IN RE: Jordyn V. et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

Before this court are termination of parental rights petitions filed on January 25, 2011, by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in the interest of Jordyn V. (DOB 6/16/09) and Daniel V. (DOB 6/18/10).

DCF has alleged as to the birth mother, Heather V., the adjudicatory ground of failure to rehabilitate pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).   With respect to Chad V., the biological father of both children, whose paternity was established by this court (Bentivegna, J.) on October 17, 2011 as a result of paternity test results, the petitioner has also alleged the ground of failure to rehabilitate.

Both Heather V. and Chad V. previously entered denials to the petitions on February 25, 2011.   This court finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter.   Heather V. was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.   This court canvassed Chad V. with respect to his intention to represent himself at the trial and found that he knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily waived his statutory right to counsel.  General Statutes §§ 46b–135(b), 46b–136;  Practice Book § 32a–1.   This court presided over the trial in this matter on November 15, November 16, and December 14, 2011.

These proceedings are governed by General Statutes § 17a–112 et seq.   In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must first prove, by clear and convincing evidence, in the adjudicatory phase, a ground for termination alleged in the petition, as of the date of filing the petition or the last amendment.  In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63 (1991);  Conn. Practice Book § 32a–3(b);  35a–7.   Only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258 (1984);  In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 234 (2000).

If a ground for termination is proven, the court must next consider the disposition stage.   Therein, the court must consider whether the facts, as of the last day of trial, establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interest.   As is permitted under our law, the evidence as to both adjudicatory and dispositional phases was heard at the same trial.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 688–89 (1999).

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Having heard testimony and accepted documentary evidence, this court makes the following findings of fact and finds that the petitioner has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence with respect to the termination of parental rights petitions as to the parents of Jordyn and Daniel V.

This court granted the petitioner's motion for judicial notice on November 15, 2011, except to the extent that it sustained the mother's objection to the reasonable efforts findings in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7.

Jordyn was born on June 16, 2009 as a full-term baby.   He weighed 6 lb. 13 oz. and was discharged with his mother four days later.   Three months later, Jordyn was diagnosed with failure to thrive and tracheomalacia and removed from his parents' care pursuant to a 96–hour administrative hold on August 20, 2009.   From the time of his birth until the hold was invoked, Jordyn had multiple changes in formula, was hospitalized and received emergency room care.   While in his parents' care, Jordyn experienced projectile vomiting, weight loss, weak muscles due to poor nutrition and ultimately needed a feeding tube through his nose until he was able to feed orally.   After his removal, Jordyn was placed in a medically complex foster home but by September 9, 2009, he was placed in a relative foster home with Linda R.

In November 2009, Dr. Nancy Randall, court-ordered psychological evaluator, conducted an evaluation of the parents as well as an interactional assessment of the parents and Jordyn.   Following her contact with service providers for the parents and her own interviews, testing and observations, Dr. Randall recommended that the parents be provided with “regular opportunities to provide normal childcare to their son, under the supervision of someone who could assist and teach ․” Notably, Dr. Randall had concerns about attachment between Heather V. and Jordyn, having observed that Heather V. held the baby facing away from her through most of the session.   In addition, Heather V. volunteered that Jordyn was not comfortable facing the person holding him.   In contrast, Dr. Randall noted that Chad V. held Jordyn so that they faced each other and was better than Heather V. in holding Jordyn in ways that promoted good attachment.

As a result of her evaluation and the diagnosis of Heather V. as bi-polar, Dr. Randall recommended that Heather V. continue with individual therapy in order to address her mood issues and anger, interpersonal relationships, judgment, and to help her gain a better understanding of her children's needs.   With respect to Chad V., Dr. Randall recommended participation in therapy for “anger and impulsivity, interpersonal relationships, judgment and understanding his son's needs.”   She noted that both parents minimized the concerns leading to Jordyn's placement.   The parents believed that they were providing adequate care and that the hospital simply did not like Chad V.'s attitude.   Nevertheless, both parents described a good deal of tension between Chad V. and the hospital staff.   While the parents acknowledged that Chad V. raised his voice, they denied that he ever became violent or threatened to assault anyone.   At the same time, Chad V. admitted that had he been present at the hospital when the removal decision was made, that “something bad would have happened” and that “he would not have given in without a fight.”

