IN RE: Breanna B.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Re Termination of Parental Rights

On August 23, 2010, Olivia B., then less than eleven weeks old, was brought to the Connecticut Children's Medical Center (CCMC).  The child was submitted to a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan which revealed a skull fracture, a subdural hemotoma, diffused bilateral retinal hemorrhages, fractured chin, several bruises in various stages of healing and 14 healing rib fractures.   The parent's explanation of the mechanisms of injuries was unsatisfactory to the attending physician.   The Department of Children and Families (DCF) was notified.   The police were notified.

On September 22, 2010, the commissioner filed a neglect petition and petitions to terminate the parental rights of Rebecca W. and Jeremiah B., the unmarried biological parents of Olivia and her older sister, two-year-old, Breanna.   The mother and father have appeared and are represented by counsel.   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children.   This court has jurisdiction.

The father Jeremiah appeared with counsel on the first day assigned for trial.   He is presently incarcerated, awaiting trial on risk of injury and other charges.   He consented to the termination of his parental rights in open court.   This court has found that the father voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of his rights, having received the advice and assistance of legal counsel and having understood the consequences of his actions.   After weighing the possibilities of future support for these children against the risk of danger posed by this man as will be further explored, his consent is accepted by this court.   The petition has been amended to allege as the sole ground for termination of the father his consent to the termination.   No findings are necessary to be made pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a–112(k) due to his consent.

FACTS:

Most of the adjudicatory facts are not in dispute.   There have been some representations made by the mother that have been made and been recanted.   The father of the children has made no statements to DCF or to the police that are known to the court.   But with the exception of the exact mechanisms of the injury to Olivia, and the nature and extent of prior injuries, there is no doubt that these children were permitted to live under circumstances, conditions and associations that were severely physically and emotionally injurious to their well being.   In describing these conditions it is useful to begin with the mother, her circumstances and history.

Rebecca:

Rebecca is twenty-five years old.   While her parents divorced when she was four, her childhood is otherwise unremarkable for significant dysfunction.   She reports a good relationship with her siblings, half-siblings and parents.   She attended and graduated from high school.   She attended a college level training program to become a certified nurses assistant (CNA).   In 2004 she received a certificate.   She has worked as a CNA for a year but the majority of her working has been at a packaging plant where she works nontraditional hours from 5 AM until 3 PM. She has worked at this same company for four years.   She has been consistently employed since completion of her formal education.

Rebecca was previously involved with another man for three to four years.   She was 17 and he was 20 when they began their relationship.   Rebecca became pregnant and delivered a daughter, Mallory.   The couple stayed together according to Rebecca because of the child although she was not sexually attracted to the child's father.   They remained good friends and separated.   The daughter lives with the father and visits Rebecca on week-ends.   There is no reported discussion of the reasons for this arrangement.

Rebecca told the psychologist, Dr. Neems (Exhibit D), that she met Jeremiah when they were each sixteen but did not start dating him until she was eighteen, in May 2008.   She was immediately “smitten” by him.   While Jeremiah may be a man of anger and rage, while in court he was also demonstrably filled with masculine pride.

Rebecca knew something of Jeremiah's background.   She knew that Jeremiah's father was imprisoned for murdering his girlfriend while under the influence of coke.   She knew that he had older brothers who were at once violent toward him and they were his father figures.   She knew that at seventeen, Jeremiah had a criminal history.   She knew he was involved with another woman named Amanda.   She knew Jeremiah had a larceny and domestic violence charge while with Amanda.   She knew he had serious problems of anger management.   And she knew that Amanda told her that Jeremiah had fractured the leg of her child and would likely injure her children.   Rebecca did not like Amanda and chose not to believe her.

In her testimony, Rebecca said at the time “․ we were being harassed by her.   There was no criminal action.   I didn't really have much to do, he denied everything.”   She said she told Amanda, if she did have a tape with him admitting that he did it, she should go to the police.

