IN RE: Christopher 1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On November 19, 2010, the petitioner, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112 et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Jessica C.² and Christopher C., the then-married parents of Christopher C. Jr.

A second petition was filed to terminate the parental rights of Jessica C. and David L., the parents of Allyson L. The mother has appeared and have been represented by counsel.   David L. has been served with process but has not appeared.   Neither biological parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.³  The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children.   This court has jurisdiction.

The petition alleges that as to all parents, the children were found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for on May 7, 2010, and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(1).

The court heard the testimony of eighteen witnesses over three consecutive days.   The court was able to pass upon the credibility and qualifications of the witnesses.  In re Kamari C–L, 122 Conn.App. 815, 824 (2010).   The court was able to observe the respondents and observe their reactions, their facial expressions and physical gestures as the evidence was presented.   This is especially significant with respect to the conduct of the respondent Christopher C., who was extremely active, agitated and expressive in his distress and anxiety throughout the trial, especially during testimony concerning him or his mother.⁴

Documents were entered into evidence including social studies, social worker affidavits, medical reports, signed specific steps and criminal histories.   The respondent mother was in attendance at the trial.   She elected not to testify.   Christopher and his attorney were present for the trial and Christopher testified on his own behalf.⁵  The respondent David L. did not appear for trial.   The court relies heavily on the documentary evidence, as well as the oral testimony, in making its' findings.   With respect to all findings regarding the termination of parental rights, these findings are made by clear and convincing evidence.

The Parents:

1. Christopher C., the biological father of Christopher C. Jr.

Christopher was interviewed for his social history by a DCF social worker at the Corrigan Correctional Institution on September 19, 2009.   Much of his social history is from that interview (Petitioner's Exhibit A).

Christopher was born on April 18, 1975, in Oswego, New York. Christopher reported that he has not had any contact with his biological father since he was three years of age, as he “signed away his rights” to him.   He reported that his mother and older brother Robert moved to Connecticut at the age of three and that his mother then remarried her present husband.   Christopher has one older brother, Robert and two younger half-brothers.   He denied any substance abuse or domestic violence in his family of origin.   Christopher graduated from Putnam High School in 1994 and attended Quinebaug Valley Community College for business management for approximately a year and a half.   He reported that he is approximately 26 credits short of obtaining an Associates Degree.   Christopher became employed at the age of eighteen at C & M Corporation as an assembler.   He was employed numerous times since the age of eighteen and his longest employment, in his 36 years of life, was at U.S. Button Co. for approximately one year.   He is currently unemployed and does not receive any state assistance in the state of Connecticut, as he is living in a faith-based, supportive and structured community known as Youth Challenge in Moosup, Connecticut.

According to records, DCF had an open Child Protective Service case with Christopher's mother from 1989 until 1993 due to allegations of sexual abuse/incest by Christopher's older brother to his younger brothers.

It was during this time that Christopher reportedly became “sexually stimulated” while holding three- or four-year-old children on his lap.   In regard to sexual abuse, Christopher reported that he was a victim of sexual abuse by his older brother Rob;  by a 13–year–old cousin at age six;  and also by a friend of the family.   He stated that he didn't disclose this until he was eighteen years of age.   He reported that none of these people were ever prosecuted regarding these allegations.

It is worthy of note that Christopher states that his mother, the child Christopher, Jr.'s paternal grandmother, was the victim of sexual abuse herself as a child.   The paternal grandmother did not protect her own children from sexual abuse and incest, and two of her four children, Robert and Christopher, are convicted sex offenders.   It is this paternal grandmother, whom Christopher wants as a placement resource for this child until he can leave his present structured community, gain community housing, gain employment, obtain transportation and establish a record of sobriety and anger control outside a structured environment;  a process that may, according to testimony, take one to five years.

In regard to his own substance use, Christopher reported that he started using marijuana at the age of thirteen.   He reported that he then progressed to alcohol, cocaine, barbiturates, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin and crack cocaine.   On April 29, 2010, he reported to Hartford Behavioral Health (Exhibit Z), that cocaine had been his drug of choice followed by alcohol and then marijuana.   His self-report was that his last use of alcohol was January 23, 2010.   He reported that he has received substance abuse treatment throughout his life and continues to receive substance abuse treatment.

Similarly, Christopher has been in sexual abuse treatment as a victim and as an offender for twenty years with Gregory Jack. On July 29, 1991, at age sixteen, the date of the offenses, Christopher engaged in sexual abuse of a girl then three or four.   He was arrested and later convicted of Risk of Injury to a minor for which he received a seven-year suspended sentence with five years probation, and sexual assault in the fourth degree for which he received a one-year suspended sentence.   At that time he began his therapy with Gregory Jack. Christopher reported that this was due to him “inappropriately touching” a three or four year old girl (“pee-pee to pee-pee” contact).   Even to this date, both Christopher and his mother, continue to minimize his convictions and tend to blame the multiple victims.

On November 10, 1996, at age 21, Christopher was again arrested for Risk of Injury to a minor (2 counts) and Violation of his prior probation.   He received another sentence of five years in jail, suspended with five years of new probation.   On May 6, 1998, Christopher was sentenced for violating his earlier probation and was ordered to serve twenty-three months in prison.

In May 1998, Christopher was arrested for two counts of Criminal Trespass and a violation of probation.   He received a sentence of one year in jail suspended after thirty days, with two years probation.

On December 11, 2000, Christopher was again arrested and charged with Sexual Assault against a victim who is a minor and another probation violation.   He was subsequently convicted on his negotiated plea of guilty and sentenced to ten years in jail, suspended after five years, with ten years of probation (Foley, J.).   He was required to register as a sex offender for ten years.   He served five years in jail and was released on December 9, 2005.

On June 5, 2009, Christopher was readmitted to prison for a violation of probation.   On February 8, 2010, Christopher was released again from prison on condition that he immediately enroll in the Youth Challenge program.   He has been participating in that program since his release to the present time.

Christopher's children:

Child One:

According to DCF records, in 1995, Christopher was involved with Melissa D. and from this union Amber Marie C. was born on October 17, 1996.   During this time, Christopher was arrested for criminal trespassing on February 10, 1998 while attempting to visit with Amber and refusing to leave her mother's home.   Ms. D. reported at that time that Christopher was manipulative, that he threatened her and was abusive to her.   The record indicates that Ms. D. was scared of Christopher and that he did not have ongoing contact with his daughter, Amber.   Christopher's parental rights to Amber were subsequently terminated by the Thompson Probate Court in 2006, as he had had no contact with her in several years at that time.