Dr. Randall also expressed her concern that Heather V. was pregnant at the time of the evaluation, noting that both Jordyn, as well as Heather V.'s first child,¹ had special needs.   Given these and other stresses, the possibility of another baby with special needs could be extremely challenging to the parents.   Dr. Randall opined that “the parents' choice to add another child at this time makes it difficult for them to surmount these obstacles.”   Similarly, Maureen McCann, mother's individual therapist, also expressed concern about mother's judgment in light of her decision to have another child under the circumstances.

This court finds that, for the most part, the parents initially cooperated with services recommended to them, but with varying degrees of motivation and benefit.   Heather V. complied with individual therapy but stopped in January 2010 and re-engaged in therapy in May 2010.   According to mother and her therapist, Heather V. stopped attending as a result of her pregnancy although Daniel was born in June 2010.   The evidence is not clear when the mother resumed therapy because she later refused to sign releases of information to allow DCF to confirm her attendance and progress.   There is question, however, that DCF referred the parents to appropriate services.   Eventually, Heather V. reported that she stopped attending individual therapy due to lack of medical insurance and/or transportation.

Heather V.'s mental health issues also included her diagnosis of bipolar disorder for which her psychiatrist prescribed medication.   Heather V., however, never filled the prescription, claiming allergies to red dye.   The mother's psychiatrist, Dr. Monohar, viewed this claim with skepticism after reviewing the mother's records.

Dr. Randall's evaluation in November 2009 also made clear that while she thought neither parent would become physically aggressive, Chad V. could be explosive and prone to emotional outbursts.   Notwithstanding Dr. Randall's recommendation in November 2009 to address his anger and impulsivity, Chad V. did not begin anger management counseling until August 24, 2010, even though his initial intake session was on October 8, 2009.

Once Chad V. began counseling for his anger, he had a nearly perfect attendance record.   His counselor, John Reynolds, however, believed the service was of limited benefit to the father, who seemed disingenuous and rehearsed.   By November 2010, Mr. Reynolds concluded that Chad V. had made no progress and that the father continued to use inappropriate solutions to address his anger.   As a result, Mr. Reynolds recommended individual therapy, which Chad V. felt was unnecessary and was reluctant to pursue.   As she noted in her evaluation one year before, however, Dr. Randall found that Chad V. lacked insight into his own psychological issues and needs and observed that “[w]hen things go wrong in his life, he sees himself as being misunderstood and treated unfairly.   He fails to see how his choices and actions may have contributed to his difficulties.”   After Chad V. cited insurance coverage issues, DCF offered to assist with paying for individual treatment.   Chad V. nevertheless failed to follow through with the recommendation for individual therapy.

Dr. Randall also observed that both parents have highly dependent personalities and are highly dependent on each other.   In her report, Dr. Randall noted that Heather V. in particular “is very dependent, feeling a strong need to have others to depend on for both tangible and emotional supports.”

Dr. Randall also described both parents as being “self-focused and likely to have difficulty putting [their] own needs aside in order to focus on others.”   Dr. Randall noted that this is problematic in parenting children, especially with special needs.

Both parents complied with couples counseling, secured appropriate housing and, with the exception of Heather V.'s individual therapy in 2011, signed releases for DCF to monitor compliance with services.   The parents have also cooperated with services to address their parenting difficulties, but in this area in particular, they have demonstrated a profound inability to benefit from these services.

Consistent with Dr. Randall's recommendation, DCF referred the parents to parenting education services.   Initially, the parents participated in the Wheeler Clinic Family Preservation and Intensive Safety Planning program [Family Preservation], a 28–day program which assisted the parents in developing parenting skills and in understanding Jordyn's developmental issues.   The program also provided assistance to the parents in accessing mental health services as well as other support services.

Although the parents fully complied with this service, the Family Preservation program ultimately recommended that the parents be referred to Wheeler Clinic's Reconnecting Families Program [Reconnecting Families].   Reconnecting Families is a six-month reunification program which begins with supervised visitation and eventually expands to unsupervised visitation and reunification in the home.   The program also offers significant parenting and co-parenting education and support, as well as assistance with housing and household management.   The caseworkers for the program meet the parents twice a week, one day for parenting training, in which progress is reviewed and instruction and feedback given, and then another day for hands-on support during the visitation portion of the service.   Within the six-month time frame, the program also provides ongoing support for up to three months after reunification is achieved.

