IN RE: Isaiah J.1 (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF MOTHER AND FATHER

THE PETITION:

This matter comes to the court by way of petitions filed pursuant to C.G.S. 17a–112 et seq., filed on May 13, 2010 by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Megan J. (mother) and Carlos D. (father) to their children Isaiah, born October 27, 2004, Aniah and Keanah, both born December 1, 2005, and Tatiannah, born April 18, 2008.   All four petitions allege that the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and mother and father have 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 children, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the children.  (C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).)

The case was tried to the court on February 28, 29 and March 8 and 14, 2012.   The court heard testimony from Officer Clacharie (New London Police Department), Sharon Kutner (Child and Family Agency), Colin P. (Foster Father), Brenda Sheremeta (DCF Social Worker), Dr. Ronald Anderson, Ph.D. (Northeast Clinical Specialist) and Mary Blankson (APRN).   Eleven items were entered as full exhibits in the trial.

Previously, notice of the petitions was found to have been properly made.   Mother appeared with counsel for the entire trial.   Father was defaulted for failure to appear on June 22, 2011 and did not appear for the trial.   There is no other proceeding in any other court regarding the custody of Isaiah, Aniah, Keanah or Tatiannah.   Neither parent claims Native American affiliation.   ICWA does not apply.   This court has jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On December 3, 2008, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed neglect petitions alleging that the children were being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally and the children were being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being.   On December 8, 2008, DCF filed a motion for order of temporary custody (OTC) for the children which was granted and subsequently sustained on December 12, 2008 and temporary custody was awarded to maternal aunt, Ashley C. Also, Katherine D., maternal grandmother, was cited as a party as she was appointed as the temporary guardian of the minor children in New London Regional Probate Court on October 16, 2008.   On February 13, 2009, mother filed a motion to transfer guardianship to maternal grandmother and the matter was set down for trial.   On March 27, 2009, DCF filed an OTC as maternal aunt could no longer care for the children as she was moving to Georgia and could not take the four children with her.   The OTC was granted and the matter was set down for trial on April 9, 2009.   At a trial management conference on March 30, 2009, the parties agreed to sustain the OTC and the trial date was marked off.   The case was set down for a judicial pretrial on May 14, 2009 and trial dates were set for early June 2009.   On May 22, 2009, mother filed a motion to vacate the OTC which was subsequently marked off.   On June 1, 2009, the first day of the neglect trial, the parties entered an agreement in court.   Mother entered a plea of nolo contendere and father stood silent.   The children were adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families.   On January 19, 2010, DCF filed a motion to review permanency plan calling for termination of parental rights and adoption.   The matter was set down for trial in late March.   On February 9, 2010, maternal grandmother filed a motion to transfer guardianship.

On May 5, 2010, mother also filed a motion to transfer guardianship to the maternal aunt in Georgia.   On May 13, 2010, DCF filed the petition for termination of parental rights.   On May 14, 2010, the third day of trial, mother withdrew her objection to the permanency plan;  the court approved the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption and found that DCF made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan.   Also on this date, mother's motion for expedited interstate compact, filed on May 5, 2010, was granted.   At the case status conference on July 6, 2010 trial dates were set to hear both mother's and maternal grandmother's motion for transfer of guardianship.   On November 1, 2010, trial commenced on maternal grandmother's motion for transfer of guardianship only as mother withdrew her motion.   On November 10, 2011, this court denied maternal grandmother's motion for transfer of guardianship after 15 days of trial that occurred over the course of nine months.   On November 29, 2011, the court again approved a permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption and trial dates were set for the termination of parental rights trial which is the subject matter of this memorandum.

FINDING OF FACTS:

The following facts are found by clear and convincing evidence.   All four children have been out of the care of mother and father and in the care of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) since December 8, 2008, three years and five months, including a period from December 8, 2008 to March 27, 2009, when DCF vested the order of temporary custody with a maternal aunt.   On March 27, 2009, over three years from this date, all four children were placed together in a DCF licensed foster home where they continue to remain.   That home has been assessed as a “legal risk” home and the foster parents seek to adopt all four children.

