IN RE: Shaun D.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 Shaun D. (hereinafter referred to as “Child Shaun D.,” or “child”).   The biological mother of this child is Cherkiga S. (hereinafter referred to as “Cherkiga S.” or “Mother”).   The biological father of this child is Shaun D., (hereinafter referred to as “Shaun D.” or “Father”).

On 11/20/09, the Department invoked a 96–Hour Hold on behalf of the above-named child.   The Orders of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petition were granted on 11/24/09 and the OTC was sustained on 12/4/09.   On 3/11/10, Child Shaun D. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department of Children and Families.

On 9/30/10, DCF filed a permanency plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption, which was approved.

On 12/16/10, Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights of Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. were filed as to Child, Shaun D.

On 2/8/11, the court confirmed service on both parents.   Parents were present and advised of their rights, and denials were entered.   A CMC was set for 2/14/11 at 3:00 p.m. Thereafter, a trial was set for 4/3/11.

On 4/13/11, the court commenced trial.   Both Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. were present.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted nineteen exhibits (A–C/E/G–V) and Respondent Mother submitted two exhibits (6 & 7) and Respondent Father submitted three exhibits (1–3).   Twelve witnesses testified for DCF. No witnesses testified on behalf of the Respondent Mother and Respondent Father.

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, Cherkiga S., and as to Father, Shaun D., are Failure to Rehabilitate (B1);  as to Mother and as to Father.

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 2002 due to substance abuse, mental health issues, housing, physical neglect, anger management and involvement in the criminal justice system.

On November 18, 2009, DCF was advised that Mother tested positive for Marijuana, at the time of the birth of child Shaun D. and during prenatal care.   The report indicated that mother admitted to ongoing marijuana use during her pregnancy.   The child, Shaun D's urine was negative for all substances tested.   DCF was further advised that Mother had two other children, not in her care.   Review of mother's history showed that she had been removed as guardian of her child, Osiris M. on 4/3/03, by probate court due to her ongoing substance abuse including marijuana, wet (marijuana soaked in embalming fluid) and alcohol.   That child was placed in the guardianship of his birth father.

Mother denied any domestic violence between her and the father and denied any protective/restraining orders or police response to her home.

Mother reported that she lived alone and had no plan for assistance with the care of the infant.   She was informed of concerns with her discharging with the infant without any other adult to assist her due to her pattern of substance abuse and depression.   She reported no family resources in the area.   Mother reported that she was not employed but that she had section 8 and receives food stamps.

On 11/19/09 DCF interviewed father who denied any substance abuse or domestic violence.   Father was residing with his mother and siblings in Hartford and intended to be involved with the infant.

On 11/19/09 DCF spoke with MGM, Verda S. who confirmed that she was caring for mother's oldest child, Chercal, in New York. She reported that mother used to visit child on the weekends but had no recent visits.   She reported that she is a foster parent in New York.

Father admitted that he had been involved on or about 8/17/09 in a domestic violence incident with mother.   He confirmed that there was a no contact order in place and admitted that he and mother had been breaking the no contact order.

He stated that he had one prior arrest in 2008 for having ten bags of “weed” (marijuana) on him and was charged with intent to sell but insisted that the ten bags were for his personal use.   He stated that he had used marijuana approximately ten to fifteen times in the last three months.

Father reported that he was currently working and did not have daycare other than his aunt who is a licensed foster parent.

Mother stated that she was smoking marijuana often prior to her pregnancy and had a period of abstinence in her pregnancy that lasted for a couple of months.

Mother stated that father smoked marijuana, “occasionally” which she described as weekend use.

On 11/20/09 a SDM safety assessment was completed and the following safety factors were identified;  drug exposed infant, domestic violence exists in the home and poses a risk of serious physical and or emotional harm, caregiver's current substance abuse seriously impairs her ability to supervise, protect or care for the child.   The safety decision was unsafe.

Child Protective Services in Genessee County, NY, reported a history of prior investigations both in regard to child Chercal in 4/05 for educational neglect which was unfounded and the second in 8/07 for physical abuse/lacerations/bruises/welts as well as inadequate food and shelter and substance abuse was also unfounded.

DCF received copies of the current No Contact Protective Order between mother and father which did not have an expiration date.   Father was scheduled to return to court regarding this matter.

DCF also received two prior expired Protective Orders regarding Family Violence between mother and two previous relationships in which she was involved in.   Both orders had expired.

