IN RE: Michael P. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On September 6, 2011, Joette Katz, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mandy P. and Michael P. to their child, Michael, Jr., born March 1, 2010.   Michael, Jr. was removed from his parents on September 24, 2010, at age seven months.   The parents have appeared and are represented by counsel.   The child is represented by counsel.   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   This court has jurisdiction.

On November 7, 8, and 9, the court conducted a contested hearing.   The biological father appeared with counsel for the trial.   While the attorney for the mother was present, the biological mother did not appear at any time.   The social worker had communications with her, offered her transportation and confirmed the dates for trial.   The court finds that she had actual notice of the pendency of the proceedings and the date set for trial.   She is defaulted for her failure to appear.

The court heard testimony from various witnesses including the father, his girlfriend, a visitation case aide, a probation officer, a visitation supervisor, the court appointed psychologist and the DCF social worker.   The court reviewed the many documents entered in to evidence.   After considering all of the testimony and documentary evidence presented and having the opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor on the stand, and evaluate their testimony with all other testimony and the documentary evidence, the court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence.

Mother of Michael, Jr.

Mandy is currently thirty-four years of age.   She has had five children by three different paternities.   None of the children are presently in her care.   Her first daughter, who is presently fourteen, was removed and her parental rights to this child were terminated.   She has a ten-year-old son and five-year-old daughter who are in the custody of the biological father, to whom she was never married.   She has two children by Michael P., Michael Jr., the subject of this petition and another child, Mateo, who is thirteen months old.   These two children are in the same foster home.   Michael Jr. has been in this foster home for twenty-six months.

DCF has been involved with Mandy since 1998, for substance abuse, unstable housing, mental health issues and criminal involvement.   Those issues have persisted over the past fourteen years.   Mandy has been evaluated by court appointed psychologist Suzanne Ciaramella, PsyD. (Exhibits Q and R.) Dr. Ciaramella testified in court.   Her most recent evaluation was completed shortly before this trial.   The court will excerpt a portion of Dr. Ciaramella's findings since they capture the history of Mandy, the services and programs that she has been offered, her lack of success and her psychological condition which all contribute to her complete inability to competently and safely parent any child.

Psychiatric History (Exhibit Q—dated February 15, 2012)

“Currently, Mandy reported that she attends group therapy once/week at The Connection for Healthy Families which she finds helpful.   The group discusses anything relevant including topics such as parenting issues and raising children, etc.   Mandy reported that she also attends individual therapy at UCFS but reported that recently she missed two appointments due to oral surgery.   She has been attending since she has been at Mother's Retreat suggesting several months in individual treatment.   Her treatment was recently stepped down from weekly to biweekly.   Mandy also reported that she is treated by Dr. Panoor for medication management and is currently prescribed Zoloft and Suboxone.   She believed her current diagnosis included PTSD and Depression.   She reported that she also produces urine screens with Dr. Panoor as well.   Mandy then informed this writer that her therapist was considering referring her to a trauma group to augment her treatment but Mandy admitted to feeling like this might be overwhelming for her increasing her meetings to the 3x's/week and therefore, not leaving much time to care for herself.

Documentation indicated that Mandy has reported being diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder in her history in addition to PTSD and Depression.

Mandy reported that she was first placed inpatient when she was 11 years old but she could not recall the exact precipitant.   She did recall that she was told that she was going for an evaluation for 5 days and her stay turned into 5 weeks.   Mandy reported that people thought she was dissociating but she disagrees stating that her behavior had “a lot to do with my older brother” calling him a “monster” and explaining instead that it was “all me because I came from a broken home.”

Mandy also reported that she was placed inpatient at Hallbrooke Hospital 1–2 times between 11–12 years old.   However, Mandy reported that she was actually there 5–6 times in total reporting that she “comfortable there.   I stayed for 6 months.”   Mandy described this setting as “predictable” and so “I liked it so I kept going back.”   Mandy admitted that she would “make stuff up ․ depression and suicidal ideation ․ because I didn't want to be where I was.   Kinda did that a lot in my life.   First time I was content in the place I am.”

Documentation also cites that Mandy was inpatient at Day Kimball and Backus Hospitals at some point in her life related to dual diagnosis issues.

Mandy also has an extensive history of residential treatment including placement at Devereux Residential Facility (somewhere around 12 years old), VTM in Norwalk (there for 1 day), Klingberg Family Centers (before Devereux), and Alpha House in Newtown (there for less than 24 hours between the ages of 14–15), and then Mandy reported that she got on a plane and flew to GA. She explained that because of her placements she met “people with the same screwed up lifestyle as you.”   Mandy also reported that she was in FL for a week or two.

