IN RE: Messiah S.1 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

These actions are brought by The Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or “Petitioner”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Messiah S. (hereinafter referred to as “Messiah S.” or child);  Aziza B. (hereinafter referred to as “Aziza B.,” or “child”);  Jazira B. (hereinafter referred to as “Jazira B.,” or “child”);  Kifayeh B. (hereinafter referred to as “Kifayeh B.,” or “child”) or collectively “children.”   The biological mother of all of these children is Stacey S. (hereinafter referred to as “Stacey S.” or “Mother”).   The biological father of Messiah S. is Kirk J. (hereinafter referred to as “Kirk J.” or “Father”);  and the biological father of Aziza B., Jazira B. and Kifayeh B. is Eric B. (hereinafter referred to as “Eric B.” or “Father”).

Thereafter, the court confirmed service on all parents who were present, advised of their rights, and denials were entered.   A CSC was set for 8/10/11 at 9:00 a.m. Thereafter, a trial was set for 11/4/11 and concluded on 11/7/11.

On 11/4/11, the court commenced trial.   Both Stacey S. and Eric B. were present.   The trial was thereafter continued to 11/7/11 and 11/17/11.   Mother, Stacey S. and Father, Eric B. were present on all days.   Father, Kirk J. was not present, having been defaulted on 5/19/11.

At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted forty exhibits (A–NW);  Respondent Mother submitted seven exhibits (1–7);  Respondent Father, two full exhibits;  and six exhibits submitted for identification.   Ten witnesses testified for DCF;  two witnesses testified on behalf of the Respondent Mother and three witnesses testified on behalf of Respondent Father.

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, Stacey S., and as to biological Father, Eric B. are Failure to Rehabilitate (B1);  and as to biological Father, Kirk J., Abandonment and No Parent/Child Relationship.

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

I

FACTUAL FINDINGSA. Background, Facts Substantiating Allegations of Neglect and Termination.

DCF has been involved with the family since December 2001 due to ongoing issues of substance abuse, transience, mental health issues, financial instability and more recently, domestic violence.

Messiah S., Aziza B., Jazira B. and Kifayeh B. were committed to the Department on 10/29/09.   The children were placed under protective supervision several times.

On 10/27/07, the DCF hotline received a report from a nurse at St. Francis Hospital stating that Mother had tested positive for cocaine and alcohol at the birth of her child, Eric B., Jr. Stacey S.'s and Eric B.'s rights to Eric B., Jr. were terminated on 7/16/10.

B. Mother, Stacey S.

Stacey S. was born on 2/24/72 in Rockville, Connecticut to Johann S. and Thomas S. and has a Polish background.   She has two siblings and reported a normal childhood and a good relationship with her family.

Stacey S. graduated from Windsor High School in 1990 and the University of Hartford in 1994, majoring in politics and government, and later completed a Master's degree in Political Theory at UCONN in 1996.   She worked as a teacher on the residential staff at Gray Lodge group home, as a librarian, a paralegal and at a mortgage company.

Stacey S. has never been married.   After college she met “Erroll,” whom she dated for five years and they had a child together named Olivia.   The child was adopted by a close friend.   Stacey S. claims that the adoption was open and she had frequent contact with the child until she was a year old.   Her relationship with the child's father ended in 2001.   She then met Kirk J., an immigrant from Jamaica, and was in a relationship with him for about two months during which time she became pregnant with Messiah S. After Messiah S. was born, Kirk J. was not involved as a parent and never offered any assistance to Mother.

Mother met Father while she was pregnant with Messiah S. and began dating him right after Messiah S. was born, entering into a serious relationship with him thereafter.   They moved to Washington, D.C. when Messiah S. was six months old and had their first child together, Aziza B. After about two years in Washington D.C., they moved to Las Vegas, Nevada where Jazira B. was born.   Two years later, in 2009, they moved to Connecticut and Kifayeh B. was born on 10/1/05 in Westerly, Rhode Island.

It was reported that Mother and Father are considering marriage and at trial testimony was offered they were involved in counseling toward that end.