Jeremiah told DCF that he had learning problems in school, he suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder.   While in special education classes he was classified as socially and emotionally disturbed.   He was expelled from school in the sixth grade, sent to Manchester Memorial Hospital school for 2 years and ultimately completed high school at the Institute for Living school.   He admits to using marijuana a couple of times per week and he also smokes cigarettes.

Nonetheless, within a few months of Rebecca and Jeremiah starting a relationship in May 2008, Rebecca became pregnant.   She delivered Breanna on April 4, 2009, eleven months after she started seeing Jeremiah.   Within five months more, she was pregnant again.   She had Olivia on June 6, 2010.   Rebecca was firmly locked into this relationship.

Rebecca, who has been steadily employed, took a leave from her job for two months to stay at home with the infant children following Olivia's birth.   Jeremiah, who worked seasonally in a landscaping business was on reduced hours due to a theft he had committed while at work.   On or about August 4th, 2010, Rebecca had to return to work.   She would awaken at 3 AM, prepare for work, set out the infants' supplies, and leave to arrive at work at 5 AM. Jeremiah's mother and brother lived next door and could be an available resource to him.   Jeremiah's mother has a DCF history of neglect.

Jeremiah, who was under-employed, was left to care for the two infants.   Rebecca had seen glimpses of Jeremiah's anger and temper before.   They had two or three serious episodes of near violence in their relationship plus a lot of yelling episodes.   The police were summoned once, but the two avoided criminal convictions by attending couples counseling.   Jeremiah was plainly an inappropriate caretaker of two demanding infant children.   Rebecca was concerned and called or texted the house after arriving at work to see if everything was all right.   The family needed her paycheck to survive.   There was no one else who would care for two children at five o'clock in the morning.   She could not see any alternatives, so she just did what she could do.   She went to work.

Dr. Neems, the psychologist, summed up Rebecca's situation as follows:

She also stayed because she was already stressed by working so many hours while taking care of two children and she didn't know how she would make it without him.   She stated because she was afraid of his anger if she left and because she did not want her children to be without a father.   After a number of blow ups, the relationship had fallen into a state where there wasn't much communication.  [Rebecca] just continued ahead with her life, going to work and coming home to take care of the children.

Two weeks prior to August 23rd, Rebecca had observed what appeared to be small bruises on 9–week–old Olivia.   She took pictures and sent them via phone to Jeremiah and her girlfriend.   Her girlfriend said she should have the child seen by a doctor.   Rebecca later told Dr. Humphrey that Jeremiah and his mother objected to her going to the hospital, predicting that DCF would remove the child.   She lamented, “I should have taken her.”   She also said she was afraid of his escalating temper.   Rebecca did not report it nor did she protect her child.

On August 23, 2010, mother awoke and as usual fed Olivia and put her back to bed.   She went to work.   Jeremiah told the police that Olivia woke at 6:30 am, he gave her a pacifier and she returned to sleep until 7:30 am when she woke up screaming.   He says he tried to console her, to feed her, nothing worked.   Jeremiah said that Olivia was pale, cool and she would not open her eyes.   He said she was curled up and he described her as “frozen, like she was scared stiff.”   He tried calling Rebecca.   He left a message.   He says she did not call back until her 9:00 am work break.

Rebecca did not check her messages until her work break at about 9:00 am.   She said there was a message the father left at 5:30 am saying he was upset, couldn't find diapers and Olivia was crying in the background.   When she got the message and called home at 9:00 am Jeremiah said Olivia had been crying for 4 hours and she was incoherent.   Rebecca told Dr. Humphrey that what Jeremiah actually said “She won't keep the f ․ ing binky in her mouth.   I'm tired.   I am not dealing with this sh ․ t.” Rebecca immediately returned home.   Completely out of character, Jeremiah said to Rebecca “I'm sorry” when he saw her.   Rebecca immediately arranged to take the child to the hospital.   Jeremiah's mother and brother told her not to go to the hospital!