On November 29, 2011, the court (Driscoll, J.) found that reunification efforts for both parents were no longer appropriate.  C.G.S. § 17a–111b.   On March 25, 2011, the court (Mack, J.) suspended visits between father and the children.   On December 13, 2011, the court (Driscoll, J.) suspended visits between mother and the children.   The neglect petition, filed on December 3, 2008, together with an order of temporary custody (OTC), occurred because mother and father were engaging in substance abuse, the children were being exposed to domestic violence and were being physically neglected and father was involved in criminal activity which ultimately led to his incarceration.   Although Katherine D., maternal grandmother, had been given temporary guardianship of all four children by the Probate Court before this time and that guardianship persisted during this time, the children remained in mother's care, including the time of the OTC. The children were adjudicated neglected upon mother's plea of nolo contendere and committed to DCF on June 1, 2009, (Driscoll, J.).   The petition seeking termination of parental rights of both parents was filed on May 13, 2010, three months after intervening maternal grandmother, who could not be licensed by DCF, filed a motion for transfer of guardianship to herself.   The commencement of the trial on this termination petition was delayed while the trial related to the transfer of guardianship was heard.   That trial lasted fifteen non-consecutive days.   Eighty-two (82) documents were entered as full exhibits.   Forty-two (42) more documents remained as exhibits for identification only and were not admitted.   Nineteen witnesses were heard including two psychologists, one on three separate occasions and the other on two separate occasions.   A thirty-nine page memorandum of decision denying maternal grandmother's motion for transfer of guardianship was filed November 9, 2011, (Mack, J.).

The court finds that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it has made reasonable efforts to locate each parent and to reunify the children with a parent.   The court notes that it has previously found by clear and convincing evidence on November 29, 2011, that further efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate.   Reunification efforts for each parent related to all four children individually and collectively.   DCF has successfully kept all four children together from the inception of this case to the present, a difficult and commendable feat.   Its efforts to reunify with each parent have been persistent, appropriate, and relentless until the finding of no further efforts was made by the court.