Stacey S. has not been employed recently, other than at her church as a secretary and perhaps at other menial employment.   She indicates that she is looking for employment.

Mother claims that she had psychological testing done at the Institute of Living after the birth of Messiah S. but no recommendations were made.   She also voluntarily participated in counseling services during the adoption process of Olivia.   She denies any substance abuse but did test positive for cocaine during her last pregnancy with Eric B., Jr. in 2007.   Recently, Mother has been extremely reluctant to engage in a hair test and after a number of cancellations and missed appointments in June 2011, she tested negative for substances.   For some time, urine tests were reported negative but the report was unclear as to why the tests showed low creatinine levels which may have affected the tests.   Mother had a breathalyzer test on 4/19/11 and tested positive.

C. Father, Eric B.

Eric B. was born on 12/29/62 in Hartford, Connecticut to Aaron B. and Dorothy B. (both deceased).   He has three siblings, Sheila B., Andrea B. and Lisa B. He claimed he had a good relationship with his parents and his sisters.

Eric B. completed 12th grade at Shanti High School in Hartford, Connecticut and was active in the Army from 1980–1983.   He has worked in construction and is currently employed at Stop ‘n Shop in the deli department.

Eric B. reported that he had his first girlfriend when he was 11 years old and their relationship lasted for about two years;  at the age of 14, he met Theresa “Peaches” and they had a daughter named Katrina.   Their relationship lasted eight months.   When he was 15, Eric B. met Valerie and they had two children, Takeisha and Tasahma during a four-year relationship.   At age 19, he met Zelda and they had a two-year relationship during which they had a child together named Niwikia.   While dating Zelda, Eric B. was also seeing Takibah and also had an affair with Takibah's sister, Meta. Meta had Eric B.'s child, Hashim.   He then met Linda and had a child with her named Komoco;  he was also dating Wendy at the same time and had a child with her named Eric Jr. Eric B. met Lisa and married her in 1987 and they had two children together, Wonasha and Asim;  the couple separated in 2000.   In 2001, Eric B. met Stacey S. while she was pregnant with Messiah S. He claims that he has had regular contact with all of his children and their mothers.

Father has a total of 7 arrests that range in date from 9/16/82–7/2/09 and include one arrest for each of the following offenses:  Under Suspension;  Sexual Assault 4th;  Harassment 2nd;  Criminal Trespass, Disorderly Conduct, Assault 2nd;  Violation of Probation and Threatening;  two arrests for Risk of Injury;  three arrests for Interfering/Resisting Arrest;  four arrests for Assault 3rd;  and five arrests for Failure to Appear.   On 6/16/09, Father was charged with Assault 3rd;  Breach of Peace 2 and Risk of Injury due to physically assault of Mother in front of the children.   He was incarcerated and the court ordered a full no-contact order.   Father was later placed on probation until July 24, 2009, at which time he returned home.

Eric B. claims that he has had good health and has never been hospitalized or treated for any mental health issues.   He admits to trying marijuana in high school, but did not like it and denies any history of substance abuse.   He claims to drink beer socially.   Father tested positive for cocaine after a hair test on 5/13/11.

D. Father, Kirk J.

Kirk J., father of Messiah S., remains whereabouts unknown and has never made himself available to DCF nor offered a plan for his child.   Reasonable efforts have been made to locate Kirk J. through the publication of letters to the four branches of the military and other sources.   Obtaining information about Kirk J. was difficult as there was no date of birth available.

E. Children for Whom Petitions are Filed.

1. Messiah S.

Messiah S. was born on 12/12/01 in Hartford, Connecticut to Kirk J. and Stacey S. Mother has a history with DCF dating back to December 2001, due to mental health issues.   There were also issues of substance abuse and unstable housing which resulted in ongoing protective services being involved.   Messiah S. does not know his biological father, as Kirk J. has never played a role in his life.   He was raised by Eric B. whom he knows as his psychological father.

Messiah S. was committed to the Department on 10/29/09 after a number of actions by DCF starting on 7/10/86.