At the hospital the case was immediately treated as a child abuse case.   At all times since the initial involvement by DCF and the police, Jeremiah has been viewed as the assailant and Rebecca has been viewed as the non-offending parent.   DCF immediately and decisively acted to terminate the parental rights of both parents.   The child was immediately placed in an at-risk, pre-adoptive foster home.   The children have been superbly cared for by the foster parents.   As of this time the children have been in the foster home for seven months.   The children are now aged two and ten months.   Jeremiah is presently incarcerated and is now facing criminal charges in conjunction with the earlier child abuse case and the recent case of the child abuse of Olivia.

All professionals involved including the department of children and families, the psychologists and all counsel recognize that time is a critical factor in this case.   Our case law recognizes that time is critically important for children.   Our Supreme Court has long recognized the deleterious effect of prolonged temporary care of abused and neglected children.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).   The Appellate Court has also noted, “[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence ․” In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 930 (1992), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1994).   The foster parents are bonding with the children.   The children are bonding with the foster parents.   Rebecca, their mother, is regularly and consistently seeing the children as often as permitted.   Clearly Breanna is closely bonded with her mother.   The court is aware that children can be bonded to more than one parent or person.   In a sense, it is hard to imagine too many people loving a child.   But these children need a resolution.   Rebecca needs a resolution and in fairness, the foster parents need a resolution.

ADJUDICATION

Neglect:

General Statute § 46b–129a(4) provides in relevant part that in proceedings alleging neglect, evidence that the child has been abused or has sustained a non-accidental injury shall constitute prima facie evidence that shall be sufficient to support an adjudication that such child is uncared for or neglected.   The testimony of the social workers and the psychologists, taken together with the affidavits, social studies, as well as the other letters and documents admitted into evidence support a finding that both the children have been neglected in that the children were permitted to live under circumstances, conditions or associations injurious to their well-being.

Grounds for termination of parental rights:

In accordance with General Statute § 17a–112(j)(3)(C) the petition alleges that on or about August 23, 2010, Olivia and Brianna were denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission, the care, guidance or control necessary for the children's physical, educational, moral or emotional well being.   The specific acts being severe physical injuries of a non-accidental nature, not adequately explained resulting in life threatening injuries and permanent neurological impairment to one of the children, Olivia.

The petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence as of the date of the petition that this ground exists as to the mother Rebecca W., in that she failed to protect the children.

DISPOSITION

As to the dispositional phase of this hearing on the petition for termination of parental rights, the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events up to and including the date upon which the evidence in this matter was completed (April 5, 2011).   During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the children.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689 (1999).

The record reflects that on August 27, 2010, the court (Simon, J.) issued Specific Steps for Rebecca to do in order to be reunified with her children.   In the past seven months, Rebecca has done everything required by DCF. As this court has stated on several occasions, compliance with the Specific Steps by attending the various services is necessary, but it is not enough.   The crucial component is not attendance alone, but real improvement in parental capacity.

A March 28, 2011 Addendum to the Social Study reports the following compliance with the court ordered Specific Steps:

Mother continues to attend therapy with Robert Sehi at ECHN behavioral health.   Mr. Sehi's reported that the primary treatment goals are discussing methods to manage stress and emotions related to the pending TPR petition and criminal involvement.   Mr. Sehi reports that Mother's attendance and participation are consistent.

Nancy Phelps, parent educator at New Directions provided the Department with a discharge summary.   The summary indicated that Mother completed a 12–week parenting class and successfully completed the curriculum.   Mother also attended additional classes but the service provider would not be tracking further progress since she completed the program.

Kim Grant–Lessard, substance abuse treatment worker at New Directions provided the Department with a discharge summary that Mother completed the relapse prevention group and tested negative for all substances on 11/3/10, 11/23/10, and 12/7/10.   The program had no additional treatment recommendations.

On 12/15/10, Judge Teller ordered increased visitation between Mother and the children.   The children were visiting 2 hours per week on Fridays.   The Department increased visitation and Mother receives two hours of visitation on Tuesdays and two hours on Fridays.   Mother has attended all visits, on time and has been prepared to engage her children with toys, books and snacks.

