IN RE: Adrianna S.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITIONS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS MOTION TO OPEN AND MODIFY and MOTIONS TO REVIEW PERMANENCY PLANS

STATEMENT OF CASE AND PROCEEDINGS

In this child protection proceeding the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) seeks termination of the parental rights of Cierra S.(mother) as to Adrianna, Steven Jr., and Supree;  John Doe (“father” of Adrianna S.), and Steven F. (father of Steven Jr. and Supree F.)

DCF's Motions to Review Permanency Plans, dated August 30, 2010, and father Steven F.'s objection thereto, filed October 5, 2010, were consolidated for trial with the termination petitions, as was Steven F.'s April 13, 2010, Motion to Open and Modify

The paternity of Steven F. as to Supree was found by the court on June 9, 2010, and the paternity of Steven F. as to Steven Jr. was found by the court on November 17, 2010.

As will be discussed in more detail as to each of the children in the factual findings below, there have been multiple adjudications of neglect and orders of temporary custody, the last being a neglect adjudication as to each of the three children on August 14, 2009, at which time previously issued specific steps were ordered to remain in place, and the children were committed to the care and custody of DCF until further court order.

The petitions for termination of parental rights as to each of the three children were filed on February 9, 2010, alleging failure of mother and Steven F. to rehabilitate.   As to the “John Doe” father of Adrianna, the petition itself does not list any name at all, although the summons lists “John Doe, Unknown.”   The petition alleges that “father,” apparently referencing “John Doe,” has no ongoing parent-child relationship with the child.   Abode service on mother and Steven F. and publication service on John Doe has been accomplished and was confirmed by the court on March 5, 2010.   A default entered against John Doe on March 18, 2010, as a result of his failure to appear.

This court has jurisdiction in this matter.   There are no other known pending court proceedings affecting the custody of the children.   There are no claims of Indian tribal affiliation.

Trial on the consolidated issues proceeded on November 17, 18 and 19, 2010, and, at the request of the parties, the matter was extended until December 7, 2010, for the filing of written briefs.   At the commencement of trial at the regional child protection session at Middletown, mother was not present but was represented by counsel, who reported to the court that mother had decided to consent to the termination of her parental rights and arrangements had been made for those proceedings to take place at the local court in Waterford on that afternoon.   Mother's counsel participated in the trial at the Middletown court during the morning session, and trial was not continued in the afternoon session until this Middletown court received a facsimile transmission confirmation that the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford had conducted the hearing requested by mother, had canvassed her, and had accepted mother's consent to terminate her parental rights to each of the three children, all in the presence, and with the assistance, of her attorney.   DCF's motion to amend the petitions to reflect consent as the basis for termination of mother's parental rights was granted.

Father Steven F. was present at trial and was represented by counsel.   Also present were counsel for the children, a DCF representative and counsel for DCF. DCF and father presented the testimony of witnesses and introduced documentary evidence.   Counsel for the children fully participated in the trial but did not call any witnesses or introduce any documentary evidence.

On motion by DCF filed at the commencement of the trial, unopposed by any of the parties, the court took judicial notice of certain filings, dates, hearings and decisions in these matters.   Included therein is the December 8, 2009, decision by the Waterford court, J. Driscoll, that, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–111b(b), efforts to reunify mother and Steven F. father with the children were no longer required.

BASIC FACTUAL EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

Mother and father became involved with DCF in October 2006, due to a domestic dispute in the presence of the two older children.   Since that time, there has been continuous involvement of the parents with DCF because of incidents of domestic violence, as well as substance abuse and mental health problems.