Child Two:

Around 2001, Christopher was involved with Kayla C. and from this union Brett C. was born on April 28, 2001.   Ms. C. was a minor at the time.   Christopher reported that Ms. C. “lied about her age” and that they had sexual intercourse while “high” on Ecstasy.   He was subsequently arrested for this and went back to prison.   Christopher doesn't have contact with Ms. C. or his son, Brett, as Ms. C. was the victim of his sexual assault.

Child Three:

Christopher reported to Dr. Anderson that he met the respondent-mother, Jessica, in 2005 through a mutual friend at an Alcoholic's Anonymous meeting.   “She is much younger than Chris, so that when they first met, he would have been about thirty and she would have been about age sixteen.”  (Petitioner's Exhibit K. p. 2.) Christopher told DCF that Jessica “stalked” him for two years showing up at “every AA meeting” that he was attending.   He reported that Jessica asked him to marry her in April of 2007 after dating for approximately a week and a half.   He reported that they were married by “Pastor Mike” at the Plainfield Town Hall on May 15, 2007.   He stated that they lived separately for one day and then he would sneak Jessica into the paternal grandmother's home at night.   Christopher stated that they had to keep their marriage a secret because his family would not approve and for fear that they would throw him out of the family dwelling.   He reported that it was a condition of his probation that he had to be at the paternal grandmother's home every night.   He reported that in June of 2007, Jessica found out that she was pregnant.   Christopher C. Jr. was born on February 29, 2008.

Christopher recalled residing with Jessica and Christopher Jr. in Putnam until January of 2009.   He stated that they then moved to Woodstock with a family from their church, until April of 2009, when mother moved out to a family friend's home and took Christopher Jr. with her.   Christopher Sr. reported that he remained in Putnam until June of 2009 when he moved back into paternal grandmother's home.   Christopher was arrested on June 5, 2009 for a Violation of Probation due to the following violations of his probation:  a substance abuse relapse in 2007, in November 2008, he was seen with another sex offender in public, in March 2009, he went to an Easter egg hunt at Putnam Elementary School in the presence of children and in May 2009, he went to a friend's fifteen-year-old daughter and was talking to her without supervision.   Three of these violations occurred after Christopher Jr. was born.

While incarcerated Christopher stated that he was able to engage in Parenting Classes, Sex Offender Treatment, Psycho–Education Relapse Prevention classes, Anger Management, Tier I “Beat the Street Training,” Narcotics Anonymous group therapy, and Alcoholics Anonymous group therapy.   He has also participated in Youth Challenge.   A supervising counselor at Youth Challenge testified that Christopher is currently enrolled.   She indicated that this is a faith based program with fourteen spiritual units designed to teach how you can become a Christian, applying scripture to your life and provides outreach to the community.

Upon admission to the program, the supervisor testified that his principle problem was anger.   He would get in the face of others.   She said he was quite explosive at first, he was verbally abusive, he would pout, he would confront others.   They attempted to get Christopher to be able to manage his anger, confront people without being so offensive, and learn techniques of relaxation.   The program does not provide sexual offender treatment.   He has told the counselor that neither DCF nor probation was fair to him.   He believes that his sexual offending had nothing to do with his ability to parent.   This program does not afford the opportunity for children to reside there, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions of his probation also prohibit him from having unsupervised contact with his son.

While Christopher was in prison, Jessica had given birth to another child, Allyson, who was removed from her care shortly after the birth.   Both Christopher Jr. and Allyson, brother and sister, are in a pre-adoptive foster home at the present time.

Christopher Sr. wants the court to separate the two children, three-year-old Christopher his son, from Allyson his one-year-old sister, who is unrelated to Christopher Sr. He wants young Christopher to be placed with his mother, the paternal grandmother whose history of parenting has been earlier mentioned.   This issue has been adjudicated by this court (Graziani, J. October 6, 2010, Exhibit L) and affirmed by the appellate court, In re Christopher C., 129 Conn.App. 55 (May 24, 2011).   The court's finding regarding the paternal grandmother was:

The court finds that the paternal grandmother is not fully vested in the culpability of her son Christopher, Sr. in regard to his previous history of committing sexual offenses against minors and attempted to deflect the blame onto the victims.   In regard to questioning by the assistant attorney general as to the child, Kayla, that accused Christopher Sr. of statutory rape and had a child by him, her response was as follows:  “I was very upset because she lied about her age, number one.   Number two, she even admitted that she lied about her age and she consented.   And that kind of really upsetted [sic] me because it sounded like she framed him because he was under house arrest and it said no one under the age of sixteen, no drugs, and no alcohol right on his door.   And I asked her her age and she told me she was seventeen years old.   And there was five other witnesses here beside me.”

The assistant attorney general then asked the grandmother if she knew the child, Kayla, was fifteen years old and she responded that she didn't know that.   When the assistant attorney asked her if Christopher C. Sr. was approximately twenty-five years at the time of the incident, she responded “Probably.   I don't know what age he is.”   The paternal grandmother also testified upon cross examination as to a second incident in which Christopher C. Sr. was accused of sexual misconduct with a minor and reported that while she was there, she believed that mother of the child that was molested was “mad because he [Christopher C. Sr.] had refused to baby-sit and she made the accusation that he molested—she molested—he molested her daughter.   But then later on I was told by the father his daughter was never touched and that my son and two other guys were arrested for that.”

The paternal grandmother clearly attempts to view the facts in a light favorable to her son despite the fact that he is a convicted sex offender and is currently on the sex offender registry.   She also testified that she was unaware of the allegations that Christopher C. Sr. was sexually molested while living with her as a child until Christopher was eighteen years old.

In addition to the inappropriateness of Christopher's mother as a potential caretaker, Christopher himself is not presently eligible for a variety of reasons, his participation in Youth Challenge which does not allow children to reside there, the conditions of his probation that prevent him from unsupervised contact with the child and most importantly, the risk that Christopher presents, to re-offending and relapse.

Dr. Ronald Anderson, a clinical psychologist and the clinical director of Northeast Clinical Specialists, LLC, the organization that employs Gregory Jack, conducted an evaluation or Christopher and filed a report on Sept 13, 2010.   In addition he telephonically testified during the termination trial on May 31, 2011.   His findings and opinions are adopted by the court.

