IN RE: Destiny R.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These are actions brought by the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological Mother and the biological Father of Destiny R. (hereinafter referred to as “Destiny R.” or “child”).   The biological Mother of the child is Joseline R. (hereinafter referred to as “Joseline R.” or “Mother”) and the biological Father of the child is Luis R., Sr. (hereinafter referred to as “Louis R., Sr.” or “Father”).

Destiny R. was born on 4/26/08 in Hartford, Connecticut.   A referral was made to DCF on 4/27/08, as Destiny R. was born substance exposed.   She was removed from the hospital and placed in the home of her present DCF licensed foster parents on 4/30/08.   OTC and neglect petitions were granted on 5/2/08 and the OTC was sustained on 5/9/08.   On that date, two one-hour visits per week were granted for each parent, specific steps were ordered and a CSC was scheduled for 7/7/08 at 10 a.m.

On 7/29/08 a hearing was held with regard to the neglect petition.   Mother and Father were not present (counsel for each parent had been appointed and were present) and the default of each parent was ordered as pleaded.   It was reported that the parents had been evicted and no forwarding address was available.   Previously ordered steps were reaffirmed as final steps.   The court found that commitment was in the best interest of the child and the same was ordered until further order of the court.

On 1/29/09, DCF filed a permanency plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption which was approved by the court.   At the hearing on 3/17/09 no objection was filed as to the permanency plan and the same was supported by the attorney for the minor child.   The foster mother and maternal grandfather were present in court.   Reasonable efforts were found to have been made to effectuate the permanency plan.

On 5/8/09 sibling, Luis R. was born in Hartford, Connecticut to the parents of Destiny R. Luis R. was permitted to remain in the care of his parents who were living with maternal grandfather in his one-bedroom apartment.

On 5/19/09, DCF filed a permanency plan for reunification of Destiny R. with Mother and Father.   On 6/9/09 the permanency plan was approved and the petitioner was anticipating that the reunification of Destiny R. would be accomplished within three to six months.   A motion for modification filed by Father on 6/9/09 was continued to the CSC scheduled for 7/20/09 at 9 a.m. The court found that reasonable efforts were made to effectuate the permanency plan.

On 10/15/09, Father's motion for modification was continued to 11/24/09, a motion for immediate hearing concerning commitment was granted and the contested trial for revocation was marked off.

On 11/24/09, Father's motion for modification was continued to 12/17/09.   The court heard a request from the attorney for the minor child that the child be placed with the parents under commitment.   DCF agreed with the commitment and the same was ordered by the court.   A CSC was ordered for 12/2/09 with the understanding that if agreement was reached on that date, a motion to revoke would be heard on 12/17/09.

On 12/17/09 a motion to reopen and modify was granted by the court and the attorney for the minor child withdrew the objection to the motion.   The court found that the cause for commitment no longer existed and ordered six months of protective supervision from 12/17/09–6/17/10.   The court also reviewed the specific steps and approved and ordered them as final steps.   The MRP hearing was marked off and an In Court Judicial Review of the protective supervision was scheduled for 3/18/10.

On 2/25/10 Luis R., Sr. was arrested on allegations that he had been involved in a serious assault several years previously, and his fingerprint had been found on a live bullet at the scene.   At the time of his arrest, due to the severe injuries to the young victim, it seemed likely that Luis R., Sr. would face a long criminal sentence.   He was incarcerated at MacDougall Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut.

On 3/30/10 a motion was presented to the court by the attorney for the minor child to extend the protective supervision to 10/17/10;  the motion was granted.   The court also ordered a hair test for Mother as requested, and set a date of 9/7/10 for an In Court Judicial Review of the protective supervision.   Father, Luis R., Sr. was not present in court but was represented by his attorney.

On 6/8/10, a 96–Hour Administrative Hold was invoked in regard to Destiny R. and Luis R. On 6/11/10, petitions for OTC and Neglect were filed as to Luis R. and a petition for OTC was filed as to Destiny R. On 6/16/10 the OTC for Luis R. was sustained as to Mother and Father by agreement;  no agreement was entered as to sustaining the OTC for Destiny R., and it was ordered by the court that the contested OTC (Destiny R.), the contested Neglect petition (Luis R.), and the pending motion to reopen and revoke be consolidated for trial.   An In Court Judicial Review of the earlier protective supervision was continued to 9/7/10, and specific steps were reviewed, approved and ordered as preliminary steps.   It is to be noted that maternal grandmother, Maria J., was present in court and Father, Luis R., Sr. was present on a habeas corpus writ.

On 7/22/10 maternal grandmother, Maria J., presented a motion to intervene which was denied with prejudice (Dannehy, J.).   A motion to intervene, presented by Edgardo H., a non-biological relative, was also denied, with prejudice (Dannehy, J.).   A motion for a psychological evaluation by the attorney for the minor child was presented and granted.   The trial date of 9/1/10 was reaffirmed.

On 8/26/10, Maria J.'s motion to intervene was presented to the court and denied (Wollenberg, J.);   an addendum to the motion to intervene was denied and an objection to the motion to intervene by the attorney for the minor child was granted.   The court allowed Maria J. to re-file the motion to intervene before Dannehy, J.

On 9/1/10 Mother, Joseline R. and Father, Luis R., Sr. agreed to sustain the OTC as to Destiny R.;   they pleaded nolo contendere to neglect and denial of proper care as to Destiny R. and Luis R. and thereupon the court committed the children to the Department.   The motion to reopen and modify disposition of Destiny R. was granted.   Specific steps were ordered, amended, reviewed and approved.   Father was present on a habeas corpus writ.

On 10/18/10, maternal grandmother's motion to reargue the motion to intervene was granted, and thereafter the motion to intervene as to both Destiny R. and Luis R. was granted (Keller, J.).   The court ordered no visits for maternal grandmother with regard to Destiny R. and one visit per month with regard to Luis R. A transcript of the hearing, the current evaluation and any narratives were ordered released to Attorney Rosado, Maria J.'s attorney.   The court ordered a trial to be held on 12/9/10 and consolidated all matters in regard to Destiny R., including Termination of Parental Rights, the motion of maternal grandmother for Transfer of Guardianship and the motion of Father, Luis R., Sr. for modification.