Mother

While mother has consented to the termination of her parental rights, a brief summary of her history is important to an understanding of the family dynamics in this matter.   Mother's childhood was a troubled one which included substance-abusing parents;  abandonment by parents;  multiple placements with relatives, with foster families, and in residential facilities;  abuse and trauma in some of those placements;  development of mother's own alcohol and substance abuse;  and mother's engagement in inappropriate sexual activity.   Mother, while a minor, was in DCF care from 1998 through July 2004.   During that time there were several hospitalizations, mother's non-compliance with a medication regimen, and a lack of success in stabilizing mother's mental health.   Mother has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, a mood disorder, an attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and a bipolar disorder.   On May 13, 2004, mother, who was then seventeen years of age, gave birth to her daughter, Adrianna.   Upon reaching her eighteenth birthday, in July 2004, mother left DCF and shortly thereafter she began a relationship with Steven F. At first this appeared to be a positive change-mother and Adrianna moved in with Steven F. and his parents, and on June 7, 2006, mother gave birth to the couple's first son, Steven Jr. However, the relationship deteriorated;  mother complained of controlling and abusive behavior on Steven F.'s part;  and mother moved out of the paternal grandparents' home with Adrianna, leaving Steven Jr. with the paternal grandparents.   Thereafter, mother and Steven F. had an on-again/off-again relationship that included repeated incidents of domestic violence, involvement with DCF, involvement with law enforcement and the filing of criminal charges.   In the course of all of this, a second son, Supree, was born to the couple on April 30, 2009.

Father

Steven F. is twenty-nine years of age.   He was raised by his mother and stepfather (paternal grandparents) ² in a strict, but non-abusive, environment.   He graduated from high school in 2000.   He has never maintained steady employment and is regularly unemployed for long periods of time.   He does not maintain his own housing, is constantly moving from one friend's home to that of another, and changes his phone number frequently.   He suffers from a blood platelet disorder which needs monitoring and the complications of which require hospitalization from time to time.   Father's criminal record includes conviction of misdemeanor offenses of larceny, assault, possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia, and reckless endangerment, as well as a felony conviction for burglary.

At trial father testified that, although ultimately he would like to have his children with him, he is asking the court to vest custody of his sons in the paternal grandparents, and leave the care of his sons to the grandparents, because, as he describes his present circumstances, he is not “financially stable.”   Father, by his own acknowledgement, is still not willing or able to provide the day-to-day care his children need and father would rather have someone else continue to shoulder these responsibilities.

Father has not been forthcoming in accepting responsibility.   He has reported his belief that DCF became involved in his sons' lives because of their mother's behavior.   In testifying, father acknowledged that he had a “rocky relationship” with his sons' mother, further indicating that he accepted responsibility.   However, father's explanation of this “acceptance of responsibility” was that he had learned a lesson, specifically he learned that he should never rush into a relationship again because people can turn out to be different once you get to know them.   While father has made some progress in his rehabilitation efforts, father has not shown much interest, and certainly no consistency, in cooperating with DCF in its efforts to reunify him with his children.   He has not advised DCF of his frequently changing residential arrangements.   He has failed to meet with DCF on all of the occasions on which he was requested to do so, he has not attended most of the administrative case review meetings,³ and he has refused to respond to background inquiries such as information about another child of his who is presently eight years of age.   Father has not taken advantage of the regularly scheduled visitation with his sons that has been arranged for him by DCF. Indeed, in 2009, he missed more visits than he attended.   From December 2, 2009, through April 26, 2010, father did not attend any visits with his sons.

Father has been inconsistent in keeping appointments for substance abuse evaluations and tests.   Similarly, when testing was done, results were not consistent.   Father tested positive for marijuana in April and September of 2009 but negative in August, October and November 2009.   Father successfully completed an outpatient program in November 2009, but has not followed through with the advice to attend self-help groups thereafter, advice premised on father's continued susceptibility to relapse.

The Fatherhood Initiative Program attempts to assist men to improve their parenting skills and to learn to serve as positive role models in their children's lives.   Although referred to this 12–week program, father attended only the initial session and two others, leaving because he believed that the program was too focused on substance abuse and did not sufficiently address the acquisition of parenting skills.   Father reveals that he procured assistance in developing parenting skills through Catholic Charities and completed a program through that organization.