The Natchaug Hospital Discharge Summary states that Christopher participated in the Quinebaug Day Treatment Center program for about one month, ending on 6/12/09.   He noted that he had been twice convicted on sexual offense charges, and in each case, he has been using alcohol and drugs at the time of his offense.   He also noted that when he was feeling stressed, he experienced “raging outbursts,” which included physical violence towards people and property, and towards himself.   He also experienced night terrors, and “flashbacks” of being raped when he was a child.   He had a rage outburst three weeks before admission to day treatment, during an altercation with his wife, that resulted in a restraining order that prevented him from seeing her or their 14–month–old son.   Treatment was stopped when he was incarcerated for violating his probation.   His diagnosis included Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Alcohol Dependence, Cannabis Dependence, and Atypical Personality Disorder with antisocial and borderline traits.  (Petitioner's Exhibit K p. 1.)

There are several things of particular interest in this paragraph.   First, his diagnosis of atypical Personality disorder with antisocial and borderline traits is a very serious diagnosis.   Second, the episodes of “raging outbursts” have been described by several witnesses.   As indicated earlier, the judicial marshals in this building are on heightened alert when he is in the building.   This court admonished his counsel during the trial due to an outburst by Christopher toward Jessica which occurred in the parking lot during the mid-day recess.   And lastly, Christopher reacted vigorously during any testimony in court that suggested or confirmed domestic violence on his part while he lived with Jessica.   Here we have an admission in therapy of a raging outburst toward Jessica.   This anger is chronic and persistent over time.

On April 29, 2010, Christopher went to an assessment at Hartford Behavioral Health.  (HBH) (Petitioner's Exhibit Z.) In the client's description of the presenting issue, “I am here because [I] lashed out verbally at my current drug program.   I told him if he did not leave me alone I would beat the crap out of him.   They said I needed to come here for anger management.”

Another therapist and counselor at HBH saw Christopher for a few months in 2010 until Christopher moved to Moosup.   The therapist testified that her treatment plan was dealing with his anger, “ ․ but more so his ability to control interfering with other people.   He generally gets in trouble doing that.   The goal was to mind his own business.”   He had not completed his treatment goals when he left HBH in September 2010.

The observed conduct of Christopher in court, the assessment of Dr. Anderson, the self report to HBH, the testimony of the Youth Challenge counselor that Christopher was “quite explosive” when he first came in and that “[H]e has improved and still needs to improve more,” taken with a diagnosis of personality disorder, all confirm the need for time in the community to see how he reacts under the ordinary and not-so-ordinary stresses presented in an unstructured environment.

Dr. Anderson had more to say with respect to that point.

The results of a rating instrument, which identifies individual and offense characteristics that have been shown to predict sex offender recidivism, yielded an estimate low risk.   The present clinical impression is that the risk estimate should take into account general stability factors, which should include Chris' history of substance abuse relapse, explosive violence, and intermittently poor judgment.   It is also a mild concern that he now seems to believe that all of his problems have been resolved through a combination of willpower and the faith-based interventions of his current treatment program, particularly given the report that immediately prior to his most recent period of incarceration, he was having “flashback” of childhood memories of being raped.   In that risk for sexual offending is often related to general factors such as personal and relationship stability, stress tolerance and judgment, and may also be affected by substance abuse, it may not be possible to arrive at a confident estimate of risk until Chris completes his present treatment program and has established himself in the community for at least one year.   Until then, a conservative clinical estimate would be that he presents a moderate risk for further sexual offending.

Since this risk assessment was to be used in determining whether Chris should be reunified with his son at some time in the future, it should be noted that he does not appear to have a history of acting as a primary caretaker of any child.   It is far from clear that he could provide his son with adequate care and supervision, or whether he could effectively communicate with a child.   This should be considered as another general risk factor, in that there can be an overlap between generally inappropriate contact with children that is sexually inappropriate.

His telephonic testimony indicated that he strongly believed Christopher would not be eligible to be an appropriate caretaker, at least within a reasonable time frame, of four or five years.   He has many tasks to perform before he should be considered.   He has not faced independent living.   He would have to deal with housing, employment, transportation and his psychiatric stability.   There is clinical concern regarding his pattern of involvement with teen-age girls.   It is noteworthy, he said, that Christopher molested a child when he was 16, he had a confrontation with a 15–year–old babysitter, his wife was 16 and he was 30 when he started seeing her.   He was found at an Easter Egg hunt for children in violation of probation.   He was found talking to a 15–year–old girl, this “localization of age” is always a concern where there is a re-occurrence with a certain age, according to Dr. Anderson.

In February 2011, Mr. Stephen Moore of The Connection in Middletown, did an evaluation of Christopher at the request of the Office of Adult Probation.   He also testified in court.   While he was generally more upbeat in analyzing Christopher's risk situation, he admitted that Christopher was not happy to be with him in treatment, he was angry at times, but he moderated his anger.   His test results showed Christopher was 21% likely to re-offend within five years and 31% likely to re-offend within ten years.   He said he did not see him as a sexual risk to his son.   He admitted that a final risk evaluation would have to occur after “some period of time in the community to see how he deals with triggers, risk issues, substance use and just see how he copes.”   He estimated a review one year after Christopher began independent living.   Use of alcohol or drugs are top risk factors.   Others are housing, employment and relationships.   Christopher will complete the Youth Challenge program and begin independent living in August 2011.   Mr. Moore stated in his written report:

Based on all of the information available and my brief treatment experience with Christopher, I find the following:  He is now a 35 year old single male with a major history of instability in relationships, substance abuse/addiction and significant emotional turmoil.   His emotional problems have manifested through past significant substance abuse, suicidality, angry outbursts and mood lability.   He presents however, given this history, on a gradual pathway towards improved emotion control and stability.   He presents with no evidence of psychosis or suicidality.   His work on recovery through faith based program appears to be a positive and his use of scripture readings to modify and address his resentful thinking has been helpful.   His past behavioral patterns of poor judgment regarding relationships including his sexual decisions are directly related to his longstanding pattern of significantly mismanaging his unresolved emotional trauma and developmental history.   The most salient risk factor for re-offense for Christopher is substance abuse.   If he returns to active use of drugs or alcohol his risk for a sexual re-offense increases significantly.   When he maintains abstinence and active participation in recovery programming, his re-offense risk can be appropriately evaluated as Low. He presents as a minimal or no sexual risk to his son.   If abstinent, there is no clinical contra-indication (from a sex offense risk standpoint) to his having supervised contact with his son.   Any future decision on implementation of a gradual process moving towards unsupervised contact (which takes into account other factors beyond the expertise of this evaluator) should occur after his release from the current controlled environment and within an ongoing evaluation of his management of independent living.  (Petitioner's Exhibit AA.)