Mother has been engaged with family relations counselor, Jean Goslin as a result of her criminal charges.   Ms. Goslin reported that Mother was cooperating with recommended services and the state's attorney.   Mother returns to court for her criminal matters on 4/6/11.

Rosana from the Network Against Domestic Violence provided a letter to the Department stating that Mother had completed an 8–week support group (11/3/10–12/22/10).   The letter indicated that the support group topics include the cycle of violence, types of abuse, risk assessment, safety planning and effects of domestic violence on children.

On 3/10/11, the Department met with Mother at the home of maternal grandfather.   Mother stated that if the court granted reunification, her plan would be to reside with maternal grandfather.   The home was neat, clean and in good condition.   It was a two bedroom mobile home with an open kitchen/living room space.   One bedroom would be for the maternal grandfather and Mother would share a bedroom with Olivia and Breanna.   This worker observed bunk beds and a double bed in place and Mother reported that she would set up a crib if the permanency plan changes to reunification.   Mother stated that she continues to reside with maternal grandmother but that she shares a room with her sister and there is not sufficient space for her and the girls.   Mother reported that maternal grandfather would bring the girls to a licensed daycare in the morning and provide additional family support.

In cross examination the current social worker indicated that Rebecca is very nurturing during her visits with the children.   She exercises good discipline and boundaries for the children.   Brianna runs to her and has a very close bond with her mother.   Rebecca has not cancelled any visits, she brings appropriate food and snacks and appropriate gifts upon occasion.   DCF has no concerns about her parenting skills.   The only concern is can she keep her kids safe?

In order to assess this the court set up a psychological evaluation with Dr. Robert Neems.   Rebecca's lawyer set up a psychological evaluation with Stephen Humphrey, Ph.D. and Rebecca was referred to counseling with Regina P. Wilson, Ph.D. Each has testified in court.   The first thing the court notes is that none of the psychologists identified any significant psycho-pathology in Rebecca.   While they have each discussed her depression and anxiety, it seems likely to be a common response to this situation.   She certainly has embraced therapy to understand and rectify her psycho-social problems.

Dr. Stephen Humphrey was engaged by Rebecca as her own evaluator.   The court has heard his testimony and excerpts the following from his report;

Respondent's Exhibit 1—Dr.   Humphrey

[Rebecca] said her outlook on men has changed.   She said:  I took a class on domestic violence and when me and him first started going out for the first two years ․ Before we lived together ․ I got pregnant with Breanna in July 2008.   We didn't move in together until January 2009 ․ The time we weren't living together it was ․ He started calling me names, we started with these little arguments.

[Rebecca] said she did not take it as seriously as (she) should have.   She said she thought [Jeremiah] loved her but she learned in the domestic violence class that he was “possessive.”   She said she formerly believed the things he said were “nice,” explaining that he would tell her, “I can't live without you ․ My life will just stop if I don't have you.”   She said she never realized until she took the class “how even yelling affected the children.”   She noted, “I should know because even my mother has to yell to get her point across.”   She said her mother is “not a mean person.”

[Rebecca] said she “never realized how much” [Jeremiah]'s behavior “actually affect(ed)” Breanna.   She said, “I never saw (Breanna) act weird toward ( [Jeremiah] ) ․ When we got in fights and he hit me, I did not see my daughter fearing him after.”

[Rebecca] said Mallory saw them fight twice, once observing [Jeremiah] hitting her.   She said on one occasion they were both arrested (in 2009).   She said during the episode [Jeremiah] told Mallory to go back to her room and she (i.e.[Rebecca] ) heard her crying.   She said she was trying to go to a friend's baby shower and [Jeremiah] would not allow her to leave, throwing her keys down the stairs.