Although he has engaged in counseling for his anger, father nevertheless has demonstrated hostility to the DCF workers and to Dr. Tobin, the psychologist who was asked by the court to perform an evaluation.   Father became raucous in the reception area of Dr. Tobin's office and has yelled at DCF staff and hung up the phone on them.

Dr. Tobin reported that father refused to respond to some inquiries, such as why he left his last job, with father claiming that such information had nothing to do with a “psych eval.”   Dr. Tobin assessed father as self-centered, demanding, negative and highly skilled at frustrating the help of others.   According to the psychologist, father's self-interest and lack of conscience preclude him from positively interacting with others, developing close interpersonal relationships, or responding to the input or needs of other people.   The psychologist opined that father is not motivated to make changes, and father's response to the aids provided to him by DCF, as well as father's persistently irresponsible lifestyle choices, coincide with that opinion.   Program professionals observed father's visitation with his sons to be loving and appropriate, with father able to redirect when necessary.   DCF supervisors did not have criticism of the visitation sessions that father did attend.   However, as a result of singular observation of a visit by father with Steven, Jr. and the baby, Supree, Dr. Tobin related that father had minimum interaction with the older boy and did not appear to be very enthused about being with the children.

The Children

Adrianna

Adrianna is 7 years old;  her date of birth is May 13, 2004.

In April 2007, DCF filed a petition alleging that Adrianna had been neglected.   On November 27, 2007, the child was adjudicated neglected.   In April 2008, co-guardianship was granted to mother and the “psychological” paternal grandmother (Steven F.'s mother) and physical custody was returned to mother.   On August 5, 2008, however, a neglect petition was again filed.   In November 2008, an OTC for the child was granted and temporary guardianship was vested in a great aunt of the child.   In January 2009, yet another OTC was granted.   On August 14, 2009, once again Adrianna was adjudicated neglected.   In December 2009, DCF's permanency plan of termination and adoption was approved by the court.   The termination petitions were filed on February 9, 2010.

In her short six years of life, Adrianna has not known her biological father in any way whatsoever.   She has been exposed to domestic violence episodes between her mother and Steven F., as well as parental substance abuse and unresolved parental mental health issues.   Adrianna has had multiple caregivers.   Not surprisingly, the child has engaged in aggressive, attention-seeking behavior and tantrums.   Because of her unhealthy interaction with her brother, Steven Jr., the two have not been placed together, although sibling visitation has been successfully accomplished.   Adrianna was placed in a therapeutic foster home.   This has proved to be a good resolution for this unfortunate child in that she has adjusted well in that home, and is comfortable and happy there.   She is close to her foster mother, going to her for comfort and other needs.   She refers to the foster mother's daughter and two other foster children as her “sisters,” and all of them enjoy each other's company.   She accompanies the family on vacations and family reunions, and she participates in activities such as a children's church choir and recreational cheerleading, with the family's assistance.   The foster family would like to adopt Adrianna, who is in therapy for the adoption transition and indicates a desire to remain with her foster “forever family.”   Adrianna is doing minimally well in school in that she is suffering some delays, but she does not need special education.   The child is physically healthy, and is current in her medical and dental care.

Steven Jr.

Steven Jr. is four years old;  his date of birth is June 7, 2006.

In November 2007, Steven Jr. was adjudicated neglected.   He remained with his mother under an order of six months of protective supervision, however, that program was terminated prematurely and the child was placed in the physical custody of father, with co-guardianship granted to mother and father.   Another neglect petition was filed in August 2008;  an OTC motion was granted in January 2009;  and on August 14, 2009, Steven Jr. was again adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF. As of February 2009, Steven Jr. had been placed in the home of his paternal grandparents, but in February 2010, that placement was disrupted and Steven Jr. was placed in the foster home in which he currently resides with his younger brother, Supree.   The boys have been joined in that home by a half-sister, an infant born prematurely to mother on September 4, 2010.  (This child is not the subject of these proceedings.)