Documented Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Treatment History

Documentation revealed an extensive treatment history for Mandy beginning with an intake appointment with United Services scheduled on 6/30/10 and attending weekly.   On 8/17/10, she met with the psychiatrist and was prescribed Abilify and Zoloft.   Mandy reportedly admitted to relapsing on heroin and was subsequently hospitalized at L & M Hospital from 9/3/10–9/6/10 due to suicidal ideation.   On 9/23/10, Mandy moved to a domestic violence shelter which is consistent with her reported history for this writer.   On 9/15/10, Mandy submitted a urine screen that was negative for all substances.   On 9/20/10, Mandy was referred and agreed to participate in the Family Based Recovery Program which is an in-home service that offers support regarding issues with substances.   On 9/23/10, Mandy left the shelter and a few days later on 9/28/10 she was admitted to Stonington Institute for treatment for substance abuse until 10/20/10.   Upon discharge she participated in outpatient therapy at Quinebaug Day Treatment and was also involved with their dual diagnosis PHP and IOP level of care services from 10/27/10–12/28/10 reportedly successfully completing her treatment.   Mandy reportedly submitted 6 screens while at Quinebaug which were reportedly negative.   However, she completed a hair toxicology test on 10/29/10 which was reportedly positive for cocaine and benzolyeogonine.   In the interim it appears that mother was referred to a residential treatment center and entered New Life on 11/22/10 but left two days later reportedly feeling unsafe there.

In 1/11, Mandy reported successfully completing domestic violence classes through Untied Services;  however, in 12/10 there was reportedly yet another incident of domestic violence between her and Michael, Sr. and in fact, on 12/14/10 Mandy filed for and was granted a restraining order.   Her report and affidavit reportedly indicated that Michael had been drinking and when she attempted to leave the residence he choked her and repeatedly slammed her head against the wall stating that he will kill her.   It further indicated that Michael had dislocated Mandy's left shoulder.   At the time, Mandy had reported a consistent account to the Department and was reportedly intending on ending her relationship with Michael and filing for divorce.   It should be noted that the restraining order was extended for 6 months on 12/22/10 and on 1/18/11, Mandy reported that she and Michael resumed living together despite the order and on 2/23/11 they drove to a court hearing together despite the order.   On 2/24/11, Mandy and Michael attempted to modify the order to allow for them to reside together although the Department expressed disagreement.   On 3/2/11, the order was modified to allow for Michael to have contact with Mikey.   On 3/13/11, Michael was arrested and incarcerated following another incidence of domestic violence.

On 1/6/11, Mandy was reportedly referred to New Perceptions Program where she was referred to two groups including Early Recovery and Seeking Safety to address issues pertaining to substance abuse and domestic violence to begin treatment on 2/15/11.   Mandy was discharged on 4/1/11 for non-compliance as she had missed appointments for 7 dates, 6 of which were consecutive weekly appointments.   On 4/1/11, Mandy had an admissions appointment with Coventry House but declined this program because she reportedly did not like the facility.

In between the above timeframes, Mandy reportedly entered Stonington Institute again on 2/6/11 this time to detoxify from her prescribed Suboxone;  however, she was discharged two days later.   On 3/2/11, Mandy submitted to a second hair toxicology screen which was negative for all substances as was her urine screen on 3/9/11.

On 4/11/11, Mandy entered Mother's Retreat, a residential treatment program for substance abuse which also allows children to be placed with their mothers;  however, Mikey was not placed with Mandy at the time as he was in foster care.   Mandy was eligible for this program due to being pregnant with her fifth child and having relapsed on heroin on 3/27/11 (although she reported she used on 4/7/11 and 4/11/11).   As of the date of her individual court ordered evaluation mother had completed this residential program and was reportedly receiving services through UCFS.” (United Community Family Services)

Currently, as of May 31, 2012, Mandy was using cocaine, by her own admission since April 2012.   DCF has been working to obtain further inpatient treatment for Mandy, but she does not follow through on recommendations As recently as two months ago, Mandy left the Carnes Weeks inpatient program shortly after admission “due to experiencing withdrawal symptoms.  (Exhibit B, p. 7.) She is no longer considered a candidate for re-unification for either of her children.

Based upon the foregoing, this court finds that Michael, Jr. has been found in a prior proceeding on February 23, 2011, to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position the life of the child. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i)

Michael P., the Father

Michael is thirty-three years of age, a year younger than Mandy.   He has remarkably little insight into his early social history reporting to the social worker he had no exposure to neglect while growing up.   But in subsequent conversations with the psychologist and with DCF is apparent that he lived a significantly dysfunctional childhood.   He says he did not know why his parents divorced when he was seven, but later acknowledges that his mother was running around on her husband, and the father was an alcoholic.   He lived off and on with his grandparents and occasionally with his mother.   His mother “dropped him off with her friends” from time to time.   He admitted to the psychologist that he was emotionally and psychologically abused by his father.   His grandparents had Michael in counseling when he was very young.

Michael told the psychologist that he started “treatment” after his parent's divorce.   He stated that he went to counseling so often that he would “glaze over” the facts because he had to start over so often with each new therapist.   He reported to being discharged from outpatient treatment between the 6th and 7th grade.  (Exhibit Q, p. 24.)   He believes the onset of his anxiety began when he was a teenager.   He testified in court he had no mental health issues prior to his military service and DCF involvement.   He reports that his anxiety “got kicked up a notch” after serving in Iraq.