Mother signed specific steps necessarily to be done in order to reunite with her children on June 1, 2009.²  Father, who stood silent at the time of the neglect adjudication, did not sign specific steps but they were ordered for him and, as noted below, he complied with a few of them once in a while.   He has not been consistent in attending court sessions and failed to attend the trial on the termination of his parental rights.   He was defaulted.   Mother cooperated initially with appointments set by DCF and attended treatment planning conferences and administrative case reviews.   She did not, however, consistently keep her whereabouts known to DCF and moved frequently without notifying the department.   She was not always accurate in the information she did supply to the department and it was always after the fact.   Although she was referred to Madonna Place for parenting classes in August 2009, she did not follow through.   Instead she signed up for classes at Catholic Charities in October 2009, but had poor attendance in the eight-week program and did not finish it.   She was to make up classes she missed at Catholic Charities but failed to attend.   She was also referred to United Community and Family Services (UCFS) in April 2009, and began on May 15, 2009, but failed to attend and was discharged unsuccessfully on June 16, 2009.   She began individual counseling at Catholic Charities on September 17, 2009, but had seven “no call/no shows” and one cancellation.   Her attendance and participation were sporadic but, at times, she was “involved.”   However, she was ultimately discharged from the agency for failure to attend scheduled appointments.³  She reported on October 10, 2010, that she was seeing a Doctor Lela Panoor for individual and group therapy but withdrew the appropriate release to allow DCF to speak to Dr. Panoor before DCF had an opportunity to speak with the doctor concerning mother's treatment.   In fact, mother revoked all previously signed releases for services on November 15, 2010.⁴  Mother submitted to a substance abuse evaluation on December 4, 2008, and was referred to Stonington Institute for intensive outpatient treatment.   She did not agree with the finding and recommendation and sought a second opinion.   She was referred to Southeastern Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (SCADD) for that second opinion and it occurred on March 24, 2009.   SCADD recommended that mother participate in an intensive outpatient (IOP) or partial hospitalization program (PHP) at Backus Hospital or Lawrence and Memorial Hospital.   It further found that if mother's medical providers believed that she was abusing prescription medications, she would be appropriate for either inpatient at Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) or at an IOP or PHP level at SCADD.   Mother did not comply with either of these recommendations.   She did, however, agree to twice-weekly random urine screens, but over the next year submitted to only seventeen out of a possible one hundred and twenty screens.   Similar efforts were made by DCF in 2010 and mother participated in an evaluation on April 20, 2010.   As a result, she was referred to a PHP at Backus Hospital.   However, by that time mother was already pregnant with her fifth child by father (with whom she consistently denied any ongoing relationship), who would be named Savannah.   DCF learned of this pregnancy for the first time during testimony on a contested permanency plan hearing on April 19, 2010.   She fled the state to avoid DCF involvement with the birth of this child.   She delivered the child in Georgia, only to have the child seized by the Georgia child protection agency at birth.   The child was born with meconium testing positive for amphetamines, barbiturates and opiates.   As a result of the drug exposure Savannah displayed symptoms of drug withdrawal including tremors and she required intensive early care.⁵  Mother's and father's parental rights to Savannah were terminated by the Juvenile Court for the County of Camden, State of Georgia, on December 8, 2011.⁶  Clearly, she had not followed the recommendations of either testing facility related to her addiction.   The record, noted in Exhibit 5, of the repeated and extensive efforts by DCF to get mother into treatment, and her resistance, refusal, noncompliance and avoidance of those efforts, is extensive.   DCF, seemingly without frustration, persistently kept trying to get mother into effective treatment through the long history of this case until further efforts were found to be no longer appropriate on November 29, 2011.   Mother last visited with her children on May 13, 2011, in spite of being offered weekly visitation until the court suspended her visits on December 13, 2011.   She has not maintained regular contact with DCF since early June 2011.   On September 15, 2011, mother was arrested for prostitution and possession of narcotics.⁷  She was in possession of crack cocaine.   On February 10, 2012, a rearrest was ordered for her failure to appear.   A resolution of these criminal cases had not occurred as of the date of the trial on this termination petition.   Dr. Ronald Anderson, Ph.D., the court appointed psychological evaluator of mother and the children, testified that mother has not taken any appropriate steps towards rehabilitation and has shown a pattern of consistent irresponsibility.⁸

Father has not been actively engaged with DCF concerning his children for over two years.   His last visit with the children was on April 9, 2010.   He was offered weekly visits until March 25, 2011, when the court suspended his visitation rights due to his lack of consistency in visiting his children.   He has not supported his children and currently is in arrears to the state and/or mother for an amount well in excess of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars.   He was in prison at the time the children came into the care of DCF and was released April 13, 2009.   He has not been compliant with his conditions of probation.   He has consistently tested positive for illicit substances, missed appointments for anger management and substance abuse treatment, was arrested for driving with a suspended license and multiple other motor vehicle charges, moved without informing his probation officer, and was arrested on May 13, 2010, for violation of probation.   He was incarcerated on August 31, 2010 and again on January 20, 2011, again for violation of probation.   There was approximately one month between incarcerations.   On November 29, 2011, the court entered a finding that further reunification efforts for father were no longer appropriate.   Prior to that time, father was offered multiple opportunities to engage through DCF with various service providers.   He attended no treatment planning conferences, no administrative case reviews, and only one court hearing since being released from prison on April 13, 2009.   He failed to keep his whereabouts known to DCF. He entered a substance abuse program at Stonington Institute on February 26, 2010, but failed to tell DCF he was doing it.   He did tell them on March 31, 2010, when he completed the program.   He was referred to the Fatherhood Initiative Program at Madonna Place for parenting education in June 2009, but did not follow through.   He was referred to UCFS, Sound Community Services and L & M Hospital for individual counseling in September 2009.   He did not follow through or participate in any of these programs.   On April 21, 2010, he reported to his probation officer's office and completed the paperwork for the urine screen, but left the office without rendering a sample.   He had no further contact with his probation officer until after his arrest on May 13, 2010.   When he was submitting to drug screens he consistently tested positive for marijuana and, on occasion for cocaine.   He was consistently noncompliant with his conditions of probation, regularly testing positive for illicit substances, missed appointments for anger management and substance abuse treatment, motor vehicle violations, and moving without informing his probation officer.   He participated in two series of IOP at SCADD but continued to test positive for marijuana and cocaine.   Often while he was not incarcerated his whereabouts were unknown to DCF.