The court has considered Christopher's poor history as a parent to three children, his significant history as a sexual offender, his unstable interpersonal relationships, his history of abusing illicit drugs and alcohol, his explosive personality, his mood lability, and his failure to fully accept his personal responsibility for being unavailable as a parent, and further considering the prognosis for re-offending, the time he would necessarily have to spend in a community to establish a record of sobriety, civil obedience and vigorous consistent mental health therapy to deal with his unresolved personality disorder, the court is satisfied that he has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the life of Christopher Jr. C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I).

That is not to say that he does not love Christopher Jr. in his own way.   Nor is it to diminish the visitation relationship which they share and enjoy.   It is just that this court could not safely place a child with him with any degree of confidence without a lengthy period of demonstrated independent living and progress in therapy.   As Dr. Anderson testified, the best predictor of future conduct is past performance.   Christopher's past performance as a husband, a citizen and as a father had been historically horrible.

2. David L.

The following information about David L. was obtained from documents in the DCF's case record as is set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit M. The reader will recall that David did not appear for trial and has been wholly uncooperative with DCF.

David L. was born on April 8, 1977.   David grew up in the Putnam, Connecticut area.   He has two older brothers;  however their names are not in the records.   According to the records and dialogue with paternal grandmother of Allyson (David's mother), there was domestic violence between herself and paternal grandfather, which led to their divorce in the early 1980s.   It is also reported that paternal grandfather was abusive towards David.

The family has a history with Child Protective Services in Connecticut.   Prior to coming into care, David was at Elmcrest Hospital in Portland, CT. According to the records, in March 1987, David was admitted to Day Kimball Hospital for a psychiatric hospitalization until a bed at Elmcrest became available.   While David was at Day Kimball Hospital there was an investigation of two children on the pediatric ward under the age of ten months who had suffered unexplained facial and head injuries.   David was a prime suspect, according to the DCF report.

During the investigation Dr. Hughes the psychiatrist at Day Kimball Hospital reported that David had reported that paternal grandmother had been abusive toward him as well.   He reported that paternal grandmother had slapped him repeatedly across the face, wrestled him to the floor and hit him over the head.   During David's stay at Day Kimball Hospital, maternal grandmother had also reported to Dr. Hughes that while David visited paternal grandfather in the fall of 1984, he was sexually abused by the paternal grandfather's girlfriend's son.

David was not able to return to his parent's care due to his specialized needs and was in DCF care from November 20, 1990, at age thirteen until he turned twenty-one in April 1998.   David was initially diagnosed as having emotional problems which resulted in major depression with psychotic features.   David had placements at Riverview Hospital, Mount Saint John, and Mohonk group home.   David lived in a youth continuum apartment in Bristol, Connecticut for two years.   David then attended Briarwood College for five semesters where he studied business.   David did not enroll in college in the Spring of 1998 and since he turned twenty-one he had aged out of DCF care.   David, at the time, was working full-time and supporting himself financially.

On September 21, 1999, David was arrested for larceny in the first degree.⁶  On February 4, 2000, he was sentenced to five years in prison with five years of special parole.  (Petitioner's Exhibit N.) In 2007, he had two arrests, one for operating a motor vehicle while his license was under suspension and a second arrest for interfering with a police officer charge which was reduced to breach of peace for which he was sentenced to 60 days in jail.

In April or May of 2009, David became involved with Jessica and urged her to leave the abusive Christopher C. She did.   Jessica was twenty, David was thirty-two.   They moved in together and remained together for nearly two years until February 2011.

During the time that Jessica lived with David, the two children, the subjects of this case, Christopher C. Jr., and a child subsequently born to Jessica and David, Allyson L., born April 11, 2010, were both removed from Jessica and David's care in separate episodes of unexplained traumatic facial injuries.

Christopher's Injuries:

On August 22, 2009, Christopher C. Junior was 18 months old when he was removed from Jessica and David's care as young Christopher sustained bruising on his face that was at variance with the parent's explanation.

In regard to the August 22, 2009 incident that lead to the order of temporary custody, the petitioner introduced as evidence a medical report from a hospital that revealed that the child, Christopher Jr., was examined on August 22, 2009 and was determined to have suffered multiple bruises on his face that were in multiple stages of healing.   It was reported by the mother and her boyfriend, David L., that the child hit his head on his crib after he was frustrated and angry that he fell from a tricycle at his home.   Dr. Christopher McDermott testified as an expert in pediatric medicine.   He testified that he examined the child at the emergency room of a hospital on August 22, 2009 and that the explanation of the injury presented by the mother and her boyfriend was not consistent with the injuries he found on the physical examination of the child.   He found that the characteristics of the non-accidental trauma was in multiple stages of healing and not consistent with the mechanism of injury that the mother and her boyfriend gave as to how the injury occurred.  (Petitioner's Exhibit L, Graziani, J.)

DCF worked vigorously in providing services to Jessica and David to move toward reunification.   David and Jessica participated in Intensive Safety Planning Services through United Community and Family Services, which did not support reunification of Christopher Jr. in October 2009.   From the months of January 2010 through April 2010, Birth to Three worked in the home with Christopher Jr., his mother and David.   Birth to Three would encourage David to participate in the sessions and encouraged him in relationship building activities.   Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) was engaged to assist in reunification.   They reported a lack of motivation from David in participating in services and had concerns of controlling behaviors he exhibited towards Jessica.

Most notable in reunification efforts was engaging the Reconnecting Families Program (RCFP) into the life of Jessica and David.   DCF engages this program preparatory to reunification.  (See Respondent's Exhibit 7.) This program is a six month in-home service to facilitate successful reunification.   Jessica was very pregnant at the time this program was commenced on February 5, 2010.

Phase I of the program is typically 60 days during which time the RCFP worker facilitates supervised visits and provides training as necessary.   Phase II is started when the family has unsupervised visits.   Phase III is usually 60 days of in-home visits during reunification.   The program is engaged, as indicated, to facilitate reunifying Jessica with her child.   Although very close to being reunified with Christopher Jr., that did not happen.