On 11/1/10 motions for Transfer of Guardianship and modification were continued to the TPR trial.   The court granted the motion of the attorney for the minor child for an amendment to the psychological evaluation to interactionals, i.e. Mother and children;  Father and children and maternal grandmother and children.

On 11/12/10 the attorney for the minor child visitation report dated 11/2/10 was forwarded to the psychological evaluator. 11/18/10 was set by the court as a plea date for the Termination of Parental Rights trial with regard to Destiny R. On 11/18/10 abode service was confirmed, Mother and Father were advised and denials were entered.   The motion for modification of specific steps with regard to Father was denied.   Trial dates were set for 12/9/10 and 12/10/10 from 9:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

On 12/9/10 trial commenced, all parties were present and represented.   The petitioner, DCF, presented 23 full exhibits (Ex. A–W);  respondent Father presented 13 full exhibits (Ex. 1–13);  respondent Mother presented 1 full exhibit (Ex. 1);  and maternal grandmother presented 4 full exhibits (Ex. 1–4).   On both 12/9/10 and 12/10/10 testimony was taken from witnesses for the petitioner.   On 3/28/11 the petitioner continued with testimony and thereafter rested.

On 4/12/11 a motion for review of the permanency plan of TPR and adoption was presented and was granted and reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan were found.

On 4/28/11 the trial continued.   Respondent Mother filed 1 full exhibit (Ex. 2);  three witnesses testified for respondent Father and 2 witnesses testified for respondent Mother.   Thereafter, all parties rested and closing arguments were set for 5/2/11 at 9 a.m. The court opened at 9 a.m. on said date and Mother, Father and maternal grandmother appeared at 9:39 a.m.

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 Termination of Parental Rights as to the biological Mother, Joseline R. and as to biological Father, Luis R., Sr. are Failure to Rehabilitate (B1).

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

I

FACTUAL FINDINGSA. Background/Present Situation/Reasons for Petition/Facts Substantiating Allegations of Neglect and Termination

On 4/27/08, a report was received from a Hartford Hospital nurse, Kelly P., stating that Mother had given birth to her third child on 4/26/08.   She reported that Mother tested positive for marijuana on 3/6/08, 3/27/08, 4/9/08 and at the birth of her child on 4/26/08, and for marijuana and cocaine on 3/21/08.   Mother admitted to smoking marijuana throughout her pregnancy, stating that it helped to increase her appetite and elevate her depressive feelings.   She denied using cocaine.

Mother has two older children, Passion R., DOB 6/8/04 and Gilberto R., DOB 8/21/01.   She was removed as their guardian on 1/23/07 through the Hartford Probate Court due to concerns of substance abuse and domestic violence.   Guardianships were granted to maternal grandmother, Maria J., and the court ordered that Mother was not to have unsupervised visitation.

On 7/29/08, Destiny R. was committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Luis R. was born on 5/8/09, and Mother and Father maintained care of him while residing with maternal grandfather.   On 6/9/09, Father filed a Motion to Revoke Commitment and on 11/24/09, Destiny R. was reunified with her parents under commitment.

On 2/25/10, Father, Luis R., Sr., was arrested and charged with Assault 1st degree in what was reported as an extremely brutal attack on a young man.   Luis R., Sr. was unable to post bond and was incarcerated.

On 5/14/10 Mother had a positive hair test for marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines.   On 6/7/10 a social worker made an unannounced home visit with a Section 8 manager and Mother admitted to continued use of marijuana and cocaine three times over the weekend.   She reported that the children were in the care of their grandmother, Maria J.

On 6/8/10 Mother was taken to the Amethyst House in New Haven for an inpatient substance abuse intake but did not remain in treatment.   She checked into Amethyst House again on 6/17/10, but left within 24 hours.   On 6/22/10 her Section 8 case manager closed her case due to non-compliance of treatment goals.   Mother did not contact DCF until 7/8/10 with regard to the case and the well-being of her daughter, Destiny R. She requested outpatient substance abuse treatment but would not disclose her whereabouts.   At the time of the 96–Hour Administrative Hold Father was incarcerated and seemed likely to face a long prison sentence.   He was subsequently released and acquitted in September 2010.

B. Mother, Joseline R.

Joseline R. was born in Puerto Rico on 11/30/86 to Maria J. and Francisco R. She has two younger brothers, Francisco R. and Alexis R. At age 7, she moved with her family to Hartford, Connecticut.   Joseline R. described her relationship with her parents and sibling as good up until she turned fourteen and her parents separated.   They remain legally married but do not live together.

Joseline R. has been involved in at least three significant relationships, two of which have produced children.   She has never married.   Her relationship with Gilberto R., Sr. lasted for approximately five years.   She became pregnant with her son, Gilberto R., at age 14 and with daughter, Passion R., at age 17.   As the result of a family decision, maternal grandmother, Maria J. was given temporary custody of Gilberto R., DOB 8/21/01, and Passion R., DOB 6/8/04 to allow Mother to achieve stability and find an apartment.

Joseline R. was involved with Luis C. for approximately two years.   She described him as very abusive and jealous.   While she was attending Sawyer Business School, he would take her out of school and beat her.   She was hospitalized on one occasion for two weeks after he broke her jaw.   He was incarcerated for physical abuse but Mother did not receive any services to address this domestic violence.   In the summer of 2010, Luis C. had run into Mother and wanted to resume their relationship.   She said that he stalked her and she was afraid of him.   In August 2008 he hit her in the face with a bottle and she subsequently sought medical attention and reported the abuse to the police.

Mother became involved with Father, Luis R., Sr. with whom she had two children—Destiny R., who was born on 4/26/08 and Louis R. who was born on 5/8/09.   Mother was depressed during her pregnancy with Destiny R. She is no longer involved in a romantic relationship with Father but claims he is still a support for her.

Mother has no military service.   She does not have a criminal record but was arrested along with Father on 12/2/08 for a drug-related charge.   She was referred to the Community Partners in Action Alternative Incarcerated Center in Hartford and the charges were nolled as of 3/19/10.

