IN RE: Quron R.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These actions are brought by The Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or “Petitioner”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological fathers of Quron R. and Shamiah R. (hereinafter referred to as “Quron R. and Shamiah R.,” or “child' individually or “children” collectively).   The biological mother of these children is Ariely R. (hereinafter referred to as “Ariely R.” or “Mother”).   The biological father of Quron R. is Ahmad S. (hereinafter referred to as “Ahmad S.” or “Father”) and the biological father of Shamiah R. is Jerry R. (hereinafter referred to as “Jerry R.” or “Father”).

On 9/25/09, Orders of Temporary Custody and a Petition of Neglect were filed on behalf of the above-named children.   The Orders of Temporary Custody were granted on 9/25/09 and subsequently sustained on 10/2/09.   On 1/7/10, the children were adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department of Children and Families.

On 8/3/10 a Motion to Review Permanency Plan hearing was held and the court ordered that the Permanency Plan of reunification be approved.

On 7/21/11, DCF filed a Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption which was objected to, and the court ordered the Permanency Plan and the objection to the Permanency Plan consolidated with the Termination trial.

On 7/1/11, Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights of Ariely R., Ahmad S. and Jerry R. were filed as to Quron R. and Shamiah R.

On 7/28/11, Mother and Father Ahmad S. were present in court, advised of their rights and denials were entered on their behalf.   Father Jerry R. was absent.   Termination of Parental Rights trial was set for 10/12/11 and 10/17/11 and a TPR plea date and return of service date of 8/23/11 was set for Father Jerry R. On 8/23/11, abode service was confirmed as to both fathers and trial dates were reaffirmed.   On 8/24/11, Father Jerry R. was defaulted after the court found that he was not in military service.   Trial dates were reaffirmed and included a default trial as to Father Jerry R. for 10/12/11.   On 10/12/11 the TPR trial commenced.   Neither Father Ahmad S. nor Father Jerry R. was present and upon request of the proponent, defaults were noted for each father.   The trial date of 10/17/11 was marked off and a continuance was granted for 10/25/11 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

At the time of the trial, counsel for DCF submitted thirteen exhibits (A–M).  Five witnesses testified for DCF on day one of the trial and three witnesses testified on day two for the proponent.

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

The grounds of the Petition for TPR as to the biological mother, Ariely R., and as to Fathers, Jerry R. and Ahmad S., are Failure to Rehabilitate.

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

I

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

This family has a history with DCF dating back to 7/29/09.   The initial referral alleged concerns of physical abuse and physical neglect of Quron R. by Mother after the child came to a medical appointment presenting with redness and an inconsistent explanation therefore.   The investigation was closed as DCF was unable to pursue its investigation due to Mother's transience and lack of cooperation.

On 9/21/09, a referral was received after the children disclosed physical abuse, emotional abuse and domestic violence in the home.   The report further indicated medical neglect of Quron R. who had been recommended the previous year for counseling to address increased aggression at school.

The children were interviewed at school on 9/22/09, at which time they remained consistent in their disclosures regarding having observed domestic violence between their Mother and Jerry R., Shamiah R.'s father.   The children also described physical abuse.   Quron R. described witnessing the sale and use of drugs in the home and said that he had been threatened by Jerry R. with bodily harm including cutting his face with a knife and throwing him out of the window.   The children expressed fear of Jerry R.

On 9/22/09, DCF responded to Mother's home and met with her.   She denied all of the allegations in the report and she refused to answer questions about a safety plan with the Department.   She described her children as “liars.”   Mother had a black eye which she claimed was the result of her fighting with a female cousin and accidentally hitting her face on a table.   Her black eye appeared more consistent with the explanation of the child that Mother had been hit by Jerry R.

Jerry R. denied allegations of domestic violence and physical abuse of the children.   He denied allegations of substance abuse or a history of selling drugs.   He indicated that he was not in a relationship with Ariely R.

Ahmad S., Quron R.'s Father, indicated that Quron R. had told him that Jerry R. was a bully to his Mother and that he would pick on the child.