Messiah S.'s health is good overall.   He has been diagnosed with asthma and uses an albuterol inhaler as needed.   He underwent a multi-disciplinary examination on 11/17/09.   Some of his scores were in the At–Risk range which may indicate a significant problem, but not one severe enough to require formal treatment, or may identify the potential for developing a problem that needs careful monitoring.   Messiah S. would benefit from treatment in order to improve his adaptive and communication skills, and frustration tolerance.   He is a bright, insightful child who benefits from the one-on-one attention that a therapist can provide while offering him necessary services.

Messiah S. attended therapy through Abundant Family Counseling Center from December 2009 through May 2010.   On 2/8/10, he expressed to his therapist that he was sad that he wasn't with his parents, but he was happy that he didn't have to hear screaming anymore.   During an investigative interview in 2009, he reported that he got along with his Mother sometimes, but she yelled a lot.   He understood his Father was in jail because “he hits mommy too much.”   At that time Messiah S. reported that his Father, Eric. B. hit everybody.   He said that he saw his parents fighting, yelling and hitting.   When this would occur, he and his siblings would hide behind chairs in the living room and behind their beds.   The child reported being scared when this happened.

Messiah S. has adjusted well to his placement.   Initially, he was very emotional, and cried often as he wanted to be home with his parents but individual counseling was able to assist him with his transition.

Messiah S. is in the fifth grade and attends Simpson Waverly School where he does well.   He appears to be taking much more responsibility in doing his work.   His teacher feels he is an excellent student and he was selected to be submitted to the Gifted and Talented Program.

Messiah S. is bonded to his Mother and psychological Father Eric B. He visits each week with his Mother and siblings at Family Connections Visitation Center.   Messiah is in a foster care placement with one of his younger siblings, Aziza B. His two younger siblings are placed with Mary M.'s sister so he sees them regularly.   He is bonded to his foster mother, Mary M., who is willing to adopt him.

Messiah S. will be referred back to individual therapy to address his current behavioral concerns and his feelings about not being returned to his parents' care.

2. Aziza B.

Aziza B. was born on 4/4/03 to Stacey S. and Eric B. in Washington D.C. She underwent a multi-disciplinary examination on 11/17/09.   At-risk scores indicate that she appears to have some difficulty adapting to changing situations and environments, and sometimes struggles to communicate effectively with others.

Aziza B. attended the Abundant Family Counseling Center weekly from December 2009 through May 2010.   Individual counseling assisted her with her transition into her foster home.   In therapy she reported being happy to see her Mother during visits, but was also scared and sad.

Aziza B. witnessed the domestic violence that took place in her home on 6/13/09.   When DCF interviewed her, she reported that “Daddy doesn't come home sometimes” and that “Sometimes daddy is mad and angry and fights with mommy.”   She also witnessed her Father kicking her Mother and scratching her Mother's arm.   She claimed that her Father screamed at her Mother and the children and that made her scared.   She and her siblings hid “behind chairs, in our rooms, everywhere.”

Aziza B. is placed in the same foster home as her half-brother, Messiah S. She has transitioned well to her foster home and enjoys ongoing family outings and engagements.   She is bonded to her foster mother but has expressed a desire to be home with her parents.   Mary M. has verbalized her interest in adopting Aziza B. should she become legally free for adoption.

Aziza B. is a third grader at Simpson Waverly School where she has been doing well.

3. Jazira B.

Jazira B. is a five-year-old bi-racial female.   She is medically up to date at this time.   She attended counseling at the Abundant Life Counseling Center from February 2010 through August 2010 and her foster mother reported positive changes in her behavior.

Jazira B. has witnessed violence in her home.   She reported that “daddy picked up a chair and threw it at mommy” and this scared her.

Jazira B. attends Simpson Waverly School and is in the second grade where she continues to make good progress in all areas.

Jazira B. is bonded to her siblings.   She is placed with a younger sibling, Kifayeb B. in the same foster home.   She visits with her older two siblings weekly during supervised visitation, as well as on the weekends.

