IN RE: Antonio S.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These actions are brought by The Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or “Petitioner”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Child Antonio S. (hereinafter referred to as “Child Antonio S.,” or “child”).   The biological mother of this child is Oneida I. (hereinafter referred to as “Oneida I.” or “Mother”).   The biological father of this child is Antonio S., (hereinafter referred to as “Antonio S.” or “Father”).

On 8/18/09, Orders of Temporary Custody were filed on behalf of the above-named child.   The Orders of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petition were granted on 8/18/09 and subsequently sustained on 8/28/09.   On 11/16/09, Child Antonio S. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department of Children and Families.

On 5/4/10, DCF filed a permanency plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption, which was approved.

On 9/27/10, Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights of Oneida I. and Antonio S. were filed as to Child Antonio S.

On 10/26/10, the court confirmed service on both parents.   Parents were present and advised of their rights, and denials were entered.   A CMC was set for 12/13/10 at 3:00 p.m. Thereafter, a trial was set for 3/7/11.

On 3/7/11, the court commenced trial.   Both Oneida I. and Antonio S. were present.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted seventeen exhibits (A–Q) and Respondent Mother submitted five exhibits (1–5).   Five witnesses testified for DCF and four witnesses testified on behalf of the Respondent Mother.

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

The grounds of the Petition for TPR as to the biological Mother, Oneida I., and as to Father, Antonio S., are Failure to Rehabilitate (B1);  as to Mother only, Failure to Rehabilitate (E);  and as to Father only, No Ongoing Parent–Child Relationship.

The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights, has reviewed the Neglect Petition and the social studies and exhibits that were submitted in evidence.   The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering the evidence and the testimony of any witnesses.

I

FACTUAL FINDINGSA. Background, Facts Substantiating Allegations of Neglect and Termination

This family has been involved with DCF since 2004 due to substance abuse, mental health issues, inadequate housing, physical neglect, anger management and involvement in the criminal justice system.

On 8/13/09, DCF learned that Oneida I. had been arrested on a warrant for allegedly stabbing a woman in the stomach after an argument that occurred at a local night club on 11/15/08.   She was charged with Attempt to Commit Assault in the 1st degree and assault in the 2nd degree, and was incarcerated at York Correctional Institution and held on a $75,000 bond.   Oneida I.'s adult criminal history started in 2008 and continues to the present day.   She had four cases pending, including an arrest on 4/26/08 while pregnant with Child Antonio S. for Possession of Narcotics, Sale of Illegal Drugs and other charges, including motor vehicle charges.   On 1/26/11, she was arrested for Conspiracy to Commit Home Invasion, Robbery 1st degree and Accessory to Assault, 1st degree.   She had a court date on 3/14/11 and another scheduled for 3/25/11.   She was placed on probation from 12/7/10 to 6/17/12.   Her probation officer testified that Violation of Probation Charges were not imminent, however.

Oneida I.'s other child from a different father, was reported to be abandoned by Mother when he was six months old and lived with his father until DCF removed him;  he was later reunited with his father until his father was incarcerated.   He was cared for by paternal aunt, Maria R. until January 2008 when he was removed by DCF and was committed to the Department on 5/6/08.   Mother was arrested on 2/27/08 for Risk of Injury and was released on a $25,000 bond.

Father, Antonio S., is a convicted felon with an extensive criminal history which involves the sale of illegal substances.   He has been incarcerated for most of Child Antonio S.'s lifetime and therefore has had very minimal contact with him.

B. Mother, Oneida I.

Oneida I. was born on November 23, 1985 in Hartford, CT. Her parents separated after living together for ten years and she has not seen her father since she was ten years old.   She thinks he may be living in Orlando, Florida.   Oneida I. did not have a good relationship with her mother and resented her for not taking the time to talk to her about issues like drugs and sex.   She learned about life on the streets when she was 13 years old.   She stated that she hates her mother and two older siblings and wants nothing to do with her family.

Oneida I. claimed that her childhood was normal and she did not have any medical issues or learning disabilities.   When she turned 13, she left her mother's home and began having sexual relations with older men, using drugs, and getting into trouble.   She did not graduate from high school or receive her GED.

