IN RE: Pamphil 1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On August 31, 2010, the petitioner, Susan Hamilton, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112, et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Marie Marthe J., and Kesnel J. as to their children Pamphil and Christina J. The parents have been served by abode service at their last known address.   The court has found that service was made.   Both parties were initially defaulted for failure to appear on the first appearance date.   Father subsequently retained private counsel and had the default opened as to him.   Mother has not appeared and has been defaulted (Driscoll, J.).   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children.   This court has jurisdiction.

The statutory grounds alleged against respondents, mother and father are (1) that the children, were found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for (March 31, 2009, Driscoll, J.) and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and the needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children.  (C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I)).

I. FACTS

At trial, which began on November 8, 2011, the court heard testimony from eleven witnesses including a psychologist and the respondent father.   The petitioner introduced the social study, the psychological evaluation, and other documentary evidence, along with the testimony of the DCF social worker.   The credible evidence admitted at trial supports the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.

Social History

It is difficult to prepare a complete statement of the sociological background and facts of this case due to the guarded representations of the parents regarding their social histories which must be compared against the known inconsistencies in their representations.   The father Kesnel, is furtive, garrulous and uncooperative.²  He seeks custody and was ably represented at trial.   The mother, Marie, is secretive, confused, perhaps limited and wholly unavailable.

Kesnel was born in Haiti in 1956.   He is presently 55 years of age.   Marie was born in Haiti in 1966.   She is presently 45 years of age.   Kesnel came to the United States in 1980.   He was approximately 24 years of age at the time and he became a U.S. citizen shortly after arrival, according to him.   He told the DCF social worker that he had been a captain in the Haitian army and that he resigned because he “didn't like to kill people.”   When interviewed by the court appointed psychologist he offered “no, that was my father.”   He denied any military service.  (Petitioner's Exhibit K.) He told the psychologist that his first arrest was in 1994, on a “hit and run” charge when he had “hit a drunk” with his car.   He denied any other arrests.  (But see, Petitioner's Exhibit M.) The court is satisfied that Kesnel cannot be believed with any confidence.

Kesnel has five or six children.³  He told DCF that the oldest is 17–year–old Sheila or Shayla, living with her mother in Georgia (or maybe Virginia).   He has two children by Marie, Pamphil, the subject of this petition, now almost 11, and his sister, Christina now age 9. There are two other children by two other mothers, Bethsaida, in Haiti, now age eight and Klaythmond, now age 4 1/2.   Kesnel does not reveal much information about any of his children, but with respect to Klaythmond, he has been downright deceitful.   Kesnel prevaricates at will.   He has told DCF that the child, Klaythmond is only visiting in the United States and that he is not living here.   At other times he states that Klaythmond is with a relative in Florida and at other times he says Klaythmond resides with a relative in New York. Kesnel has told the New London Board of Education that Klaythmond is his grandson, when he attempted to register Klaythmond for pre-school.   He told the Board of Education agent that his daughter had dropped off the child to live with him and then left.   When the child is seen in Connecticut, Kesnel does not permit DCF to have access to the child or to any residence where Klaythmond is believed to be living with Kesnel.   The court finds that Klaythmond has been living with Kesnel in New London since the fall of 2009.   As indicated earlier, Kesnel is secretive, often deceptive and always uncooperative in his dealings with DCF.

Kesnel and Marie were married in Port Au Prince, Haiti in 1994 (he told the psychologist 1992).   For undisclosed reasons, Marie remained in Haiti and he returned to the United States.   Six years later, Marie joined Kesnel in Virginia in 2000.   Pamphil was born on January 7, 2001, in Virginia.   According to Kesnel, Marie had a four-day labor.   There is evidence that she suffered from postpartum depression following the birth of Pamphil.   Nine months later Kesnel, Marie and Pamphil returned to live in Haiti.   Christina was born in Port–au–Prince on August 16, 2002.   It is unclear how long Kesnel stayed in Haiti, but it is likely that he fathered one of his children during this time in Haiti.

Kesnel testified he later brought Marie and the two children to New London, Connecticut in 2003.⁴  According to Marie her marriage to Kesnel was “extremely difficult.”   Neither parent will say more about their marriage except that Kesnel denies any domestic violence.   The children have disclosed to a psychological evaluator in Florida that they witnessed domestic violence and witnessed their father hitting their mother.   Kesnel has consistently rebuffed all overtures by DCF to have him attend a course for preventing domestic abuse.