Michael dropped out of high school at 16 and received his general equivalency diploma at age 19 and he thereafter joined the Connecticut National Guard in July 1999.   He reports to going off to “boot camp” in October 1999.   In the Guard he received training in aviation maintenance and worked as a mechanic on helicopters.²  The helicopter repair unit was activated and deployed for fourteen months to the middle east from February 2003 until March 2004.³  He returned to Connecticut and continued to serve as a helicopter mechanic for five years until he resigned in 2009.   He is reluctant to admit when and where he began using drugs and abusing prescriptive medication and alcohol, although his Veterans Administration records very frequently mention “highly anxious.   Long history of chronic drug abuse.”

From his first report by his counselor at the Vet Center (Respondent's Exhibit 3) it appears that Michael qualified for a disability based upon the following:

Vet reports that when he hears sirens he thinks of the missiles that came into his base in Kuwait.   Vet reports taking meds for both depression and bi-polar disorder.   He also reports having nightmares about bears in which he is trying to catch the baby bear while the large papa bear is trying to get him.   Pressured speech.   Circumstantial and tangential thought process.   He appears animated, anxious and does a great deal of hand wringing.   Vet seems to have a great deal of guilt regarding his service in Kuwait. 2/16/10 4

Shortly after getting out of the Guard, Michael was living with his father.   Mandy had met Michael's father, Charles, when they had been inpatient at a substance abuse program together.   Mandy had walked to the house of Charles, Michael's father, one day and got high with Charles.   She met Michael at that time and two weeks later they were married on August 3, 2009.   Mandy immediately became pregnant.   She describes her relationship with Michael as abusive “the whole time,” except for 2 months in 2011, when “things were really good.”   Michael testified his relationship with Mandy was “toxic, addictive, nothing good except the kids.”   They both admitted to heavy drug use during their marriage.   Michael admitted to a counselor at a drug treatment facility in 2012, and in his testimony in court, to having a problem with alcohol, and abusing cocaine in 2007 and 2008, while he was still in the Guard.   He denied abuse of alcohol when interviewed by the social worker (Exhibit A).

Four months after their marriage, while Mandy was pregnant, the police were called:

Petitioner's Exhibit M—

On 12/19/09 at approximately 1200 hrs., I was dispatched to East Main St., Griswold, CT, on a disturbance complaint that had taken place at ․ Hopeville Rd., Lot # 3, Griswold, CT, approximately 12 hours prior.   Upon my arrival at East Main St., I made contact with the complainant, Corrine P., who stated verbally and in a written statement in part the following:  That on 12/18/09 at around 11:30 pm, she received a phone call from Mandy P., who is her relative by marriage.   Mandy P. is married to Michael P., Corrine's nephew.   Corrine stated that Mandy told her Michael threw her to the bed, attempted to strangle her, and smother her with a pillow.   Corrine stated Mandy advised her Michael wanted to “kill” her and asked if she would come pick her up.   Corrine stated she told Mandy no because she is afraid of Michael.   Corrine stated Mandy called back approximately ten minutes later and she could hear Michael yell that he was going to “snap” her neck.   Corrine stated Michael's voice then came on the phone and he stated he was going to “gut” Mandy.   Corrine stated Michael then advised her he cut his wrist with a piece of glass because “it feels good.”   Corrine stated she went to Michael's trailer to try to calm him down and bring Mandy to the hospital because she is pregnant.   Corrine stated Michael then told her he would get high and kill himself if Mandy left.   Corrine stated she observed Michael grab Mandy by the throat during an argument but that they both went to bed shortly thereafter.   Corrine stated she talked to Charles, Michael's grandfather, who also lives in the house.   Corrine stated Charles did not want her to call the police so she did not.

Tpr.'s Brown, Hayes, Dunshee, and myself then went to Michael's residence at 634 Hopeville Rd., # 3, Griswold, CT. Upon arrival Charles P. let us in the residence and for Officer safety, Michael was immediately placed in handcuffs.   Michael became irate and shouted obscenities towards us.   I asked Michael if he had tried to harm himself or Mandy and he stated, “I was just fooling around” and that he really “didn't want to kill myself.”   I observed a white bandage wrapped around his wrist and that blood had soaked through.   I again asked Michael what had happened and he stated he did not have to talk to me.