4. Kifayeh B.

Kifayeh B. is a six-year-old bi-racial male.   He is placed in the same foster home as his sibling, Jazira B. He is medically up-to-date.

Kifayeh witnessed the domestic violence on 6/13/09 between his parents.   He reported seeing his parents fighting and his Father choking his Mother by the neck.   He stated that it made him scared when his parents fought and he cried.   He has hidden under chairs or the kitchen table.

When the child was initially placed in the foster home with foster mother, Nancy A., there was a concern due to Kifayeh B.'s crying for long periods of time before going to sleep.   He attended counseling through Abundant Family Center to address these issues.

Kifayeh B. attends first grade at the Simpson Waverly School and is doing well.   He is developmentally on target with no concerns at this time.   He visits with his parents and siblings weekly.

F. Relative Resources

A number of relatives were assessed by DCF for placement of the children.   None were found to be licensable or willing to become placements.   Paternal great aunt, Lisa B–J. was determined recently to be eligible upon her remedying a situation which prohibited earlier licensing.

G. Present Situation

Reportedly, Mother and Father continue to reside together in Hartford, Connecticut.   Mother may be employed part-time at her church as a secretary and Father is employed at Stop ‘n Shop in the deli department.   All four children continue to reside at the same foster home in which they were placed upon removal and are doing extremely well in school and in other activities.   They are medically healthy.   Supervised visitation through the Family Connections Visitation Center includes all the children so that they have an opportunity to share time together.

Both parents continue to avoid scheduled programs, attending on a sporadic basis at best.   Of deep concern is their inattention to substance abuse tests that are scheduled by DCF, and the no show, no call value they place on such scheduling.   Since Father testified positive for cocaine on 4/29/11, he has avoided any further testing.   Testimony was given by a provider with whom Father has been in contact for over two years.   The witness confirmed that he had administered many urine tests for Father and all were negative.   He was rather surprised to learn that Father had positive cocaine results during that period of time.   Segmented hair tests were refused by Father.   Mother has had a number of urine tests (no hair tests) since earlier this year.   She has continued to produce positive breathalyzer tests as of 4/19/11.   She tested negative for other substances but it was noted that her creatinine levels were very low which rendered the tests suspicious.

From time to time there have been reports that Mother and Father may have been separated and considered living apart from each other.   During the trial, a witness for the respondents testified that they were involved with marriage counseling with a view toward marriage.   The present situation remains the same as it has been since the removal and commitment of the children on 10/29/09.

Kirk J., father of Messiah S., remains whereabouts unknown and has never made himself available to DCF or offered a plan for his child.   Reasonable efforts have been made to locate Kirk J. through the publication of letters to the four branches of the military and other sources.   Obtaining information about Kirk J. was difficult as there was no date of birth available.

II

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION

The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Mother, Stacey S.'s, Father, Eric B.'s and Father, Kirk J.'s rights as of the date of the filing of the petition.

A. Reasonable Efforts Finding

Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, in order to terminate parental rights DCF initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and to reunify the children with their parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  C.G.S. Sec. 17a–112(j)(1).   “[R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 748 (2011).

DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Stacey S., Eric B. and Kirk J.

The reasonable efforts provided by DCF and others have been extraordinary.   Time after time services and programs have been offered to Mother and Father, Eric B. only to have them refuse to cooperate or leave the program before it was completed.

Mother and Father, Eric B., have not shown the ability to gain insight into their failings as parents and have proven unable to rehabilitate and provide the care that their children require.   Father's continued incarceration and the situations in which he finds himself involved at particular facilities makes efforts extraordinarily difficult.

The parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts because they have been unable to show progress in their rehabilitation with regard to mental health, substance abuse, parenting, anger management, domestic violence, housing and employment issues.

DCF has been involved with this family since 2005 when Mother tested positive for cocaine while pregnant with Kifayeh B. and earlier a neglect substantiation of Messiah S. was determined as a result of Mother's unaddressed mental health issues.

