M.'s attorney until October 2009 to confirm this information.   Only then did DCF learn that Trina M. was not receiving individual therapy but only participating in workshops to help her with child-rearing, managing a home and finances.   DCF made clear to Trina M. that she needed clinical therapy and asked her to contact her insurance provider for a list of individual therapists.   As of November 16, 2009, following a contested permanency plan hearing, Trina M. was ordered by the court (Rubinow, J.) to participate in individual therapy as was previously required in the specific steps of January 2009.   By December 2009, DCF provided Trina M. with contact information for the Institute of Living as well as St. Francis Behavioral Health.   Both providers refused her, however, because Trina M. made clear to them that she did not need therapy.   On January 28, 2010, she attended an intake appointment at Inter Community Mental Health where she minimized her issues and history and was placed in group therapy instead of individual therapy.   Eventually, on March 4, 2010, she began attending weekly individual therapy sessions with Dr. Karen Gresham.   According to Dr. James Connolly, who conducted a court-ordered psychological evaluation, Trina M. finally began to address her significant history of trauma, including that she was sexually abused for many years by her older adoptive brother.

Pursuant to Dr. Magin's recommendations, DCF secured the services of Dr. Ilene Grueneberg.   Dr. Grueneberg's experience and credentials include 25 years of working with attachment and trauma issues in children, and given the testimony of other experts who were before this court, she is highly regarded in the field.   Over a period of one year, Dr. Grueneberg met with Trina M. forty times and met with Matthew ten to fifteen times.   During the course of her work with Trina M. and Matthew, she also reviewed information received from Dr. Ann Milanese of the Connecticut Children's Medical Center, and evaluations by Capitol Region Education Council (CREC)/Birth to Three Services, Dr. Barbara Bunk and Dr. Connolly as well as DCF narratives.

Dr. Grueneberg provided credible and compelling testimony of her work with Trina M. and Matthew.   She also wrote reports dated January 11, 2010 and December 2, 2010, offering her opinion of Matthew's significant specialized needs and Trina M.'s inability to meet them, notwithstanding the intensive work Dr. Grueneberg had done with her.

In describing Matthew's specialized needs, Dr. Grueneberg reported that by December 2010, Matthew was a “bright and charming youngster with an extraordinary memory.   He can be very engaging and aware of various aspects of his physical environment.   With the intensive interventions that have been offered by Birth to Three and the daily efforts of the foster parents, Matthew has exhibited some notable gains over the past five months.   He is beginning to use language spontaneously, he recognizes and names letters, colors, shapes, animals, he is beginning to generate imaginative play and he has exhibited some increase in sustained eye contact and social engagement.   Despite these gains, Matthew continues to clearly exhibit characteristics of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) and Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD).  They exhibit most significantly in his language delay, difficulty self regulating emotion, and struggle to maintain social and emotional connectedness.   He also demonstrates very limited capacity to handle stress, a use of repetitive self soothing behaviors and rigidity in his approach.   He has a high need for structure, predictability and resilience in his caretakers.”   Dr. Grueneberg observed that Matthew does not do well with transitions and changes and that his capacity for deep emotional connections is limited.   On one hand, he wants to be connected to others but at the same time, it makes him anxious and ambivalent.   When he is overstimulated, he shuts down and so caregivers need to be flexible and able to accommodate this.

Regarding Trina M., Dr. Grueneberg articulated a number of strengths, including her intelligence, her persistence and determination, her investment in her recovery and her love for her son.   Dr. Grueneberg noted that Trina M. tried very hard to work with Dr. Grueneberg in the sessions.   Nevertheless, Dr. Grueneberg strongly recommended that Matthew be allowed to have a permanent home and remain in the care of his current foster parents.   In summarizing her concerns, Dr. Grueneberg observed that “Trina is fairly rigid, becomes easily impatient, is not consistently tuned in to Matthew's physical/emotional/social needs, does not seem to know how to go with his flow, does not spontaneously guide him in play, is too needy for him to focus on her or see things from her perspective, needs to be more important to him than she is, and then over responds to his responses (or lack of responses) to her.”