C. Father, Luis R., Sr.

Luis R., Sr., was born on 5/11/80 in Brooklyn, New York to Myriam R. and Luis R. He has a younger sister, Miriam R. He described a fair relationship with his parents and credited them with making him the man he is.   He grew up in New York for twelve years before his parents moved to New Britain in 1992.   He got his first job at the age of eighteen and dropped out of school in the 12th grade because he was employed full-time.   He also received culinary arts training while in prison.

Luis R., Sr. has a significant criminal history.   He has been arrested eight times in the State of Connecticut since 3/1/99.   He was incarcerated for four years and three months for Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the First Degree from February 2000 to April 2004.   He has convictions for Assault 3, Robbery 1, Carrying a Dangerous Weapon, Larceny 3, Possession of Narcotics, and Carrying/Selling a Weapon.   He was acquitted in September 2010 for an Assault Charge for which he had been incarcerated since February 2010.   He is presently on probation for Possession of Narcotics from an arrest on 12/2/08.

Luis R., Sr. was formerly employed by Chili's, Wal–Mart (1 yr.), and the Rainforest Cafe (2 yrs.).   He has done some landscaping work under the table and is not presently employed.

Luis R., Sr., has never been married.   DCF records indicate that he has five children by four different mothers, although Father claimed he was unsure about his paternity of one of the children.   His oldest two children were born to two different mothers a little over four months apart.   He has a son, Luis R., DOB 9/9/99, a daughter, Sammarie O., DOB 1/25/00 from relationship he had with a woman whom he described as a “psycho.”   DCF received a referral on 9/6/04 from the New Britain Police Department due to an incident of domestic violence between Father and E.O. that occurred in front of E.O.'s two and a half year old child and resulted in the child's removal.   Father has a child, Elexis V., DOB 10/5/06.   His youngest two children are Destiny R., DOB 4/26/08, for whom this petition is filed, and Luis R., DOB 5/8/09.   Father reported that he was in a relationship with Joseline R, Mother of Destiny R. and Luis R., for over two years prior to his incarceration in February 2010.   He has not paid child support for his children but he claims he has a positive relationship with all of them.

Luis R., Sr. has never served in the military.   He has had no hospitalizations for any physical or mental health issues.   He reported receiving Social Security for five years due to being diagnosed with ADHD as a child.   He was prescribed Ritalin for five years.

Luis R., Sr. admits to smoking marijuana when he was a teenager but denies any ongoing substance abuse issues.

D. Child for Whom Petition is Filed, Destiny R.

Destiny R. was born on 4/26/08 at Hartford Hospital.   A referral was made to the Department on 4/27/10 as Destiny R. was born substance exposed.   Mother described her pregnancy with Destiny R. as a good pregnancy.   She reportedly smoked marijuana because she didn't have an appetite.

Destiny R. was removed from the hospital and placed in the home of her present DCF licensed foster parents on 4/30/08.   She was readmitted to the hospital on 5/20/08 and was discharged on 5/23/08 due to pneumonia.   She has thrived in her foster home and other than asthma, she has no significant health issues.   She has attended a licensed day care facility where she has formed healthy relationships with her peers and learned age appropriate skills.

Destiny R. remained in the care of her present foster parents until 11/24/09 at which time she was reunified with her parents, Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr. While Destiny R. was in their care, her Mother gave birth to Luis R. Her foster parents, who has raised her for the first 19 months of her life, offered their continued support and made efforts to maintain communication with the biological parents but Mother later reported to a DCF social worker that she chose not to remain in regular contact with the foster parents as she felt jealous of their relationship with Destiny R.

During the period that Destiny R. remained with her Mother, Father and her baby brother, Luis R., maternal grandmother, Maria J. spent time caring for the children while the parents were out;  she testified to watching the children while Mother went clubbing.   On 2/25/10 Father was arrested and remained incarcerated until 9/1/10.   Mother had difficulty maintaining the household in his absence and she relapsed on drugs.

DCF removed the children on 6/8/10, about six and a half months after they had been reunified with their parents.   They were placed together in the same DCF licensed foster home where Destiny R. had been raised since birth.

According to her foster parents, Destiny R.'s transition back to their home was difficult at first.   She had been unable to maintain consistent contact with them during the six and a half months that she had been in her Mother's care.   She had nightmares and sleep disruptions and the foster parents were unable to return her to her previous childcare provider for some time since she did not want to be separated from them.   This was in spite of the fact that it had been a safe and familiar environment for her.   She started re-attending the daycare program on a part-time basis and has done well there.

The parents have weekly visitation with Destiny R. and the child interacts positively with them during visits.   The parents play with her and engage her.   During some of her earlier visits she would seek out her foster father for reassurance.   He has transported Destiny R. to visits with her parents as she experiences significant anxiety about getting into a car with anyone else.

Destiny R. appears to have a strong attachment to her current foster parents whom she refers to as “Mommy” and “Daddy.”   According to a court ordered psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Bruce Freedman dated 8/24/10, he described Destiny R. as “secure and strongly attached to these parents, and regarded them in every way as mom and dad.   Her best interest would be served by having her remain in this home, and by securing the permanence and stability of this home through legal measures.”

Destiny R. and Luis R., her brother, with whom she has a significant attachment, were placed together in their current foster home on 6/8/10 and have resided there for 14 months.   They lived in the home of their biological parents (with their Mother for six and a half months and their Father for three months).   Destiny R. may have developed relationships with other maternal and paternal half-siblings during the brief time she resided with her parents but she has never resided with those siblings.   Her maternal grandmother has reported that she has a significant relationship with Destiny R., however this cannot be verified.   She participated in limited visitation with Destiny R. when she was in DCF care for 19 months, and reportedly provided child care during the 6 1/2 months that Destiny R. was in her Mother's care.

E. Relative Resources

On 7/22/10, maternal grandmother filed a motion to intervene that was denied by the court, Dannehy, J., with prejudice, reciting that the motion was not timely filed as the case had been pending since 5/2/08 originally, and thereafter since 3/30/10 when the motion to extend protective supervision was granted.   Also, the court found that maternal grandmother failed to report Mother's drug usage while Destiny R. was under protective supervision.