B. Mother, Cherkiga S.

Cherkiga S. was born on in Batavia, New York on 7/16/76, to Verda S. and Henry S. She is the third of three children born to her parents.

Growing up and currently she maintains a good relationship with her parents and siblings and denies witnessing any substance abuse or domestic violence between her parents.

She resided in New York until the age of 8 at which time her family relocated to Connecticut where she remained until she was approximately 27 or 28 years of age at which time she returned to New York to be closer to her extended family.   She most recently relocated to Connecticut in 2007.   Her parents and siblings continue to reside in New York.

Mother dropped out high school in 10th grade and reported being an average student.

Police checks on mother on 9/22/10, found no police record, however, she has had five protective orders in the past 5 years in which she has been the protected individual, the most current one being issued on 9/16/10.   The most recent protective order currently remains in place and is a full protective order with the said child's father, Shaun D.

Mother has held several jobs over the years and quit the latest job when she relocated to Connecticut.

Cherkiga S. receives a $170 a month in food stamps and medical insurance from the State of Connecticut Department of Social Services, has Section 8 housing in which her monthly rent is $29 and also receives a $58 a week in child support for her daughter, Chercal S. who currently resides with her maternal grandmother, Verda S. via a family arrangement.

Mother was in a relationship with Calvin S., the father of her daughter, Chercal S. (DOB 9/20/95), for five years.   She reports meeting Calvin S. “around the way” and that he lived across the street from her.   She was in a relationship with him for approximately one year at time of the child's birth, and denies any domestic violence or substance abuse during the relationship.

She was in a relationship with Hassan, the father of Osiris (DOB 5/26/00), for four years.   She reports meeting him while walking down the street.   She reports that the relationship was “okay” but that the relationship ended when “he made another baby” with a woman who was a neighbor shortly after the birth of their son.   She denies any domestic violence or substance abuse during the relationship and reports that she lost custody of her son to his father as she was “drinking” while the child was in her care and that she had been “smoking dust.”   She was not aware of the court date regarding the custody of her son and that she missed the court date.   Osiris was visiting her on weekends but this is no longer allowed to occur.

Mother was in a relationship with Shaun D., the father of her youngest son Shaun D. (DOB 11/16/09), for a year and eight months prior to the removal of said child.   She met father while walking down the street.   She denies any domestic violence prior to an incident on 8/17/09 in which father was arrested for Assault 3, Burglary 3rd, Criminal Mischief, Disorderly Conduct, Criminal Trespassing, and Interfering with Emergency Contact.

Mother is currently eight months pregnant and has identified Shaun D. as the father.

Cherkiga has one previous involvement with this Department regarding a probate matter dated 5/20/02.   Father of Osiris had petitioned probate court for guardianship of his son due to concerns with mother's ongoing unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues.   She also had a child protective history in the state of New York regarding allegations of educational neglect, neglect and physical abuse, which was unfounded.   The Department was also advised that a report of physical abuse/lacerations/bruises/welts as well as inadequate food, shelter and substance abuse and these allegations were also unfounded.

C. Father, Shaun D.

Shaun D. was born on April 6, 1984 in Hartford, to Cora D. and Jeffrey D.

He has eight half siblings by his parents.   He has contact with his siblings and that they all get along well and denies witnessing any domestic violence by his parents.   He has never been married.

He denies any criminal history prior to his arrest in August 2009 for the domestic incident he was involved in with mother or any history with the Department prior to the birth of his son.

He graduated from Weaver High School in 2003, attended Goodwin College for one and a half years majoring in Computer Systems Technology however did not complete the course.

Father has held numerous jobs over the years, has been employed by AutoZone for the past 6 years and his job entails customer service.

He was using daily prior to finding out mother was pregnant, however tested positive for marijuana during his substance abuse evaluation in December 2009.   He denies any other drug use.

Father reported that he was in a relationship with Cherkiga S. since July 8, 2008 and that this is his first serious relationship.   He denies any domestic violence prior to an incident on 8/17/09 in which he was arrested for Assault 3rd, Burglary 3rd, Criminal Mischief, Disorderly Conduct, Criminal Trespassing, and Interfering with Emergency Contact.   Father was arrested again on 5/17/10 and charged with Assault 3rd Degree, Disorderly Conduct, and Breach of Peace 2 Degree.   On 7/6/10 father was convicted of Assault in the 3rd Degree.   He was sentenced to one year jail, execution suspended after 30 days, and was given 2 years probation.   On 8/3/10 father's probation officer, Angela LaCaprucia, reported that father must report twice a month.   His conditions include no contact with the victim, visits with his child must be supervised by a 3rd party and participation in the 26–week Domestic Violence Explore Program at Wheeler Clinic.   On 9/15/10 father was arrested for Assault 3rd Degree and Breach of Peace 2nd Degree due to a physical altercation with mother.   He was then arrested again on 10/7/10 due to Violation of Probation, for the assault on mother, and was bonded out on 10/13/10.   Disposition is pending.