Allyson's Injuries

After the RCFP had been engaged for 60 days, Jessica gave birth to Allyson on April 11, 2010.

“On April 15, 2010, Allyson was four days old.   At 11:00 PM, Jessica said she breast fed the child.   The father burped her and she fell asleep.   (Petitioner's Exhibit B.) David stayed awake with her in his arms and the plan was that father would do the 2 AM feeding.   David awoke Jessica at 2:30 AM, April 16, 2010, and showed her that Allyson had “bright red bloody slime” coming out the child's mouth and nose.   Dr. Livingston testified that the father said he was to do the two AM feeding and heard Allyson cough and she had “a red snot bubble” coming out her nose.   The parents report they immediately dressed and took the child to the Day Kimball Hospital in Putnam.

Both parents were asked if they could explain any possible trauma.   Jessica said she uses a rubber suction bulb to remove secretions from Allison but that procedure was uneventful.   Day Kimball Hospital staff said they had been using the same suction bulb device for thirty-seven years without any reported injury.   Jessica said that on the day before she had offered the child her finger to suck on when she was crying in a grocery store.   She said that did not produce any blood and she did not believe she had injured the child.

David, the child's father, said at 2:30 AM he was lying in bed with Allyson in his arms and was “80% conscious.”   He awoke because she was scratching and kicking him.   He closed the door, took her downstairs and placed her on the couch.   He told the Connecticut State Police in a statement.  (Respondent's Exhibit 5.)

I then went into the kitchen and grabbed a bottle from the refrigerator and placed the bottle in a Tupperware bowl with tap water and then placed them in the microwave and turned it on and I heard Allyson cough.   While I was waiting for the bottle to heat up I heard Allyson cough a couple more times and this time the coughs were harder and raspy.   I then went into the living room and noticed that Allyson was leaning slightly forward toward the T.V. As I went to pick her up I noticed that she had a red and yellow bubble coming out of her right nostril.   I then grabbed the red suction bulb from the diaper bag that was in the corner of the apartment near the computer.   I went over to pick up Allyson and when I did I noticed some white and red crust on the corner of her mouth.   I then picked up Allyson with my left arm and using my left hand I wrapped my hand around her jaw to open up her mouth with my right index finger.   I could see some dark bloody colored flem.   When I stuck the suction bulb into her mouth I felt the tip of the bulb hit the roof of her mouth.   Her head kind of went back when I did this and she gagged and coughed even harder.   I was freaking out so I carried Allyson up to the bedroom and I woke up Jessica in a panic I was screaming what do I do!  ․ I would never do anything to hurt my baby.

The child was delivered to the Children's Medical Center by private car at 3:02 AM. The father appeared agitated while in the Emergency Department.   Emergency personnel noted intra-oral lesions and consulted with the Child Abuse and Neglect team, ear, nose and throat (Dr. Valdez) and a trauma surgery physician.   The child was admitted to the intensive care unit on the trauma surgery service.

Dr. Nina Livingston filed a notarized report, Petitioner's Exhibit B, which concludes as follows:

Allyson is a 5–day old infant who presented with bright red bleeding from the nose and mouth followed by copious brownish mucoid secretions.   On physical examination she has one small bruise under her tongue and bilateral large ulcerated healing areas on her posterior soft palate that are most consistent with healing trauma or burn.   Caretakers provide no history of significant intra-oral trauma or burn.   Mother reports using bulb suction and inserting her fingers in Allyson's mouth >24 hours prior to presentation.   Neither of these events as described by mother plausibly explains the findings observed.   The possibility of infection is being considered but is though less likely.   Viral cultures pending.   It will be important to examine the mouth serially over the next several days to rule out evolving infectious process.

Allyson's presentation is highly suspicious for inflicted injury.

(Petitioner's Exhibit HH, Foley Sr. J. August 31, 2010.)

The Reconnecting Families Program closed its file and DCF discontinued efforts to immediately reunite Christopher with Jessica.   But DCF did continue to offer services to Jessica and to David.   While Jessica made some token efforts, David made no efforts toward reunification with his daughter Allyson.   He has not visited his daughter since the month of her birth in April 2010, and has not participated in any services or conferences.

DCF alleges in the petition that David has abandoned his daughter, has failed to rehabilitate himself in order to act as a parental resource, and that he has no on-going relationship with the child.   The court finds that all of those allegations are true.

Abandonment under § 17a–112(c)(3)(A) requires failure to maintain interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.   Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child ․ Where a parent fails to visit a child, fails to display any love or affection for the child, has no personal interaction with the child, and no concern for the child's welfare, statutory abandonment has occurred ․ The statute does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child.   A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child.   Maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Drew R., 47 Conn.App. 124, 129, 702 A.2d 647 (1997).   David has demonstrated no interest, concern or responsibility to Allyson.

Further, the court finds, there is no ongoing parent-child relationship with respect to David and Allyson that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral or educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or re-establishment of the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.

The petitioner has established these grounds by clear and convincing evidence.

The third ground alleged in the petition as to respondent, David is that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and David has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I).   This child was previously adjudicated neglected (Graziani, J.) and David has refused to discuss his failure to provide a safe home for either of the children.   He has refused counseling and substance abuse evaluation and treatment.   He has refused to participate in individual counseling.   He has refused to participate in administrative conferences or medical appointments.   The court accordingly finds by clear and convincing evidence that he has failed to rehabilitate as a parent.

3. Jessica C.

The social history was reported by Jessica to the DCF social worker on September 15, 2009.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A.)

Jessica Rose C. was born on January 23, 1989 in Vernon, Connecticut.   She is the youngest of five children and has one older sister and three older brothers.   Jessica reported that she is unsure if her biological father is Todd M. or George F., however she has always considered George F. to be her father.   Jessica reported that her mother died on January 3, 2007, and that Todd M., died in 2005.   She recalled a history of domestic violence, substance abuse and sexual abuse in her family of origin.

Jessica's family has a history with Child Protective Services in Connecticut.   She recalled being placed outside of her home when she was about thirteen years old until she was eighteen years old when she signed herself out of care.   Prior to coming into care, Jessica recalled entering Natchaug Hospital for trying to commit suicide.   She told DCF that she was trying to deal with her victimization of sexual abuse caused by her father and brother.