Trina M.'s limitations and Matthew's specialized needs resulted in a persistent cycle of miscues and missteps during Dr. Grueneberg's sessions.   For example, Trina M. would give Matthew more physical connection than he could tolerate and as a result, he would feel crowded and ambivalent.   In so doing, she would allow her needs to supersede Matthew's needs.   In other words, her need to be close would be more important than his need to be distant.   Because he had limited language ability, he would become emotionally flooded and overwhelmed.   The only way he can tolerate these feelings is to shut down and disconnect.   Although she attempted to help Trina M. better read Matthew's cues, Dr. Grueneberg testified that Matthew was not subtle about his needs.   In each of her forty sessions with Trina M., Dr. Grueneberg helped the mother by coaching her during the sessions themselves and/or by processing what happened after each visit as well.   Nevertheless, Trina M. continued to have difficulties.   Complicating this was Trina M.'s own minimization of his needs;  she made clear that she thought that DCF and other providers were overstating his difficulties.   Given her intensive work with Trina M., Dr. Grueneberg was not convinced that longer visits or more visits would have improved Trina M.'s parenting ability.

Trina M.'s failure to understand and accept Matthew's specialized needs, specifically the emotional sensitivity and reactivity that are inherent in his diagnoses, is a significant impediment to reunification.   According to Dr. Grueneberg, Matthew does not have the resilience to adapt when people do not understand him or are not attuned to his needs.   For children, attunement is a primary requirement for creating positive attachments;  it helps children feel safe and secure.   Children whose parents are not attuned to their needs become more anxious and insecure.   Given his diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder, Matthew's experience of anxiety and insecurity is almost debilitating.   He reacts by becoming angry or upset or by shutting down and tuning out.   When he disconnects and shuts down, he gets “spacey,” will not make eye contact, fails to respond to others and is “off in his own world.”   When he is stressed and anxious, Matthew wants connection with his foster parents but also pushes them away.   He sleeps with more difficulty and eats erratically.   According to Dr. Grueneberg, Matthew acts like a child who is stressed and confused and cannot make sense of what he needs.   He can have long periods of time where he is sitting in a closet, crying, or yelling or shutting down and disconnected.   In this state, he is unable to accept love and support nor is he able to learn and take in his environment.   For every day that he must endure these experiences, he requires another day to recover.   With his emotional functioning so compromised and his attachments strained, it is difficult for Matthew to progress and develop appropriately.

Dr. Grueneberg testified that Trina M.'s rigidity is also problematic for parenting Matthew because Matthew himself is very rigid.   Because he shuts down when stressed, a caregiver needs to be prepared to be flexible in both one's method as well as in one's emotional state.   Otherwise, Matthew could easily deteriorate.   Only with flexibility and spontaneity can a caregiver utilize all the information he or she has about Matthew in order to respond appropriately and effectively to his behaviors.   In addition, a caregiver must be able to manage her own stress and stay stable, because Matthew himself gets stressed easily, quickly and unexpectedly.   A caregiver cannot take personally Matthew's negative behaviors.   Dr Grueneberg emphasized that a caregiver must understand his diagnoses of RAD and PDD and how his limitations in language and social cueing make it difficult for him.   A competent caregiver needs to understand what Matthew understands and does not understand.   To do all of this, a caregiver requires significant internal and external resources, because caring for children with Matthew's needs is extremely stressful and requires a lot of energy.