Mother gave birth to her first child, Elias, when she was 18 years old and was later separated from the child's father when he was arrested for selling drugs to an undercover police officer.   Their relationship was one of control and violence.   She met Antonio S. in 2007 and became pregnant shortly thereafter.   They spent time together occasionally but never formed a relationship.

Oneida I. has worked at Dunkin Donuts, Subway (6–7 months), Scranton Chevrolet (1 month) and at a law office.   Her last known place of employment was at the Kitchen, a Gentleman's club.

Oneida I. denies any mental health issues, development or educational delays, either as a child or as an adult.   A mental health assessment conducted in 2007, by Eugene M. of My People Clinical Services revealed that Oneida I. had mental health, educational, and substance abuse issues as a child.   She was treated at the Institute of Living for emotional and behavioral issues that stemmed from the loss and separation of her father at age ten.   Her mental health issues coupled with her chronic truancy issues led to placements at a Juvenile Detention Center on three occasions, a one-year residential placement at The Children's Home of Cromwell, and a 6 to 7 month residential placement at the all girls Connecticut Touchstone Program in Litchfield, CT.

An assessment conducted by Amy T. of Wheeler Clinic in 2008 resulted in a diagnosis of Impulse Control Disorder and Cannabis Disorder.   Oneida I. attended several anger management sessions before she was unsuccessfully discharged for noncompliance.   The Wheeler Clinic collected random urines and Oneida I. tested positive for cocaine in March and April 2009.

On 4/21/09, Mother participated in a court-ordered psychological and interactional evaluation with her oldest child, Elias.   Dr. Shroder recommended that Mother attend individual therapy to address her anger, resentment and losses;  and substance abuse treatment to address her long-term substance abuse and anger management classes as she had not yet reported any changes or growth in this area.   Oneida I.'s adult criminal history started in 2008 and continues to the present time.   She has five cases pending.   On 4/26/08, while pregnant with Child Antonio S., she was arrested for, among other things, Possession of Narcotics and the Sale of Certain Illegal Drugs.

C. Father, Antonio S.

Antonio S. was born on April 17, 1973 in Hartford, CT to Georgina B. and Antonio S., Sr. His parents remained together until a year after he was born.   His father lives in Puerto Rico and did not play a role in raising Antonio S. or his older sibling, Lucita S.

Georgina B. met Jose R. in 1975 and gave birth to two children, Angel and Elizabeth R. Jose R., who was a psychological father to Antonio S., treated all of the children as his own but was reluctant to discipline Antonio S. and his sister Lucita.   Antonio S. had a good relationship with both of his sisters, but was closest to his older sister, Lucita.

In 1983 Antonio S. was hospitalized at Newington Children's Hospital for severe dysfunctional behavior.   He was found to be a danger to himself and others after he attempted to strangle himself in school with his sweatshirt.   In 1984 he was discharged to The Child and Family Services Day Treatment Center where he attended school and received mental health services during the day while living at home.   In 1985 he was discharged from the day treatment center and allowed to return to regular education although he never graduated from high school.   He was diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, socialized non-aggressive and Dysthymic Disorder.

Antonio S. is a convicted felon with an extensive criminal history which dates from 1990 to the present with 11 arrests.   The charges include:  sale of hallucinogen/narcotics, possession of narcotics, probation violation, interfering/resisting, sale of hallucinogen, running from police, reckless endangerment, and risk of injury.   On 1/1/10, he was arrested for possession of narcotics while on special parole and as a result was incarcerated.

D. Child, Child Antonio S.

Child Antonio S. was born on 6/8/08 to Oneida I. and Antonio S. at Hartford Hospital.   Father was incarcerated at the time of the child's birth.   No concerns were reported by CCMC during Mother's pregnancy, after Child Antonio's birth or during the time he spent with Mother.

From 8/18/09 through 7/19/10, Child Antonio S. remained in the same foster home, but unfortunately this family was unable to be a long-term placement resource for him.   DCF assessed placing him in the same foster home as his six-year-old sibling, but was unable to do so due to his sibling's unstable behaviors and possible disruption in placement.   On 5/19/10, a Permanency Planning Team (PPT) meeting was held and a family was chosen for Child Antonio S. He participated in approximately three weeks of pre-placement visits with family, but the family subsequently contacted DCF and indicated that for personal reasons they were unable to move forward with Child Antonio S.'s placement.