Again, on 8/26/10 the motion to intervene by maternal grandmother was filed and the same was denied as was the motion to file an addendum to the motion to intervene.   An objection to the motion to intervene was granted at that time, Wollenberg, J.

On 10/18/10 the court, Keller, J., granted the motion to intervene as to Destiny R. and Luis R. filed by the maternal grandmother.   However, maternal grandmother was not granted visitation with Destiny R. but only with Luis R, Jr. on a once-a-month basis.   Further, it was made clear that she was being granted to intervene only in the pending neglect proceeding as to Destiny R. and not the Termination preceding (Ex. W, page 81).   Comment was made by Judge Keller at the 10/18/10 hearing referring to the timelines of maternal grandmother's request to intervene, as follows:  “ ․ she's kind of a Joey-come-lately with respect to Destiny's case.”   Ex. W., p. 77).   On many occasions during the 10/18/10 hearing, the court commented on the relationship Destiny R. had developed with her foster parents for the two-year period from her removal at birth until the hearing.   Also, noted by the court was the fact that the maternal grandmother “․ had her opportunity.   She may have had an opportunity for the past two-and-a-half years, but she didn't take it.”  (Ex. W, p. 53.)   The court advised counsel for maternal grandmother that “I'm relying on what is the stronger relationship and what is her best interest for permanency.   And at this point you have a really high hurdle to overcome.”   (Ex. W, p. 54).   The court continues, “And right now, from everything I have heard so far, the foster parents would have priority over her.”  (Ex. W, page 55.)   At that time the court had heard lengthy testimony from maternal grandmother and stated afterward, “And quite frankly, she's a poor historian;  I can see that.   I don't know how much she's going to add by being a party, because I can't get any information out of her.”  (Ex. W., p. 59.)

Dr. Bruce Freedman conducted a psychological evaluation which amended an earlier evaluation as additional observations were requested of Luis R., Sr. with the two children, the foster parents with the two children, and Maria J. with the two children.   With regard to maternal grandmother, Dr. Freedman stated that overall she was appropriate with the children, but in conclusion he reported, “If this was early in the children's placement, other problems were not present, and she was a relative interviewing at that point, this would be an encouraging interactional observation.   However at this eleventh hour, her bid to assume guardianship of the children seemed too little and too late.”   (Ex. R, p. 14.)   Further, Dr. Freedman opined, “Both Mr. R. and Ms. J. had intervened at the eleventh hour, having failed to care for or protect the children adequately in the past.   Ms. J. had not intervened in the past and while she had provided care for the children during the time they were reunified with their mother, she repeatedly returned the children to Joseline's care, despite her clear awareness that her daughter was using drugs and deteriorating ․ It was possible that either adult might be able to create a good home for Destiny.   However, this would require removing the child from the one stable, secure home she had known, only to face many potential problems including exposure to Joseline or other adults with significant problems.”   (Ex. R, p. 18.)

Counsel for the minor children, and with regard to Destiny R., in particular, was adamant concerning the inability of the maternal grandmother to raise the child or the two children, as she insisted the evidence was unequivocal that she could not be trusted to have the children in her care.   She had a chance to protect them and she chose to return them to Mother, who was “clubbing” all weekend, on demand.   The DCF supervisor and others, including Father, testified credibly that they were able to observe Joseline R. and that it was obvious that she was involved and re-involved in substance abuse.

Based on the testimony of maternal grandmother, only one of two things were possible:  (1) either maternal grandmother was truthful when she testified and she could not tell that her own daughter was involved with drugs, although Mother's drug abuse was evident to those who barely knew her;  or (2) maternal grandmother is less than candid before the court.   Neither scenario is acceptable as there are two children at risk.   As found by Judge Keller at the hearing on 10/18/10, and on other occasions of testimony, “maternal grandmother's credibility before the court is dismal and historically poor, at best.”

F. Present Situation

Mother remains unemployed, continues to be confronted with substance abuse issues, is for the most part transient, living with friends and relatives and maintains her carefree life of clubbing without regard to the needs of her children, all four of whom continue to be cared for by others.   She remains under the court order of only supervised visitation with her two older children and from time to time, her association with them has been strained.   She has continued to work less than diligently with the many programs she has been offered towards reunification and repeatedly puts her own interests and impulses ahead of her children's needs.  (Ex. R., page 17.)

Father is on probation and has been residing with maternal grandfather since his release from prison on 9/10/10.   He is not employed but claimed in testimony that he buys things for Destiny R. and Luis R. as they are needed.   It is understood that the car he drives belongs to maternal grandfather.   Father continues to reject programs with regard to hair testing for substance abuse and says he is seeking to have his specific steps modified to eliminate the same.

Mother and Father both claim that they are no longer in a relationship, but they remain friends.   Father reports that he is a support for Mother;  he provides her with transportation to appointments and makes telephone calls on her behalf.   Mother's extended family is a support system for both of them.   Although they report they are not a couple, Mother seems to continue to be very dependent on Father.

Destiny R. and Luis R. are placed with the foster parents who have cared for Destiny R. for 31 1/2 months of her 38 months of age and for Luis R. for approximately 12 months of the 25 months of his age.   The family is a pre-adoptive source for Destiny R. and possibly her brother and she is thriving in their home.   Destiny R. has weekly supervised visits with her parents but her maternal grandmother does not have visitation with her.

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, Joseline R.'s and Father, Luis R., Sr.'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 Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr.

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 parents' continuing disregard for maintaining meaningful family relationships gives the court little or no encouragement that they will ever adjust and conform their lifestyles and priorities to those of responsible parents for Destiny R.

Neither Mother nor Father has 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 remains under probation.

DCF has been involved with this family since 2006.   The presenting problems with this family were as stated above.

Reasonable and active efforts were made to prevent removal of the child and/or to reunify the child with his parents.  (See Exhibit A, pages 6 and 7, ¶ 6.)