Dr. Grueneberg testified that Trina M. does not have the internal resources to parent Matthew nor does she have the external resources.   She has not observed in Trina M. either the flexibility or resilience to parent Matthew.   Although she acknowledged that Trina M. was doing some work in individual therapy that ideally would help Trina M. regarding these issues, Dr. Grueneberg concluded that she did not see a lot of change in Trina M. Given how demanding Matthew's needs are and given Trina M.'s lack of internal and external resources to parent him, as well as her lack of critical skills, Dr. Grueneberg found the prospect of Trina M. caring for Matthew very troubling.   In describing her concerns, Dr. Grueneberg used the words “scary” and “frightening.”   She explained that Matthew is a very challenging child.   The amount of effort and energy required is far greater than the rewards one might expect.   The stress and frustration inherent in parenting a child like Matthew would be challenging for any parent, but especially for a single parent and in particular, for Trina M. whose hard-fought sobriety of two years follows many years of severe addiction.   While she acknowledged and commended Trina M.'s success in maintaining her sobriety and stability in her own life, Dr. Grueneberg found that Trina M.'s persistent pre-occupation with her own needs and her need to be validated as a parent undermines her ability to focus on and be attuned to Matthew.   This combined with Trina M.'s inability to understand or accept Matthew's needs, to interpret his behaviors accurately and to act accordingly, presents a highly risky situation for both mother and child.

In addition and even more significant to Dr. Grueneberg, Matthew will inevitably regress simply by virtue of losing his primary attachment to his foster parents in combination with the loss of everything in his current environment which keeps him stable.   Given Dr. Grueneberg's prognosis, Trina M. is in no way prepared to address the consequences of and compensate for what would be a devastating loss to Matthew if he was removed from his current home.

This court heard from numerous other experts and evaluators regarding Matthew and Trina M. The evidence from them supports Dr. Grueneberg's conclusion that the mismatch between Trina M.'s abilities and limitations and Matthew's needs would compromise his development.   Dr. Barbara Bunk conducted an evaluation of Matthew where she visited him in his foster home for over a period of seven weeks.   Generally, she saw him on Wednesday evenings after his visits with Trina M. but saw him on a couple of occasions when there was no visit or on a Thursday.   She concluded that maternal visits were emotionally stressful for Matthew and that he was less stressed and troubled when he did not have visits with his mother.

As described by Dr. Bunk and others working with him, Matthew's experience of stress goes beyond that which is experienced by a child who is simply upset.   Matthew's coping skills in response to stress reflect what Dr. Bunk called a “disordered attachment.”   Intended to minimize his emotional confusion and his experience of being overwhelmed, his behaviors include minimal eye contact, repetitive verbalizations or actions, and rigid body tension, all in an attempt to gain control when under stress.   In one observation designed to elicit his coping strategies, Matthew responded to his foster mother's brief disappearance by quietly noticing her return, then suddenly and intermittently yelling and crying, then becoming quiet again.   He evidently needed consolation from the foster mother but then refused to accept her comfort.   He cried and pushed her away, then climbed on her lap but held his body rigid, resisting her affection.

Dr. Bunk explained that the most important skill a person must learn in life is how to get what they need from their primary relationships.   For infants to develop a sense of security, they must have experiences which help them learn that their needs will be met.   If that happens consistently enough over time and through the stages of a child's development, then a child can eventually establish his or her own sense of self.   Where a secure attachment takes place, it lays an important foundation for a child to feel secure, capable and competent in another relationship.   Conversely, when there is separation, abuse or neglect and those early attachments are disrupted and/or disordered, then a child is left to his or her own devices to find security in relationships or in himself.   If a child cannot depend on others to take care of his needs within those relationships, then his attachments become fraught with distress.   Matthew's rigidity, his inability to accept physical comfort while he is distressed, even though he clearly wants to be comforted, is an example of the degree to which his attachment is disordered and insecure.