Again, for reasons not fully explained by either parent, after three years in Connecticut, Marie took the children and fled in April 2006.   Kesnel tried to stop her.   He sought an order of temporary custody from the Superior Court in Norwich.   An order of notice was issued but apparently never served and accordingly no order of custody ever issued.   At about the same time, Kesnel went to the New London Police Department and signed a voluntary statement in which he maintains that he and his wife were residing at 70 Montauk Ave. in that city and that his wife left with the children.   He said “I do not believe she has harmed the children but she is confused in the head.”   Respondent's Ex 1.

Kesnel described the separation to the psychologist as follows.  “She left me in 2005,” he noted. [actually April 2006 ] He was characteristically vague in his account but suggested, among other things, that [Marie] was vexed as she believed that “the government would give her check for having baby.”   In fact, he said, she believed that these funds were coming to the family, and that Kesnel was intercepting them, “so she said I'm leaving.”   Improbably, he minimized quarrels in the relation, offering that she “is not talking a lot—she holds things a long time inside.”   He often questioned her, he said, but she seldom responded.”  (Petitioner's Exhibit K p. 3.)

It appears from the documents and testimony that Marie took the children to New York City and subsequently ended up in Miami, Florida.   While in Miami, Marie and the children lived in a series of shelters and shelter related hotels.   At the last hotel she reported that “the people in green came to get her.”   She was seen at the Jackson Memorial Hospital and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder NOS and bipolar disorder with psychosis.   She had been unemployed and essentially homeless.   Kesnel has regularly denied that Marie has mental health issues.

The DCF social worker in Florida, whose name suggests that she is culturally aligned with Marie, reports that Marie is involved in a form of voodoo, that even by Haitian standards is an extreme form of that religion.   Kesnel reports that she does not practice voodoo but is a devout Christian and reads the Bible.

The children were removed from Marie's care in December 2006, by the Florida authorities.   The two children spent much of the year 2007, in foster care in Florida.   Upon the involvement of the Juvenile Family Division of the Dade County Circuit Court, an Interstate Compact Child Placement study regarding possible placement of the children with Kesnel was ordered.   The report was completed by Connecticut DCF (Respondent's Ex 3) on December 19, 2007.   The report indicated that if the children were awarded to him, Kesnel would continue to reside with a related family, the Omotoshos.   Kesnel told DCF that the husband and the wife, who is his cousin, had agreed to provide and share in care taking for the children if they came to Connecticut.   Since he had adequate income, a residence with his cousin, arranged child care and no child protection history, DCF tentatively recommended placement with Kesnel.   The report does point out that (Kesnel) “does not appear to understand clearly some of the specialized needs of his children.”   Later ․ “[T]he psychological assessment done in April 2007 indicates the children will also require psychotherapy due to their life experience so they will be able to continue to manage their emotions and behaviors.”  (Respondents Ex 3, p. 4.) [From the Connecticut DCF Interstate report] “This social worker recommends that [Kesnel's] children be returned to his care on a trial basis with protective service supervision provided by the state of Florida in order to assess if this placement is appropriate for these children.   In addition, [Kesnel] will need to engage in parenting education in order to parent and address the children's needs.   Father will also need to participate in services around budgeting, medical care for the children and education advocacy for his children as they will be entering a new school system.   Father will be expected to communicate with the school for his children, so he understands any issues that need to be addressed educationally.   The children should also be assessed for counseling to address loss and separation issues in addition to any other issues they might have experienced.”  (Respondents Ex 3, p. 5–6.)

Based upon this report, the children were reunified with Kesnel in January 2008.   The custody order from Florida provided no visitation and no contact for the psychotic, Marie.

Kesnel did not remain with the Omotosho family and the childcare they offered.   Kesnel did not engage the children in counseling.   He did not seek out a parenting education program for himself, and he ignored his children's educational needs.  “Efforts by the New London public schools to engage father in a Planning and Placement Team meeting (PPT) to address [Pamphil's] needs could not be held because father refused to attend.”  (Petitioner's Exhibit J, p. 4.) And on April 11, 2008, upon reports from the children's school that an unidentified woman was bringing the children to school, a Connecticut DCF worker found Kesnel and Marie living together at 250 Jefferson Ave. New London.   Kesnel reported to the DCF worker that he could not and would not keep Marie from the children because she was the mother.