I asked [Rebecca] about her earlier comment that she has a “totally different outlook on men.”   She said she does not want to enter a relationship with a man “for a long time” because she has to “figure out” what she wants.   She said she thought when she had children with Mr. B. she would have the “perfect family and perfect life” because they never fought and she never saw him become angry.   She said when she realized she would not have that she always she felt things could “change the next day” and continued to hold out his hope in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Rebecca] said she kept thinking she could change [Jeremiah] but she realized he “needs to change himself and does not want to.”   She said, “I allowed myself to deal with what he did to me and that's why he kept doing it and doing it ․ I need to figure out what I want and who I am.

[Rebecca] said [Jeremiah] would never apologize when he was wrong.   She said he smoked marijuana often although she told him she did not like it.   She said she could not stop him and did not want him to lie to her about his use.   She acknowledged smoking marijuana with [Jeremiah] in August 2010.   She said she last used marijuana the weekend before Olivia was seriously injured.

When asked how [Jeremiah] would harm her physically, [Rebecca] said, “When I was pregnant with Breanna I was walking up the stairs and he pulled me ․ I didn't fall because I was holding the railing.”   She said when Breanna was four or five months old he slapped her across the face while she holding her.

[Rebecca] said both she and Mr. B. were arrested in November 2009.   She said he called her a name and she “went after him.”   She said he tried to prevent her from leaving to attend a friend's baby shower and she told him to leave her alone.   She said he threw her keys down the stairs and hit her in the face four times.   She said she told him then that they should not have another baby because they were constantly fighting.   She was pregnant with Olivia at the time.   She said, “He said, Fine, I'll give you an abortion myself” and he squeezed her stomach.”[Rebecca] talked about some content areas she and Dr. Wilson had discussed, including how by her choices she gave [Jeremiah] permission to abuse her and how she did not get much attention from family members during her childhood.   She said she had requested an additional half-hour per week with Dr. Wilson.   When asked why, she said she “wanted more time to talk,” adding, “Pretty much every time we were going over an hour.”   She talked about other ways [Jeremiah] put her down, noting, “I'm just trying to figure out what made me stay with ․ I figured out some reasons, why I stayed anyways.”

[Rebecca] said she also participated in relapse prevention at New Directions.   She said she submitted drug screens while she was in that program and also took part in a parenting class.   She said at the time of the evaluation she was visiting with her daughters twice a week for two hours per week.   She said she was attending Network Against Domestic Violence classes in Enfield.

I asked [Rebecca] what she expected to change about herself going forward.   She said, “I would not have (my children) around somebody violent.   I would make sure the person I am with is not violent.   I think I have a long ways to go before I get in a relationship or even think of being in a relationship ․ I don't want a guy who's going to call me names, yell, push me around, not talk without yelling.”

[Rebecca] said she knows that part of the reason for her approach to relationships is the fact that her parents were divorced.   She said she did not want her children to grow up without their father.   She said she was planning to attend a codependency group in Westfield, MA, having obtained the number for the group from a telephone information service.   She said she had to do some digging on the Internet but ultimately found it.   She said she was prepared with information about the group when Dr. Wilson asked if she had found anything.

(Dr. Humphrey's contact with Dr. Regina Wilson, Rebecca's therapist.)

I spoke with Dr. Wilson about her therapy with [Rebecca] on 3/17/11.   She said [Rebecca] has consistently attended therapy and has been responsible about rescheduling and missed sessions.   Dr. Wilson said [Rebecca] has completed homework assignments for therapy, including journaling as she has read books related to codependency and other issues.

Dr. Wilson suggested that she believes [Rebecca] has made considerable progress on treatment goals and she is capable of making more progress.

(Collateral interview by Dr. Humphrey with Jean Goslin, MFT Family Relations Counselor)

I spoke to Ms. Goslin, [Rebecca]'s Family Relations Counselor related to her criminal case on 3/17/11.   She said she first met [Rebecca] following a prior domestic violence arrest with [Jeremiah].   She said she worked on that case, that resulted in the parents engaging in counseling and the charges both being nolled.