The court again finds by clear and convincing evidence, as it did previously when finding that further efforts to reunify were no longer appropriate or necessary because each parent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, that reasonable efforts to reunify were made by DCF on behalf of each parent and neither parent was able or willing to benefit from such efforts.

ADJUDICATION:

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the children have been found by this court in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and have been in the custody of the commissioner for forty-one (41) months and each parent of these four children has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the children to them or either of them pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b–129 (2012 Supplement) and each 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 each child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of each child.⁹

Termination of Parental Rights in the Best Interest of Each Child:

“The best interests of the child include the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of his or her environment.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In Re Janson R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 766 n.15 (2011).   The court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.   As noted above, the children have been out of the care of mother and father since December 8, 2008, and with the foster family which wishes to adopt them from March 27, 2009, to the present, all four children living together, some thirty-eight months.   The children are thriving in this environment.¹⁰  Isaiah is currently enrolled in the second grade as a regular education student, receiving, however, some support services.   He is described as a hard worker and a pleasure to have in class by his teachers.   Keanah and Aniah are currently enrolled in the first grade where both are doing well academically and socially.   Tatiannah is currently enrolled in a pre-school program and is doing well there.   All four are involved in extra-curricular activities.

Prior to the court ordered suspension of visitation by both mother and father the transition of the children into foster care was not smooth and persisted for a considerable time.   The report by Isaiah's and Keanah's therapist since September 2009, to the present,¹¹ Sharon Kutner, R.N., M.S.W., reveals the problems encountered along the path to that suspension.   No credible evidence was offered to refute this disturbing report.   It states:

I am writing this letter on behalf of my clients, Isaiah and Keanah J․  As Isaiah's outpatient therapist since 9/2009, Kianah's since 5/2010, I have been meeting weekly and more recently biweekly with each individual child for individual, sibling and/or family therapy sessions.   In retrospect, both Isaiah and Keanah have experienced reported issues of childhood neglect and all the associated consequences there-of, reported due to lack of proper and appropriate, consistent parenting during the years they resided in the care of their biological mother and/or father.

Since their removal from their home and placement in their current foster home both Isaiah and Keanah have made significant progress, despite the confusing, misleading, and concerning statements they reported to this therapist to have heard from biological mother during many DCF visits they had with her.   I had notified DCF re:  my concerns at the time about inappropriate statements, comments, and/or behaviors by biological mother time and time again (despite warnings) to seemingly manipulate the children to want to come back home.   The following were some of those reported by the children to this therapist and include:

1.  Requests by biological mom, especially of Isaiah, to lie about the foster parents' behaviors to get them in trouble w/DCF.

2.  Biological mother becoming emotionally distraught, sad, crying for them not to leave at the end of their visits, causing the children and especially Isaiah to feel sad, overly responsible and heartbroken to leave mom alone and wanting to ‘go back to live with her so she would be happy.’

3. The multitude of untrue promises and statements as reported to me by Isaiah and Keanah that mom said she was working hard, getting a job, following all requests so they will soon be living back with her, promising lots of toys, candy, and telling Isaiah he would ride a dirt-bike with biological dad if he came home.   Unfortunately, to my understanding, biological mom had never made an effort to neither [sic] comply with the requirements nor make any positive personal changes to show she was appropriate and qualified to parent her children.   Unfortunately, all of this continued to negatively impact Isaiah and Keanah's emotional and behavioral functioning, especially Isaiah's for long periods of time.