II. Motion To Revoke dated November 8, 2011

At the commencement of this trial Kesnel filed a “motion to revoke commitment and motion to restore custody.”   The court has considered the provisions of C.G.S. § 46b–129(m).⁵  Kesnel erroneously asserts in his motion that “the only reason DCF took said children is that they indicated that Christina went to school and indicated that her mother had been at her residence and caring for said children.”   The court finds that this representation is not a correct statement of all the presenting problems.   1) Kesnel told DCF that the children would be staying with a certain relative family at a home that DCF had inspected.   They did not.   2) DCF indicated the children would need counseling.   They did not get counseling.   3) DCF indicated that Kesnel would need parental education to assist him in the many facets of parenting.   He did not get parental education.   4) DCF said the children would need Kesnel to be an educational advocate for the children.   To the contrary, Kesnel ignored the children's educational needs.   5) Kesnel ignored the Florida order that Marie have no contact with the children.   Although it was not then known, Kesnel has also repeatedly ignored Pamphil's need for a surgical procedure and has denied Pamphil's significant emotional problems.⁶

Kesnel's principal defense has continuously and singularly been that he did not have notice of the no contact provisions of the custody order.   The social worker in Florida told the Connecticut DCF worker that Kesnel was told of this no contact order.   Resolving this contested issue in favor of Kesnel's ignorance, his conduct upon learning of the order manifests his complete lack of respect for the order, his lack of understanding of the significance of his wife's problems and his lack of understanding of the children's needs.

Eleven days prior to the removal of the children, on April 11, 2008, both Kesnel and Marie were each specifically and separately instructed by Deborah Taylor, DCF social worker, of the Florida order that Marie cannot be in the home caring for the children.  (Petitioner's Exhibit E.) Kesnel was resistant.   On April 17, 2008, the social worker met with Kesnel who told the social worker that the mother was no longer residing in the home.   He would not acknowledge any problems with Marie and would simply state that she is the children's mother.

DCF was informed that Marie's visitation rights had been terminated in Florida on October 5, 2007 due to Marie's erratic behavior during therapeutic supervised visits.   The report indicated that Marie had become physically violent and had to be restrained.   A psychological evaluation submitted to the Florida court in October 2007, concluded that “mother is actively psychotic that she lacks insight into her illness.   Mother has refused all efforts by Florida CPS to get treatment and shelter and has been chronically homeless.”   (Exhibit E p. 4.)

On April 22, 2008, the New London police department notified DCF of a domestic disturbance between Kesnel and Marie on the street in front of the children.   The investigation revealed that Marie had been living in the home with the father and children.   The incident apparently occurred as Kesnel was attempting to prevent Marie from leaving with Pamphil.  “The social worker told Father that mother needed to leave the home immediately to keep the children safe.   Father was unwilling to agree to any safety plan that included mother leaving the home.”

Based upon these findings, taken together with Judge Driscoll's memorandum of decision on the Motion to Vacate the order of temporary custody (Petitioner's Exhibit J), and further based upon the findings hereinafter made regarding Kesnel's lack of cooperation with DCF, his failure to obtain needed services, and failure to understand the children's specialized needs, the court finds that the cause for commitment continues to exist, and that such revocation is not in the best interests of the children at this time.

The respondent's November 2011, motion to revoke is denied.

III. Compliance with Specific Steps

Even given his truculence and resistance to services for the first two years in foster care, DCF was recommending reunification of the children with Kesnel.   Permanency plans in March 2009, and March 2010, called for reunification with father.   It was not until February 2011, that DCF sought a permanency plan that called for termination of parental rights;  nearly three years after removal of the children from the father's care.

Specific Steps were put in place on April 25, 2008 (Mack, J.), to facilitate reunion of Kesnel with the children.   During the first year there was modest cooperation with home visits.   In 2009, less;  and in 2010–2011, even less.   But for Pamphil's aggressive, unsafe, and uncontrollable behavior and Kesnel's refusal to recognize problems, reunification might have occurred.   It was certainly not helpful that Kesnel was so bellicose and contrary toward DCF and the offer of services.