When questioned about her childhood, Jessica reported “it sucked.”   She reported that she couldn't recall much of her younger years, stating that she “grew up everywhere.”   Jessica recalls residing in Willington, Ashford, Vernon, Hartford, Stafford, Canterbury, Brooklyn and Willimantic, Connecticut.   Jessica recalled that she came into placement with the Department when she was thirteen years old, for what she believes was due to her mother trying to commit suicide.   Jessica recalled residing at a safe home, a shelter, a foster home and a residential facility while in the custody of DCF.

“In regard to sexual abuse, Jessica stated that her father, George F. “molested” her when she was little and that her brother, Jordan F., “raped” her for approximately three years from the time she was ten until the time she came into placement with the Department.   She did not go into any detail regarding either of these situations.   Jessica stated that she continues to have contact with both her father and her brother.   She also recalled being raped twice more in her life by “acquaintances.”   She reported that none of these individuals were ever arrested regarding these charges.   She stated that she has received counseling for this from various providers throughout her life.

Jessica recalled being an “out of control youth”.   She reported that she began skipping school and doing drugs, specifically heroin, around ten years of age.   She recalled going to High School at the Joshua Center in Brooklyn, Connecticut and then transferred to The Woodstock Academy in Woodstock, Connecticut during her junior year of school.   Jessica reported that her mother passed away in January of 2007, which was during her senior year of high school.   She reported that she dropped out of school in March of 2007, three months prior to graduating.   Jessica reported that she would like to obtain her GED.

“According to records, during the time that Jessica was in the Department's custody, she was placed in CREC Polaris Center residential treatment program in October of 2002.   Jessica recalled having to go to Hartford Hospital once while at CREC as she attempted to commit suicide by drinking a bottle of iodine.   Jessica was eventually successfully discharged from this program in July of 2003 and subsequently placed in a special study foster home.

“In June of 2004, Jessica and her foster sister ran away from the foster parent's home, to Jessica's biological mother's home.   Jessica recalled drinking alcohol excessively during this time.   She was arrested for stealing money at the foster home and was placed on probation until March of 2005.   Jessica also successfully completed Right Turn, a substance abuse treatment program, in 2005.

“Jessica recalled that at the age of eighteen she signed herself out of the Department's custody and began “hanging out” with Christopher C. Sr. (Chris).  She reported that they met through a mutual friend at an Alcoholic's Anonymous (AA) meeting.   When asked why Jessica attended these meetings, Jessica stated that she didn't want to go to Narcotic's Anonymous (NA) meetings because she felt that the AA meetings were “more helpful.”   Jessica reported that she would sneak out from her foster home and attend these meetings and denied that her foster parents knew where she was going.   She stated that Chris began picking her up for meetings and they started to get to know each other.   Jessica reported that she was pregnant with someone else's child at the time, but that she eventually had a miscarriage.   Mother married Chris on May 18, 2007, in Plainfield, Connecticut.

“Jessica then obtained employment at C & M Corporation for approximately two months in 2007, but stated that she was eventually laid off.   She reported that she then worked at Target in Dayville from August of 2008 until February of 2009.   She reported that she lost her job when she fell at work.   Jessica recently regained employment at Wal–Mart.

“As a youth, Jessica reported that she had a mental health diagnosis of Anxiety, Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and ADHD. She reported that she was prescribed a number of medications for this which included Depakote, Zoloft, Welbutrin, Ritalin and Celexa.   The Department is not aware of Jessica being prescribed medications at this time.

“In regard to substance abuse, Jessica reported that she began smoking marijuana at the age of ten, when she obtained some from her landlord.   She reported that shortly after that she stole Heroine [sic] from her step father and became addicted shortly after that.   She reported that she drank on occasion, but that alcohol was never her drug of choice.   Jessica stated that she stopped using heroine [sic] “cold turkey” when she was seventeen years old after her biological mother died from an overdose.

“In regard to her relationship with Christopher Jessica reported that “it was good for a while.”   She recalled that the relationship was domestically violent.   She reported that Chris was “very controlling” in their relationship.   Jessica stated that he controlled what she wore, where she worked, and that he was also physically abusive at times.   She recalled that he had “a bad temper”.   She reported that they would often yell at each other and that he would accuse her of cheating on him.   She stated that when she obtained a job at Target, he would “stalk” her there and often come in and sit at the Starbucks that she was working at.   Jessica recalled that she eventually became pregnant with father's child and gave birth to Christopher Junior on February 29, 2008.   Jessica stated that Christopher would often become verbally and physically abusive to her in front of Christopher Jr.

“Jessica and Chris' union ended in April of 2009 when mother left Chris as his violence worsened.   She reported that she filed for a restraining order shortly after she left him, as he continued to stalk her.   She reported that she is no longer legally married to Christopher as she filed for divorce on August 4, 2009.   Judgment of Dissolution was granted by the court (Fuger, J.) on October 22, 2010.”  (Exhibit A, Social Study, November 16, 2010.)

Jessica reported that she holds no religious views and has not served in the military service.   Immediately after leaving Chris she moved in with David L. She subsequently lost custody of both her children due to unexplained facial injuries.

All of Jessica's conduct, and potential rehabilitation as a mother, since August 2009, four months after leaving Christopher, must be analyzed in light of those unexplained injuries to her children.   Only Jessica and David were in the home when the child abuse occurred.   Either she did it, or he did it.   She knows whether she did it or not.   It was not until an interview with a DCF social worker in February of 2011, that she admitted of the possibility that David had beaten the children.

It is clear that DCF had made substantial efforts after Christopher Jr.'s injuries to reunify Jessica with her child.   Reconnecting Families only closed their case after Allyson was born and injured.   At that time Jessica was within days of a reunification.

The court must resolve the issue of the future safety of these children.   Jessica seeks reunification.   What has she done to answer the questions;  Did she abuse her children?   If not, why did she remain in a relationship with the abuser of her children?   She has provided no explanation.   Given that she has selected very disturbed men to father her children in the past, has remained with a seriously troubled man following the loss of her two children at his hands, what has happened since then to make her worthy of any consideration as a custodial parent.   The answer is, nothing.

Jessica is a woman with monumental mental health needs.   Her whole life has been affected by sexual predators and abusive relationships.   She desperately needs mental health counseling.   She was referred for individual counseling in August 2009.   The record supports a finding that after the removal of Christopher in 2009, Jessica made efforts at reunification.   After the removal of Allyson she made no efforts.