It has come to my attention that after many months of not visiting or contacting the children, biological mother has now requested to see them for one last ‘good-bye’ visit.   In this case, and based on past reports by and noted reactions of the children, it is my professional opinion that such a visit would be emotionally devastating and confusing to my clients (and their siblings), creating many mixed and confused thoughts and feelings at a time when the children have made significant progress in many of the areas they initially struggled with, i.e., emotional, behavioral, cognitive, attentional and psychosocial realms.

At the current time, both Isaiah and Keanah are more emotionally stable, content, understanding and happy living with their current foster family.   I believe this is in part due to the foster parents' show of love, care, support and acceptance of these children, their appropriate concern and responses to all their thoughts, feelings and behaviors, as well as the long period of stability provided during the lapsed visitation.   My honest and professional as well as clinical opinion is that this visit request is in their biological mother's best interest and desire, it is NOT, however, in the best interest of my clients, and would likely cause a significant regression in their behavioral, emotional, and psycho-social growth and development, having no positive consequence or benefits at this time, as they are now more than ever making progress, are moving forward, and coming to a place of understanding, consistency and happy acceptance.” 12

Nurse Kutner's testimony was as powerful as her report.   She noted that Isaiah was encouraged by his biological mother to report that foster mother hit him.   Isaiah acknowledged to Nurse Kutner that no hitting ever took place.¹³

Foster father testified that when the children arrived in March 2009, they were not used to structure and routine.   They had had no preschool and had no grasp of basic information or skills.   It took Isaiah, in second grade, half the year to start making progress.   Today he is caught up and performing at goal level.   The twins are today at grade level or above, especially in reading.   Tatiannah is four and “turning the corner.” ¹⁴  Clearly, all four children are doing exceptionally well in this foster home.

In considering whether termination of parental rights should occur, the court must consider whether such an action would be in the best interest of the child.   In so doing, the court shall consider and shall make written findings required in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k) regarding the following:

1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.

Mother was offered substance abuse evaluation and treatment, as well as random drug screens and hair analysis toxicology, individual therapy, parenting education, a psychological evaluation, the Thames River Family Program, supervised visitation and transportation.   These services were offered on a timely basis, many of them before the children were removed from her on December 8, 2008.   Some she refused, such as the Thames River program which was offered just after the children were removed.   Some she started but failed to complete and was unsuccessfully discharged, such as both the United Community and Family Services and Catholic Charities.   Previously in this memorandum of decision were noted the numerous, persistent, appropriate services offered mother, and the resulting failures.   Mother was consistent in exercising her visitation rights, wherein DCF provided her with transportation, but as noted by Nurse Kutner, many of the visits until they were suspended, were very problematic for the children.   The services offered were appropriate and timely but mother failed to avail herself of most of them, thus assuring that reunification efforts would fail.

Father, when he was not incarcerated, was offered substance abuse evaluation, treatment and drug screens, parenting education, individual therapy, anger management classes, and supervised visitation with transportation.   Although he complied with the substance abuse evaluation and treatment, he still continued to test positive for illicit substances.   He did complete his anger management but did not attend parenting classes.   While he did visit the children for a while, he chose to stop, his last visit being April 6, 2010.   The nature and extent of the services offered by DCF were appropriate.   Father's efforts to utilize them were less than stellar.

2. Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

Findings that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the children from the home were made by the state were made twice by the court, first on December 8, 2008, and again on March 27, 2009.

3. 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.

Specific steps were ordered by the court on December 8, 2008, and again on June 1, 2009, for both mother and father.   Previously in this memorandum of decision is noted the failure of mother and father, individually and collectively, to engage successfully in the ordered specific steps to accomplish reunification with the children or any one of them, in spite of the persistence by DCF to try to get them to accomplish them successfully.   Finally, on November 29, 2011, the court (Driscoll, J.) found that reunification efforts for both parents were no longer appropriate.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's 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.