1. Cooperate with home visits, announced and unannounced.

In 2008, he allowed four home visits by the social worker;  in 2009 and 2010, one announced visit per year.   He did not permit any unannounced visits, although DCF social workers tried to make them.   Kesnel did not tell DCF when he moved.   On the last visit permitted by Kesnel in February 2010, on Coit Street, Kesnel would avoid or refuse to schedule announced, planned home visits in the future.⁷  As a consequence, the social worker attempted five unannounced home visits in March, April, and May. Kesnel refused to answer the door.   On August 13, 2010, the social worker tried again, only to find that his name was no longer on the mailbox.   A neighbor said that Kesnel no longer lived there.

The social workers were able to find Kesnel on two dates in August 2010, both times at Marie's apartment at Jefferson Avenue.   It was shortly after this same time that Kesnel stopped paying the rent for Marie.   By October 2010, the Jefferson Avenue apartment was occupied by a new tenant.   At that time, DCF had no current address for either parent.

On December 15, 2010, the worker spotted Kesnel on Blackhall Street in New London.   The worker approached him and asked him where he was living.   Kesnel said he was living with relatives on Montauk Avenue.   That was not truthful.   The relatives on Montauk avenue told DCF that Kesnel did not live there.   Kesnel actually had an apartment and was living with Sophia P., on Blackhall Street at the time.   He had been living in the apartment for five months since August 2010.   DCF social workers were never permitted to inspect the apartment nor ever notified by Kesnel of his change of residence.   He refused to provide a lease or rental receipts to verify his address.   DCF has never been inside of this apartment, likely because Kesnel did not want DCF to know that Klaythmond was living there.

2. Participate in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals.

It is fair to say, Kesnel never participated in any recommended counseling or educational program.   Notably, in April 2009, the permanency plan still called for reunification with the children.   DCF offered to have Reconnecting Children and Families to provide in-home services.   This is a major step in the direction of getting the children home.   DCF does not engage this program unless they are moving toward parental reunification.   Kesnel refused the in-home services.   He has refused to participate in parenting education, individual counseling and anger management as recommended by DCF and set forth in the Specific Steps of the court.

[From the Psychological evaluation] “Records characterize the father as resistant to the notion that his children require special education services, or counseling.   On inquiry, [Kesnel] said that he had researched this, and that authorities in Florida had told him that his children, specifically Pamphil, did not require such services.   The problem with the boy, he said, was that he had been overly active and, resultantly, “He pissed the teacher off.”   The father contested accounts that the child had punched others at school.   Rather, he said, the boy had been subject to bullying.   Pressed regarding Pamphil's trip to Backus Hospital, the man offered, “He doesn't know wheres his mother ․ Don't know about his father and they called the police on him.   They tried to make him lose his mind.”   He asserted that the child was mistreated at school and segregated, making him sad.   In discussing other injustices perpetrated against his children, [Kesnel] reported that [Marie] told him that Pamphil had directed Christina to fellate him, and that the girl had done so.   Further, he said that Marie had blamed this on the influence of the children at Pamphil's school (in Florida.)   He had not, he conceded, ever discussed this with either child.”  (Petitioner's Exhibit K.)

From the inception of the case, Kesnel refused to participate in services of a therapeutic or educational nature.   He distrusted DCF social workers.   Notwithstanding that his son, Pamphil, induced his daughter, Christina, to perform oral sex upon him.   The children were separated from their mother.   The children had been acting out in school.   Kesnel did not see any need to engage his children in counseling.

Most significantly was the following development.   On January 28, 2010, Kesnel and his attorney met with the social worker and her supervisor to “pare down” the necessary steps for reunification.   The parties agreed to two major steps to be taken by Kesnel.   DCF was of the opinion that perhaps reunification with Christina could take place as she was not as troubled as was her brother, Pamphil.   The first step was that Kesnel was to meet with Caitlin Steele, Christina's therapist.   The therapist was eager to have him meet, discuss Christina's situation and engage in joint therapy with father and daughter.

The second major requirement was for Kesnel to participate in the twelve-week Fatherhood Initiative.   This program is an educational opportunity and support group designed to teach basic parenting skills, to help fathers learn the primary care giver role and to teach men how to deal cooperatively with service providers.   All essential for Kesnel.   Kesnel's lawyer was enthusiastic and tried to assist Kesnel to engage in these two direct and specific avenues to reunification.   Kesnel did not.   He never entered the Fatherhood Initiative because, according to Kesnel, no one told him one good reason why he needed the program.   With respect to meeting with Christina's therapist, he was advised by DCF and his lawyer to call and make an appointment with Ms. Steele in January 2010.   Eighteen months later, Ms. Steele ended her therapy with Christina in June 2011.   Kesnel had never called to inquire about Christina's well-being nor to arrange an appointment with Ms. Steele.⁸  He completely failed to cooperate with the service providers and with DCF. Two required steps;  zero participation.