Mother and Father, Eric B. have had sporadic attendance at services made available by DCF. They have participated in these programs for a period of time but invariably have failed to complete them, and in many cases they have been discharged for lack of compliance.

In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Grounds for Termination:  Abandonment—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A) as to Biological Father, Kirk J.

This ground is established when the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child.   Sporadic efforts are insufficient to negate the claim of abandonment.   The test for determining abandonment of a child for purposes of termination of parental rights is not whether a parent has shown “some interest” in his or her child, but rather whether the parent has maintained any reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare.  In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 36, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).

Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts and financial support are indicia of “interest, concern or responsibility.”  In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 209, 504 A.2d 533 (1986).

The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes:  (1) express love and affection for the child;  (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child;  (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care;  (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile;  and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17–18, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993);  In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).

Ground A—Abandonment as to Messiah S. by Biological Father, Kirk J.

1. The child has been in the continuous care of the Department for a long period of time.

2. Father has failed to be an active participant in the life of the child.

3. Father has not visited the child.

4. Father has not provided financial support for the child.

5. Father has never acknowledged the child's birthday or other special days.

6. Father has never sent cards, gifts or letters to the child.

7. Father has never contacted DCF to inquire about the well-being of the child or to request contact with him.

8. Father has never shown an interest in the child's health or welfare.

9. Father has failed to make an alternative plan for the child.

10. Father has never participated in Administrative Case Reviews held by the Department regarding the Treatment Plan for the child.

11. Father has appeared occasionally at scheduled hearings or evaluations held by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters regarding the child.

12. Father has failed to participate in the permanency planning for the child.

13. Father has not cooperated with services offered to reunify in a timely manner.

DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan.   All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

C. Grounds for Termination:  Failure to Rehabilitate—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(1)—as to biological Mother, Stacey S. and Biological Father, Eric B.

The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother and Father, Eric B., 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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted).  In re Arvahney 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 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 Stacey S. and Eric B. have yet to achieve a sufficient “level of rehabilitation ․ which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re 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 Stacey S. and Eric B. have not achieved CGS § 7a–112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation.   The court credits the DCF reports which show that Stacey S. and Eric B. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.

Ground B1—Failure to Rehabilitate as to Children Messiah S., Aziza B., Jazira B. and Kifayeh B. by biological Mother, Stacey S.

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

Stacey S. has a history with the Department dating back to 2001.   As reported above, Mother does not have her older child, Olivia, in her care and her rights to her youngest child, Eric B., Jr. were terminated on 7/6/10 and he was later adopted.

Specific steps ordered by the court on 9/28/10 to facilitate the return of the children to Mother, Stacey S., have not been complied with.

Stacey S. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the lives of her children within a reasonable period of time.

DCF has been involved with Mother since 12/21/01, at the time Messiah S.'s birth until the present time due to issues of medical neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, lack of housing, transience and lack of cooperation.   Sadly, Mother has refused to consistently and productively engage in the many programs, services and assistance offered by DCF and others since 2001.   She has refused to adequately address her substance abuse and mental health needs and remains in a close relationship with Father, Eric B., who offers little or no parenting support or guidance but rather presents himself as a companion for using and abusing substances.   Mother has had the benefit of DCF intervention since 2001 with no demonstrated change in her behavior.

Stacey S. has continuously provided positive hair and urine tests, although more recently, she has kept her hair too short to enable hair testing and she has not attended the scheduled tests.   Her last positive test for cocaine was a urine test on 2/17/10.   Thereafter, on numerous occasions, urine screens tested negative although they showed very low creatinine levels for which there was no reasonable explanation.   Since 5/31/11, when a hair test came back negative for substances, Stacey S. has occasionally refused to sign releases for DCF and has cancelled, but most times has not shown for some 18 to 20 testing appointments.   On 4/20/11, she had a positive breathalyzer test and concerns were raised thereafter about her use of alcohol.