The program was offered to both parents, although Chad V. participated less frequently due to work constraints.   The program offered a Saturday visit to attempt to accommodate his schedule.   Chad V., however, was less receptive to the parenting training and, as a result, Heather V. became less receptive to the training as well during his presence.   On one occasion, the caseworker came close to ending a visit early because Chad V. had become upset and was yelling.   The caseworker warned Chad V. that he could not create a hostile environment for the child.   Chad V. calmed down and this behavior did not recur.

For a period of two months, the parents had four-hour weekly visitation supervised by Reconnecting Families.   Eventually, the parents progressed to four-hour visits in which, for the first two hours of the visit, visitation with only Jordyn was unsupervised, after which Daniel joined the visit for another two hours which was fully supervised.   The parents, however, never progressed to the point of having fully unsupervised visits.   As a result, Reconnecting Families agreed to extend its provision of services beyond the six-month timeframe.   Although the parents were able to secure appropriate housing and improved their understanding of their children's nutritional needs, they had ongoing difficulties with establishing a routine for the children and in particular, understanding and responding to the cues of their children on a consistent basis.   For example, Heather V. had significant difficulty allowing Jordyn to nap, even though it was obvious that Jordyn was tired.   Heather V. had similar difficulties reading Daniel's cues and would persist in attempting to feed Daniel when it was clear that he was not ready to eat.   Notwithstanding the program's willingness to extend its timeframe, the parents were still unable to demonstrate enough progress to enable the service providers to recommend reunification.   Reconnecting Families, which began in January 2011, eventually discharged the parents from its program in November 2011.

During the same period of time that Reconnecting Families was offering its parenting program and visitation, DCF also offered additional visits for the family.   This continued after the Reconnecting Families service ceased.   In those visits, the DCF social worker and case aide supervising the visit also provided parenting support and advice.   When the visits were in the home, HectaMarie Huertas, the DCF social worker assigned to the case, observed that the parents would get distracted easily, especially if other people were in the room.   Because of the stress and distraction visitors created, the parents were reminded that the visits were for the children and the parents, and in any event, DCF must be apprised of others visiting in the home well in advance of the visit.   In one instance, Ms. Huertas noticed that Jordyn was not strapped into his high chair and stood up while the parents were talking to others.   In the same visit, Jordyn almost stepped on Daniel's head.   In both instances, Ms. Huertas had to intervene immediately because the parents were not watching the children.   Rather than take responsibility for failing to supervise Daniel, however, Heather V. blamed her nine-year-old daughter, Katelynn, for failing to watch the baby.

Other safety issues in the home included the parents' consistent failure to childproof the home before visits and to keep the home and, in particular, the floors clean.   Although the parents were aware of the dangers of exposed outlets, extension cords running from one room to another and open garbage cans, Ms. Huertas repeatedly had to remind the parents to take care of these issues.   In one instance, Heather V. almost fell holding Daniel as a result of nearly tripping on exposed extension cords.   Because Jordyn was crawling and very mobile, exposed cords and extremely dirty floors posed significant health and safety concerns.

Other persistent child care issues included diapering and cleaning the children properly.   HectaMarie Huertas found that she would have to watch the parents closely, giving them constant feedback and prompting because the parents had difficulty cleaning the children appropriately and they often managed to get feces on the children's clothes.   This occurred with Jordyn and the pattern repeated with Daniel.

Ms. Huertas also observed that Heather V. had a lot of difficulty feeding the children.   At times Heather V. would be feeding one child, would stop abruptly and attempt to feed the other child, and then would completely forget to finish feeding the first child.   Heather V. would then give up feeding the children altogether.   On other occasions, DCF would remind Heather V. of the feeding schedule and that it was too early to feed one of the children or Ms. Huertas would try to help the mother read the baby's cues.   Notwithstanding this support, Heather V. would persist on attempting to feed the baby, when it was clear he was not ready.   If she accepted this feedback on one occasion, Heather V. would repeat the same behavior during the visit or at subsequent visits.   Chad V. had similar difficulties and on one occasion attempted to force feed Jordyn.   Ms. Huertas had to intervene and direct Chad V. to stop.

Like the Reconnecting Families caseworkers, DCF also observed that Heather V. had difficulties reading the children's cues in other instances besides feeding.   For example, Heather V. had a tendency to move Daniel constantly, just as he was beginning to become calm and comfortable.   This would result in Daniel becoming upset and uncomfortable again.   When Daniel would finally become calm again, Heather V. would move Daniel once more and repeat the cycle.