From the inception, Kesnel has taken the position that he is not in need of any services, and that he is capable of caring for the children without any assistance.   In a report of November 2009, Kesnel told the psychologist “He readily conceded that he would allow the children to remain in DCF care before he would entertain participating in Anger Management.”  (Petitioner's Exhibit L p. 4.) He never did participate in any anger management or domestic violence course recommended by DCF. However, two years later, on January 3, 2011, he was arrested and charged with Assault 3rd and Breach of Peace against Marie.   In order to escape prosecution, Kesnel was granted the Family Violence Education Program.  (Respondent's Exhibit 8.) Upon completion of such a program the charges are routinely dismissed.   He did end up completing the Family Violence Education Program on June 29, 2011, but not in compliance with a DCF request.   Of course, Kesnel now magnanimously argues that he is compliant with the DCF request.   Kesnel did not sign releases for DCF to learn of this program of the criminal court, likely because it was incidental to a domestic violence arrest about which he hoped DCF would not learn.

3. Cooperate with court ordered evaluation.

Kesnel did attend the court ordered evaluations.   This court has already noted his discursive evasiveness.   The psychologist was unable to make a concrete psychological assessment.   The court finds assistance in evaluating Kesnel in the following statement. “ ․ acting as a sole caretaker is not his experience or inclination, insofar as he views his role chiefly as provider and advisor ․ He does not appear to accept that unsupervised access by the mother is problematic.”

That statement really does sum up Kesnel's situation.   It is likely that Kesnel has been an adequate provider for his family.   It appears that he has been loyal to Marie throughout.   It was not until about August of 2010 that he stopped providing, at least her rent.   The following excerpt from the psychologist report helps give insight into the relationship of Kesnel and Marie:

“Marie is not communicating with him, he noted, adding, “She's pissed off since court.”   They have not spoken since the last hearing, he reported, and, “She don't want me to know [her status].”   Still, he observed, “She say she sick.   I ask her to go to a hospital;  she'd didn't agree ․ I offered to put her on insurance, she disagree.”   Queried about the nature of her illness, he mused, “She did not tell me, but she complains of sleeping all the time.”   He added,” Sunday, when I pop by the house, she sleeping—say she sick and can't go to church.”   He declined to speculate on the nature of her illness observing, “I do not know her well.”   Asked specifically if she suffered from a mental illness he digressed to an account of their courtship, noting that he had only briefly seen her on occasion in Haiti prior to their marriage, and that she had seemed normal to him in that context.  “Since she come in to America, it's confusing,” he observed—” Not the woman I think she was.”   (Exhibit L p. 1.)

Kesnel admits to seeing Marie regularly and the evidence supports a finding that he continued to pay her rent at 250 Jefferson Avenue from April 2008, until August 2010.   He may have stopped paying for Marie's rent when he obtained a new girlfriend and an apartment on Blackhall Street in August 2010.   On November 11, 2011, in a conversation with DCF he referred to his “new wife.”

Sophia P. testified in this case that she moved in with Kesnel in November 2010.   The Jamaican woman testified that she is presently living with Kesnel and that she, Kesnel and Klaythmond live in a one-bedroom apartment.   Klaythmond has a portion of the living room partitioned for his sleeping.   Sophia works in the house-keeping department for the local Comfort Inn. She works days from eight until four in the afternoon.   She does not know much about Kesnel's children.   Kesnel is not presently employed.   Sophia thinks “he has a case” against Foxwoods where he worked as a “high reach” worker, “cleaning windows and changing light bulbs.”   Kesnel denies that he has a case pending.   He says that he is no longer able to do the high reach, work and has been laid off.   He has been collecting unemployment since March 2011.

4. Make all Necessary child-care arrangements;

In the past he has said family members would assist him.   When he got the children he did not use relatives, he used Marie to take care of the children.   He viewed his role as provider, not primary parent.   He has told DCF that friends would help him if the children were returned to his care.   He has said church members would help him.   In the end, he says it is none of DCF's business who he would use.   Most recently, Kesnel maintains that he and his new girlfriend could take care of the children.   He has not permitted DCF to see his present apartment in the past fifteen months, nor has he provided DCF access to Sophia P., his “new wife” to evaluate her parental fitness.

5. Advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household

As previously indicated Kesnel has been untruthful and lacking in candor.   He consistently denied that Klayphmond resides with him, although he does.   He never told DCF about his new girlfriend.   These are further examples of his disregard for DCF and the orders of the court.

6. Visitation

Kesnel has been compliant with this Step. His modest failings during visitation may be cultural or personal idiosyncracies.   By and large he has maintained a relationship with his children during these visits.   But his lack of understanding and appreciation for the specialized needs of his children remains a barrier.   See below.

7. Cooperation With children's therapy

This topic has been previously discussed regarding Caitlin Steele.   Kesnel was wholly uncooperative with Christina's therapist.   Kesnel thinks if the children are with him they will behave.   They do not need treatment.   He has not demonstrated any insight or understanding of the children's emotional and behavioral needs.

A. Pamphil:

Pamphil was moved from the U.S. to Haiti as an infant.   From Haiti back to Virginia, then to Connecticut for approximately three years, from ages two to about five.   In April 2006, he was taken by his mother to New York and then to Florida.   He lived in shelters and hotels in Florida until he was placed in foster care for nearly a year in 2007.   While in Florida he had been placed in separate foster placements from his sister because of the sexual events that Pamphil had initiated.   He was exhibiting behavioral issues long before Connecticut DCF became involved.   He came to Connecticut in January 2008, at age seven and lived with his father for about 90 days before he was removed and began multiple placements, safe homes, psychiatric admissions to three hospitals and finally into Klingberg Family Center's sub-acute care program where he now remains.   He has made sufficient progress of late that a pre-adoptive, legal risk, therapeutic foster family has been identified.   Pamphil is about to be transitioned into this home.

During the very first foster care placement, in April 2008, Pamphil, from the very beginning, demonstrated aggressive and unsafe behaviors.   These include throwing rocks at windows, urinating on himself, hitting Christina, using profanity and covering himself with mucous.   Both children were kicking cats and there were concerns that Christina was starting to model Pamphil's behavior.   Pamphil was moved to the Waterford Country School safe home.   His behavior did not improve.   His behaviors were described as unsafe, primitive, persistent and disturbing.  (Exhibit G.) Pamphil has been diagnosed as having a psychotic disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.   He has been in the highest levels of therapeutic care available to DCF. He is definitely a child with specialized emotional and educational needs.   His father's response is to blame DCF for these problems.   He believes Pamphil's special needs will be alleviated by a return to his care.

B. Christina

Christina was separated from Pamphil early in their foster care experience.   She was placed in a culturally sensitive (Haitian) foster home.   She remained in this home for nearly two years.   She was in therapy with Caitlin Steele.   Ms. Steele learned that Christina was being left unsupervised and left to feed and care for herself in this foster home.   As a mandated reporter, she notified DCF who investigated and removed Christina from the home.

In June 2011, Christina was placed in her current foster home consisting of a single mother and her son whose age is about that of Christina.   The foster mother testified about the circumstances of Christina's placement, the improvements in all spheres of her performance and how well Christina has adjusted.   The child wants to be adopted into this home.   The foster mother and her son both wish to have Christina as a permanent member of their family.   In this regard the court is mindful of the Multi–Ethnic Placement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1996b, which prevents discrimination against foster or adoptive parents on the basis of race, color or national origin or denies or delays a child's placement based on those same factors.

IV. The evaluation and participation of Marie Marthe J.

It is first noted that the mother did participate in some of the earliest proceedings following the removal of the children in 2008.   Both she and Kesnel were specifically told of the Florida court order which placed the children into Kesnel's temporary care.   Marie was told by the social worker that she did not even have a right to visit the children.   Both parents ignored or disregarded DCF's adDP1⌑After the children were removed, the records reflect that Marie was not awarded visitation in the Connecticut court proceedings due to the Florida order.   Marie was told on multiple occasions that in order to assess her needs and to insure the safety of the children, it would be necessary for Marie to have an evaluation and to engage in individual counseling.   Marie was unwilling to do either.   She went to a few of the preliminary court proceedings but stopped attending.   She would call DCF from time to time to hear about her children but eventually, even that stopped.