I then made contact with Mandy P., Michael's wife.   Mandy stated verbally and in a written statement in part the following:  That at approximately 12–12:30 am, she and Michael started to argue about him going to the VA hospital in West Haven, CT. Mandy stated Michael is diagnosed with PTSD by Dr. Ross of the VA hospital.   Mandy stated the argument took place in the bedroom and that he grabbed her by the neck, pushing her onto the bed several times after she attempted to stand up.   Mandy stated Michael began to throw everything around in the bedroom, breaking numerous pictures.   Mandy stated she observed Michael's wrist to be cut and that he stated, “no one would ever see me again” if she left the residence.   Mandy stated Michael walked out into the living room where she heard him and his grandfather, Charles, start to verbally argue.   Mandy stated she heard Michael start to throw things around in the living room so she went to see what was going on.   Mandy stated she observed Michael then punch a hole in the ceiling and walk back to the bedroom.   Mandy stated she then cleaned up the living room and Charles advised her that Michael pushed him to the ground, spraining his wrist.   Mandy stated during this first argument she attempted to call Corrine to pick her up due to Michael's behavior but Michael grabbed the phone and hung it up.   Corrine stated she went back into the bedroom and cleaned up all the broken glass off the floor.   Mandy stated Corrine did arrive at the residence a short time later but that she wanted to stay with Michael.   Mandy stated everything calmed down and that they both took sleeping pills and awoke to the State Police at their residence around 12:30pm.   Mandy stated she is approximately 5 1/2 months pregnant with their first child.

I observed a red scratch mark across the middle portion of Mandy's neck consistent with a sharp object being dragged across it.   I inquired about the scratch and Mandy stated she believe the scratch came from either Michael's ring or watch as he attempted to choke her.   I asked Mandy if her breathing was restricted at all at any time he grabbed her throat to throw her back to the bed and she stated, “no.”   Mandy also declined medical attention.

Michael was then advised he was under arrest and Trooper on scene attempted to escort him to the car.   Michael stated he was not going and began to resist our efforts to escort him to Tpr. Hayes' cruiser.   Michael used his feet to push off the walls in the residence.   As we lead him out onto the porch, Michael again pushed off the railing and pulled his arms away from us.   Troopers on scene asked Michael to cooperate and he continued to refuse.   As we arrived at Tpr. Hayes' cruiser, he used his feet to push off the door and refused to get into the front passenger's seat.   Troopers on scene were able to finally put Michael in the cruiser and seatbelt him in.

Tpr. Brown made contact with Charles P. who stated verbally and in a written statement in part the following:  That Michael was arguing with him and Mandy.   Charles stated Michael picked up the Christmas tree and threw it into the kitchen.   Charles state he heard Mandy tell Michael that he was choking her but that he was in the living room and did not observe the assault.   Charles stated Michael punched a hole in the living room ceiling and continued to yell at Mandy.   Charles stated his daughter Corrine came over to calm Michael down.   Charles stated he was verbally (sic) pushed to the ground but did not include this information in his written statement.   I observed his right wrist to be swollen and red but he declined medical attention and photographs of the injury.

Michael testified he overdosed on his Klonopin medicine, “they transported me to the VA, I went inpatient for six weeks.”   Exhibit A, however indicates Michael tested positive for cocaine upon admission and was admitted for three weeks.   Michael was charged with 6 criminal counts, ultimately pleading out to assault in the 3rd degree and receiving a sentence of one year, execution suspended with 18 months probation.   A protective order was issued.

Four months later Michael was arrested for unlawful restraint and violation of a protective order on April 3, 2010.   He received concurrent sentences of one year in jail, execution suspended and three years probation.   Another protective order in favor of Mandy was issued.

On January 20, 2011, Michael was arrested for threatening and violating a restraining order.   On March 12, 2011 he was arrested for assault on a public safety person, violating a protective order, criminal mischief, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.   On April 26, 2011, he was arrested for an incident on March 13, 2011 and charged with strangling in the 2nd degree, Violation of a protective order, and assault on a person over 60.   The first charge was reduced to strangling in the 3rd degree, assault in the 3rd degree and violation of a protective order, for which he was sentenced on July 9, 2012, to 3 consecutive one-year jail sentences, suspended with three years probation, ergo, total effective sentence of three years, execution suspended three years probation.   In addition to the standard conditions of probation he is to complete the Explorer program a 26–week rehabilitation program.

Following an arrest of Michael for violation of a protective order, Michel was held in Corrigan Correctional Center from March 13, 2011, until September 1, 2011.   After his release from prison, Michael was required to enter Lebanon Pines for detoxification and substance abuse treatment.   He remained inpatient at Lebanon Pines until his discharge on January 27, 2012.

So it is that during the lifetime of young Michael Jr., his father was either seriously compromised by mental health issues and the use of drugs, prescriptions and alcohol from Michael Jr.'s birth until the father was incarcerated in March 2011, the first full year of the child's life.   The father remained unavailable to serve as a placement resource of his child until he was discharged from Lebanon Pines on January 27, 2012.   So for the first two years of young Michael's life (less 33 days i.e. Jan. 27 to March 1), his father was, by virtue of his own misconduct unavailable to parent.   He was impaired or he was confined for nearly two years.