The grandparents believe that this Steven Jr. was taken from their home in retaliation by DCF for the grandparents' complaint against a DCF worker.   While the method of the child's permanent removal from the grandparents' home may not been an example of thoughtful communication (DCF picked up the child for a sibling visit, then called an hour or so later to reveal that the child would not be coming back but would be placed with a foster family), the evidence reveals that the change was made upon consideration of the recommendations of Dr. Tobin as well as Steven Jr.'s therapist, Mary Conway.

Steven Jr. is a bright child, but has had some speech development difficulties.   He has struggled with behavioral issues, including engaging in tantrums, as well as aggressive, disruptive, defiant and attention-seeking behavior Despite his tender age, he has demonstrated a very angry demeanor.   Dr. Tobin, who evaluated the child while he was living with his paternal grandparents, has opined that Steven Jr. appears to be very hungry for parental attention

Although Steven Jr. has serious mental health issues, his behavioral problems have diminished appreciably since his placement in the present foster home.   Despite this progress, there have been setbacks—the disruptive and aggressive behavior became more intense after visitations with his grandmother.   In addition, although he had mastered his toilet training skills once he was placed with his foster family, the child regressed after visitation with the grandparents and the child related fears of being hit with a belt and locked in the bathroom if he had an accident while in his grandparents' care.   Because of the severity of Steven Jr.'s behavior after visits with his grandparents, in September 2010, the visitations with them were changed to Saturdays in order to reduce the negative impact on Steven Jr.'s preschool program.   In October 2010, the visitations were suspended completely upon recommendation from the child's therapist.

Steven Jr. has told his therapist that his grandmother called him names such as “stupid, stinky, and nasty,” and has also “whooped” him for getting out of bed or wetting his pants.   Both grandparents deny these accusations.   The therapist described a reluctance of the child to leave her office, frequently hiding under her desk, when one of the grandparents would pick him up.   However, after a couple of months in foster care, Steven Jr. demonstrated eagerness to go with the foster parent or worker who was picking him up and the child is now much more confident.   The child has even related to his therapist:  “I'm not a bad boy anymore.”

Steven Jr. is in therapy and has progressed impressively.   He is healthy and up to date in his medical and dental services.

Steven Jr. is close to his young brother with whom he now resides.   The boys play together and Steven Jr. tries to guide and teach his younger brother.

Supree

Supree is almost two years old.   He was born on April 30, 2009, and was taken into temporary custody, by court order, on May 1, 2009, because of mother's violent and erratic behavior, father's unstable housing and employment, and the domestic violence between mother and father.   Supree was adjudicated neglected on August 14, 2009, and committed to the care and custody of DCF. In December 2009, the court approved DCF's permanency plan of termination and adoption for Supree.

Supree has never lived with anyone other than his foster family, who love and care for him.   Supree is in good health, is medically up to date, is developmentally on target, and presents as a happy child.

MOTIONS TO REVIEW PERMANENCY PLAN

Pursuant to the directives of General Statutes § 46b–129(k) and Practice Book § 35a–14, this court has considered the evidence and finds that DCF has established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption, filed on August 30, 2010, are appropriate and are in the best interests of each of the three children.   The plans are approved, and the objection thereto is overruled.   The court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the plans.

MOTION TO OPEN AND MODIFY

Father's motion, filed April 13, 2010, seeks, first of all, to revoke commitment, vesting guardianship of Steven Jr. and Supree in him, on the basis that father is “ready, willing and able to care for his children and has addressed the issues raised by the State.”   At trial, father abandoned this request—he testified that he lives with friends, has no residence of his own, and has no income.   He further testified that because he is not financially stable, he wants paternal grandparents to have legal custody, and legal responsibility for the care, of his sons, as is set forth as an alternative in father's Motion to Open and Modify.