Stacey S. has not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform her conduct to even minimally acceptable parental standards.   Her persistent substance abuse and lack of ability to remain substance free, her lack of acceptable housing, and her refusal to be concerned about domestic violence have left her unfit to parent.   She has had more than ten years of failure at recovery during which time she has given up her daughter, Olivia, for adoption and more recently consented to the termination of her parental rights to Eric B., Jr.

A parent's failure to appreciate the risks to his/her child posed by the other parent having access to the child, or his/her inability to independently care for the child on his or her own, can provide a sufficient legal basis to find the parent has failed to rehabilitate.  In Re Elis V., 120 Conn.App. 523, 533 (2010);  In re Albert M., 124 Conn.App. 561, 566;  cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920 (2010).   In In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 624 (2004), the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the parents had failed to rehabilitate because their relationship had remained “unstable and chaotic.”   Nevertheless, the undisputed testimony was that Father not only minimizes his own substance abuse issues, but also Mother's.   There is ample evidence that the parents are still in an intimate relationship.   Contrary to some evidence of separation, the latest testimony was that marriage between the two was being planned.

It is extremely interesting to the court that during final argument by the attorneys for the children, and attorneys for both Father and Mother, all felt that the granting of guardianship to paternal aunt, Lisa B.-J. was in the best interests of the children rather than reunification with the parents (although protective supervision was also mentioned).   Attorney for Mother acknowledged that she was a “functioning addict,” an “addict in recovery” and that “she did the best she could” in the programs offered.   This is not in the least persuasive as to Mother regaining custody of the children.

These children have formed bonds with their respective foster parents who happen to be sisters, and have a remarkable relationship with each other which transfers to the children.   The foster parents are willing to adopt the children and are agreeable to maintaining a relationship with the children's parents.   The children are in need of permanency and stability in their lives and this is not possible with Mother's unresolved issues.

It is abundantly clear that the ages of these children—10, 8, 7 and 6—desperately require their stability.   The continued uncertainty as to their future not only has a traumatic effect on them but also the suggestion of both parents and relatives, including Lisa B.-J. that reunification is the ultimate intention, is also devastating to the children's well being.   They are in need of a permanent home where they can flourish and grow, free of substance abuse, domestic violence and other presenting issues.

Ground B1—Failure to Rehabilitate as to Children Aziza B., Jazira B. and Kifayeh B. by Biological Father, Eric B.

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

Over the past ten years, from 2001 to the present, Father, Eric B., has a history that is very similar to that of Mother, Stacey S. Father will not be able to assume a responsible position in the lives of his children within a reasonable period of time.   It is not clear how long DCF has been involved with Father since his first child was born in 1976 when he was 14 years old and it is reported that he fathered ten children with eight different mothers before becoming associated with Stacey S. in 2001.   Thereafter, he fathered three children with Mother who are the subjects of this petition and one other child, Eric B., to whom, along with Mother, he consented to termination of parental rights on 7/6/10.   All ten of Father's children born prior to 2001 are reported to have been parented and supported by their mothers.   Eric B. suggests that he has had, and continues to have, a relationship with all his children and their families.

While the evidence with regard to Mother's refusal to engage productively in the many programs offered, including substance abuse testing, by DCF and others, is similar to Father's, he has exhibited as extremely resistant, evasive and belligerent in his dealings with providers and the Department.   He also exhibits a secretive, untruthful character who is distrustful of social workers, lacks candor and at times displays a combative side.   When Father was confronted on 8/8/11 with the fact that he was talking to the children about going home he insisted that he could “speak anything he wanted with his children.”   DCF confirmed that Father had relayed to at least one child that DCF was coming to return the children to the home of Lisa B.-J. who would then return the children home to Mother and Father.   Father's actions are disconcerting, to say the least, and disruptive to the well being of the children.

Throughout his involvement with DCF, Father has tested positive for cocaine.   Despite programs and services offered, which he has attended sporadically, if at all, he has continued to test positive.   It was reported on 5/13/11 that Father last tested positive for cocaine on 4/28/11.   A request for segmentation was made but not authorized by Father.   Since 5/13/11 at least 20 attempts have been made to schedule substance abuse testing but both parents have been no show or have had excuses for their nonparticipation.