Mother and the children had been transient, having stayed with relatives for the last two years in at least four different locations.   They were residing in a one-bedroom apartment with Mother's elderly and infirm grandmother.   The children were sleeping on the floor and the couch.

Based on Mother's inability to control her behavior, she may have had unaddressed mental health issues.   According to records from Mother's youth, she has been diagnosed with mental health issues but she is not currently on medication or in treatment.

Mother and Fathers, Ahmad R. and Jerry R. are all convicted felons.

An SDM Safety Assessment was done and determined to be unsafe.

Ahmad S. indicated that he wanted to provide care for his son, however, he did not take appropriate action when his son reported that Jerry R. would not allow his Mother to go places, that he bullied her and would pick on the child.   Ahmad S. did not make an appropriate plan for his son.

Ahmad S. has a prior substantiation for leaving Quron R.'s siblings alone in a car and as a result of this incident he had pending criminal charges for an unsupervised child.

The fathers of both Quron R. and Shamiah R. have not seriously indicated that they could be considered as primary caregivers for their respective children.

B. Mother, Ariely R.

Ariely R. was born on 11/20/86 in New Britain, Connecticut to Carmen A. and Adalberto R. Her family is of Puerto Rican descent and Ariely R. has lived in the Hartford and New Britain area for most of her life.   She has two older siblings, a half-sister, Priscilla S. and a half-brother, Luis V. with whom she is close.   She was raised by paternal grandmother, Francesca C. and Adalberto R. Ariely R. did not really know her mother but stated that her father was always there for her.   Ariely R.'s mother had a lengthy substance abuse history and was not able to care for her.   She passed away over two years ago at the age of 42 due to heart disease and liver failure.

Ariely R. attended Bulkeley High School until 2002, completing the 9th grade.   She has expressed an interest in returning to school to obtain her GED in the near future.

Ariely R. is currently unemployed but has been employed in various jobs in the past.

Mother was arrested in 2004 for conspiracy to sell drugs.   She claims that she was standing on the corner with her best friend who was pregnant, when police approached them and arrested them both for attempting to sell illegal drugs.   Ariely R.'s criminal record consists of Driving under Suspension;  Failure to Appear 2nd on 5/20/09;  and Possession of Narcotic and sale of hallucinogenic/narcotics on 6/11/04, for which she received a 2 year jail sentence, suspended for 2 years, and 2 years' probation.   She also has two pending motor vehicle violations—for driving under suspension (3/26/10);  and for operating under the influence (11/25/10).

Mother reports that she is in good health and denies having any hospitalizations, illnesses or health issues.   She denies any current substance abuse or history of substance abuse.   She has never been married and has no military service.

C. Father, Ahmad S.

Ahmad S., a/k/a Ahmad E., father of Quron R., was born on 9/27/79 in Hartford, Connecticut to Ralph and Janie S. His parents reside in East Hartford with his younger siblings, brother Uris, and sister Taylor S. He is of Moorish ancestry.

Ahmad S. was raised in Hartford and attended Hartford public schools.   He graduated from Hartford Adult Education and attended Mitchell College in New London for one year.

Ahmad S. has never been married and is the father of three children—Desani M., Ahmad S. and Quron R. He is presently living with the mother of his youngest child, Desani, in Cromwell, CT. He is self-employed and owns a clothing line named Desyins.   He operates his business through on-line sales for custom orders.   He is in a basketball league and participates in various basketball camps with the hope of playing semiprofessional basketball overseas.

Ahmad S. reported no criminal record except for a pending case for Risk of Injury charge due to leaving his young daughter and stepson in a running car while he went into Wal–Mart on 1/4/09.   According to DCF's case record, however, a background check revealed that Ahmad S. has been incarcerated and has an extensive criminal record dating back to 2000 which includes six arrests for Possession of Narcotics, Sale of Narcotics, Failure to Appear, Criminal Trespassing and Driving with a Suspended License.