Decision-making as to a transfer of guardianship requires the court to determine, under the fair-preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, whether the proposed guardian is suitable and worthy and whether the proposed placement would be in the best interests of the child, that is, whether such placement would foster the sustained growth, development, and well-being of the child, as well as the stability and continuity of the child's environment.  General Statutes § 46b–129(j);  In re Anthony A., 112 Conn.App. 643, 653–54 (2009);  In re Haley B., 81 Conn.App. 62, 67 (2004).

Although the phrase “suitable and worthy” is set forth in the child protection statutes, no statutory definition is provided.   Therefore, this court looks to the common and ordinary meaning of these words.  State v. Helmedach, 125 Conn. 125, 134 (2010).   The Online Merriam Webster Dictionary/Thesaurus provides that “suitable” means “proper, able, qualified” and “worthy” is synonymous with the words “deserving, good, meritorious.”

The paternal grandparents both genuinely express concern and care for Steven Jr. and Supree.   It appears that they could provide a physically adequate residence for the children.   The paternal grandparents appear to be upright and law-abiding citizens who are active in their church and local community.

Psychologist David L. Tobin evaluated grandmother in October 2009, did psychological testing, and observed grandmother and Steven Jr. together.   Dr. Tobin expressed concern that grandmother has difficulties in engaging with the child in a positive way—she rigidly makes obedience a priority, and provides very little in the way of warmth or expression.   Dr. Tobin opined that the results of the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III, as well as his clinical observations, reveal that grandmother suffers from a personality disorder, anxiety and depression.   He further opined that grandmother is very rule-oriented, withdrawn emotionally and unable to assess Steven Jr.'s emotional or developmental needs.   Dr. Tobin conducted his evaluation of paternal grandmother during the time that Steven Jr. was residing with the paternal grandparents, and in his written report Dr. Tobin recommended that, if the child were to remain in grandmother's care, grandmother should begin a course of therapy, at least one year in length, to learn more effective ways of engaging with the child and understanding the need for positive and supportive expressions to the child.   Dr. Tobin testified as to significant reservations regarding Steven Jr.'s placement with grandmother because the child's emotional needs would not be met.   Dr. Tobin also related that he was fearful that such placement would result in not only immediate suffering by the child but also long-term negative psychological effects.

Steven Jr.'s therapist, Mary Conway, alerted DCF in September 2010 that the child's increased episodic tantrums, rage and negatively impulsive behavior were directly related to visits with his grandparents and Ms. Conway recommended the suspension of the child's visits with the paternal grandmother.

Psychologist Willie Coleman testified that he had ten one-hour visits with the paternal grandparents.   He did not provide mental health therapy to the grandparents but was asked by the grandparents in May 2010, to provide an assessment of them, apparently in their effort to change the limited access to Steven Jr. that DCF was providing to the grandparents.   Although he had completed psychological testing of grandmother some time before, as of the time of his testimony at trial, Dr. Coleman had not as yet scored the results of those tests.   It was his belief, however, that it is possible to diagnose a personality disorder without test results and he further testified that he found no evidence of a personality disorder in grandmother.   Dr. Coleman related that he saw nothing in his meetings with the grandparents that cause him concern about their ability to parent.   Although he was never able to observe the grandparents with Steven Jr., on one visit the grandparents brought another grandchild, and Dr. Coleman found that interaction to be a warm and natural relationship.   The grandparents provided Dr. Coleman with Dr. Tobin's report, letters of support that had been secured from others by the grandparents, and photographs provided by the grandparents.   As to the accusations that Steven Jr. had made Dr. Coleman indicated that he was not aware of these and that he would need additional information in order to assess how that would affect his opinion.   Dr. Coleman also agreed with the proposition that additional inquiry should be made if indeed the child experienced negative emotions and exhibited behavioral problems with the grandparents but not with others.