Other problems which DCF consistently identified included Heather V.'s inability to monitor Jordyn while she was attending to Daniel.   Unbeknownst to Heather V. and Chad V., Jordyn frequently would leave the room and the DCF case aide would have to catch him.   When Daniel was old enough to walk, the parents would have the same problem monitoring him.   Another problem was the parents' use of their cellphones to talk or text during visitation.   On a couple of occasions, the children fell and hit their head and as recently as October 3, 2011, Daniel fell twice during the same visit while the parents were distracted.   In one instance, Heather V. did not even react and only Chad V. attended to Daniel.

Linda R., who is Chad V.'s aunt, became licensed for relative placement for Jordyn and, also for a limited period of time, for Daniel.   She reported significant, ongoing concerns with hygiene and the condition of the children when they were returned after a visit.   When Reconnecting Families was monitoring the visitation, Jordyn would come home starving and would eat so fast that Linda R. was concerned he would choke.   After visits which were supervised by DCF in 2010 and particularly in 2011, Jordyn would return with his diapers bloated and soaked with urine or with feces all over his pants, inside the diaper bag and even inside the diaper wipes container.   Jordyn and his clothes had a “terrible” smell of body odor, and his white socks would be black and wet.   Consistently and for months at a time, Jordyn would have diarrhea on the mornings after visits.   Eventually, Linda R. requested that Jordyn be fed only the food she provided and the diarrhea stopped.   Jordyn also returned from visits with bruises, scrapes and gashes with no explanation as to how he sustained them.

From January 2011 through May 2011, while Daniel was in Linda R.'s care, Daniel would return from parental visits extremely hungry, agitated, crying and wanting to be held immediately.   Frequently, the formula bottles would be returned 75% to 80% full, even though after two months under Linda R.'s care, Daniel had begun feeding normally and was able to finish his formula in twenty minutes.   Daniel would return from visits with his diaper taped to his leg or secured on one-half of his buttocks but not on the other half.   Like Jordyn, Daniel also returned from most visits smelling of body odor.

Ms. Huertas confirmed the problems with the parents' hygiene, in particular the extreme body odor which she described as overwhelming, especially in small rooms when the visits were in the DCF office.   Ms. Huertas tried to work with the parents on this issue, explaining that if the foul odors were overwhelming for her, then it was probably uncomfortable for the baby as well.   Chad V. explained that he often did not have time to get showered after driving all day but agreed to bring a different shirt for the visit.   Heather V. explained that she often drove with Chad V. during his work day, although she consistently came to visits with foul odors, even if she had not accompanied Chad V. to work on a given day.

Although she was not asked to conduct an updated psychological evaluation and/or interactional assessment of the family, Dr. Randall was presented at trial with specific hypothetical examples incorporating evidence presented by the petitioner, including the parents' participation in intensive and extensive parenting programs.   Dr. Randall testified that from an intellectual standpoint, the parents have the capacity to acquire parenting skills but that they were nevertheless unable to make adequate progress in their parenting ability, even in the supervised setting of parental visitation.   Dr. Randall further explained that the combined parenting programs amounted to extensive training and support.   She testified that with such support, the parents should have been able to handle basic child care, including the ability to change a diaper properly, feed the children and attend to two children in a room.   Dr. Randall opined that, in light of the parents' inability to leam these basic child care skills in a structured, contained environment without constant prompting, the parents could not be reunified with the children within a reasonable period of time.

Once the termination petitions were filed, parents began refusing all services except supervised visitation.   When they did visit, the parents became upset when DCF reminded them to feed, change or engage with the children.   Eventually, the parents began to cancel visits in the months prior to trial of the termination petitions.

Both Jordyn and Daniel have been determined to be “medically complex” as a result of a chromosomal abnormality, which may result in delays or disabilities in the future.   They have been assessed by Birth to Three, which determined that Jordyn is now developmentally on target but that Daniel still required services in the home.   Both children are bonded to their respective foster parents, who are willing to adopt.

III. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION

A. REASONABLE EFFORTS

In order to terminate parental rights, unless the court grants the petition due to the consent of the respondent parent, DCF must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made “reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).  “[The] court need not make that finding, however, if the evidence establishes that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 47, 887 A.2d 415 (2005).   See In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).   Moreover, “such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to section 17a–111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).

“The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shaiesha O., supra, 93 Conn.App. 48.   Although “[n]either the word reasonable nor the word efforts is ․ defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn ․ [r]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 619, 926 A.2d 690, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 923, 924, 933 A.2d 724 (2007);  In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 255, 763 A.2d 71 (2000).   The court must look to events that occurred prior to the date the petition was filed, to determine whether reasonable efforts at reunification were made.  In re Shaiesha O., supra, 93 Conn.App. 47.