Father denies currently being in a relationship with mother.

D. Child for Whom Petition is Filed

A. Shaun D.

Shaun D. was born on November 16, 2009 to Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. Shaun weighed 6lbs 4 oz at the time of his birth and was removed from his parents' care from the hospital.   He has been in his current relative placement since 11/21/09 and is adjusting well to his surroundings.   Paternal Aunt, Cynthia J., is willing to adopt the child.   Shaun is up to date medically and receives his medical care at Blue Hills Family Practice.   His last physical was on 9/21/10.   Shaun has no known developmental delays, was evaluated by Early Connections Birth to Three Program in May 2010 and was not found to be eligible for services.   Shaun does not have a relationship with his two siblings as sister Chercal resides in New York with Maternal Grandmother and his brother Osiris resides with his father.

B. Relative Resources

Father identified his paternal aunt, Cynthia J. as a placement for said child.   She is already a licensed foster parent with the Department and he is presently placed with her.

E. Present Situation

Cherkiga S.

Mother remains unemployed and receives financial assistance from the state and a child support payment for one of her older children.   She has been residing with her cousin outside of the Hartford area for the past several months due to DCF's recommendation that she not stay in her apartment in Hartford due to the domestic violence between her and father.   She identified a two-bedroom apartment with heat and hot water outside of the Hartford area and may be moving in soon.   Mother denies that she has been in contact with father.   She currently pays $86.00 per month for her rent as she is on Section 8.

Mother is currently 8 months pregnant and states that she is attending all of her prenatal care.

As of February 2011 she is involved with the “Remember me now that I am a Mom” Parent Support Group through the Healthy Start program with Roque Sanchez.   DCF received a letter from Roque Sanchez, facilitator, verifying that mother has actively participated in two meetings and that the group meets every Friday from 12:00 noon to 1:30pm.

On 12/23/10, DCF notified mother that she should begin the Wheeler Clinic Motivational Group for Substance Abusers the last week of December 2010.   She was scheduled to start this program on March 4, 2011, however she reported that the two consecutive classes were cancelled by the program.   She tested positive for Marijuana in December 2010 and verbally admitted to DCF that she had relapsed.

Mother is having one-hour supervised visits two times per week.   Family Connections has been supervising the visits and reports that she is appropriate in her interactions with her son.   She has been consistent with her visits and Shaun appears to enjoy them.   As of 2/15/11, she began having her supervised visits at the foster home and the foster mother has ongoing phone contact concerning Shaun and his well being and foster mother was willing to supervise the visits with which DCF agreed.   Visits remain two days per week, however foster mother allows mother to stay for several hours each visit.

Cherkiga S. has a history of depression and anxiety, however is not currently in mental health services.   She denies needing mental health treatment and having the above diagnosis, however, recently she reported that she would refer herself back to CHS for mental health treatment as she missed her last appointment in December 2010.

On 1/20/11, the previously assigned SW spoke to mother in regard to her lack of compliance with court ordered steps.   She reported that she has been stressed as there have been three deaths in her family, she has been sick and the snow has affected her cooperating with services.   She admitted that she has not done much towards her specific steps, but reported that she was now motivated and wanted to cooperate with services.

She was to begin domestic violence services at Interval House on 1/25/11 in the late evenings;  however the facility was closed for three weeks of renovations.   She has only attended two sessions to date and as of March 8, 2011, she has asked that DCF seek another domestic violence program as there is limited public transportation out of the Hartford area in order for her to get to her residence.

On 3/15/11, she asked DCF for a referral to individual counseling services in the area she will be residing.   DCF sent a letter to her with the contact information to Intercommunity Mental Health Services in East Hartford and Wheeler Clinic in Hartford and asked her to contact the mental health clinics and schedule an appointment for an intake.

Shaun D.

Shaun D. reports that he completed ADRC outpatient substance abuse program and that all of his recent urine screens have been negative.   The Department has attempted to verify this information and has been unsuccessful.

He successfully completed the Father to Father program at Beacon Light Fatherhood Enrichment Program.