On 6/17/10, DCF proceeded with the second family chosen at the PPT meeting and Child Antonio S. participated in four weeks of pre-placement visits with the family.   On 7/19/10, Antonio was placed in this pre-adoptive home.   He has adjusted quickly to his new home and identifies his foster parents as “mommy and daddy.”   On 8/16/10, Child Antonio S. started attending daycare as foster mother was scheduled to return to work.   He is doing well in his placement and continues to exhibit age appropriate behaviors.

In March 2010, DCF began sibling visits between Child Antonio S. and his brother, Elias.   Although he initially struggled to interact with his brother and would cling to the DCF social worker during the entire visit, after a few visits appeared to warm-up to his brother.   The visits were suspended, however, due to Elias's instability and possible disruption in his foster home.

E. Relative Resources

No relatives who were brought forward were found to be placement alternatives for Child Antonio S.

F. Present Situation

On 10/7/10, Mother began attending parenting classes at the Hispanic Health Council.   This program utilizes the Common Sense Parenting curriculum.   The parent aide assigned to Mother was scheduled to observe visits between Child Antonio S. and Mother on 3/10/11.   Mother had no contact with the provider between 12/20/10 and 2/3/11.   She requested an extension of services and is scheduled to complete the program on 4/7/11.

Mother tested positive for marijuana on 7/30/10, and positive for cocaine on 2/5/11.   On 2/6/11, DCF received a Hotline report from Hartford Hospital indicating that Mother had delivered a stillborn baby at approximately 36 weeks' gestation.   On 2/24/11, Mother refused to sign a release of information for Hartford Hospital.   On 1/5/11, Oneida I. completed Intensive Outpatient Treatment at Alcohol Drug Recovery Center.   Her treatment recommendation included participation in relapse prevention.   Her attendance in this group was sporadic but on 2/23/11 she re-engaged in services.

DCF has been unable to verify Oneida I.'s housing situation or her employment.   The Department has attempted to schedule home visits and requested a letter from her employer to no avail.

Oneida I. has five pending criminal cases, including a recent arrest on 1/26/11 for Conspiracy to Commit Home Invasion, Robert 1st degree and Accessory to Assault 1st degree.   Court dates were scheduled for 3/14/11 and 3/25/11.   Oneida I.'s probation is from 12/7/10 to 6/17/12.

Mother continues to participate in weekly supervised visits with Child Antonio S. These visits are supervised by Devin L. at Family Connections.   Mother's attendance is consistent and she behaves appropriately.

On 12/21/10, DCF transported Child Antonio S. to Enfield Correctional Center for a supervised visit with Father.   The child cried upon arrival at the facility, saying “no, go home, mommy/daddy” and pushed the social worker away when she attempted to take him out of the car seat.   The social worker contacted DCF and it was determined that the visit would be too stressful for Child Antonio S. and therefore it did not go ahead as planned.

On 1/4/11, Antonio S. was released from prison.   His parole officer informed DCF of his release and reported that he was staying with his cousin in Hartford.   Antonio S. made no contact with DCF regarding his court ordered specific steps or to request visitation with his son.   On 1/14/11, he was reincarcerated for violating special parole by driving a motor vehicle and staying out past his curfew.   He is scheduled for a parole revocation hearing on 4/8/11 and his parole officer has informed DCF that if he is released, she would be recommending a halfway house placement.

On 2/23/11, Child Antonio S. participated in a supervised visit with Father at Hartford Correctional Center.   The child was more calm during this visit and permitted Father to hold him for a portion of the visit.   The social worker facilitating the visit was asked by the staff at the facility to ensure the child did not run out of the room.

Since 7/10/10, Child Antonio S. has remained in a pre-adoptive foster home.   He has adjusted well to this home and family and identifies his caretakers as “mommy and daddy.”   He attends full-time daycare and the staff has expressed no concerns.   Child Antonio S. is medically up-to-date and is in good health.

On 1/13/11, DCF referred Child Antonio S. for a Birth to Three evaluation to follow-up on concerns with his delayed speech and an evaluation date is pending a hearing test.   His speech has begun to blossom following this referral.

II

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION

The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Mother, Oneida I. and Father, Antonio S.'s rights as of the date of the filing of the petition.