Ms. Goslin said she saw the newspaper article concerning Olivia's injuries.   Several months later, [Rebecca] was in our office, under her supervision.   She said she began working with [Rebecca] with the blessing of the prosecutor (who) respects the therapeutic process.

Ms. Goslin opined ․ she expected the prosecutor would take into consideration [Rebecca]'s notable progress in therapy.   She said when she first met [Rebecca] she was a classic victim of domestic violence, with low-self esteem and very little personal power in the relationship.

Ms. Goslin said although [Rebecca] announced immediately that she had ended the relationship with [Jeremiah], at first she tended toward ambivalence, saying she recalled good times with him and describing him as a “nice guy” in some contexts.   Ms Goslin said this made her uncomfortable as she did not believe [Rebecca] “defined the relationship as abusive.”

Ms. Goslin said she referred [Rebecca] to the Network Against Domestic Violence for individual therapy and a support group.   She said she believed this involvement, plus her individual psychotherapy with Dr. Wilson has been an “eye opener for her.”

Ms. Goslin said when she saw [Rebecca] again she had considerably more insight into her situation.   She said she had learned about the “power wheel” and said in treatment and group she learned she had put up with more than she realized in the relationship with [Jeremiah].

Ms. Goslin said [Rebecca] was able to verbalize how her involvement with [Jeremiah] was unhealthy and how “by her own passivity she had allowed ( [Jeremiah] ) to take over.”   Ms. Goslin said [Rebecca] also exhibited a much greater understanding of why DCF was planning to terminate her parental rights.   She said [Rebecca] said that although she had this understanding, she wanted DCF to know she was “not the same person she was.”

Ms. Goslin opined that [Rebecca] has “grown by leaps and bounds.”   She said she does not think the “work is over” for [Rebecca], but she is more insightful, perceptive and self-aware on a “level (Ms. Goslin) wasn't sure was there.”   She said she has told the prosecutor that [Rebecca] has taken responsibility for her actions and has learned from her mistakes.   She said [Rebecca] is “on a personal journey of self-awareness and education.”   She said a “long-term concern” is whether [Rebecca] would engage with another abusive partner, but her progress to this point has been encouraging.   She said her involvement with [Rebecca] will continue until the criminal case is resolved.

Summary Recommendations of Dr. Humphrey

[Rebecca] had been seeing two therapists, although she was tapering sessions with Mr. Sehi and requesting her time with Dr. Wilson be increased.   Based on her account and my knowledge of (and confidence) Dr. Wilson, I endorse this transition as being in her best interest psychologically.   The treatment goals she described in her work with Dr. Wilson seem appropriate, and her enthusiasm concerning the treatment is encouraging.   Also of note is that [Rebecca] has been willing to search for and join a codependency group on her own as a result of this therapy.   Reports from both Dr. Wilson and M. Goslin about [Rebecca]'s progress are very encouraging.

A key question here is whether [Rebecca] is able and willing to benefit from services aimed at rehabilitation.   There is sufficient support for the notion that she is amendable to treatment, has engaged willingly in treatment, understands the principal treatment goals, and is willing to make changes to her life and circumstances to promote those goals.   Both Dr. Wilson and Ms. Goslin have opined that she has made considerable progress to date.

[Rebecca]'s acts of omission and commission that resulted in the neglectful environment and ultimately the abuse of her child(ren) are the product of psychological dysfunction that can be remedied.   Although she does not meet the criteria for a Personality Disorder, she has some dependent personality features.   To conclude prior to any treatment that she is unlikely to make progress within a reasonable period is a questionable conclusion.   It is notable she sought treatment on her own and has sought to expand that treatment.

As earlier mentioned, Dr. Robert Neems both testified and submitted a report to the court.   The court has earlier referenced some of his findings.   The court here notes his recommendations.

a. Individual psychotherapy is indicated to help [Rebecca] continue to think through how she let herself stay with [Jeremiah] despite his continuing indications of aggression and risk to the children.   She will need to work on how to choose partners and how to respond to indication of problems.

b. Participation in a group for victims of domestic violence is recommended.

c. Participation in a relapse prevention group is well advised given that it is unknown whether [Rebecca]'s admission of using marijuana minimally in recent weeks is accurate.

d. It is recommended that [Rebecca] have ongoing substance testing to support her in remaining substance free and to verify whether she is or is not using substances.