On March 24, 2009, eleven months after removal of the children, the court (Driscoll, J.) found that reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Marie were no longer appropriate.   She would not cooperate with services nor permit a psychological evaluation.

There is some evidence that Kesnel remained involved with Marie, even after the children's removal.   It appears that Kesnel may have brought Marie to a visitation on one or more occasions.   But Marie has not had an authorized visit with the children since 2007.   There is no evidence of any bonding between the children and their mother at this time.

When this case began, the best available evidence, given the lack of cooperation of both Marie and Kesnel, is that she, and possibly Kesnel, were living at 250 Jefferson Street in New London.   They were served at that address.   Both were last seen at that address in August 2010.   Marie has never come to court during the pendency of this case and has been defaulted.   The court has approved permanency plans calling for the termination of her parental rights and for adoption of the children.

V. Adjudication:

The court is satisfied that the cause for commitment still exists.   It would be unwise and unsafe to place the children in the care of a man who is not truthful, is deceitful when it comes to the children whereabouts and condition, who is unable or unwilling to recognize the children's emotional, educational and medical needs, and who abnegates any form of custodial supervision.   Based upon the foregoing findings the court finds that the Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the mother and father were found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for (March 31, 2009, Driscoll, J.) and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and the needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children.  (C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I)).

VI. Statutory Findings:

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

1. TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES— § 17a–112(k)(1) Multiple timely and appropriate services were offered.   Those services included, but are not limited to:  treatment and permanency plans;  case management services;  and administrative case reviews;  transportation services for visitation supervised by DCF personnel, or by therapeutic visitation programs;  and most urgently, repeated offers to Marie for mental health counseling and/or evaluations.   The resistance of the parents and most notably, Kesnel, has been addressed.

2. REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW— § 17a–112(k)(2) DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, through the offer of timely reunification services.   Reunification was not a feasible plan unless and until Marie could address her mental health issues.   She has not.   DCF was willing to put in place intensive in-home reunification services for Kesnel but he refused them.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS— § 17a–112(k)(3) This has been previously addressed.

4. THE CHILD'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES— § 17a–112(k)(4) Previously addressed in part.   Pamphil does have a bond with his father and may fantasize about a reunion.   He is, however, now excited about the prospects of a permanent home with a family trained in the therapeutic needs of children with such monumental needs as Pamphil demonstrates.

Christina's present pre-adoptive situation has been discussed.   She wishes to be adopted.

5. AGES OF THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(5) Pamphil will be eleven years old on January 7, 2012.⁹  This child has not had any permanent, secure, safe, long-term home in the past six years.

Christina, who turned nine on August 16, 2011, has had fewer placements but still no permanency in the past six years.   This is a tragedy for these children.   The parents are the same persons they were when this case started.   Why has it taken three and a half years to determine Kesnel's limitations?   He was uncooperative, deceitful and didn't recognize the children's needs from the beginning.¹⁰

6. PARENT'S EFFORT TO ADJUST CIRCUMSTANCES— § 17a–112(k)(6) Marie has not made any efforts to conform her conduct to even minimally acceptable parental standards.   Her persistent unwillingness to obtain treatment effectively abandoned her children.   Kesnel was willing to make no concessions in his life to accommodate his children's needs.

7. EXTENT TO WHICH RESPONDENT WAS PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(7) No unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties prevented the parents from having a relationship with the children.

Disposition

After careful thought of these enumerated considerations and the other matters contained herein, the court finds that it is in the best interest of Pamphil and Christina that the parental rights of their biological parents should be terminated.

VII. Orders

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

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

That the parental rights of Kesnel J. and Marie Marthe J. are hereby terminated as to the children Pamphil and Christina.   That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the children for the purpose of pursuing adoption.   That a case plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.   That primary consideration for adoption of Christina shall be offered to the current foster parent.

The court finds that the permanency plan that calls for termination of parental rights and adoption is in the children's best interest and is approved.   The court finds that the Department of Children and Families made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.

The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of these children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 978 Hartford Turnpike, Waterford, CT 06385 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 22nd day of November 2011

Foley, J.T.R. # 395

FOOTNOTES

FN2. “Though consistently pleasant, he was notably evasive, and seldom definitively responded.   Results are accordingly limited.”  (Psychological evaluation Exhibit K p. 6.).  FN2. “Though consistently pleasant, he was notably evasive, and seldom definitively responded.   Results are accordingly limited.”  (Psychological evaluation Exhibit K p. 6.)