In Dr. Bunk's opinion, these reactions, along with neuropsychological vulnerabilities from prenatal and early infancy exposure to substance abuse and neglect, are a primary source of his developmental delays.   She testified that a parent's substance abuse while a fetus is in utero as well as during early infancy affect the actual brain structures and make vulnerable a young child's ability to handle emotions.   Extreme stress, as might be experienced by an infant who is not being fed when it needs to be fed, or changed when it needs to be changed, or comforted or held when it needs to be comforted, manifests in the most primitive emotional reaction, i.e. the “fight or flight” response.   According to Dr. Bunk, the “fight or flight” response also has an intense neurophysiological effect on an infant, and floods the child's brain with intense reactions.   When a caregiver fails to consistently respond to the cries of an infant, who has no other means of communicating his needs, that infant learns to shut down in response or act out very intensely.

When Matthew feels stress, he does not know how to get his stress relieved from the adults around him, which Dr. Bunk concluded was his adaptation to not having his needs met early in life and having to handle it on his own.   Those behaviors, which include this recurrent cycle of holding in his emotions and then bursting into tears, then holding it all in again, reflect how he cannot resolve his feelings on his own nor does he know how to or trust whether to accept support from caregivers.   Although he has been making some progress, Dr. Bunk is only cautiously optimistic that he can develop healthy coping strategies for dealing with stress and in particular, learning to bond in a healthy way.   Dr. Bunk warned that early learning styles tend to be intensely ingrained in a person's psyche and it is likely that his isolative style will be his default approach to new relationships over the different stages of his development.   With an environment that is stable and clearly structured, and caregivers who tend to his emotional and physical wellbeing, Dr. Bunk is hopeful that he will find better ways to cope with the anxiety that comes with attachments.   While Dr. Bunk agreed that it would be important for a parent to acquire the knowledge and skill to parent Matthew, his most basic need before he can even make use of parenting skills is to develop a sense of security in his primary relationships.

Like Dr. Grueneberg, Dr. Bunk also reiterated the importance of a caregiver to be attuned to Matthew's needs because the kind of security it provides allows a child to explore his world and learn from it.   A child who is not secure who, like Matthew, spends an inordinate amount of time shutting out the world when under stress, is therefore not open to taking the risks and encountering the stress that normal growth and development requires.   In light of these concerns and given his attachment issues and the extreme conflict and stress he experiences from maternal visits, Dr. Bunk strongly recommended that Matthew remain in the permanent care of his foster parents.

As Medical Director of Education and Rehabilitation Services and Division Chief of the Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Dr. Ann Milanese offered a similar assessment of Matthew and his need for permanency.   Although on August 4, 2010, Matthew was still diagnosed with autism, rather than Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), as well as Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), Dr. Milanese and the various experts before the court made clear that his eventual diagnosis of PDD is a condition on the spectrum of autism.   In her opinion, the “negative stress imposed by visits with his biological mother is not justified and does not represent his best interests.   He not only struggles with the immediate experience of separation from his foster mother for the visit, but the negative behavioral consequences are described to destabilize his relationships and progress for days following the visits.   He has an increase in perseveration, significant sleep disturbance, persistent screeching and repetitive humping.   This makes him emotionally and cognitively unavailable for the intervention that is so critical for building his capacity to interact and communicate.”   Citing her 25 plus years of experience with children with RAD and autism, she reported that such children are “extremely intolerant of separation related stress.   They have little means to understand it or cope with it.”

Trina M.'s participation in Birth to Three sessions also ended for the same reasons that Dr. Bunk and Dr. Milanese were recommending that reunification efforts with Trina M. cease.   The joint sessions offered from August 2009 through March 2010 with the foster mother, Trina M. and Matthew did not go well.   The Birth to Three providers reported that they were unable to work effectively with Matthew when Trina M. was in the sessions because he had a hard time leaving the foster mother's lap.   When they ended joint sessions with Trina M. in March 2010, Matthew began to make a great deal of progress;  he did not cling as much to the foster mother and started working on eye contact and play skills.   He has made significant progress as well with his language development and is beginning to express his emotions appropriately and accept emotions from others.   While Matthew had only 10 words in June 2010, by the time of trial, he had acquired a vocabulary of 500–1000 words.