Ahmed has no military history.   He claims to be in good health with no hospitalizations, illnesses, or health issues.

D. Father, Jerry R.

Jerry R., Father of Shamiah R., was born on 3/26/83 in Hartford, Connecticut to Linda R. and Jerry B. His father passed away in North Carolina in 2004 due to health issues.   Jerry R. attended Hartford public schools and graduated from Bulkeley High School in June 2003.   He lives in Hartford with his uncle.   He has a sister LaSandra R. (30 yrs, old), and two brothers, Charles R. (28 yrs. old) and Fiddy R. (23 yrs. old).   His mother is currently residing in North Carolina with her family but is reportedly moving back to Hartford and is willing to be a resource for both children.

Jerry R. has never married and has three children:  Jerry R. (9 yrs. old) and Jermaine R. (6 yrs. old) who live in Hartford with their mother, and Shamiah R. (4 yrs. old).

In 2007, Jerry R. was arrested and served a 2–year sentence for carrying weapons and Assault 1. According to the DCF criminal background check, he has an extensive criminal record dating back to 2003 for numerous Motor Vehicle charges, Criminal Trespass, Probation Violations and Carrying Illegal Weapons in a Motor Vehicle and Assault 1.

Since his release from prison, he claims that he is not in a relationship with Ariely R. He is living with his current girlfriend, Tornia G., and their child.

Jerry R. reports that he has no medical issues, illnesses or hospitalizations.

E. Child, Quron R.

Quron R. was born on 10/15/09 in Hartford, Connecticut to Ariely R. and Ahmad S. He is currently in the 2nd grade at Bridgeport Learning Center (BLC) in Bridgeport, Connecticut where he began attending school on 4/25/11.   The social workers at Milner School where he attended from January—June 2010, and Betances School where he attended from 8/31/10 until 3/25/11, described Quron R. as very hyper and in need of counseling for the past year.

Quron R. struggles daily in school and an Individual Educational Plan has been developed to meet his educational needs.   A PPT was held on 5/1/09 and it was determined that he needed to be evaluated by a psychiatrist for ADHD.

Quron R. has experienced three foster home placements since his initial removal from his home.   He was placed in the home of his paternal great aunt on 12/17/09 and disrupted on 2/16/10 due to his out of control behavior.   He was being very aggressive towards his younger sister who was placed in the home with him and she was very fearful of him.   Quron R. was placed in a DCF licensed foster home from 2/16/10 until 3/30/11, when he disrupted due to his out-of-control behavior.   Since he requires a higher level of care, Quron R. is placed in a therapeutic foster home where he is doing very well.

Quron R. attended the Village Extended Day Program from March 2010 until 1/16/11 and was seeing Linda G., APRN, for his medication management.   Intensive In–Home Services (IICAPPS) in Bridgeport is working with him and he was scheduled to see a psychiatrist on 4/19/11.   He was taken for Multi–Disciplinary Evaluation (MDE) on 10/20/09 and was required to have emergency and extensive dental work due to numerous cavities.   He began his dental work and has been seen regularly for additional dental work due to the extreme decay of his teeth.   There are no other medical concerns and he is current with his immunizations.

Quron R. appears to be very bonded with his Mother, Father and sister Shamiah R.

F. Child, Shamiah R.

Shamiah R. was born on 8/11/05 in Hartford, Connecticut to Ariely R. and Jerry R. A MDE was completed on 10/12/09 and Shamiah R. was found to be in need of extensive dental work which was begun immediately and will continue to be assessed.   There are no additional medical concerns and she is current with her immunizations.

Shamiah R. appears to be very bonded to her Mother and Father.   She has been in her second foster care placement in the home of Quron R.'s paternal great aunt since 12/17/09 and is doing very well at home and in school.

Shamiah R. is in the 1st grade at Milner School.   In March 2011, she received the Student of the Month award from her school as she has very good grades and attendance.

On 3/22/11, Shamiah R. began receiving play therapy at her school offered by the Village for Families and Children as recommended by the court ordered psychological evaluation.