A. Reasonable Efforts Finding

Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, in order to terminate parental rights DCF initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and to reunify the children with their parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  C.G.S. Sec. 17a–112(j)(1).   “Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 566, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).

DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with Oneida I. and Antonio S.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Child Antonio S. with Oneida I. are no longer appropriate because of Mother's inability to gain insight into her substance abuse, and her proven inability to rehabilitate and to provide the care that the child requires.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Child Antonio S. with Father are no longer appropriate because Father was unable and/or unwilling to engage in services due to being incarcerated for most of the time that the child has been in DCF custody.

The parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts because they have been unable to show progress in their rehabilitation with regard to mental health, substance abuse, parenting, inadequate housing, physical neglect, anger management and involvement in the criminal justice system.   In addition, Father has been incarcerated for most of the time that his child has been in DCF custody.

DCF has been involved with this family since 2004.   The presenting problems with this family were as stated above.

The following reasonable and active efforts were made to prevent removal of the child and/or to reunify the child with his Mother:

My People's Clinical Services;

The Children's Home of Cromwell;

Connecticut Touchstone;

Wheeler Clinic, Anger Management;

Wheeler Clinic, Substance Abuse Program;

Psychological and Interactional Evaluation;

Mercy Housing Shelter, St. Elizabeth's House;

ADRC—Intensive Outpatient

Hispanic Health Council—Parenting Classes;

Hartford Behavioral Health—Mental Health, Anger Management;

Supportive Housing, CRT and Coventry House

Family Connections–Visitation

Mother has attended some of the services listed above on a sporadic basis.   She has participated in these programs for a period of time but invariably fails to complete them, and in many cases she has been discharged for lack of compliance.   Her transiency, which has lead to her being whereabouts unknown, has prevented DCF or providers from being successful in attempting to assist her.

Father:  Antonio S. continues to remain incarcerated at Enfield Correctional due to violating special parole.   His estimated release date is 4/8/11.   He is on the waitlist for the Tier III substance abuse program and Talk About Change program.   He resumed monthly visitation with Child Antonio S. on 6/11/10.   The visits are difficult due to the lack of appropriate toys and activities, as well as the lack of a bond between Father and son.   Father has had little or no contact with DCF and until recently has shown no interest in involvement with programs or services.

In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Grounds for Termination:  Failure to Rehabilitate—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(1)—as to biological Mother, Oneida I. and Biological Father, Antonio S.

The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother and Father have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child had been adjudicated as neglected.   This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(1) states in part that:

“[t]he Superior Court ․ may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ the child under the age of seven years ․ has been found by the Superior Court ․ to have been neglected ․ and the parent 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 [Section 17a–112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent.  “․ [The statute] requires the trial court ․ to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [they] have achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted).  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999).  “ ․ [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the [parents have] improved [their] ability to manage [their] own life, but rather whether [they] have gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000).   See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001);  In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).

Whether the age and needs of the child would support allowance of further time for the parents to rehabilitate must also be considered.  In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 157, 167–68, 5545 A.2d 722 (1989).   The reasonableness of the time period within which rehabilitation is sought to be accomplished is a question of fact for the court.  In re Davon M., 16 Conn.App. 693, 696, 548 A.2d 1350 (1988).   Also, in determining whether further allowance of a reasonable period of time would promote rehabilitation, a court can consider efforts made since the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights.  In re Sarah M., 19 Conn.App. 371, 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Oneida I. and Antonio S. have yet to achieve a sufficient “level of rehabilitation ․ which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their child's life].”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000).   See In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005);  In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001).   The credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study and exhibits, clearly and convincingly establishes that Oneida I. and Antonio S. have not achieved CGS § 17a–112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Oneida I. and Antonio S. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground B1–Failure to Rehabilitate as to Child Antonio S. by biological Mother, Oneida I.

See Section I, Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D, and F above.

Oneida I. has a history with the Department dating back to 2004.   The presenting issues were substance abuse, transiency, domestic violence and aggressive behaviors.   Her older child, Elias, was removed from her care on 11/24/04 and was returned to her care in January 2007.   He was removed again from Mother's care in February 2008 due to her leaving him home alone.

On 8/13/09, Oneida I. was arrested for assault.   She had left her second child, Child Antonio S., in the care of his paternal grandmother who has an extensive Child Protective Services (CPS) and criminal history.   On 8/18/09, Child Antonio S. was placed into DCF's care.