Dr. Connolly also testified regarding the court-ordered psychological evaluation he performed in this case.   He reviewed numerous written materials and was allowed to consult with various providers and consultants in the case who had worked with Trina M. and Matthew.   Following his clinical interview and psychological testing of Trina M., Dr. Connolly also definitively concluded that she could not parent Matthew.   Although he acknowledged that Trina M. had made impressive progress with respect to her personal recovery from substance abuse addiction, he found that she had an extremely traumatic background.   In order to endure these series of traumas, Trina M. evidently developed defense mechanisms and ways of coping which include shifting from dependent to counter-dependent behaviors.   An example of her counter-dependent behaviors is reflected in how long it took for her to engage in psycho-therapy.   Given her rigidity and this cycle of dependent behaviors, Dr. Connolly believed that Trina M. had a limited ability to work effectively with others on the kind of complicated treatment program Matthew requires.   Dr. Connolly testified that the level of stress involved in taking care of a child with Matthew's specialized needs would be too much for Trina M., whose need to maintain her own recovery was challenging enough.   Although he could not predict that Trina M. would in fact neglect Matthew or relapse, Dr. Connolly felt strongly that reunification was too risky and not in Matthew's best interest.

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 that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunify Matthew with Trina M. In fact, this court notes that appropriate services were provided to Trina M. both as a result of her involvement with DCF and this court, as well as following her criminal court involvement.   With respect to her severe substance abuse issues, it is clear that services were appropriate and that Trina M. was able to benefit from them as a result.   DCF, however, also made significant efforts to encourage Trina M. to engage in individual therapy which, given her history of trauma, was critical.   Trina's resistance to this service until March 2010 amounted to precious time lost in this aspect of her rehabilitation.   The court also notes in support of this finding that DCF also provided financial assistance for Karen Gresham, when Trina M.'s insurance did not cover this provider.   DCF required only that Trina M. make co-payments which, unfortunately, she is failing to do.

DCF also secured psychological evaluations to assess and assist in crafting a reunification program and then secured the services of Dr. Grueneberg, Dr. Bunk and Birth to Three to assess Matthew's needs and to determine what was Trina M.'s capacity to meet his needs.   In particular, Dr. Grueneberg's work with Trina M. was the highest quality intervention possible to reunify Matthew with Trina M., given Dr. Grueneberg's expertise and approach in working with the family.   This court finds that Dr. Grueneberg's work with Trina M. and Matthew was sensitive, fair, and targeted to meet the needs of both Matthew and Trina M. Given these services, this court finds that the petitioner has met his burden that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify him with Trina M.

B. FAILURE TO REHABILITATE as to Trina M.

“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).

Trina M.'s efforts in her recovery and her participation in reunification services with her son clearly demonstrate her strong desire to win Matthew back and at some level, reflect her love for him.   Her recovery and the strength required for her to have made the gains she has achieved are remarkable and should be commended.   Unfortunately, her love for Matthew is circumscribed by her own needs.   Dr. Grueneberg offered compelling evidence of her concern that in her year of working with the family, Trina M. was frequently preoccupied with her own needs and as a result, consistently failed to understand and respond to Matthew's needs.   She tended to ignore or miss his cues because of her own need for acceptance, reassurance, validation or attention.

In the context of Matthew's specialized needs, whose growth and development is compromised when a caregiver fails to understand him, Trina M.'s failings are not simply character flaws.   Her pre-occupation with herself and her own needs makes her unable to meet Matthew's needs.   Matthew is a very sensitive child, who gets easily anxious, overwhelmed and confused.   The visits he has had with Trina M. have resulted in well-documented stress and anxiety for Matthew, whose reaction to stress includes either severely acting out or shutting down.   The experts in this case consistently opined that Matthew's coping strategies are maladaptive and have either contributed to his developmental delays and/or the degree to which his learning and developmental progress is impaired.