C. Relative Resources

Mother indentified maternal uncle as a relative placement resource for her two children.   He was interested in caring for her children but was unable to rearrange the sleeping areas to meet DCF licensing guidelines.

Ahmad S. indentified paternal great aunt who was willing to care for the children.   The children were placed in her home on 12/17/09, but Quron R. disrupted on 2/16/10 and was removed and placed in a DCF foster home.   Shamiah R. remains in this relative foster home but her foster mother is not interested in long-term care or in adoption.

H. Present Situation

Ariely R. has complied with a court ordered substance abuse evaluation and no treatment was recommended.   She has also complied with a parenting program and successfully completed this service on 2/24/10.

Mother continues to struggle with addressing her identified mental health needs.   On 8/23/09, she went to Catholic Charities for a mental health assessment but no further treatment was recommended due to her not being forthcoming about these issues.   She had an appointment scheduled for a mental health assessment on 3/25/11, after refusing previous appointments, stating that she was depressed but not in need of treatment.   She is now claiming that she will attend the counseling and address her mental health needs.

Initially Mother did not comply with domestic violence services, denying that this was a concern.   She had been attending Interval House about twice a week since 2/22/11 but has now stopped attending these sessions.   She recently moved into a two-bedroom apartment and is working with Supportive Housing.

The Petitioner claims that Mother has not demonstrated the ability to provide long term care or a lifelong commitment to Quron R. and Shamiah R. Although she has completed the recommendations of the Department and the court, it may be that she still struggles with the issues of unaddressed mental health issues and domestic violence.

Mother visits her children weekly and often brings her children gifts and celebrates all holidays with them.   The visits are supervised by the Center of Attention and they report that Mother is appropriate during the visits, but has had to be redirected at times due to both children wanting her attention.   Fathers have not been visiting on a regular basis and show up unexpectedly to the visits.   See Exhibit E, Visitation Summary.

Both Fathers are living with their girlfriends and do not to have their own apartment.   They did complete their substance abuse evaluations.   Jerry R. began treatment but he was recommended for a higher level of care which he has not begun.   He was scheduled for three new evaluations but did not arrive for the appointments on 10/24/09 and 11/21/09.   On 12/17/09 he completed the evaluation.   Ahmad S. completed his evaluation on 11/9/09, but was not cooperative with the evaluator.   His urine screen was negative and no treatment was recommended.

Jerry R. completed the court ordered specific steps regarding Domestic Violence and Parenting Classes.   Neither father has demonstrated the ability to provide long-term care or a lifelong commitment to Quron R. and Shamiah R. Although they have completed some recommendations of the Department and the court, they still struggle with the issues of mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence.

A court ordered psychological evaluation was completed on 10/16/10 by Dr. Humphreys.   This evaluation included Mother Ariely R., Father Jerry R., and children Quron R. and Shamiah R. An Interactional was completed with Mother and the children and Father and his daughter, Shamiah R. The psychological evaluation recommended that Jerry R. receive mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment.   The children were recommended for counseling:  Shamiah R. for play therapy which she has begun and Quron for the Village Extended Day Program where he continues to receive counseling and psychiatric services until he is transitioned to the Boys and Girls Village in Bridgeport.

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 the parental rights of Ariely R., Mother, Jerry R., Father of Shamiah R., and Ahmad S., Father of Quron R. 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 Ariely R., Quron R. and Ahmad S.

Reasonable efforts to reunify Quron R. with Ahmad S. and Shamiah R. with Jerry R. and are no longer appropriate because of their inability to gain insight into their substance abuse and mental health issues, and their proven inability to rehabilitate and to provide the care that the children require.

Ahmad S. and Jerry R. 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 and parenting.   In addition, both Fathers have been involved with other partners, have children other than with Ariely R., and spend very little time with the children who are the subject of this petition.

DCF has been involved with this family since 7/28/09.   The presenting problems with this family were substance abuse, lack of parenting skills, transiency, criminal conduct, mental health issues, domestic violence, physical neglect, and physical abuse.