Adjudication

“The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition.   See Practice Book § 1043.1 et seq. [now § 33–1 et seq.]. In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether the statutory ground for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence.”  In re Pascacio R., 52 Conn.App. 106, 109, 726 A.2d 114 (1999).  “In making the adjudicatory determination, the court is limited to considering events preceding the filing of the termination petition or the latest amendment.”  In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 367, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995);  see Practice Book § 33–3(a).   In this case the petition for termination of parental rights was filed on September 6, 2011.   A review of the crucial events would be helpful.

The Time Frame

Pre 2009—Mandy has had chronic mental health problems since pre-adolescence and has abused drugs and alcohol for many years.   She has lost custody of her 3 older children.   Michael P. admits to abusing prescriptive drugs while on active National Guard duty and to abusing cocaine, at least during 2008 and 2009.   He has resigned from the National Guard and is collecting unemployment.

July 2009—Mandy goes to the home of Michael's father, Charles P., a man she met in drug treatment, and is doing drugs with Charles.   She meets Charles' son Michael P. Two weeks later, on August 3, 2009, Michael and Mandy marry in Putnam, CT. Mandy quickly becomes pregnant.

December 13, 2009, Michael arrested for multiple domestic violence offenses.   Ordered to attend counseling for anger management.  (Exhibit M.)

March 1, 2010, Michael Jr. is born prematurely at University of Massachusetts Medical Center.   Weighs 4 lbs. 9 oz.   Remains hospitalized for twelve days.

March 24, 2010, Michael is at his 3rd counseling session at the Vet Center.   Admits to self medicating with alcohol.   Stressed by the newborn child.  “He was agitated and anxious.   Resentful that he is mandated to counseling.”   (Respondent's Exhibit 3 p. 18.)

April 3, 2010, both parents actively using drugs.   Michael's second arrest.   DCF becomes involved with the family.   DCF offers various services.   Neither parent engage in services.  (Exhibit A.)

September 3, 2010, Mandy hospitalized 3 days in New London for heroin overdose.

September 12, 2010, Mandy hospitalized for broken wrist at Day Kimball Hospital.

September 13, 2010, Mandy leaves Michael and enters domestic violence shelter.

September 16, 2010, Mandy files affidavit in superior court alleging domestic violence by Michael and his abuse of cocaine.   A no-contact restraining order is issued.   Custody of Michael, Jr. is awarded to Mandy.

September 23, 2010, Mandy drops child off with relatives and leaves for parts unknown.

September 24, 2010, DCF is notified and responds.   Mother's whereabouts are still unknown.   DCF invokes a 96–hour hold on the child.   Michael is placed in foster care.   The medically at risk child has lived six months with two domestically violent, active drug abusers, each with a set of serious mental health issues.   Neither parent is competent to safely parent.

September 27, 2010, the court issues an order of temporary custody to DCF (Graziani, J.).   The court issues Specific Steps to the parents which are to be followed to obtain reunification with their son.   The most important steps involve avoiding illegal substances, avoiding criminal conduct and obtaining substance abuse treatment and mental health counseling.

January 20, 2011, Michael is arrested a third time (violating the Specific Steps).   This time for threatening to “slice your throats.”  (State police report (Exhibit O.) Convicted and sentenced to another one-year suspended sentence with 18 months probation.   Requirement to attend counseling and have no-contact with Mandy.

February 23, 2011, child adjudicated to be neglected and committed to DCF (Graziani, J.).   Specific Steps ordered again.

March 12, 2011, Michael's fourth arrest for assault on safety personnel, violating the protective order, criminal mischief, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.   Bond set at $75,000.   The arrest is a second violation of the Specific Steps by Michael.

March 13, 2011, Michael's fifth arrest for the attempted strangling of Mandy, violation of protective order, violation of conditions of release and assault on a victim over 60.   Bond is set at $60,000.   Michael is held in Corrigan Correctional center for want of bond.

September 1, 2011, Michael has been sentenced and released to Lebanon Pines, an inpatient substance abuse treatment facility.   Compliance with treatment at Lebanon Pines is a condition of his provisional release.   He has 2 1/2 years of unexecuted sentence remaining and three years of probation until July 2014.

September 6, 2011, Michael has started in Lebanon Pines treatment facility.   He is not a placement resource for Michael Jr. (A/k/a Mikey) as he is inpatient.   Mandy has been inconsistent in her sobriety.   She is not a placement resource at the time.   The child has been in foster care for a year.   Neither parent has any record of sustained sobriety in the community.   Both parents require on-going mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment.   The agency files a petition for termination of parental rights.   This is the adjudicatory date.

October 6, 2011, the court approves the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption (Dyer, J.).

Based upon the foregoing, this court finds that Michael, Jr. has been found in a prior proceeding on February 23, 2011, to have been neglected or uncared for, and the father had, as of the date the petition was filed, September 6, 2011, failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).   He had just been released from prison for multiple convictions of domestic violence and admitted cocaine and alcohol use.   He had no period of confirmed sobriety in the community.   He was in a half-way house as a condition of his release and could not have had his child with him.   He had serious mental health issues including post traumatic stress disorder that was largely untreated at that time.   Given the age and needs of the child, Michael was in no position to be a placement resource for the child within a reasonable time.   The petitioner has met her burden.