Dr. Grueneberg noted in her December 2, 2010 report that “Trina wants Matthew home with her, period.   She believes this is best because ‘he is my son, I will never stop fighting for him.’   She refuses to hear that this may not be best for HIM.” This court finds deeply troubling that Trina M. has failed to understand that her need to parent Matthew is not the same as providing Matthew with the kind of parent he needs.   Matthew is not a child to be won, nor a possession to be had.   As many of the experts before this court have observed, Trina M. is a strong, tenacious person who has required these qualities to survive her trauma and then to recover from her substance abuse.   Unfortunately, these qualities do not serve her well in her desire to reunify with Matthew and in fact, are impeding her ability to see that her needs are not his needs.   She has difficulty understanding Matthew outside of the prism of her own needs and issues.

While all children need permanent and secure homes, whether that be in the care of their biological parents or in adoptive homes, Matthew's need for permanency is even more acute.   As Dr. Bunk testified, when a caregiver can “consistently enough” meet his child's needs, that child feels security and the experience that his world is safe.   Only in a secure environment can a child feel safe enough to explore, grow and learn.   Conversely, when a child spends an inordinate amount of time not getting his basic needs met, he experiences stress and in extreme cases, can shut down and learn not to trust the very people upon whom his survival depends.   This “disordered attachment” impedes healthy growth and development and results in a child who is extremely difficult to care for and even difficult to love.   As Dr. Grueneberg indicated, the amount of effort required to care for such a child as Matthew is likely to be disproportionately greater than the rewards one might seek.   Loving and caring for Matthew means that a caregiver must completely understand and be willing to accept that reciprocity of his affections may not be immediate and in fact deferred.   Understanding Matthew's needs means accepting the fact that Matthew's rigidity and inability to accept comfort is a function of his disorders.   It means understanding that his needs are complex and require an extraordinary amount of patience, flexibility and an ability to work with providers.   Trina M. has repeatedly demonstrated that she does not have these qualities and notwithstanding intensive efforts to work with her, it is clear that she cannot acquire these abilities within a reasonable degree of time.   This court concludes that the relationship between Trina M. and Matthew, while having some positive aspects, is ultimately detrimental over the long term, especially when viewed in the context of Matthew's 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).

IV. DISPOSITION

The court concludes that it is in the best interests of Matthew to terminate the parental rights of Trina M. and Scott 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.   In addition, this court finds that Matthew is in a loving, committed pre-adoptive home and has made significant progress developmentally while in the nurturing care of his foster parents.

This court observes that Trina M.'s desire to have Matthew M. returned to her care with no real appreciation for the devastating impact it would have on him and the fragility of his emotional state is apparent in the last visit she had before this court granted the petitioner's motion to end visitation.   This court found credible the evidence before it which indicated that Trina M. whispered something to Matthew, who then said aloud, “your home?”   This court infers that Trina M. improperly suggested to Matthew that he might be going home with her.   How Trina M. failed to anticipate the kind of tailspin this wreaked on Matthew further underscores her failure to understand how fragile and sensitive her son is.   Numerous evaluations, testimony she heard in this court and one-on-one sessions with a highly qualified clinical psychologist, have made little difference in her ability to understand Matthew's needs and act appropriately.