DCF offered intensive safety planning services, Birth to Three visits, domestic violence counseling through United Services which she took in 2009 (Respondents Exhibit 2), Care Net parenting courses from September 2009, through November 2009 and then again in January 2010, (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and the Reconnecting Families Program (Respondent's Exhibit 7).   As previously indicated, Jessica was doing the right things to achieve reunification until Allyson was born and was abused.   Whatever courses she had taken, whatever education she had received, appear to have had no benefit to Jessica.   And after April of 2010, Jessica appears to have lost interest in participation in services.

On April 19, 2010, Jessica received Specific Steps Petitioner's Exhibit O. The first one:  “The Respondent is ordered to:  Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the children's attorney.”   Further down the page “Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting counseling, in-home support services and /or substance abuse assessment/treatment:  United Services, Individual therapy, CPAS, Substance abuse evaluation, Parenting Education.”

DCF wanted Jessica to participate in a substance abuse evaluation in May 2010, after her second child had been removed for child abuse.   Her present attorney makes much of the fact that she had passed a urine screen in 2008 and was deemed not in need of treatment based upon her self-report of no use of drugs or alcohol.   Fast forward two years.   Much has changed.   DCF has a duty to determine if substance abuse is a factor in Jessica's life.   The Specific Steps order her to cooperate.   DCF made an appointment for her for May 13, 2010.   Jessica canceled the appointment.   Another appointment was made for May 24, 2010.   Jessica failed to appear and New Perceptions discharged her.   As of the date the termination petition was filed, Jessica never cooperated.   Neither has she submitted to random drug testing.

Cooperate with home visits.   Although the social worker attempted several announced and unannounced home visits, neither David or Jessica would permit them to inspect their apartments.

Since April 2010 Jessica has announced that she will not meet with DCF without her attorney present.⁷  Exhibit DD p. 13, itemizes the great difficulty, amounting to noncooperation, that occurred between May 2010 and November 2010.

Keep DCF notified of your whereabouts.   On November 30, 2010 the state marshal went to the last know place of address of Jessica and David, only to find that they had left in the middle of the night a month earlier.   DCF had no idea where they lived for months.

Perhaps most troubling is that Jessica has never engaged in individual counseling to deal with her significant traumatic history.   She selects significantly disturbed mates.   She has forsaken her children for a very ill man.   There certainly are issues of profound dependence.   Her relationships have been characterized by control, violence and instability.   The Specific Steps identify individual counseling as necessary, as well as “․ make progress on Mental Health issues ․” Exhibit FF is a group of letters addressed to Jessica which all but beg her to cooperate with the social worker by signing releases necessary to make referrals for required treatment.   The letters were all ignored.   The one-to-one conversations urging Jessica to cooperate, that the social worker had with Jessica during the time that Jessica was being transported to visitation were ignored.

Those letters in Exhibit FF also itemize Jessica's missed visits throughout April, May and June with the infant, Allyson, a time when a person with strong maternal instincts would be desperately seeking to bond with her newborn child.   Jessica didn't even visit.   Indeed, all of her visitation has been inconsistent and between November 2010, December 2010, and January 2011, she didn't visit at all.   A complete list of her missed visits is set forth on page 14 of the Study in support of the motion to approve the permanency plan filed on January 4, 2011 (Petitioner's exhibit DD).  All of this confirms the testimony of the social worker that Jessica told her that she had decided not to contest the termination petition and allow the children to be adopted.   Given her unresolved mental health problems, that may be Jessica's gift to her children.

The ground alleged in the petition as to respondent, mother is that the children were found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and that Jessica has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).   The factual determination for this court is whether the mother has achieved rehabilitation as contemplated under C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B), that is, rehabilitation sufficient to render her able to care for Christopher and Allyson.

The court finds that whatever the problems are with respect to Jessica's inability to protect her children and keep them safe from abuse, those problems remain unresolved and have not been addressed.   A paramount concern of the court is the safety of the children.   Jessica has done nothing to enable her to protect her children.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that she has failed to rehabilitate.

Statutory Findings

During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.”  In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000).  “In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a–112(k) ].”  In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)).   The seven factors “serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.”  In re Quanitra M., supra, at 104.  “There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009).   The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section.

1. TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES— § 17a–112(k)(1)

Multiple timely and appropriate services were provided for Jessica.   Those services included, but are not limited to:  treatment and permanency plans;  case management services;  and administrative case reviews;  transportation services for visitation supervised by DCF personnel, or by therapeutic visitation programs;  and most urgently, repeated attempts to engage her in substance abuse counseling and/or evaluations and individual therapy.   With respect to Christopher:

The court has reported on his prison programs and Youth Challenge involvement.   While those are important, the issue is his suitability to parent now or in the near term, a time consistent with the needs of young Christopher.   This court has concluded that even an accurate assessment of that cannot be made for a number of years after he begins to become self-sustaining in an unstructured, independent- living situation.   That is the unanswerable question.

Our Appellate Court has addressed this issue thusly:  “This court recently rejected a claim that a respondent's substantial compliance with rehabilitative programs bars a court's termination of her parental rights.   In In re Coby C., 107 Conn.App. 395, 406, 945 A.2d 529 (2008), we stated, “Whether the respondent's shortcomings are deemed substantial compliance or noncompliance, the evidence in the record as a whole supports the court's conclusion that the respondent has failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a–112 and that it is not foreseeable that [he] is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time.”   Similarly, the record here supports the court's determination that the respondent, despite [his] compliance with certain court-ordered steps, had not achieved a degree of rehabilitation that would allow [him] to assume a responsible position in [his] children's lives.  “[T]he critical issue [in assessing rehabilitation] is ․ whether the parent has ․ gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 167, 743 A.2d 165 (1999).  In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 791 (2008).

As To David L. He made no effort toward rehabilitation and has no relationship with Allyson.

2. REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW— § 17a–112(k)(2)

DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, through the provision of timely reunification services especially in 2009–2010 until the second abusive episode.   Jessica and David began a period of non-cooperation and Christopher remained in Youth Challenge and subject to the special conditions of probation for sex offenders.   Reunification was not a feasible plan for Jessica unless and until she could conquer her life-long mental health struggles.   She has not.

They did provide Christopher Sr. with continuous and regular visitation.   As to David, he rejected all offers of assistance.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS— § 17a–112(k)(3)

This has been specifically addressed previously.