While this court does not completely adhere to the strongly negative evaluation presented by Dr. Tobin, the doctor's evaluation, as well as the opinion of therapist Conway, present serious concerns about the suitability of grandmother to parent Steven Jr. and Supree.   Dr. Coleman's evaluation substantiates the court's assessment that the grandparents are basically good and reliable people, and they certainly care for the children, however, Dr. Coleman's own testimony reveals that even he might need to make further inquiry in order to fully evaluate the suitability of placing the children with the grandparents and under the grandparents' guardianship.   The evidence does not support a finding of the paternal grandparents' suitability to act as the subject children's guardians.   In addition, Steven Jr. is much better adjusted and apparently much happier at this time.   He has been in a loving, supportive environment for some time and has flourished there, as has his younger brother, who has never lived with the grandparents.   Because of the needs of these children to have a consistently stabile and nourishing environment, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that it would not be in the best interests of the two boys to be placed in the care and custody of the paternal grandparents.

The Motion to Open and Modify is denied.

ADJUDICATORY FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION as to PETITIONS TO

TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS

The applicable statutory language as to termination of parental rights on the bases alleged is:

(1) the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a–111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at the hearing pursuant to section 17a–111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required, and

(2) termination is in the best interest of the child, and

(3) ․

(B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b–129 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;  ․

(D) there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child;

General Statutes § 17–112(j)

Reasonable Efforts

Mother was able to identify only two potential fathers of Adrianna.   As to one of them, mother only knew his first name and mother had no idea where he lived, nor did she have any other information that would assist in locating him.   As to the other individual, paternity testing revealed that he was not the child's biological father.   The clear and convincing evidence reveals that DCF has made reasonable efforts to locate the father of Adrianna but has not been successful.   In light of the DCF's inability to locate the father, no efforts could be made to reunify the man with this child.

On December 8, 2009, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford (Driscoll, J.) approved the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption as to Adrianna and Supree;  made the finding that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans;  and, as to all three of the children, entered the order that efforts to reunify the parents were no longer required.   On January 7, 2010, that same court approved the permanency plan of termination and adoption for Steven, Jr.

As to Steven F., DCF has offered case management services, visitation with the children, individual counseling services, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, and parenting education.   In addition, DCF has notified father of ACRs and facilitated father's participation by contacting him on his cell phone and allowing him to participate telephonically when he did not appear.

The clear and convincing evidence reveals that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Steven F. with his sons

Termination Grounds

A hearing addressing the issue of termination of parental rights consists of two phases.   The initial adjudicatory phase addresses whether one or more grounds for termination exist and, if that is decided in the affirmative, the court moves on to the dispositional phase in which the court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child.  In re Lukas K., 120 Conn.App. 465, 486, cert. granted on other grounds, 297 Conn. 914 (2010).

Termination Basis—Lack of Parent–Child Relationship—John Doe

As to the basis of “no ongoing parent-child relationship,” this court is required to engage in a two-pronged evaluation, determining first whether a parent-child relationship exists, and if it does not, whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interests to permit time for the development of such a relationship.  In Re Megan M., 24 Conn.App. 338, 340 (1991).   The statutory language has been interpreted to apply to a situation in which, regardless of fault, there has never been a parent-child relationship or one in which the relationship has been lost.  In Re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670 (1979).   An ongoing parent-child relationship is one that ordinarily and naturally develops as a result of a parent being involved in the child's life, addressing the child's physical, emotional, moral, and educational needs.  In Re S.D., 115 Conn.App. 111, 123–24 (2009).

“John Doe” is as unknown to Adrianna as he is to mother, DCF and this court.   There was never any parent-child relationship, much less an ongoing one, and permitting additional time for the development of one, even if John Doe were to appear, would be detrimental to the well-being of Adrianna.   The clear and convincing evidence establishes a basis for termination of the parental rights of John Doe on the ground of lack of any ongoing parent-child relationship.

Termination Basis—Failure to Rehabilitate—Father Steven F.