Notwithstanding the above example of Trina M.'s gross misjudgment, the court appreciates that both birth mother and foster mother have tried to acknowledge and honor the roles that each play in Matthew's life.   They have done as well as is humanly possible, sharing journals back and forth regarding Matthew, and receiving candid feedback from the service providers as to how they must work together in Matthew's best interest.   The challenge for the foster mother has been to be physically and emotionally present for and committed to Matthew on a 24–hour basis;  this can involve comforting Matthew in a small closet for hours because he insists on being in small spaces when he is stressed and upset.   At times and to some degree, Trina M. has understood that the foster mother has had to be there for Matthew in ways which Trina M. cannot.   To her credit, she has expressed her gratitude for the foster mother's role in Matthew's life.   It is neither realistic nor fair to expect, one hundred percent of the time, that either Trina M. or the foster mother perfectly walk that balance of loving and caring for Matthew, respecting his need for and relationship with the other parent, all within the parameters of their legally defined rights, roles and/or responsibilities.   They have both tried with varying degrees of success to do so, but this has caused inevitable stress and tension not only for both parents but, the experts believe, for Matthew as well.   It underscores why permanency, and the need to end ambiguity for Matthew as to with whom he may bond, is critical not only for all children, but especially for Matthew.

As this court has found, Matthew continues to require highly specialized care in order to address his diagnoses of Reactive Attachment Disorder and Pervasive Developmental Disorder.   So long as he can be maintained in the patient, responsive and loving care of his current foster parents, whose commitment to him has been impressive given the challenges he presents, Dr. Bunk testified that she was “cautiously optimistic” about Matthew's future.

It is clear that Matthew's prospects are not without risk even with the best of services and with caregivers highly attuned to his needs.   As manifest in his diagnoses, Matthew has been struggling in his first years of life with the legacy of his mother's substance abuse and severe neglect and is likely to continue to struggle with its impact for years to come.   Reunification services, while necessary, have come at a cost;  because of the confusion and stress that maternal visits have caused, he copes by shutting down or acting out and unable to trust that his caregivers can meet his needs.   Maternal visits are by no means the only source of his stress, but it has been a significant source.   It is no longer justified for purposes of reunification after one year of Trina M. demonstrating no improved ability to care for Matthew's specialized needs.   As the experts in this case have repeatedly testified, Matthew's maladaptive coping strategies have “prevented him from learning and progressing on a typical developmental path.”   Dr. Grueneberg warned as early as January 2010 that Matthew's reaction to change, stress and disruptions in his routine has not only short-term effects but long-term impact as well.   Her concerns included a “settling in” of his issues which could “cause permanent deficits in behavioral, cognitive, language, intrapersonal and interpersonal domains.”   Matthew has desperately needed to feel secure in his most basic and fundamental need, which is to be allowed to attach to a primary attachment figure;  in this case, his foster mother.   The time to remove the legal impediment to his need for security is long past due.

In arriving at these conclusions, the court also considers the seven factors outlined in General Statutes § 17a–112(k) as to Trina M:

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.

The court reiterates the above findings it has made with respect to reasonable efforts and concludes that services offered Trina M. were timely, highly appropriate and targeted to the needs of both the mother and child.

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 Matthew with Trina M. pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980.

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 that specific steps were ordered in this case from the outset.   Appropriate services were offered by DCF and Trina M. followed through with most of them, especially substance abuse treatment and visitation.   Notably, she did not follow through with individual therapy until a year and half after the original steps required and notwithstanding persistent efforts by DCF and a court order requiring her to attend individual therapy.

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

Matthew has a relationship with his mother but his primary attachment and bond is with his foster parents and especially his foster mother.

5. Finding regarding the age of the child

Matthew was born November 2, 2007 and is over three 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

Trina M. has been consistent with her visitation and with the exception of significantly delayed follow through with individual therapy, has made extraordinary efforts to adjust her circumstances.   She has had remarkable success with her recovery from substance abuse and has enjoyed stability and employment and an important network of support for her recovery.   Unfortunately, she has not been able to benefit from intensive services specifically tailored to help her meet Matthew's needs.

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.

Trina M. has not 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 Matthew pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that the parental rights of Trina M. and Scott R. are hereby terminated.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Trina M. and Scott R. are hereby TERMINATED as to their child, Matthew.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed statutory parent for the child.   The agency is directed to facilitate the adoption of the child as expeditiously as possible.   The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Middletown 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.

Elgo, Nina F., J.