Due to the extreme lack of cooperation between Mother and both Fathers, it was impossible to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the children.   From 7/29/09 to the date of removal on 9/23/09, efforts were made but to no avail.

The court approves the Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights with regard to Ahmad S. and Jerry R. and denies the Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption as to Ariely R. DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan with regard to Ahmad S. and Jerry R. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Grounds for the Termination:  Failure to Rehabilitate—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(1)— as to biological Mother, Ariely R. and Biological Fathers, Ahmad S. and Jerry R.

The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother and Fathers have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their children 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 ․ 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 Arvahnay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 195, 16 A.3d 1277 (2011).  “ ․ [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 Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 748 (2011);  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, 5541 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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. 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 children's lives].”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In Re Mia M., 127 Conn.App. 363, 376, 14 A.3d 1024 (2011);  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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. have not achieved CGS § 17a–112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Ahmad S. and Jerry R. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground B1—Failure to Rehabilitate as to Quron R. by biological Father, Ahmad S.

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

Quron R. is nine years old and has been in the continuous care of the Department since 9/23/09.

Ahmad S. has been informed by the court and DCF that in order to be successfully reunified with Quron R., he needed to consistently engage in services and demonstrate adequate progress and insight with respect to his ongoing issues of domestic violence, mental health and parenting through appropriate and consistent treatment for the purpose of developing a true understanding of the impact of domestic violence, substance abuse and lack of parenting skills on the children and how to appropriately protect them from exposure to such issues.

Specific Steps were ordered on 8/3/10 by the court for Ahmad S., but he has not been in compliance with many of those steps.

Father Ahmad S.'s failure to engage in needed services, including parenting and substance abuse evaluation and his lack of consistent contact/visits with his son, demonstrates an inability to safely parent his child in the foreseeable future.

Quron R. had been placed in paternal great aunt's home from 11/17/09 until 2/16/10, and Father did not maintain regular contact with him.   A few months ago, paternal great aunt had seen Father in the area near her home on a Saturday when his supervised visit with Quron R. was supposed to occur and she claimed that he was making plans with friends instead of visiting his son.

Ahmad S. had become hostile during some of his court hearings and Administrative Case Reviews.   On one occasion, the court had to summon several marshals into the court hearing due to his disruptive behaviors.   During visitation with his child, Father often has had to be redirected by staff regarding his conversations and outbursts.

Ahmad S. has made it clear that he does not intend to work with DCF and blames Mother, stating that Quron R. was in her care when the removal occurred.   He also stated he was aware of the concerns that led to the removal of his child.

Quron R. is an eight-year-old boy who has been out of his Father's care for a long period of time.   He has disrupted from foster home placements due to his behavioral issues.   He is diagnosed with ADHD and takes medication.   He is physically aggressive and bullies peers;  he is also verbally aggressive, uses racial slurs and makes threats to harm others.   He is very happy in his foster home and from time to time expresses a desire for his foster parents to adopt him.   He does not want his Mother to know about this as he does not want to hurt her.   Quron R. requires a high level of care;  he needs constant supervision and requires a structured living environment.   Although he is settling down in his therapeutic foster home, he continues to struggle in school despite the specialized setting.   He needs to be seen regularly for his mental health concerns, including ADHD and PTSD.

Ahmad S. thus far failed to rehabilitate from his issues and has not demonstrated that it is likely that he could assume a responsible position in the life of Quron R. To allow him further time to attempt rehabilitation and assume a responsible position in the life of the child is not in his best interest.

Ground B1—Failure to Rehabilitate with Shamiah R. as to Biological Father, Jerry R.

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

Jerry R. has been informed by the court and the Department that in order to be successfully reunified with Shamiah R., he needed to consistently engage in services and demonstrate adequate progress and insight with respect to his ongoing issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health and parenting through appropriate and consistent treatment and to have no further involvement in the criminal justice system.