Specific steps ordered by the court on 8/28/09 to facilitate the return of Child Antonio S. to Mother, Oneida I. and have not been complied with.  (See Exhibit E, page 13 et seq. for further details.)

Oneida I. has been struggling with the same issues she had as a teenager.   Despite the services provided to her by DCF, she continues to exhibit unstable mental health, housing and income;  she engages in substance abuse and remains involved with the criminal justice system.   She will be unable to assume a responsible position in the life of her child within a reasonable time period.   She cannot provide a safe, stable and permanent home environment free from violence and substance abuse.

Child Antonio S. is 33 months old and has been in DCF's care since 8/18/09.   He continues to thrive despite separation from his biological parents.   He is diagnosed with asthma that is well-controlled by medication.

Child Antonio S., was moved to a pre-adoptive family on 7/19/10.   He has made a positive adjustment to this home and he continues to reach age appropriate developmental milestones.   His pre-adoptive family has expressed a willingness to maintain contact with his brother Elias' family.   The siblings are unable to be placed together due to Elias' instability and his need for a higher level of care.

Child Antonio S. is in need of a permanent home where he can continue to flourish and grow.   His pre-adoptive parents are committed to ensuring that he is in a safe, loving and consistent home.

Ground B1–Failure to Rehabilitate with Child Antonio S. as to Biological Father, Antonio S.

See Section I, Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D and F, above.   On 8/18/09, Child Antonio S. was committed to the care of the Department following his Mother's arrest and the fact that he was residing with paternal grandmother.   This arrangement was not approved by DCF due to paternal grandmother's Child Protective Services (CPS) and criminal history.

The following specific steps ordered by the court on 8/28/09 to facilitate the return of Child Antonio S. to Father, Antonio S.'s care have not been complied with.  (See Exhibit E, page 8 et seq. for further details.)

Father, Antonio S. has been struggling with issues including substance abuse, mental health and involvement with the criminal justice system since he was a teenager.   He has not addressed these issues sufficiently and they impede his ability to obtain/maintain employment and stable housing.   These factors, in addition to his current incarceration, prevent Antonio S. from being an adequate placement resource for his son, Child Antonio S.

Antonio S. was incarcerated at the time of Child Antonio S.'s birth in June 2008.   Father was released in March 2009 when Child Antonio S. was ten months old.   In August 2009, Child Antonio S. entered DCF's care.   Between September 2009 and June 2010, Father has visited with Child Antonio S. twice, on 9/2/09 and 9/25/09.   In January 2010, Father violated the terms of his parole and was re-incarcerated.   His approximate release date is 4/8/11.

Father has maintained minimal contact with Child Antonio S. He has been incarcerated for twenty-four out of the thirty-three months of his son's life.   Father had an opportunity to be part of Child Antonio S.'s life, but despite being offered weekly visitation with him for the period between August 2009 and January 2010, he only visited with him twice.   Therefore, it is evident that there is a minimal bond between father and Child Antonio S. In addition, Father did not contact DCF for visitation once he was incarcerated in January 2010.

Antonio S. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his child within a reasonable time period as he remains involved in the criminal justice system.   This family has been involved with Child Protective Services since 2009 and services provided to Antonio S. have been unsuccessful in mitigating the identified CPS issues.

Child Antonio S. is in need of a permanent home where he can continue to flourish and grow.   His pre-adoptive parents are committed to ensuring that he is in a safe, loving and consistent home.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Mother, Oneida I., and Father, Antonio S., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Child Antonio S.

III

DISPOSITION

Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights applying the appropriate standard of proof, the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial establish, by clear and convincing evidence after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest.   If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.

A. C.G.S. § 17a–112(k) Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.

Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Oneida I.'s and Antonio S.'s parental rights, as they did not consent, the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k).  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).

These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:

1. “The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.”

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Child Antonio S. with his parents.   Services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent parents to facilitate their reunification with their child and made reasonable efforts to reunite them with their child.  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258–60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Oneida I. and Antonio S. are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.  CGS § 17a–112(j)(1).   Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts.  In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 535–36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004).