Disposition

The first part of the analysis of a petition focuses on parental behavior and parental competence.   Only after the court concludes that grounds in fact exist may the court consider the placement of the child.  “If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase.   In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether the termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child.  In re Maximina V., 44 Conn.App. 80, 82–83, 686 A.2d 1005 (1997).   In re Drew R., 47 Conn.App. 124, 127, 702 A.2d 647 (1997).”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Pascacio R., 52 Conn.App. 106, 109, 726 A.2d 114 (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.”  In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 367, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995), In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488 (2000).   The evidence in this case concluded on November 9, 2012.

Having concluded that grounds exist to terminate the parental rights, the court can now factor into the deliberations concerns for the child, as well as parental progress, if any.   There is evidence that as of this past summer, Mandy was still hopelessly addicted to illegal drugs.   She knew of the trial proceedings, was offered transportation and did not attend the trial.

Michael presents himself to the court and claims to be rehabilitated or, at least, on the road to full rehabilitation.   The court is not persuaded.   Michael is living with a single mother of four children.   He views himself as a “house husband.”   His significant other (“s/o” in his Vet Center notes, Respondents 3), testified in court.   Her children are a daughter 16, and sons 9, 13 and 14.   She is thirty-three years of age, has been raising these children on her own, and is employed as an administrative team leader at a Windsor Locks industrial company.   She testified that Michael is a great help to her.   He is home all day while she is at work and the children are at school.

There is no question that Michael has made progress.   Since the beginning of February 2012, Michael has engaged in recommended services and has been adherent to the terms of his probation.   It may be true that he has not used any drugs since his incarceration.   He still has post traumatic stress disorder.   At every meeting with his VA counselors he presents as anxious with noted “long history of chronic drug abuse and legal problems.”   Most recent note is on September 7, 2012, when Michael presented as “anxiety on-going.”   Dr. Ciaramella reported as of November 7, 2012, “extreme generalized anxiety.”  (Exhibit R.)

When the court inquired of Michael, during his testimony, about possible vocational rehabilitation, he said that he and his counselor didn't think he could handle the stress.   The court observed that the full-time care-taking responsibilities of a 2 1/2–year–old child might be more stressful.   So his position is that being a helicopter mechanic is too stressful, occupational rehabilitation would be too stressful, but being the full-time parent of a 2 1/2–year–old would not be so stressful.   He embraces a fantasy and ignores practical reality.   He repeatedly describes to the VA counselor his visits with Mikey as being happy because the child calls him “Daddy.”   This is not about the child it is, for Michael, about what makes Michael happy.   Certainly, the child enjoys an adult play partner.   Michael seems to have no concept of the psychological harm to the child of being removed from the people he views as his parents and his personal limitations to competently and safely parent.   A child cannot be placed on a shelf for a few years while the biological parents are attempting to get their life together.   At some point, as here, getting your life back on track comes too late to meet the child's immediate needs.

Michael makes much of the fact that DCF did not consider him for placement of Michael.   As has been noted before, Michael was not an available placement resource because he had very severe substance abuse problems and mental health problems;  he was intensely criminally involved and he was then incarcerated from March 2011, until September 2011.   Thereafter, Michael was inpatient at a substance abuse facility until January 27, 2012.   During those same time frames, Mandy had been making great strides toward reunification, most notably remaining sober and participating in all recommended services.   Even while the termination of parental rights case was pending, DCF had engaged reunification services for her and was moving toward parental reunification with the only one of the two parents that was then available to be a placement resource.

In April 2011, Mandy entered Mother's Retreat a residential treatment program for substance abuse treatment.   She successfully completed the program on September 11, 2011, about the same time that Michael got out of jail and began at Lebanon Pines.   Mandy was in therapy at The Connection and she attended a program known as Healthy Families.   She had clean urine screens from June 3, 2011 through March 16, 2012.   DCF had engaged Parents in Partnership, an in-home program to provide guidance and parenting skills, and Reconnecting Families, which began in January 2012, just prior to the actual planned reunification of Michael Jr. with Mandy.   For his part, Michael P. was still inpatient at Lebanon Pines.   The reunification plan was known to Michael P. He did not object to the plan;  he appeared content to leave Lebanon Pines and to begin living with his significant other.   He did not suggest to DCF that he should be considered for placement of the child.   He did not attend administrative case reviews as recently as April 12, 2012, at which time he could have opposed the DCF plan for reunification with the mother and he could have offered a plan for his own reunification with the child.   He did not.

The reunification plan with Mandy abruptly ended in May 2012, when Mandy submitted to a urine screen at Southeastern Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence.   The screen was positive for cocaine.   Mandy admitted she had been using since April 2012.   So, at that point, the issue became what is the best course of action for Michael, Jr., considering his need for stability, permanence and closure?   Some expert testimony is necessary to answer that question.