Specific Steps were ordered on 8/3/10 to facilitate the return of Shamiah R. to Father's care.   Father has not complied with many of those steps.

Shamiah R. is six years old and has been in the continuous care of the Department since 9/23/09, a period of over two years, nearly one-third of her life.   She is placed with Quron R.'s relative and this is her second placement.   She began therapy in April 2011 to address her relationship with her Mother as well as with her Father.

Jerry R. has not offered to be a placement resource for his daughter and he abruptly stopped visitation with Shamiah R. in April 2011.   He wants Shamiah R. to return to Mother's care and has decided not be involved in reunification as he believes he would be the cause for the termination of Mother's parental rights.   Father is in another relationship, has moved and has not notified DCF of his new address.   His failure to engage in needed services, such as substance abuse treatment which was recommended at his first substance abuse evaluation, his continuing use of drugs, and his lack of consistent contact/visits with his daughter demonstrates an inability to safely parent the child in the foreseeable future.   He has a long criminal history that includes charges and convictions for Assault 1, Weapons in a Motor Vehicle, Probation Violation, Criminal Trespassing and Driving under Suspension.

On 10/3/10, Father participated in a psychological evaluation that recommended he receive individual counseling to address his past traumas and current life style.   He does not take responsibility for his actions and his violence.   He has yet to engage in any treatment in order to begin rehabilitation.

Despite numerous services offered to Jerry R. by the Department, he has not made the necessary changes to his circumstances or developed insight with regard to the negative impact of domestic violence, substance abuse, criminal activity and other issues on Shamiah R., as well as Quron R., to permit her to be safely returned to his care in a timely manner.

Jerry R. has thus far failed to rehabilitate from his issues and has not demonstrated that it is likely that he could assume a responsible position in the life of Shamiah R. or any child, and to allow him further time to attempt rehabilitation and assume a responsible position in the life of his child is not in the best interest of the child.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Fathers, Ahmad S. and Jerry R., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Quron R. and Shamiah R. respectively.

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(kDP1⌑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 Ahmad S.'s and Jerry R.'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 Shawn B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 212–13, A.2d 276 (2006);  In re Ashley M., 82 Conn.App. 66, 70, 842 A.2d 627 (2007);  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 Quron R. and Shamiah R. with their fathers.   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 Fathers to facilitate their reunification with their children and made reasonable efforts to reunite them with their children.  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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. 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).

Ahmad S. and Jerry R. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return the children 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 children's respective Fathers are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF had previously offered multiple services to Ahmad S. and Jerry R. and has made reasonable efforts to maintain contact with both Fathers.

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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. 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.”

Quron R. and Shamiah R. have been able to exhibit only limited bonding with their fathers, due to their fathers' substance abuse, reluctance to accept their roles as parents and, the lack of consistent and meaningful visitation.   Quron R. has experienced three foster home placements since his removal.   He is now in a therapeutic foster home in Bridgeport, Connecticut where he is doing extremely well.   While he has bonded with this home, he continues to be bonded with his Mother and is concerned for her welfare.   Although he states that he would like to be adopted into this family, it must be understood that he is a very erratic nine-year-old and his desires as to his well-being and future fluctuate on a regular basis.

Shamiah R. has remained in her original placement upon removal.   She has adjusted extremely well and is advancing generally and in school in an extremely fine manner.   She is attached to her foster family and continues to be strongly bonded with her Mother and has concerns about her Mother's wellbeing.

The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt each child.

5. “The age of the children.”

Quron R. is nine years old;  Shamiah R. is six years three 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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that they have continued to abuse substances 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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for their children.   To permit the children to return to their Fathers' care would compromise the safety of the children.

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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. from maintaining a relationship with their children, 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 Ariely R.'s, Ahmad S.'s and Jerry R.'s parental rights to Quron R. and Shamiah R. would be in their 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 with regard to Father, Ahmad S. and Father, Jerry R.