The Connecticut Appellate Court has interpreted the child protection statute to preclude termination of parental rights premised on failure to achieve personal rehabilitation unless specific steps have previously been provided to the parent.  In re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 507–08, 510 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 911 (2009).   The Appellate Court reasoned that a parent must be given fair warning of what the parent must do in order to be reunified with the child.   Specific steps serve as fundamental guides to assist a parent to develop or re-establish the ability to care for the general and the specific needs of his or her children, to serve a constructive and guiding role as a parent, and to maintain a responsible position in the child's life.  In re Sarah Ann. K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448 (2000);  In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 124 (1992).

Specific steps were ordered for Steven F. as to Supree May 1, 2009, and as to Steven Jr. on January 15 and January 23, 2009.   The acknowledgment signed by father on January 23, 2009 provides:

As the above-named respondent, I hereby agree to cooperate with the above conditions approved and ordered by the court and recognize that non-compliance with these steps results in modification of the existing order or disposition.   I acknowledge that failure to achieve these specific steps will increase the chance that a petition may be filed to terminate my parental rights permanently so that my child may be placed in adoption.   I understand that I should contact my lawyer and/or DCF worker if I need help in reaching any of these steps.

The specific steps provided Steven F. gave him clear directives as to the basics of what he needed to address and accomplish.   Among other things, the steps required father to keep all appointments set by or with DCF, participate in parenting, individual and family counseling, cooperate with service providers, cooperate with court-ordered evaluations, secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income, and visit the children as often as DCF permitted.   Father has only partially complied with the steps.   After the filing of the termination petition, father attended counseling, working toward maintaining sobriety and attempting to develop ways of coping with his anxiety.   After some delay, father participated in substance abuse evaluation.   He has also exercised some visitation with his sons.   However, father's efforts have been not been timely, complete or consistent.   Father began individual counseling but was discharged for lack of attendance.   Father has not maintained any housing for himself that would also provide housing for his sons, and that continues to be the case.   Father has not maintained any employment to consistently support himself, much less his children.   These deficits are not recent, have existed for some time, and cannot, as father has argued, be attributed soley to the economy.

This court does note that father had good sessions with his children when he did exercise visitation, and that there appears to be a bond between the boys and Steven F. However, these findings do not preclude termination of parental rights if the court determines that such termination is in the best interests of the child.  In re Rachel J., 97 Conn.App. 748, 761, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 941 (2006).

Parental rehabilitation refers to restoration or establishment of a parent to the position of a constructive and useful role in the child's life as dictated by the needs of the child, and General Statutes § 17a–112 requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent's level of achievement falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that the parent could assume a responsible position in the child's life within a reasonable period of time.   In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706 (1999).

The court may rely upon post-petition events in evaluating whether a parent's degree of rehabilitation supports a finding that restoration is foreseeable within a reasonable time.  In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748 (2002);  In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 357 (2001);  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).   As late as the end of 2010, father himself advised this court that he could not take custody of, and care for, his children.   Instead, his plan was to impose that responsibility on his mother and her husband.

DCF has met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Steven F. has not achieved a degree of rehabilitation that would encourage a belief that he could assume responsible parenting of his sons.

Best Interests of the Children

In accordance with all of the applicable statutory and practice book requirements and directives, as well as the applicable decisional authority construing same, this court makes the following adjudicatory findings:  The clear and convincing evidence establishes that, as of the date of the filing of the termination petition, the children had been adjudicated neglected, and Steven F. had failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage a belief that within a reasonable time he would be able to assume a responsible position in the lives of the children considering the needs and circumstances of the children.

Having so found, the court must now consider whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children, which interests encompass sustained growth and development, well-being, and stability and continuity, on both environmental and personal, interactional bases.  In re Jaime S., supra, 120 Conn.App. 733–34;  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 763–64 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920 (2008).   The clear and convincing evidence, including the experts' recommendations, confirms that termination of mother's, Steven F.'s and John Doe's parental rights is in the best interests of the children because of the needs of these children for continued appropriate parenting and protection, nurturing, stability, guidance, and permanency, as they have begun to experience in the last several years.