Dr. Suzanne Ciaramella

Dr. Ciaramella wrote two evaluations for the court (Exhibits Q and R) and testified at the trial.   The court gives great credence to the expertise of Dr. Ciaramella.   She was asked about the nature of attachments, the effect of disrupted attachments, the issues related to this particular child and her recommendation regarding the wisdom of a transfer or disruption in his placement.

Exchange between AAG Michael Besso and the psychologist:

Dr. Ciaramella:  “A secure attachment is defined by the constructs of attachment theory—which was originated by Bowlby.   And within that theory it was suggested that there's a critical period of time when an infant is developing where an attachment is developed.   And within that attachment, there is arguably great implications for how that child will develop later in life, both emotionally, psychologically and in other ways:  interpersonally, socially, etcetera.

“And so out of the development of attachment theory came a distinguishing continuum of attachment styles which was further empirically discovered by somebody named Mary Ainsworth.   And within Ainsworth's research, she discovered that there are 4 attachment styles.   And those attachment styles are secure;  avoidant;  anxious resistant, or otherwise ambivalent;  and disorganized disoriented.

Secure attachment was defined as the healthiest attachment style, suggesting that when a child is cared for by an available, consistent and reliable caretaker, they are able to develop a sense of self, wherein they can learn to explore and discover their environment, overcome natural anxieties by always having security in the sense that their caretaker will be there to guide them and nurture them and help them overcome.

And within that development, the child then learns how to self-regulate their emotional state and that has, of course, implications for the later development of their ability to have an identity, sense of self, interpersonal skills, social skills, emotional development, etcetera.

Q Thank you.   Now, Dr. Ciaramella, you used the phrase when we're talking about—when you were talking about secure attachment about a critical time.   What did you mean by critical time?

A There's research that has demonstrated for now almost 40 years that there's arguably a critical period of zero to 2 where that attachment is being created and solidified.   Although—

Q I'm going to interrupt.   Zero to 2 what?

A Years old.

Q Okay. For a child zero to 2 years old.

A And there is additional research that argues that that critical period can be extended to 3 years old and that's, I think, contingent on brain development and circumstances and the fact that we're deferent to the idea that although we all have a similar brain, our brains are arguably quite different onto each other.

Q Now, so what's supposed to be happening then during that critical time—what happens during that critical time or how does that critical time relate to the issue of secure attachment?

A Research has demonstrated that within that critical period, those 4 attachment styles can begin to develop and be demonstrated via observation through the child and caretakers' relationship.   And so it's within that time frame where if a child is nurtured and responded to in a healthy, consistent, reliable, available fashion, they begin to develop what's called an internal working model, which was later suggested by Ainsworth as well.

And within that internal working model, the child is able to kind of unconsciously secure that attachment figure and begin to rely on it on its own to explore, to navigate, and to learn to manage the natural anxieties that come with developing and growing up and learning different experiences.”

Atty Besso:  Okay. You write that academically and clinically it stands to reason that since Michael, Jr. has created the secure attachment, that disturbing and disrupting this attachment could have severe implications for psychological stability.   You wrote that;  correct?

A I did.

Q Can you explain to the Court—elaborate on what that—what you mean by that?

A I think that sentence encompasses my understanding of Michael, Jr.'s history, which is significant;  starting in utero in fact where there was trauma, being that mother had used substances and had admitted to that to me during the first evaluation, in addition to knowing that there were episodes of domestic violence and other significant events that we know can have an impact on even a developing uterus—child in utero in terms of their response to the environment and the anxieties that that can provoke and create.

So I think we need to start way back and look at the fact that since the child was still in utero there was traumatization happening to him.   And then following that the—I think the assumption, the suggestion would be, given that there was a tumultuous relationship between mother and father at the time, the child was exposed to pathogenic care, both again because of the domestic violence that was reported and mother's extreme aberrance in her behavior, and at times very out of control and impulsive behavior.

Then we have to consider the child's removal from his parents' care and placement in foster care and I think subsequently need to recognize that there was an additional traumatization through the failed reunification.  (Court's note:  with Mandy )

So when we look at his picture from an academic point of view and understanding the significance of attachment and what we know today, it can have—in terms of the implications later in life, those events need to be taken into strong consideration, recognizing that he was able to form a secure attachment, which onto itself is extremely remarkable and quite significant under the circumstances.

So in view of the fact that he was even able to do that, with all of these traumas that he has experienced, is extremely important.   So to then think about it clinically what it would mean to disrupt that ability to—through all of this trauma and stress in his young life—to possibly put that once again in jeopardy at this point, at this age, for this length of time and care has to be something strongly considered in terms of his later development.

Q Now, Dr. Ciaramella, you say it has to be considered.   In that sentence you actually talk about severe implications.   So in light of what you just described for the Court, what are your concerns about the implications for Michael, Jr. if that's disturbed and disrupted?