Tatiannah, Aniah, Keanah, and Isaiah are all bonded to both mother and father.   However, they are also bonded to their foster parents and seek them out for comfort and affection.   The three older children are beginning to understand the concept of adoption while Tatiannah is too young to appreciate the concept.   While the three older children have mixed feelings about it, they all report that they are happy living with their foster parents.   They have been there for three years and two months.   As noted, Isaiah is currently in the 2nd grade as a regular student.   Keanah and Aniah are in 1st grade.   Tatiannah is in pre-school.   All are doing well academically and socially.   All four are involved in extracurricular activities.   They have assimilated wonderfully into this household.   The children have a photo album of their biological parents which they can refer to whenever they want.   On occasion they do before resuming their normal childhood activities within the household.   Their bond to their foster parents is strong and appropriate.

5. The age of the children.

Isaiah was born October 27, 2004, Keanah and Aniah were born December 1, 2005, and Tatiannah was born April 18, 2008.

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 such child 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.

Before the court found that further efforts to reunify were no longer appropriate, both mother and father made only minimal efforts to adjust their circumstances, conduct or condition to make it in the best interest of the children to return to either of their homes.   Dr. Anderson testified that mother has shown a pattern of consistent irresponsibility.   Father persists in abusing illicit substances.   Each parents' visitation right was suspended by the court, although father had already suspended his own right previously.

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.

Neither parent was prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the other parent or by any other person or agency.   The prevention in each case was self-inflicted and tragic, but was avoidable by each.

All of the findings contained in this memorandum of decision, both for adjudication and for disposition, are made based upon facts found by clear and convincing evidence.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of Isaiah J., Keanah J., Aniah J., and Tatiannah D., that the parental rights of Megan J. and Carlos D. be terminated.

Approval of Permanency Plan:

The permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption is approved and the court finds that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the reunification of the parents with each child before resorting to the present permanency plan.   DCF then made reasonable efforts to achieve that plan as well.

DISPOSITION:

Order:

The parental rights of Megan J. and Carlos D. as they relate to Isaiah J., Keanah J., Aniah J., and Tatiannah D., are hereby terminated.

The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed statutory parent of each of the above four named children in accordance with the provision of C.G.S. § 17a–112(o) and DCF shall report to the court not later than thirty days after this date on a case plan, as defined by the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, for each of the above four children, which shall include measurable objectives and time schedules.

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, 978 Hartford Turnpike, Waterford, CT 06385 of the date when said adoptions are finalized.

Judgment is entered accordingly this 11th day of May 2012.

Mack, JTR

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Exhibit # 9..  FN2. Exhibit # 9.

FN3. Exhibit # 5..  FN3. Exhibit # 5.

FN4. Exhibit # 4..  FN4. Exhibit # 4.

FN5. Exhibit # 4..  FN5. Exhibit # 4.

FN6. Exhibit # 1..  FN6. Exhibit # 1.

FN7. Exhibit # 3..  FN7. Exhibit # 3.

FN8. FTR, 2–29–12 @ 11:42:57, Testimony of Dr. Ronald Anderson, Ph.D ․ [FTR (For The Record) is the recording facility of the court reporter which digitally records the testimony of a witness while noting the time of the utterance by hour, minute and second during that day's trial and which can be replayed by the court in chambers at any time.].  FN8. FTR, 2–29–12 @ 11:42:57, Testimony of Dr. Ronald Anderson, Ph.D ․ [FTR (For The Record) is the recording facility of the court reporter which digitally records the testimony of a witness while noting the time of the utterance by hour, minute and second during that day's trial and which can be replayed by the court in chambers at any time.]

FN9. C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)..  FN9. C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B).

FN10. Petitioner's Exhibit # 4..  FN10. Petitioner's Exhibit # 4.

FN11. Petitioner's Exhibit # 2..  FN11. Petitioner's Exhibit # 2.

FN12. Exhibit # 2..  FN12. Exhibit # 2.

FN13. FTR, 2–28–12 @ 2:37:20, Testimony of Sharon Kutner, RN, MSW..  FN13. FTR, 2–28–12 @ 2:37:20, Testimony of Sharon Kutner, RN, MSW.

FN14. FTR, 2–28–12 @ 3:31:13, Testimony of foster father..  FN14. FTR, 2–28–12 @ 3:31:13, Testimony of foster father.

Mack, Michael A., J.T.R.