The following findings, supporting that termination of parental rights of is in the best interests of the children, are made in accordance with the directives of General Statutes § 17–112(k).

1. The timeliness, nature and extent of the services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children to facilitate reunion.

DCF's efforts and the services it offered and provided to the parents and the children in this matter were timely, appropriate, and comprehensive.

2. Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

In addition to the services to Steven F, set forth above in the “reasonable efforts” section of this memorandum, DCF has provided for mother:  case management services, visitation, individual counseling, behavioral therapy, domestic violence treatment, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, parenting education, programs for housing and intensive support and reunification.   DCF has also provided much-needed therapy for the children.   Each and all of these constitute more than reasonable efforts on the part of DCF.

3.  The feelings and emotional ties of the children with respect to the children's parents, any guardians of such children's persons and any persons who have exercised physical care, custody or control for at least one year and with whom the children have developed significant emotional ties.

Adrianna does not have any close ties with her mother and has no knowledge of, or ties to, her biological father.   Her relationship, however, with her foster parents is close, nourishing and stabilizing.   Although Steven Jr. and Supree have enjoyed their sporadic visitation with their father, they have not been able to, nor can they in the future expect to be able to, rely on Steven F. provide any sort of consistent family environment, support, stability or emotional or physical nourishment to them.   Their foster home, however, provides all of this and more.   All three of these children are doing very well in their foster homes and it is in their best interests that they remain in those environments, without the threat of disruption, and with the potential of adoption.

4. The terms of any applicable court orders entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parents, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such orders.

Steven F. has not fulfilled the court-imposed specific steps to which he agreed.   No orders were issued to John Doe.

5. The ages of the children.

Adrianna is 6 years of age (date of birth:  May 13, 2004);  Steven Jr. is 4 years of age (date of birth:  June 7, 2006);  and, Supree is almost 2 years old (date of birth:  April 30, 2009).

6. The efforts the parents have made to adjust such parents' circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parents have maintained contact with the children as part of an effort to reunite the children with the parents, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardians or other custodians of the children.

John Doe has made no efforts.   The efforts of Steven F. have been minimal.

7. The extent to which the parents have been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable acts or conduct of the other parents of the children, or the unreasonable acts of any other persons or by the economic circumstances of the parents.

The court does not find any such acts, conduct or circumstances.

Having found by clear and convincing evidence that:  grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of mother, John Doe and Steven F., that termination would be in the children's best interests, and that the children have a significant need for a secure and permanent placement, with a focus on adoption, the court grants the petition to terminate the parental rights of mother Cierra S. as to Adrianna, Steven Jr., and Supree;  of John Doe as to Adrianna, and of Steven F. as to Steven Jr. and Supree.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent of each of these children.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall file, within thirty days hereof, a report as to the status of each of these children and shall also timely file any additional reports as are required by law.

The clerk of the Probate Court which has jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of any of these children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford of the date that each adoption is finalized.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

BY THE COURT,

Constance L. Epstein, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Paternal grandmother's husband is not Steven F.'s biological father but has been in Steven F.'s life since Steven F. was 14 months old, and Steven F. regards him as his father and his sons' grandfather..  FN2. Paternal grandmother's husband is not Steven F.'s biological father but has been in Steven F.'s life since Steven F. was 14 months old, and Steven F. regards him as his father and his sons' grandfather.

FN3. An administrative case review (ACR) is a meeting DCF conducts every six months to which parents, attorneys, providers and foster parents are invited in order to assess progress, discuss issues and make determinations as to future actions..  FN3. An administrative case review (ACR) is a meeting DCF conducts every six months to which parents, attorneys, providers and foster parents are invited in order to assess progress, discuss issues and make determinations as to future actions.

Epstein, Constance L., J.