4. THE CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES— § 17a–112(k)(4)

Since one week after Allyson's birth she has been in foster care and since she has not been in the care of Jessica and David, no parent-child relationship was possible due to the inconsistency and absence of visitation, as discussed infra.

Christopher lived with Christopher Sr. for 14 months and with his mother for 18 months before removal.   During their visitation over the past two years they have each been able to maintain a relationship with young Christopher.   Both parents have been appropriate and affectionate with young Christopher.   However, neither is presently able, nor able within a time frame reasonable to the child, to be a parental resource;  to provide a permanent, safe home for the child.  “The sad fact is that there is a difference between parental love and parental competence.”  In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575 (2005).

With respect to the fact that the respondents are the biological parents of the child, this court is mindful of the law that states that parental rights of a person based on the mere fact of reproduction give rise to constitutionally protected rights, See, e. g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152–53 (1973);  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231–33 (1972);  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972);  Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968);  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965);  id., at 495–96 (Goldberg J., concurring);  id., (White, J., concurring);  Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 542–44, 549–53 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting);  cf.  Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967);  May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953);  Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).   Usually, this biological connection acts as a “powerful motivating force for most parents to provide their children with continuous affectionate and responsible care.   But we recognize that a child's attachments and healthy development do not rest on biology alone.   They ultimately depend on the adult caretaker's reciprocal affection in day-to-day care and attention to the child's needs” Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit, Before the Best Interests of the Child, The Free Press (1979) p. 133–34.

In cases where the biological parents have failed to discharge their responsibilities, for whatever reason, as here, and the child has bonded to caring and nurturing foster parents, the court must begin to view the foster family as a legally recognized, autonomous unit.   A real, de facto, family.   Failing to recognize these psychological bonds would cause unwarranted destruction to very secure attachments producing both psychological distress and developmental harm to the child.   Removal of a child would also cause great hardship and harm to the foster parents.  (See Exhibit X.)

5. AGE OF THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(5)

Christopher is three (DOB 2/29/08) and Allyson is one (4/11/10).

6. PARENT'S EFFORT TO ADJUST CIRCUMSTANCES— § 17a–112(k)(6)

See the individual assessments, infra.

7. EXTENT TO WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(7)

No unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties is noted.   DCF provided Christopher Sr. with continuous and regular visitation during his incarceration and twice monthly supervised visitation in accordance with the terms of criminal probation conditions.

Based upon the earlier adjudicatory findings and the factors set forth in § 17a–112(k), this court finds that it is in the children's best interest that their biological parents' rights are terminated.

The court further finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the families but that Christopher is unable to benefit from the reunification efforts until he stabilizes his own life and resolves his long standing personality and psychiatric related problems.   The court specifically finds that Jessica and David are unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

Orders

“The public policy of this state is:  To protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through injury and neglect;  to strengthen the family and to make the home safe for children by enhancing the parental capacity for good child care ․” General Statutes § 17a–101 (a).  “Time is of the essence in child custody cases ․ This furthers the express public policy of this state to provide all of its children a safe, stable nurturing environment.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Juvenile Appeal (Docket No. 10155 ), 187 Conn. 431, 439–40, 446 A.2d 808 (1982).   The safety of these children has been compromised by each of the parents' criminal acts and malfeasance.

After due consideration of the children's sense of time, their need for a secure and permanent environment and the totality of circumstances;  and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights;  and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the child's best interests, the court issues the following.

ORDERS:

That the parental rights of Jessica F., Christopher C. Sr. and David L. are hereby terminated as to the two children subject of these petitions.   That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the children for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for them.   That a case plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.   That primary consideration for adoption of Christopher and Allyson shall be as a sibling unit.

The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 81 Columbia Avenue, Willimantic CT. 06226 of the date when said adoptions are finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 9th day of June 2011

Foley, Sr. J. # 380

FOOTNOTES

FN2. On May 31, the first day of trial, Jessica announced she has been divorced from Christopher C. and had resumed her maiden name.   Now known as Jessica F..  FN2. On May 31, the first day of trial, Jessica announced she has been divorced from Christopher C. and had resumed her maiden name.   Now known as Jessica F.

FN3. One child was distinctly ruled out as a member of the St. Regis Mohawk Indian tribe..  FN3. One child was distinctly ruled out as a member of the St. Regis Mohawk Indian tribe.

FN4. The judicial marshals were on heightened alert whenever Christopher was in the building.   This will be discussed infra..  FN4. The judicial marshals were on heightened alert whenever Christopher was in the building.   This will be discussed infra.

FN5. Christopher appealed an interim order to the Appellate Court.   In it, inter alia, he argued that his prior lawyer was ineffective in that she failed to contact fifty-five witnesses that he identified and that his attorney prevented him from testifying.  In re Christopher C., 129 Conn.App. 55 (May 24, 2011) His present, third lawyer, allowed him to testify..  FN5. Christopher appealed an interim order to the Appellate Court.   In it, inter alia, he argued that his prior lawyer was ineffective in that she failed to contact fifty-five witnesses that he identified and that his attorney prevented him from testifying.  In re Christopher C., 129 Conn.App. 55 (May 24, 2011) His present, third lawyer, allowed him to testify.

FN6. (a) A person is guilty of larceny in the first degree when he commits larceny, as defined in section 53a–119, and:  (1) The property or service, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion, (2) the value of the property or service exceeds twenty thousand dollars, (3) the property consists of a motor vehicle, the value of which exceeds twenty thousand dollars, or (4) the property is obtained by defrauding a public community, and the value of such property exceeds two thousand dollars..  FN6. (a) A person is guilty of larceny in the first degree when he commits larceny, as defined in section 53a–119, and:  (1) The property or service, regardless of its nature and value, is obtained by extortion, (2) the value of the property or service exceeds twenty thousand dollars, (3) the property consists of a motor vehicle, the value of which exceeds twenty thousand dollars, or (4) the property is obtained by defrauding a public community, and the value of such property exceeds two thousand dollars.

FN7. Jessica was very aggressively and competently represented for trial by her recently acquired attorney.   The prior attorney apparently advised her not to speak with DCF without his presence..  FN7. Jessica was very aggressively and competently represented for trial by her recently acquired attorney.   The prior attorney apparently advised her not to speak with DCF without his presence.

Foley, Francis J., S.J.