Final specific steps were ordered by the court on 9/28/10 to facilitate the return of the children to Eric B. but he has been non-compliant overall.

Father has refused home visits since 3/16/10;  has refused to attend most counseling arrangements;  has recently refused substance abuse testing;  has not made progress toward identified goals;  has been resistant to signing releases;  and has been involved with the criminal justice system.

On 6/16/09, Eric B. was charged with Assault in the 3rd Degree;  Breach of Peace 2nd and Risk of Injury to a Child due to physically assaulting Mother in front of the children.   Due to this incident in the home, a full protective order was issued on 7/24/09;  the protective order expired as Eric B. was placed on two years of probation.   On 1/5/10, his probation officer informed DCF that Eric B. was unsuccessfully discharged from the domestic violence counseling ordered as a condition of probation due to his having attended only four out of nine sessions.   He later completed the 26–week program.

Interestingly, the court observes that although a witness from Community Health Services testified that Eric B. had had negative urine tests for over 2 years, he continued during that time to test positive for cocaine upon the administration of a hair test.   He has been evading scheduling hair tests and continues to have ongoing issues with maintaining sobriety.   The children have disclosed that they have witnessed domestic violence in the home and they run and hide.   Father is unable to safely parent his children.

The children are in need of a safe, nurturing home environment.   He has not successfully rehabilitated from abusing illegal substances and has been physically abusive to the children's mother.   The children are in need of a permanent home.

Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence:  Mother, Stacey S., and Father, Eric B., have failed to rehabilitate and Father, Kirk J., has abandoned his child after a prior court finding of neglect.

III

DISPOSITION

Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights applying the appropriate standard of proof, the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial establish, by clear and convincing evidence after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest.   If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.

A. C.G.S. § 17a–112(k) Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.

Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Stacey S.'s and Eric B. and Kirk J.'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 the children with their parents.   Services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent parents to facilitate their reunification with their 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 Stacey S. and Eric B. 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).

Stacey S. and Eric B. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return their 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 parents are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

DCF has previously offered multiple services to Mother and Father, Eric B., to the extent possible.   DCF has made reasonable efforts to maintain contact with both parents.

Father, Kirk J. has not been available for services.

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.”

Stacey S. and Eric B. were given court ordered final specific steps on 9/28/11.   They have not fully complied with these steps in that they have failed to rehabilitate from their substance and alcohol use.   Mother has failed to engage in hair testing since April 2010.   She has not followed through with addressing her mental health issues despite being referred to numerous agencies.   Eric B. tested positive for cocaine at his 4/29/11 hair test.   Mother and Father were court ordered in February 2011 to sign releases of information during a hearing on a motion to compel.

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.”

Mother, Father and the children appear to have a bond.   The children see their parents weekly, have engaged in special visits and participate in telephonic conversations.   The children also appear bonded to their foster parents.   The foster parents are sisters and they often visit in each other's homes to ensure that the children remain bonded.   The children all attend the same school.

5. “The ages of the children.”

Messiah S. is ten years old;  Aziza B. is eight years old;  Jazira B. is seven years old;  and Kifayeh B. is six years old.

6. “The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to such child's home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent provided that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.”

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the parents have failed to rehabilitate up to the present time and have refused to co-operate with DCF or programs presented.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for their children.   To permit the children return to the parents' care would compromise the safety of the children.

Father Kirk J. is whereabouts unknown.

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 Stacey S. or Eric B. and Kirk J. 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 Children—C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(2)

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Stacey S.'s and Eric B. and Kirk J.'s parental rights to their children 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.

In determining whether termination of the parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interest, 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 relationship with their biological parents;  and the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents.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 children's intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their 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 children'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 parents.

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

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

The children cannot delay their need for permanence and stability in exchange for their parents' uncertain future.

Based upon the parents' behavior and performance so far, this court cannot foresee them ever having the ability or the opportunity to be able to follow the regimen necessary for these children to maximize their abilities and achievements.