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that it made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with their parents and that, with respect to the alternative ground, both parents have been unable to benefit from reunification efforts as of January 25, 2011.

Both parents were offered extensive and comprehensive services to address various issues that were identified as affecting their parenting deficiencies, both before Dr. Randall's evaluation and pursuant to Dr. Randall's recommendations.   Both parents were offered services from the Visiting Nurses' Association, Wheeler Clinic's Intensive Safety Planning Program, Couples' Therapy at Family Therapy Services and Wheeler Clinic's Reconnecting Families program.   Heather V. was also offered individual therapy at Community Health Center and Chad V. was referred twice to Wheeler Clinic's Anger Management Group.   Chad V. was also offered referrals for individual therapy which he refused.   Both parents were offered financial assistance for services, bus passes, medical cabs, as well as additional visitation and DCF case management services.   The parents complied with most services, although with limited benefit, particularly as to extensive parenting education and one-on-one support, anger management and individual therapy.   Heather V. was also encouraged to address her diagnosis of bi-polar disorder and was prescribed medication for her mood swings and depression.   Given the comprehensiveness of services, this court finds that DCF has met its burden of proof with respect to its allegation that it made reasonable efforts to reunify with each of the parents.

The court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents are largely unable to benefit from reunification services.   Although the parents participated in most of the services, albeit with varying degrees of motivation, their parenting skills and competence in parenting remained significantly deficient.   The court finds that the petitioner has met its burden of proof with respect to this alternative ground as well.

B. ADJUDICATORY GROUNDS OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION

1. Failure to Rehabilitate

“General Statutes § 17a–112(j) provides in relevant part that the court may grant a petition for termination of parental rights ‘if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ (B) the child ․ has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ․ and 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 the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [Section 17a–112] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time.”  In re Jordan T., 119 Conn.App. 748, 756 (2010), citing In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706 (1999).

In assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved his or her ability to manage his or her life, but rather whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.  In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 157, 180, 743 A.2d 165 (1999).  “In the adjudicatory phase, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time.”  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).

In light of the statutory elements of this ground, as well as the caselaw interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to Heather V. and Chad V.

The court finds that Jordyn and Daniel V. were adjudicated neglected on July 6, 2010.   Heather V. was offered an array of services to address her issues and limitations with respect to her parenting difficulties as well as mental health issues and complications with respect to the parents' ability to parent together.   Chad V. was offered the same parenting services as well as Saturday visitations to accommodate his work schedule.   Chad V., however, visited much less frequently due to his work schedule and when he was present, his defensiveness and resistance to parenting advice had the effect of undermining Heather V.'s cooperation with the service, although Reconnecting Families also attempted to address co-parenting issues with them.   Chad V. was also offered anger management counseling, but did not comply with this until over ten months after his initial intake evaluation.   Chad V. benefitted little from this service, notwithstanding his near perfect attendance.   He denied having an issue with anger.   As his counselor noted, Chad V. did not understand that his style of anger management is maladaptive and that he continued to use inappropriate solutions to address his anger.   Chad V. was recommended for individual counseling but refused this service altogether.

Heather V. and Chad V. have demonstrated that even in a highly monitored environment, with intensive, one-on-one parenting training support over a protracted period of time, that they cannot acquire and retain the skills necessary to provide basic child care and an environment that is safe for their children.   The mother has come to most of the visits with the parenting education component and the father has joined her in some portion of those visits, however, the parents have not been able to improve their parenting skills.   The parents' lack of awareness and/or response to health and safety issues and imminent hazards poses significant risks to the children.   The parents have repeatedly been oblivious to Jordyn, an active toddler, attempting to leave the room during supervised visitation.   The parents continue to manifest difficulties with childproofing, health and hygiene issues, despite much support and training in these areas.   Heather V. has tripped over exposed extension cords holding Daniel or has let the floors in the home get so dirty that Jordyn has returned from visits with white socks thoroughly blackened.   In one incident, neither parent noticed that Jordyn was not strapped to his high chair or that Jordyn nearly stepped on Daniel's head, but for the intervention of a DCF social worker.   There have been repeated instances in which Daniel has fallen and hit his head.   After one instance in particular, Heather V. did not even respond to Daniel after he had fallen.