He has been attending weekly one-hour visits supervised by Devin Latney from Family Connections.   He is appropriate in his interactions with his son during the visits and is consistent with his attendance.   It was agreed to allow his paternal aunt, Cynthia J. to begin supervising the visits at her home who is the licensed relative caregiver for Shaun D. The Department is in the process of finalizing the details for the visits to begin at her home soon.   They will be scheduled separately from mother's visits.

On 1/27/11, he reported that he was no longer residing with his mother and was seeking other housing.   On this same date, he reported that he knows that he and mother have had their disputes and that he would eventually like to have contact with her however would like that to be in the future.   He was told that this would not be possible due to the extent of the domestic violence that occurred between him and mother.

On 2/9/22, father reported to the Department that he is residing with his girlfriend of six months, Tiffany D., DOB 10/19/86 in a one-bedroom apartment on 12 Willard Street, apt 203, Hartford, CT. He reported that the rent is $650 per month and it includes heat and hot water.   He reported that Tiffany D. has no children and works full time third shift.   The apartment is in her name and she is aware that he is trying to reunify with his son, Shaun D., and would like to have custody of his unborn child who is due in May 2011.

On 3/30/11, DCF spoke to father who reports that he continues to attend the Domestic Violence Explore program and only has one session left and will complete the program.

Child, Shaun D.

Shaun recently began walking, is up to date medically and was last seen by his pediatrician on 1/11/11.

Shaun appears well adjusted to his foster home and comfortable in their care.   The foster parents have a wealth of support in and out of their home.   Shaun remains at home with foster mother during the day and is not in daycare.   Although paternal relative foster parents would like either mother or father to be able to reunify with their son, they realize that at the time it is not possible and they have stated that they are an adoptive resource for Shaun.

On 3/10/11, the Department received correspondence from Cherokee Indian Child Welfare and it was determined that the family is not considered an “Indian child” in relationship to the Cherokee Nation.

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, Cherkiga S.'s and Father, Shaun D.'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 Cherkiga S. and Shaun D.

The reasonable efforts provided by DCF have been extraordinary.   Time after time services and programs have been offered to both mother and father only to have them refuse to cooperate or leave the program before it was completed.   The continuing disregard for restraining/protective orders by both the parents gives the court little or no encouragement that matters of domestic violence will ever come under control.

Neither mother nor father have shown the ability to gain insight into their failings as parents and have proven an inability to rehabilitate and provide the care that the child requires.

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, anger management, domestic violence and involvement in the criminal justice system.   In addition, father has been incarcerated for a period of time and may have his probation violated and be incarcerated once again according to his probation officer who testified

DCF has been involved with this family since 2002.   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 parents:

Wheeler Clinic Intensive Safety Planning;

Wheeler Clinic Lifetime Program;

Offered contact information for inpatient substance abuse treatment programs at Rushford, Alliance, Blue Hills and Stonington;

LifeAfter Conviction Program;

CHS Behavioral Health Department;

Intensive Outpatient at Lifeline;

Genesis Substance Abuse Program;

Vision of Faith Outreach Ministry, Inc. (sober house)

ADRC;

Intake Arrangements at Haley House;

Domestic Violence Consultant;

Shelter Assistance;

Family Corrections, supervised visitation and parenting education;

Beacon Light for Fatherhood Enrichment Program;

Hartford Interval House;

New Horizon;

Fatherhood Enrichment Program;

Wheeler Clinic Explore Program.

Mother and father have attended some of the services listed above on a sporadic basis.   They have participated in these programs for a period of time but invariably fails to complete them, and in many cases they have been discharged for lack of compliance.

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, Cherkiga S. and Biological Father, Shaun D.

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 Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. 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 Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. have not achieved CGS § 17a–112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground B1—Failure to Rehabilitate as to Child Shaun D. by biological Mother, Cherkiga S.

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

Cherkiga S. has a history with the Department dating back to 2002.   The presenting issues were substance abuse, domestic violence and parenting.   As reported above, mother does not have her two older children, Chercal S. and Osiris M. Also noted was the fact that mother is some eight months pregnant with a child of Shaun D. allegedly conceived during a period when a protective order with her as victim was in place.

Specific steps ordered by the court on 3/11/10 to facilitate the return of Child Shaun D. to Mother, Cherkiga S. and father, Shaun D., and have not been complied with.  (See Exhibit C, page 9 et seq. for further details.)

Cherkiga S. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of her child within a reasonable time period.   Since the time of the child's removal, mother has not adequately addressed her substance abuse needs, mental health needs, or participated in domestic violence support services.   She has had the benefit of DCF intervention beginning in November 2009, with no demonstrated change in behavior.