Mother and Father have attended some of the services on a sporadic basis.   They have participated in these programs for a period of time but invariably fail 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, Joseline R. and Biological Father, Luis R., Sr.

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 Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr. 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 Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr. have not achieved CGS § 17a–112(j)(3)(Bi) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground B1—Failure to Rehabilitate as to Child Destiny R. by biological Mother, Joseline R.

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

Joseline R. has a history with the Department dating back to 2006.   The presenting issues were unemployment, substance abuse, domestic violence, poor parenting skills and transience.   As reported above, Mother does not have her two older children, Gilberto R. and Passion R., in her care.

Final specific steps were ordered for Mother by the court on 7/29/08 when the child was adjudicated neglected and first committed to DCF's care.   Final specific steps were also entered for Mother by the court on 12/17/09, when commitment was modified to Protective Supervision.   Final specific steps were ordered for Mother again on 9/1/10 when the child was committed to the Department for the second time.   Steps to facilitate the return of Destiny R. to Joseline R.'s care have not been complied with.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child's court appointed attorney and or guardian ad litem (7/29/08, 12/17/09, 9/1/09)

Mother did not attend a scheduled ACR on 8/2/10.   She reported to the DCF social worker that she was embarrassed to come because she had not kept her scheduled substance abuse evaluation on 7/31/10.

Keep child's whereabouts and your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the child at all times (7/29/08, 12/17/09, 9/1/10)

Mother has been transient and DCF has not always known of her whereabouts.

Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals—Parenting (7/29/08, 9/1/10);  Individual (7/29/08, 9/1/10);  Family (12/17/09).

Goals 7/29/08:  Increase parenting skills and address substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence issues.

Goals 12/17/09:  Increase parenting skills, address substance abuse and domestic violence, mental health to be monitored

Goals 9/1/10:  1) address substance abuse issues;  2) develop an understanding of the impact that substance abuse has on children;  3) learn ways to deal with possible depression and cope with stressors;  4) address anger management issues;  and 5) address trauma history as disclosed in the psychological evaluation.

Although Mother has participated in several of the services outlined above and even completed some of them in the past, she has failed to benefit from services received, as evidenced by the following:

Parenting:  Mother has allowed her substance abuse to interfere with her ability to parent and to provide a safe environment for her children.   This has prevented her from applying the skills she may have gained from past parenting services.

Substance abuse:  Although Joseline R. has previously participated in and even completed substance services, when faced with the stress of parenting her two young children alone, she was unable to maintain her sobriety.   She chose not to participate in the inpatient mother and child program at Amethyst House in New Haven, knowing that failure to do so could result in the removal of her children.   She has yet to reengage in treatment, but reported on 10/21/10 that she would be entering the Alliance inpatient program in New Britain on 10/22/10.

Domestic Violence:  Joseline R. still needs to gain insight into the issue of domestic violence.   In September 2010 she reported that she had been having difficulties with Luis C., a former boyfriend who she claimed was stalking her.   In spite of her fear, she continued to associate with him, going out to clubs and abusing drugs and placing herself at risk.   On one of those occasions, Luis C. assaulted Joseline R. She chose not to seek shelter services in spite of the fact that Luis C. was still in the community and a potential threat to her.

Visit child as often as DCF permits and demonstrate appropriate parent/child interaction (7/29/08, 9/1/10)

According to a social study filed by the Department on 5/11/09, Mother missed 9 of the 42 visits she was offered between April 2008 and May 2009.   Visitation was later increased during the reunification process.   Destiny R. was returned to her parents' care on 11/24/09.

Destiny R. returned to DCF's care on 6/8/10 and Mother's whereabouts were unknown for a period of time.   After Mother contacted the Department in July 2010, she was offered weekly visits.   The first visit occurred on 7/29/10.   On 9/21/10 Mother was an hour late for a scheduled visit, by which time the children had come and gone.   After this missed visit, Mother was informed that she needed to call by 9:00 a.m. the day of her visit to confirm or the visit would be cancelled.   She either failed to attend or canceled visits on 10/17/10, 10/14/10, and 10/21/10.

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention (7/29/08, 12/17/09, 9/1/10)

On 6/8/10, the DCF social worker transported Joseline R. to the Amethyst House in New Haven for an inpatient substance abuse intake.   She did meet the criteria for an inpatient level of care, however, she refused to remain at the mother and child program, stating that she had business to take care of.   On 6/15/10, Joseline R. voluntarily entered treatment at Amethyst House;  however on 6/16/10, she declined services and left the facility.

Joseline R. was scheduled for a substance abuse evaluation at the Catholic Charities Institute for the Hispanic Family on 7/31/10.   She did not attend the evaluation, and later acknowledged to the DCF social worker that the reason she did not attend was because she had been out at the club the night before and had been in a fight.   She also acknowledged that she had used drugs.

Submit to random drug testing;  the time and method of that testing shall be at the discretion of DCF (7/29/08, 12/17/09, 9/1/10)

Joseline R. missed her scheduled drug screen and evaluation on 7/31/10.

Cooperate with recommended service providers for parenting/ individual/ family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment:

7/29/08:  Institute for the Hispanic Family for parenting and individual counseling and substance abuse assessment.   Provider to be determined for domestic violence services.   Wheeler Clinic intensive safety planning program.

12/17/09:  My People's Clinical Services—Reunification Program

9/1/10:  Catholic Charities and/or other comparable service providers:  substance abuse and individual counseling to address mental health, anger management, and trauma history.

Joseline R. had previously completed substance abuse treatment through the Catholic Charities Institute for the Hispanic Family;  however she relapsed sometime after Luis R., Sr. became incarcerated in February 2010.   She missed a scheduled substance abuse evaluation on 7/31/10 at the Catholic Charities Institute for the Hispanic Family and chose not to participate in the inpatient mother and child program at Amethyst House in New Haven, knowing that failure to do so could result in the removal of her children.

Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income (7/29/08, 12/17/09, 9/1/10)

Joseline R. has no legal income and does not have stable housing.   DCF referred her to the Connection's Supportive Housing for Families Program and she was assigned a case manager on 4/15/10, however she lost her housing opportunity when she relapsed on drugs.   The program requires a minimum of 90 days documented clean time, as well as compliance with DCF's treatment plan, but Joseline R. still has not achieved this.   She had been staying with various friends and relatives on a night-to-night basis for several months.   On 10/20/10 she reported moving in with her maternal grandparents.   On 10/21/10 she reported that she was able to stay there during the week, but not on weekends when the minor grandchildren came to visit.

No engagement in substance abuse (7/29/08);  no use of illegal drugs nor abuse of alcohol or medication (12/17/09, 9/1/10).

The case manager at Community Partners in Action reported that Joseline R. had a positive urine screen on 12/16/08 for marijuana and cocaine.

Mother previously engaged in substance abuse treatment, however she relapsed on drugs after Destiny R. was returned to her care and Father became incarcerated.   On 5/14/10 Mother submitted to a hair test that was positive for marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines.   She acknowledged ongoing substance abuse to DCF on multiple occasions.   On 9/21/10 during a substance abuse evaluation at the Catholic Charities Institute for the Hispanic Family, Mother admitted to using drugs on 9/17/10.   In October 2010 she claimed that she had become intoxicated and called 911 in an attempt to secure substance abuse treatment.   She was brought to the Emergency Department at Hartford Hospital and was released the same night after being provided with information about treatment programs.

No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system.  Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole (7/29/08, 12/17/09, 9/1/10)

On 12/2/08, Joseline R. was arrested with Luis R., Sr. on a drug-related charge.   She was referred to the Community Partners in Action Alternative Incarceration Center in Hartford.   Her charges were nolled as of 3/19/10.

Consistently and timely meet and address the child's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including but not limited to, keeping the child's appointments with her medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers (7/29/08, 12/17/09)

Joseline R. has failed to meet this step.   She relapsed on substances following Luis R., Sr.'s incarceration.   She was unable to maintain her household and could not provide a safe and stable environment for Destiny R. After working hard to reunify with Destiny R., Mother acknowledged that she frequently left her in the care of maternal grandmother while she went out clubbing.

Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child (7/29/08, 12/17/09, 9/1/10)

Mother has been transient and does not have the children in her care at this time.

Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents (12/17/09, 9/1/10).

Joseline R. appeared in court on 9/1/10 with a visible bruise on her face.   She reported to DCF that she had been out clubbing on 8/28/10.   At about 2:00 a.m., a man she knew had hit her in the face with a bottle.   She further admitted to using drugs that evening.   She sought medical attention and reported the incident to the police.   On 9/21/10 she met with two DCF social workers at the Department's Hartford regional office.   She acknowledged that the man who hit her was Luis C. Joseline R. had formerly been involved in an abusive relationship with Luis C., who had once broken her jaw.   According to Joseline R., Luis C. had been stalking her again.   Wheeler Clinic's domestic violence consultant joined the meeting to discuss safety planning with Joseline R. She was strongly encouraged to seek shelter services for her own safety, as Luis C. had not yet been arrested and was thought to be aware of her filing a police report.   She opted not to go to a shelter as she was still using substances and this would have made it difficult for her to comply with shelter regulations.

Other:  Seek and obtain inpatient program to address substance abuse, DCF to assist (9/1/10)

Mother reported on 10/21/10 that she would be entering a 30–day inpatient program at Alliance in New Britain on 10/22/10.  (See Exhibit A, page 10 et seq. for further details.)

Joseline R. 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, transience and unemployment, nor has she participated in domestic violence support services.   Although Mother has had the benefit of DCF intervention since Destiny R.'s birth on 4/26/08, she has demonstrated no change in her behavior.

Destiny R. is a three-year-old child who requires a safe and stable home environment free of domestic violence.   She requires a sober and competent caregiver.   She has been thriving while in foster care and does not have any specialized needs.   She is placed with foster parents who are willing to adopt her.   She has made a positive adjustment to this home and continues to reach age appropriate developmental milestones.   Destiny R. may be considered a medically complex child due to her diagnosis of asthma.

Destiny R. is in need of a permanent home where she can continue to flourish and grow.   Her pre-adoptive parents are committed to ensuring that she is in a safe, loving and consistent home.

Ground B1—Failure to Rehabilitate with Child Destiny R. as to Biological Father, Luis R., Sr.

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

Destiny R. was committed to the care of the Department following her birth at which time Mother tested positive for marijuana and further admitted to substance abuse during the pregnancy.

At the time of adjudication the presenting problems for Luis R., Sr. were the fact that he was not employed and was facing eviction.   He has a significant criminal history.   He continued to reside with Mother while she was abusing substances.

Final specific steps were ordered for Luis R., Sr. by the court on 7/29/08 when Destiny R. was adjudicated neglected and first committed to the Department's care.   Final specific steps were also entered for Luis R., Sr. on 12/17/09 when commitment was modified to Protective Supervision and again on 9/1/10 when the child was committed to the Department for the second time.   Steps to facilitate the return of Destiny R. to Luis R., Sr.'s care have not been complied with.  (See Exhibit A, page 15 et seq. for further details.)

Luis R., Sr. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his child within a reasonable time period as he remains involved with the criminal justice system and has been reluctant to comply with programs as offered.   He has been involved with Child Protective Services since 2004 and services provided to him have been unsuccessful in mitigating the identified CPS issues.

Destiny R. is in need of a permanent home where she can continue to flourish and grow.   Her pre-adoptive parents are committed to ensuring that she 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, Joseline R., and Father, Luis R., Sr., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Destiny R.

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 Joseline R.'s and Luis R., Sr.'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 Destiny R. with her 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 Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr. 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).

Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return Destiny R. 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 her parents, due to her parents' substance abuse and reluctance to accept their roles as parents.   She has developed a strong bond with her foster parents with whom she has lived since birth, and apart from a six-month reunification with her parents, from 6/8/10 to the present.   The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt her.

5. “The age of the child.”