FN3. He told the psychologist he has four other children, the oldest an adult now living in Canada.   He did not disclose her to DCF. Further evidence of his unreliable reporting.  (Petitioner's Ex. K p. 4.).  FN3. He told the psychologist he has four other children, the oldest an adult now living in Canada.   He did not disclose her to DCF. Further evidence of his unreliable reporting.  (Petitioner's Ex. K p. 4.)

FN4. Kesnel was arrested for threatening and breach of peace in New London in May 1992.   He was arrested in Norwich for Breach of Peace on June 8, 1993.  (Petitioner's Exhibit M.) So Kesnel presumably had been living in Connecticut earlier than he disclosed to DCF..  FN4. Kesnel was arrested for threatening and breach of peace in New London in May 1992.   He was arrested in Norwich for Breach of Peace on June 8, 1993.  (Petitioner's Exhibit M.) So Kesnel presumably had been living in Connecticut earlier than he disclosed to DCF.

FN5. The statute provides:  “The commissioner, a parent or the child's attorney may file a motion to revoke a commitment, and, upon finding that cause for commitment no longer exists, and that such revocation is in the best interests of such child or youth, the court may revoke the commitment of such child or youth.   No such motion shall be filed more often than once every six months.”.  FN5. The statute provides:  “The commissioner, a parent or the child's attorney may file a motion to revoke a commitment, and, upon finding that cause for commitment no longer exists, and that such revocation is in the best interests of such child or youth, the court may revoke the commitment of such child or youth.   No such motion shall be filed more often than once every six months.”

FN6. Kesnel had on several occasions been told that Pamphil needed an operation for an undescended testis.   Kesnel never followed through on this procedure..  FN6. Kesnel had on several occasions been told that Pamphil needed an operation for an undescended testis.   Kesnel never followed through on this procedure.

FN7. His discursive speech made getting a straight answer difficult.  “A careful listener [Kesnel], he formed his answers with consideration.   That said, his responses were often peripheral to the inquiry and this happened with sufficient frequency to suggest evasiveness.   He was given to hyperbole, and to philosophical digressions.   He was not judged candid and as such, results were limited in their applicability.   It was felt that some valuable conclusions were formed but much of his psychology remains elusive.”  (Psychological Evaluation, Exhibit K p. 4.).  FN7. His discursive speech made getting a straight answer difficult.  “A careful listener [Kesnel], he formed his answers with consideration.   That said, his responses were often peripheral to the inquiry and this happened with sufficient frequency to suggest evasiveness.   He was given to hyperbole, and to philosophical digressions.   He was not judged candid and as such, results were limited in their applicability.   It was felt that some valuable conclusions were formed but much of his psychology remains elusive.”  (Psychological Evaluation, Exhibit K p. 4.)

FN8. He did call Ms. Steele, September 21, 2011, six weeks before the termination of parental rights trial;  twenty-one months after he was told to do it and long after Christina's therapy had ended..  FN8. He did call Ms. Steele, September 21, 2011, six weeks before the termination of parental rights trial;  twenty-one months after he was told to do it and long after Christina's therapy had ended.

FN9. The birth date is sometimes stated as Jan. 17, at least once as Jan. 1, and most often as Jan. 7th The name is spelled Panphil and Pamphil.   While this may be viewed as careless or perhaps, typographical, it is at the minimum, unacceptable..  FN9. The birth date is sometimes stated as Jan. 17, at least once as Jan. 1, and most often as Jan. 7th The name is spelled Panphil and Pamphil.   While this may be viewed as careless or perhaps, typographical, it is at the minimum, unacceptable.

FN10. It is likely that DCF placed too much stock in the psychologist's report.   For all Kesnel's problems as a parent, he did not lack a certain charm.   It seems clear in retrospect, that not enough weight was placed on his clear declarations that he was willing to leave the children in care forever rather than submit himself to any counseling or education to understand his children's needs..  FN10. It is likely that DCF placed too much stock in the psychologist's report.   For all Kesnel's problems as a parent, he did not lack a certain charm.   It seems clear in retrospect, that not enough weight was placed on his clear declarations that he was willing to leave the children in care forever rather than submit himself to any counseling or education to understand his children's needs.

Foley, Francis J., S.J.