Shaun D. is a one-year-old male who requires a safe and stable home environment free of domestic violence that has a sober and competent caregiver.   Shaun has been thriving while in foster care and does not have any specialized needs.   He is placed with paternal relatives who are willing to adopt him.

Child Shaun D. was moved to a pre-adoptive family on 11/21/09.   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 family

Child Shaun D. 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 Shaun D. as to Biological Father, Shaun D.

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

Child Shaun D. was committed to the care of the Department following his birth at which time mother tested positive for marijuana and had admitted to substance abuse during the pregnancy.   Father was residing with his mother and sister and was in no position to parent the child.

Father was involved in a domestic violence relationship with the mother and has failed to comply with a Protective Order on at least 3 occasions.

Specific steps were ordered by the court on 3/11/10 to facilitate the return of Shaun D. to Cherkiga S. and Shaun D's care have been complied with only to a minimal extent.   However, it does not appear that father has gained the ability to parent the child.

The court heard evidence from a caregiver from Wheeler Clinic who was involved with the Explore Program.   This program was designed to administer assistance in overcoming domestic violence tendencies.   It was stated by the witness that the participant was to complete the program but that this was a “less than healthy relationship” inasmuch as father was living with a new girlfriend coupled with the expectance of a new child with Cherkiga S. The colloquy went on as follows:

THE WITNESS:  Generally speaking in our field when somebody says an unhealthy relationship, Your Honor, it has to do with something in regards to an abusive relationship.   And that it's emotionally or verbally abusive, sometimes physically abusive.

THE COURT:  So the writer must have known more than just, he didn't draw this out of the air, this is an unhealthy—less than healthy relationship, something must have been told to him about what he was doing and what the client was doing and how it was coming out and that there was a new person on the scene.

THE WITNESS:  I would guess so, yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  So with that—and he completed the course, is that right?

THE WITNESS:  That is correct.

THE COURT:  With the issue of the less than healthy relationship with a new partner out there?

THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  So, is it a 90% completion, a 75, a 50, a 25, what do you think?

THE WITNESS:  May I comment on our criteria for completion?

THE COURT:  Yes, you may.

THE WITNESS:  The criteria for completion from the Explorer Program that was designed by the State of Connecticut, that we operate, in completion of 26 sessions without missing three being paid off.   And expecting some level of accountability for your actions.

During treatment, based on the reports that I have read, he did accept some level of accountability for his past actions.   He did complete the 26 weeks and it appears;  and I would have to double check it, but it does appear that he is completely paid off for the program.

THE WITNESS:  According to the State of Connecticut, how they designed this program, that is a successful completion from this program.

THE COURT:  Yeah, I understand that, I have many of these programs that completion is completion and good going, whether it's as you point out, you can't tell whether it takes or not, really.   And it's hard for you to tell.

THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honor.

It becomes abundantly clear to the court that attendance at programs alone does not mean that an attending parent will necessarily gain an understanding of the material being presented to such an extent that the parent can translate the same to the everyday parenting of a child.   The reluctance of the program presenter to confirm this coupled with the circumstances in which the father is involved gives to court great pause that this can be put into practical everyday caretaking of this child.

Shaun D. 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 and has been reluctant to comply with programs as offered.   This father has been involved with Child Protective Services since 2009 and services provided to him have been unsuccessful in mitigating the identified CPS issues.

Child Shaun D. 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, Cherkiga S., and Father, Shaun D., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Child Shaun D.

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 Cherkiga S.'s and Shaun D.'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 Shaun D. 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 Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. 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).

Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return Child Shaun D. 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.

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.

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 limited bonding with his parents, due to his parents' substance abuse and reluctance to accept their roles as parents.   He has developed a strong bond with his foster parents with whom he has lived since his removal by DCF on 11/16/09.   The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt him.

5. “The age of the children.”

Child Shaun D. is 17 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 Cherkiga S. or Shaun D. 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.

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

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Cherkiga S.'s and Shaun D.'s parental rights to Child Shaun D. 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 Cherkiga S.'s and Shaun D.'s parental rights would be in the child's best interest, 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, domestic violence 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 Shaun D. 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 interest 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 interest 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 Cherkiga S. and Shaun D. as to Child Shaun D. is in the best interest of the child in question.

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 Shaun D.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Cherkiga S., the biological Mother of the child and Shaun D., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to child Shaun D. 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.