Destiny R., DOB 4/26/08, is 3 years and 3 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 Joseline R. or Luis R., Sr. 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 Joseline R.'s and Luis R., Sr.'s parental rights to Destiny R. would be in her 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 Joseline R.'s and Luis R., Sr.'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 her environment;  her length of stay in foster care;  the nature of her relationship with her biological parents;  and the degree of contact maintained with her 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 her 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 her 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.

Destiny R. cannot delay her need for permanence and stability in exchange for her 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 her 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 her 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 her 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 her 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 Joseline R. and Luis R., Sr. as to Destiny R. is in the best interest of the child in question.

IV

MOTION TO MODIFY DISPOSITION TO PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION

Father, Luis R., Sr. filed a Motion to Modify Disposition to Protective Supervision on 9/24/10.   The motion, according to its content, was filed in accordance with Connecticut Practice Book § 35a–16 which is the modification section.   However, it appears in paragraph 7 of the motion that a claim is made that a cause for commitment no longer exists which is the criteria for revocation of commitment under § 35a–14A of the Practice Book. The court determines that the motion is for modification and not revocation of the commitment.   That decision is in concert with the court order on 10/18/10.   (See Exhibit W, page 83, Keller, J.)

In addition to the facts and conclusions with regard to Father, Luis R., Sr., previously recited above, this court refers to a Memorandum of Decision dated October 19, 2010, authored by Foley, Sr., J. On page 3 and 4 of that memorandum there are a number of citations directly on point as follows:

I. General Obligations of Parenthood

The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes:  (1) express love and affection for the child;  (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child;  (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing, and medical care;  (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile;  and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.  In re Adoption of Webb, 14 Wash.App. 651, 653, 544 P.2d 130 (1975), In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 244, 255 (2000).

II. The Need for Parental Association 5

The law is clear that post-conception there are obligations of fatherhood that must be met in order to have the full panoply of parent-child protections.  “It is not the brute biological fact of parentage, but the existence of an actual or potential relationship that society recognizes as worthy of respect and protection, that activates the constitutional claim.   Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 259 (1983) ․ This principle rests on a practical recognition that biology and association can together establish a relationship between father and child that may be essential to happiness of both, even if the formality of marriage is missing.  463 U.S. at 263–65,” Pena v. Maddox, 84 F.3d 894, 899 (7th Cir.1996).

Parental rights are further described by the Supreme Court.  “As we view them, they rest upon ‘the historic respect-indeed sanctity would not be too strong a term-traditionally accorded to the relationship that develop within the unitary family.’  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972), Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 254–55 (1978), Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 389 (1979), and Lehr v. Robertson, supra, 261 (1983).”  Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 105 L.Ed. 91, 105–06 (1989).   Further:

“When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by “com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child,” Caban, supra. 392, his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial protection under the Due Process Clause.   At that point it may be said that he “act[s] as a father toward his children.”  Id., at 389, n.7. But the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent constitutional protection.   The actions of judges neither create nor sever genetic bonds.  “[T]he importance of the familial relationship, to the individuals involved and to the society, stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, and from the role it plays in ‘promot[ing] a way of life’ through the instruction of children ․ as well as from the fact of blood relationship.”  Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 844 (1977) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231–33 (1972)).   The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring.   If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development.   If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.”  Lehr v. Robertson, supra 261–62.

So the law of the land is clear;  unless the male biological figure promptly comes forward and robustly asserts his role as a father, the State may treat his opinion as to the best interests of the child with less than complete deference.

Other than periodic supervised visits, Luis R., Sr. has only been involved with Destiny R. for 3 months of her 39 months of life.   Father was with Luis R. from his birth on 5/8/09 until 2/25/10, a mere 10 months, until he was arrested and incarcerated.   He has failed to meet the burden of proof that cause for commitment no longer exists.   He cannot even take care of and support himself.   He lives with maternal grandfather in a one-bedroom apartment, drives a car owned by the grandfather, is unemployed and relies on others for every facet of his existence.   He has also been incarcerated for periods of time and is on probation.   Although he claimed in testimony that he takes care of his children's needs, evidence was lacking as to the veracity of this assertion.   It is noteworthy that Father has an extremely poor parenting record with his other children, for whom he has never provided support or substantial care.   Having had three other children with three other women (the three children are 11, 11 and 4 years old), Luis R., Sr. could very well have issues and responsibilities stemming therefrom, and would likely never be able to effectively parent, care for, or financially assist Destiny R. or Luis R.

In addition, the court has made a decision finding that Termination of Parental Rights is in the best interest of Destiny R., so that in view of all the facts relating to Father and his ability to care for and parent his children, there is abundant evidence for denial of the motion to modify disposition to protective supervision as to both Destiny R. and Luis R.

V

TRANSFER OF GUARDIANSHIP TO MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER

On 10/18/10, maternal grandmother, Maria J., filed a motion to transfer guardianship to herself.   Prior to that filing, Maria J. had petitioned the court to intervene on three occasions.   On 7/22/10 the motion was denied, with prejudice (the court, Dannehy, J., cited timeliness as a reason since Destiny at that time had been in DCF care for 19 months of her 25 months of life).   Maria J. again filed a motion to intervene which was denied, Wollenberg, J. On 10/18/10, a hearing was set down, Keller, J. pursuant to a motion to reargue the matter of intervention granted by Judge Dannehy.

At the hearing on 10/18/10 several matters were taken up including a transfer of guardianship motion (Maria J.);   a motion to modify dispositions to protective supervision (Luis R., Sr., Father);  a motion to intervene (Maria J);  granting of visitation;  and reference to a termination of parental rights regarding Destiny R. (DCF).  At the conclusion of the 10/18/10 hearing, the court ordered the right of maternal grandmother to intervene in the neglect matters of both Destiny R. and Luis R;  a consolidated trial for termination of parental rights as to Destiny R.;   modification of the motion for modification;  the motion for transfer of guardianship;  monthly visitation with Luis R. and no visitation with Destiny R., both as to Maria J. A trial date was set for 12/9/10 and 12/10/10.

On 11/1/10 the court granted the motion by the attorney for the minor child for an interactional psychological evaluation with Mother, Father and maternal grandmother, and on 11/18/10 denial pleas of Mother and Father were entered in regard to the termination of parental rights petition filed by DCF on 10/22/10.