In determining whether termination of Ahmad S.'s and Jerry R.'s parental rights would be in the children's best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environment;  their length of stay in foster care;  the nature of their relationships with their biological Fathers;  and the degree of contact maintained with their biological Fathers.⁴  In re Dylan C., 126 Conn.App. 71, 85, 10 A.3d 100 (2011);  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000);  In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).   In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance the child's intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with his parents.  In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 658, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010) (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 children's best interest to continue to maintain any legal relationship with their Fathers.

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

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

An additional factor to consider in this case is time.   The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates the children's pressing need for permanence and stability.   Unfortunately, much time would be required for Ahmad S. and Jerry R. 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 children.

Quron R. and Shamiah R. cannot delay their need for permanence and stability in exchange for their fathers' uncertain future.

Based upon the Fathers' 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 these children to maximize their abilities and achievements.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time needed for Ahmad S. and Jerry K. to attempt to rehabilitate and establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing and responsible fathers, if that were possible, is time that their children cannot afford.

Ahmad S.'s and Jerry R.'s performance clearly and convincingly allows 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 Quron R. and Shamiah R.

Our courts have recognized that “long-term stability is critical to a children's future health and development ․” In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 658, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010);  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 Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 221, 15 A.3d 184 (2011);  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 children are entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of their biological fathers as caretakers.

Having balanced the children's individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their fathers, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the children's best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship with Ahmad S. and Jerry R.

Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of Quron R. and Shamiah R. 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 Ahmad S. and Jerry R. as to Quron R. and Shamiah R. is in the best interests of the children in question.

From the evidence before the court, the record of Mother and her children, Quron R. (DOB 10/15/02) and Shamiah R. (DOB 8/1/05) appears to be unremarkable from the dates of birth of the children until perhaps September 18, 2009.   At that time, Quron R. was eight years old and Shamiah R. was four years old.   Ariely R. had parented these two children for some seven years with little or no observance of neglect or abuse.   Quron R. admittedly was a handful.   He had extreme behavioral and aggressive tendencies and Mother was working with school personnel to address those matters.

After September 21, 2009, certain incidents were brought forth when Quron R. for the most part, and also Shamiah R. to a lesser extent, reported that Father, Jerry R., was involved in domestic violence with Mother—that he had threatened the children and they were afraid of him.   When confronted, Mother became aggressive, refused to enter into a meaningful discussion with DCF personnel, refused to cooperate to any extent, including signing releases for CCMC, and denied all incidents of domestic violence, drug use in the house or danger to the children.   The SDM safety assessment was completed and the following safety factors were identified:  threat to cause harm to retaliate against the child;  caregiver's failure to protect the children from threatened harm;  domestic violence existing in the home and posing a risk of serious physical or emotional harm;  caregiver describes child, Quron R., in negative terms;  caregiver's emotional stability impairs her ability to supervise/protect or care for the children.

Faced with the safety assessment evaluation, Mother had a hostile and belligerent attitude toward those persons who removed her children from her care.   This might not seem unreasonable given the fact that Mother was 16 years old when Quron R. was born—a mere child herself—and for the following seven years she parented him with little or no support from family or the fathers of her children.

After the children's removal, Mother agreed to attend a drug screen, which was negative and no treatment was ordered.   She attended and satisfactorily completed the Klingberg parenting education program;  attended a psychiatric consultation on 3/25/11 that offered no recommendation for treatment;  had very positive meetings in June/July 2011 with Supportive Housing for Families;  is struggling to find a job;  is anxious to continue her education;  and maintains an apartment, which is noted by DCF to be current with the rent and in a very neat and fully furnished condition.

Refer to Paragraph I. Factual Findings, sub-paragraph H., above.

Although in the past Mother has completed the recommendations of the Department and the court, she still struggles with unaddressed mental health issues.   With this in mind, the court disagrees with the Department and finds that Mother has the ability to provide long-term care or a life-long commitment to Quron R. and Shamiah R.