[Rebecca] shows some positive prognostic signs in that she recognizes that she made serious mistakes and is motivated to do whatever is necessary to become a capable parent.   She needs to greatly improve her ability to exercise good judgment in choosing partners and to function independently so she is not overly dependent upon her partners.   Given the severity of her failure in judgment, such improvement would have to be demonstrated over a prolonged period of perhaps 1–2 years before it would be wise to place the children back with her.

This last statement by Dr. Neems, that Rebecca's conduct would have to be observed for one to two years, is really the only troubling aspect of all these reports.   It may have been made in an abundance of caution.   The court values the opinions of all three psychologists.   By making that statement Dr. Neems essentially authorizes DCF to proceed to termination of parental rights at once.   These children cannot wait for one or two years for a decision and Dr. Neems appreciates that fact.   The foster parents should not be placed in a position where they continue to devote their life to raising children who may be summarily removed from their care in two years.   As indicated earlier, all participants deserve a decision at this time.

ORDERS:

All of the professionals who have had a particular ability to observe the behavior of Rebecca, including the DCF social workers, have uniformly praised her parenting skills, her improved understanding of the dynamics of an abusive relationship, and of her acceptance of her own responsibility for decisions that allowed this horrendous abuse to occur.   This court rarely sees a mother or a father who have so intensely and eagerly engaged in therapeutic services as has Rebecca.   The improvement in her understanding and outlook has been dramatic.   This court has not seen any person who has embraced therapy, requested longer therapeutic sessions, has appreciated the value of the therapy, and has engaged additional services beyond that expected for full compliance with DCF requirements.   Most notably, Rebecca has not only engaged these services but she has benefitted by the services.   She has an understanding of her dependency as a contributing factor and seeks out support groups.   She really has done or is engaged in doing every single thing recommended by DCF, by Dr. Neems and by Dr. Humphrey.   She enjoys and seeks out her therapy time with Dr. Wilson.   She eagerly seeks to understand the psycho-social implications of her own behavior.   Given that she has made some monumentally bad decisions, it is not conceivable that anyone could do more to rectify the situation than Rebecca has done.   If the promise of reunification upon successful compliance with the Specific Steps is more than an empty shell, Rebecca has earned another chance to parent her children.

Based upon the court's finding of neglect, the two children are hereby committed to the Department of Children and Families.

The court is satisfied that the best interests of the children are served by a reunification with their mother as soon as practically possible.   DCF is directed to prepare a permanency plan consistent with these findings.   As part of any plan of reunification, DCF or court supervision of Rebecca should continue for a period of time after reunification occurs.   Rebecca should be required to continue the therapy and groups she presently engages.   Unannounced visits to her home should be included in any plan, as should random drug screening.   Her relationships with other men should be monitored.   Rebecca should not initiate or permit any contact with Jeremiah by any means.   All contact should be reported to DCF. Initially, in-home reunification services should be engaged.

These services;  individual counseling, co-dependency group and in-home services constitutes an ambitious schedule for Rebecca's time which will also include the care of the children and her employment.   DCF should be cautious about further burdens upon her time.

As the court has concluded that termination of Rebecca's rights is not in the children's best interest, the petition as it relates to her is denied.

With respect to the consent to terminate parental rights signed by Jeremiah, that consent has been accepted by the court.   The court finds based upon the seriousness of the injuries and the conduct of the respondent father, that the children's best interests would be best served by a termination of his rights.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Jeremiah B., are hereby terminated as to the minor children Breanna and Olivia.   The children are committed to the care and supervision of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.

Judgment shall enter accordingly,

Foley, Sr. J. # 372

Foley, Francis J., S.J.