This case presents a difficult decision for the court.   It is not always possible for grandparents and parents to share custody of their grandchildren or children.   The court is sensitive to the fact that whether maternal grandmother is awarded guardianship of the children or not, the family relationships would most likely be estranged further than they already are considering the facts of this case and the disharmony that presently exists and has surfaced over a number of years.

It is abundantly clear after a thorough review of all of the exhibits and testimony in this case that maternal grandmother is not a proper person to be given guardianship of Destiny R. and Luis R., or as has been suggested at times, to Luis R. only.   The history of the manner in which Joseline R. was parented as a child of fourteen and thereafter;  the confusing testimony that maternal grandmother gave throughout the hearing on October 18, 2010 (see Exhibit W), as well as throughout this trial;  and the varying accounts she gave from time to time to social workers, attorneys and others, gives this court reason for pause and question concerning the credibility of events in the lives of the members of this family.

In early 2001—through the birth of Gilberto R. on 8/21/01 and the birth of Passion R. on 6/8/04—until 1/23/07, when guardianship was granted to maternal grandmother by the Probate Court, Joseline R. was allowed to engage in a lifestyle with little or no guidance from her mother.   She was involved in the drug scene, associating with male companions with domestic violence tendencies and living however she wanted.   She was not required to attend school, to parent her children, or to grow and mature into adulthood.   Maternal grandmother, after finally becoming a guardian, allowed Josephine R. a great deal of leniency with her behavior.   A condition of the guardianship was that Joseline R. have only supervised visits with Gilberto and Passion.   Maria J. testified that she never left the children alone with Mother and if she could not supervise their interaction, she had others do so.   It appears that there was no restriction on who supervised these visits, including Maria J.'s boyfriend (fiance?), Edgardo H., who took a very strong position regarding his ability to observe the supervision of the two children.   He testified that he sat outside in his car and watched the premises when Father, Luis R, Sr. had visitation with Gilberto and Passion and Mother was present.   Edgardo H. appeared to be a very opinionated and dominating individual.   The court was left with serious concerns after observing the apparent authority he exercised over maternal grandmother and the fact that Edgardo H. acted as though he would be an integral part of the parenting and care of any children in Maria J.'s care.

Maria J. claims that she was unaware of the fact that at her birth, Destiny R. was removed from Joseline R. She visited the child four times in the first 19 months of her life.   She claims she was unaware, at least at times, that Mother had a substance abuse problem.   Destiny R. was reunited with her parents (Father for three months and Mother for six months) until Mother relapsed and both Destiny R. and Luis R. were removed in June 2010.   Thereafter, maternal grandmother attempted to intervene, claimed to be prohibited by persons unknown and finally on 10/18/10 was allowed to intervene.   Maternal grandmother has been involved with Mother's problems and the matter of guardianship since at least 2007 when Gilberto and Passion were placed in her care as a result of her intervening in their lives through her own effort with the probate court.   She was aware of how to gain placement of the children at that time and although, on one hand, she asserts that she did not understand the procedure, on the other hand she testified that she did not want to get involved with DCF.

Judge Keller observed Maria J.'s conflicting testimony at the hearing on 10/18/10 (See Exhibit W, page 59) “And quite frankly, she's a poor historian;  I can see that.   I don't know how much she's going to add by becoming a party, because I can't get any information out of her.”   This was certainly true at hearings where maternal grandmother testified.   On a number of occasions during the 10/18/10 hearing, Judge Keller referred to the fact that Attorney Rosado had a “really high hurdle to overcome, if you want me to take that child [Destiny] away from those foster parents now and give them to grandmother.”   (See Exhibit W, page 54.)   Also on page 55, Judge Keller stated that, “based on what I know already there is very little chance she's going to be given custody of this child, even temporarily.”

Very little has changed with regard to maternal grandmother's mode of operation from Joseline R.'s early years, through the transfer of guardianship in 2007;  her reluctance to come forward and offer herself as a resource from 4/26/08 until June 2010;  and up until the present time.   Maria J. is unreliable as a person who was accountable for her daughter's transgressions in the parenting and care of her children.   There is no question that maternal grandmother had knowledge of the matters at hand and not only condoned the misgivings of Joseline R., but enabled her at each and every turn.   For Maria J. to have stood idly by while her daughter was making poor lifestyle choices and also to have watched her grandchildren in the words of the children's attorney, “To look at the case from the viewpoint of the children, ‘it's been a game of catch.’  “ The children were tossed around time after time with no one, including Maria J., willing to demonstrate that he or she has what it takes to hold the ball for a substantial period of time.   Maternal grandmother knew from the beginning what avenue she had to follow in order to gain custody or guardianship of Destiny R. and Luis R. For a long period of time she chose not to, and when she decided to make a move, as Dr. Freedman said, “it was too little too late.”   The court agrees.

Maria J. could have exercised her right to be a dispositional alternative resource early on, but she chose to wait, and to disrupt these children at this late date from the only place that has been able to offer them stability, permanence, appropriate transition and nurturing foster parents who are willing to put these children first—not themselves or their social lives—is not acceptable to this court.   The foster parents have even offered to provide the parents with respite care.   To use the children's attorney analogy again, these foster parents never abandoned their “game of catch.”   They “caught” these children each time it became necessary.

The alternative for these children, if they went to live with their grandmother, might be to wait until their Father gets his life together;  and then wait for their Mother to get her life together and move back into the picture.   This is unacceptable by any standard.   These children are home and this is fully acknowledged by social workers, Dr. Freedman and others.   This arrangement is not to be disturbed which more than justifies the denial of the maternal grandmother's motion for transfer of guardianship.

VI

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 Destiny R.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Joseline R., the biological Mother of the child and Luis R., Sr., the biological Father of the child.   Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Destiny R. 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).

FN5. Association is the word used in legal decisions.   The words bonding and attachment are often used in psychological assessments.   They each convey a similar understanding..  FN5. Association is the word used in legal decisions.   The words bonding and attachment are often used in psychological assessments.   They each convey a similar understanding.

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