In a DCF social study dated 7/13/11 at page 8, paragraph 7, DCF records Mother's Strengths and Weaknesses as follows:

Strengths:

1.  Mother has located housing;

2.  Mother has begun individual counseling;

3.  Mother has begun to address the domestic violence.

4. Mother is invested in her church and finds this a major support.

5. Mother appears to be motivated in seeking reunification at this time.

6. Mother has family support.

Weaknesses:

1.  Mother has mental health issues.

2. Mother is not employed.

It appears that Mother's strengths outweigh her weaknesses to a great extent.

In his psychological evaluation of 10/6/10.   Dr. Humphreys found that “Ariely R. presented as distant, detached and defensive during most of the interview.   Personality test results suggest a very strong defensive response and effort to present herself as exceptionally virtuous and without psychological problems.   Her responses to questions were frequently informative and seemed evasive.”   This “distant demeanor” must be overcome and cooperation must be attained.   The court believes this can be accomplished by Ariely R. Dr. Humphreys goes on to say that “she is in need of intensive individual therapy to address the possibility of a trauma history related to childhood experiences ․” His concern is that “a trauma history is behind her resistance to openly discussing her history and acknowledging threats to her children's welfare.   However, this will only become clear when (and if) she is willing to become forthright in her reports and cooperates willingly with individual psychotherapy.”   This is the test in which Mother must decide to take part.   If she participates with full effort, the court believes that she can successfully care for her children.

Lastly, Dr. Humphreys is asked whether the children can wait an additional six months to complete services.   He states, “I do not believe the children's psychological status will change appreciably in the next six months.”  ․ “Of more concern is whether [Ariely R.] will, in the next six months, make personal changes that will assure the children will not be exposed to interpersonal violence, drugs, guns, unhealthy individuals or other adverse circumstances while in her care.”   This again, presents a challenge to Mother.   The Department is ordered to position intensive reunification efforts with this family immediately and to follow this matter religiously.

The court understands that Quron R. and Shamiah R. have indicated a reasonable satisfaction in their current placements.   However, it is without doubt that they also have a strong bond with their Mother.   Dr. Humphreys expresses a concern for Quron R. and his significant behavioral problems.   More intensive day treatment or a therapeutic school may be required;  this will be dealt with as time passes.   As to Shamiah R., her future in an adoptive situation has not been certain until recently;  her ultimate bonding with her Mother would be determined by Mother's efforts at her rehabilitation over time.

Although Ariely R. faces the afore-mentioned challenges, her greatest challenge will be to overcome her extremely poor choice of male companions.   The evidence before the court suggests that from the birth of her first child, when she was only sixteen years old, Ariely R. has been trying to make a life for herself and her children.   The men she has become involved with are selfish characters concerned only with their own interests and desires.   Both Ahmed S. and Jerry R. have other families with whom they spend considerable time and for whom they offer support.   They take advantage of Ariely R.'s willingness to provide them with an alternative family and romantic involvement for which they offer little or nothing in return.

The court is fully aware of Ariely R.'s longing to improve upon the life she has lived from her adolescence into her early adulthood.   She must evaluate her decisions more thoughtfully with regard to her future and the future of her children.   The court is convinced that she has the ability to do this.   She has an interest in improving her life and must gain confidence in her ability to do so.   She must accept, willingly, all the assistance offered.   She has proven that she can do this, although at times reluctantly;  her future with her children is at stake.   This fact alone should be enough to encourage her to overcome her disruptive issues and sever any connection with the things that have hindered her moving her life in a positive direction.

Finally, the court finds that with extreme efforts and treatment, with a concentration on the mental health issues as discussed by Dr. Humphreys, that Mother can appropriately care for and parent her children, Quron R. and Shamiah R.

IV

CONCLUSION

The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Quron R.'s and Shamiah R.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Ahmad S., the biological Father of Quron R. and Jerry R., the biological Father of Shamiah R. Accordingly, it is ordered that Ahmad S.'s parental rights to Quron R. and Jerry R.'s parental rights to Shamiah R. are hereby terminated.

BY THE COURT,

WOLLENBERG, J.

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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