Oneida I. and Antonio S. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return Child Antonio S. to their care and the referrals were made in a timely manner to facilitate a successful reunification.   They were referred to services multiple times to encourage cooperation.   Antonio S. has not been able to take full advantage of services as he has been incarcerated for most of the current DCF involvement and will not be released until 4/8/11.

2. “Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.”

This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that the child's parents are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as was contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF has previously offered multiple services to Mother and Father.   DCF has made reasonable efforts to maintain contact with both parents.

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

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Mother and Father have failed to fully comply with most of the steps ordered by the court and Father has been incarcerated for much of the time.

4. “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.”

The child has been able to exhibit only limited bonding with his parents, due to his parents' substance abuse, reluctance to accept their roles as parents and the unavailability of Father.   He has developed a strong bond with his foster parents with whom he has lived since his removal by DCF on 8/18/09.   The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt him.

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

5. “The age of the children.”

Child Antonio S. is 33 months old.

6. “The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to such child's home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent provided that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.”

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the parents have failed to rehabilitate up to the present time and have refused to co-operate with DCF or programs presented.

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

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

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

Father has maintained little contact with the child and the petitioner.   In order to improve his parenting bond with his child, he is in need of adequate parenting classes, and significant visitation with his child.   However, since he has been incarcerated for much of the time, time will not permit the necessary compliance.

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

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Oneida I.'s and Antonio S.'s parental rights to Child Antonio S. would be in his best interest.²  Applying the appropriate legal standards ³ to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of the State of Connecticut and DCF.

In determining whether termination of Oneida I.'s and Antonio S.'s parental rights would be in the child's best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his environment;  his length of stay in foster care;  the nature of his relationship with his biological parents;  and the degree of contact maintained with his biological parents.⁴  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000);  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).   In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance the child's intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with his parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (the child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).

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

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that the child's parents have failed to gain insight into becoming safe, nurturing and responsible parents for the child.   The clear and convincing evidence shows that their judgment and conduct remains questionable, and has not improved since the child was taken into DCF care.

The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles.   Their recalcitrance concerning referrals clearly and convincingly shows that, without commitment to consistent substance abuse treatment, as well as individual and parenting counseling, it is likely that they have extinguished what little chance they ever had to be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for any child.

An additional factor to consider in this case is time.   The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates the child's pressing need for permanence and stability.   Unfortunately, much time would be required for Mother and Father to show that they have forsaken substance abuse, addressed their issues, undertaken the necessary counseling and succeeded in it, established themselves in the community and shown that they were capable of being safe, nurturing and responsible parents to their child.

Child Antonio S. cannot delay his need for permanence and stability in exchange for his parents' uncertain future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The linchpin to a determination of rehabilitation necessarily includes a finding that the parent can begin parenting within a reasonable period of time.   Father has only recently been released from prison and so any reunification that might be further explored would have to wait for however long thereafter it may take him to rehabilitate himself so as to be able to provide safe and nurturing parenting to this child and to attend to his developmental needs and provide him with an appropriate home.   This would include a substantial period of sobriety, adequate housing, gainful employment, no further involvement with the criminal justice system and an unknown amount of therapeutic services to facilitate a relationship with this child who may well be 2–3 years older before all of these events could conceivably unfold.   To allow for such a further additional and significant period of time, easily more than one year for Father to achieve a degree of reasonable rehabilitation, runs counter to our court's long recognized preference for permanency.   Indeed, it would result in this young child being raised with not only the specter of upheaval but the goal of such.   This, the court cannot allow.   The question is not simply one of rehabilitation;  it is whether the particular needs of the child can be met within a reasonable timeframe.   See In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App., 384–85.

IV

CONCLUSION

The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Child Antonio S.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Oneida I., the biological Mother of the child and Antonio S., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Child Antonio S. are hereby terminated.It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for this child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for this child.

The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as are required by state and federal law and which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of this child.

BY THE COURT,

WOLLENBERG, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, CGS § 17a–112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court must find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”.  FN2. The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, CGS § 17a–112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court must find, “by clear and convincing evidence ․ (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child ․”

FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action.  In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33–5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000)..  FN3. “Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents ․ Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action.  In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990).”  (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000).  “[T]he question ․ to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship.   That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child.   See Practice Book § 33–5.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999).  “In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).

FN4. [T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999)..  FN4. [T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).

Wollenberg, William L., J.T.R.