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

The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles.   Their conduct clearly and convincingly shows that it is unlikely that they will ever be able to conform their behavior to appropriate norms or be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for these children.

Our courts have recognized that “long-term stability is critical to a child'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 parents as caretakers.

Having balanced the children's individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the children's best interest cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to their parents.  In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 658, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010).

Accordingly, with respect to the best interest of the children 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 Stacey S., Eric B. and Kirk J. as to Messiah S., Aziza B., Jazira B. and Kifayeh B. is in the best interest of the children in question.

IV

TRANSFER OF GUARDIANSHIP TO PATERNAL AUNT

On July 28, 2011, Father, Eric B. filed a Motion to Transfer Guardianship to Paternal Aunt, Lisa B.-J. and on August 22, 2011, Mother, Stacey S. filed a Motion for Transfer of Guardianship, also referring to Lisa B.-J. At the time of final argument, the attorney for the children urged the court to transfer guardianship to the same paternal aunt.

It was represented that Lisa B.-J. had an earlier assessment for guardianship which was denied.   Evidently, the impediments to licensing the home were that she had an older biological child in her home who had involvement with the criminal justice system.   He had left the home and Lisa B.-J. was subsequently licensed.   The court must now make a determination as to the placement of these children.

Paternal aunt testified at the time of trial.   Not a great deal of testimony was presented other than she knew the children, had visited them on occasion, was employed and maintained a comfortable home.   She responded to inquiries on a number of occasions that the main reason she wished to be named guardian of these children was that when she found out her brother, Eric B., was in trouble, she wanted to help him out.   She did not get to the point of how she would parent the children and their specific needs;  her interest was to help out her brother.   She stated that she was unaware that Eric B. had been removed from his parents' care and had been adopted.   She also seemed to be unaware that he had other children who were all in the care of their mothers (eight mothers) seemingly from the point of the infants' birth or shortly thereafter.   She did not mention any interest in the fact that Eric B.'s first child had been born when he was fourteen years old or that he had lived a carefree life for the better part of his forty-nine years without having to support, provide housing for, or parent his children in any meaningful way.

The court is also aware that on more than one occasion, the children reported that paternal aunt had indicated that she was interested in gaining guardianship so that the children could be returned to their parents.   It was also reported that Father had led the children into believing that they were to be returned to their parents and that Lisa B.-J. would be a likely conduit for that transition.   The proponents of the motions for guardianship made claims that Lisa B.-J. had become strongly bonded to these children, that the children desired to be in her care, that she served as a meaningful caretaker, that she had an understanding of the needs of the children in regard to their health, education or social activities and had adequate income to provide for the children.   Lisa B.-J. has been licensed for foster care but licensing is very often only a beginning and placement is contingent upon many other factors that have not been addressed.   It is evident that Father had something other than permanency in mind when he admitted making statements to the children, and insisted he would continue to tell them whatever he desired.

It is abundantly clear that Lisa B.-J. has very little knowledge with regard to these children but is only interested “in helping [her] brother who is in trouble.”   To quote from the motion for guardianship of Mother, Stacey S., “A transfer of guardianship to [Lisa B.-J.] will allow her [Mother] to play a perpetual role in her children's lives.”   Mother and Father have played only a peripheral role in the lives of these children for many years, and in fact, have played much less of a role when others have taken over care of their other children.   The issue at hand is not whether she provides help for her brother, Eric B., but rather whether she provides a meaningful family situation undergirded with permanency, stability and the chance for a productive future for all of the children.   This is obviously not the primary interest of Lisa B.-J. All of these opportunities are possible with the foster parents who care for the children extremely well and with whom these children have become bonded and extremely familiar.

V

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 the children's best interest to terminate the parental rights of Stacey S., the biological Mother of the children and Eric B., the biological Father of Aziza B., Jazira B. and Kifayeh B.;   and Kirk J., the biological Father of Messiah S. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to these children are hereby terminated.

It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for these children for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for these children.

The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, required by state and federal law, which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of these children.

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.