The parents are unable to read the cues of their children with respect to feeding and sleeping.   At times, they have either attempted to feed the children when they were not hungry or would abruptly stop feeding them when they still needed to be fed.   The parents have persistent difficulties with diaper changes, including failing to change the diapers or to fix them securely or to clean the children adequately during diapering.   Jordyn has returned from visits with feces on his legs, his clothes, in the diaper bag and even in the diaper wipes.   Until his foster mother provided snacks and food for Jordyn, Jordyn would consistently have diarrhea the day after visits.   While the parents were initially responsive to interventions, both Reconnecting Families and DCF found that the parents were not able to retain and/or consistently apply what they had learned.   In addition, as the children's needs have evolved, the parents have been unable to adapt in order to respond to those changes.   At the same time, since the filing of the petitions to terminate parental rights, the parents have shown increasing defensiveness and resentment with respect to DCF's constant need to prompt the parents.   While the court finds the parents' frustration understandable, DCF's constant intervention with respect to engaging the children, providing basic care and keeping them safe and healthy is necessary and underscores the parents' inability to care for their children.

The evidence clearly and convincingly supports this court's findings that Heather V. and Chad V. are unable to achieve rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time, given the age and needs of Jordyn and Daniel.

As our courts have long observed, the deleterious effects of prolonged temporary care is well known.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).  “It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents.   There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty ․” Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982).

C. DISPOSITION OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION

For all the above reasons, the court concludes by clear and convincing evidence that it is also in the best interests of Jordyn and Daniel V. for the rights of their parents to be terminated.

In arriving at this conclusion, the court also considers the seven factors outlined in General Statutes § 17a–112(k) as to Heather V. and Chad V.:

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.

As found in section IIA of this decision, the parents have been offered extensive and comprehensive services to address parenting issues, mental health and anger management issues, and the challenge of co-parenting.   The parents have also been offered couples' counseling, visitation, case management, bus passes and medical cabs.   These services have been offered on an ongoing basis although the parents began resisting many services after February 2011, when the termination of parental rights petition was filed.

2. Finding regarding whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

The court reiterates its findings in section IIA of this decision and that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the parents with the children.

3. Finding regarding the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order.

The mother and father cooperated with services with varying degrees of motivation and benefit pursuant to the specific steps which were ordered by the court in August 2009 and reiterated in July 2010.   The court notes that in 2011, the mother did not cooperate with signing releases for her individual therapy and that the father only began anger management counseling in August 2010, although the initial intake for this service was in October 2009.   The father never cooperated with the recommendation for individual therapy.

4. Findings regarding the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to their parents, any guardian of his 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.

Both Jordyn and Daniel are bonded with their current foster families, each of which is willing to adopt Jordyn and Daniel respectively.   Jordyn has expressed warmth and affection for his mother during visits;  he has also been resistant and upset when he is forced to leave his foster parents for visits with his parents.

5. Finding regarding the age of the child.

Jordyn is nearly three years old and was born on June 16, 2009.   Daniel is nearly two years old and was born on June 18, 2010.

6. Finding regarding the efforts the parent has made to adjust her circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return him to his 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 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 parents made significant efforts to comply with some services (couples' counseling and the parenting education/visitation programs);  the mother cooperated with individual counseling although she had lapses in her treatment;  the father did not comply with anger management counseling until ten months after his intake for that service and did not comply at all with the recommendation for individual counseling.   The parents did visit regularly with the children until the last few months prior to trial.   The parents have kept in regular communication with DCF.

7. Finding regarding 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.

The parents were not prevented from having a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable act or conduct of any other person or by their economic circumstances.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2), the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of Jordyn and Daniel V. that the parental rights of Heather V. and Chad V. be terminated.

IV. ORDERS

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Heather V. and Chad V. are TERMINATED as to their respective children, Jordyn V. and Daniel V. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent for the children.   The agency is directed to facilitate the adoption of the children as expeditiously as possible.   The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of each child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at New Britain of the date when said adoption is finalized.

A case plan shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment and further reports shall be timely presented to this court as required by law.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

ELGO, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Katelynn V. is 11 years old and living with her guardian and maternal grandmother, Mary H. Heather V.'s parental rights to this child were terminated in Middletown Probate Court in November 2010..  FN1. Katelynn V. is 11 years old and living with her guardian and maternal grandmother, Mary H. Heather V.'s parental rights to this child were terminated in Middletown Probate Court in November 2010.

Elgo, Nina F., J.