A To possibly subject a child who has this degree of traumatization in their life to yet another one—through the disruption and disturbance of the secure attachment research has shown and—you know, I think it varies naturally, it varies from child to child—that in particular it's possible to begin to see in latency years and then in adolescence some relatively extreme problems, including—and I think first and foremost is primary—is inability to self regulate one's emotions.

And within that can come some very extreme maladaptive coping skills that, unfortunately, can lead to other kind of aberrance such as substance abuse, legal entanglements.   And I think in Michael, Jr.'s case there needs to be a consideration for the fact that there's a very strong predisposition, a genetic loading to both mental health issues on both sides of his parental system, as well as substance abuse.   So this child's already at risk.

So interrupting or disrupting that secure attachment onto itself has implications and then that is then, I think, further placing the child in jeopardy to be pushed towards other predispositions where he's already at risk.”

In addition to Dr. Ciaramella's concern about another disruption in Michael Jr.'s present attachment to his foster family, there is both state and federal law that directs courts to make these decisions sooner, rather than later.   “[S]table and continuous care givers are important to normal child development.   Children need secure and uninterrupted emotional relationships with the adults who are responsible for their care.”   3 D. Kramer, Legal Rights of Children (2d Ed. Rev.2005) § 29:11, p. 185;  see also J. Goldstein, A. Solnit, S. Goldstein & A. Freud, The Best Interests of the Child:  The Least Detrimental Alternative (1996) p. 19 (“[c]ontinuity of relationships is essential for a child's healthy development”);  see also In re Hanks, 553 A.2d 1171, 1178 (Del.1989) (“[N]o child can grow emotionally while in limbo, never really belonging to anyone except on a temporary and ill-defined or partial basis ․ To grow, the child needs at least the promise of permanency in relationships and some continuity of environment.”  [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ).  “Repeatedly disrupted placements and relationships can interfere with the children's ability to form normal relationships when they become adults.”   3 D. Kramer, supra, In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483, 495 (2008).

Child placement concepts, and the need for prompt resolution of child placement decisions have been recognized in federal law in legislation entitled “The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997,” 42 U.S.C. § 620 et seq.  (ASFA).  This legislation, presently implemented in Connecticut, calls for the commencement of proceedings for termination of parental rights for any child who has been in the care of the state for fifteen out of the past twenty-two months, an implicit recognition that the children need a secure placement and may have developed a secure attachment while in foster care.  (Sec.103.)

The legislation also recognizes that one year in a child's life is a long time.  “Within twelve months of foster home placements, state courts must hold permanency hearings to consider the future status of each child.  42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C) (2000 Ed.).”  In Re Darien S., 82 Conn.App. 169, 175–76 (2004).   See also § 46b–129(k)(1) and Practice Book § 35a–14.   The permanency plan is a state requirement under federal law.  45 C.F.R. § 1355.20(a).

ASFA requires that a hearing on the permanent placement of the child must be conducted within one year of placement.   This requirement is a further recognition by the Congress that one year is generally a sufficient time to evaluate whether parents have restored or rehabilitated themselves to the point where they can resume a responsible position in the life of the child.

DCF must file a proposed permanency plan within nine months of the child's removal from the home, so that a hearing can be conducted within one year as required by the state and federal law.   Indeed, § 17a–110a(d) requires DCF to make “an assessment of the likelihood of the child's being reunited with either or both birth parents” within six months of out-of-home placement.   In this case, the permanency plan calling for termination of parental rights and adoption was filed on June 23, 2011, within nine months of removal, as required.   At the time DCF filed the permanency plan, Michael was incarcerated and had criminal charges outstanding regarding multiple violation of protective orders and attempted strangling of Mandy.   The permanency plan of termination and adoption was approved by the court retroactive to September 24, 2011, nunc pro tunc, within one year of removal as required.  (Dyer J.)

So, even though Michael has made significant progress in his rehabilitation, it has not occurred within a time frame that is useful to this child, considering Michael Jr.'s age and needs.   Any consideration of disrupting the secure attachment he has made to the foster family that has been his caretaker for more than two years, when weighed against the possible psychological harm of an unsuccessful disruption, must be resolved in favor the secure and uninterrupted emotional relationship Michael now enjoys with the adults who have been responsible for his care when Michael, Sr. wasn't.

This finding is consistent with long-standing Connecticut case law:

“Finally, we agree with the Appellate Court that the trial court, in crediting the testimony of the child welfare professionals and terminating the respondent's parental rights on the basis of Davonta's need for stability, permanence and closure, was not merely invoking “empty incantations,” as the respondent has claimed.  In re Davonta V., supra, 98 Conn.App. 53.   This court has “noted consistently the importance of permanency in children's lives.  In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 181 Conn. 638, 646, 436 A.2d 290 (1980) (removing child from foster home or further delaying permanency would be inconsistent with his best interest);  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 263, 829 A.2d 855 (2003) (trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous where much of child's short life had been spent in custody of commissioner of children and families and child needed stability and permanency in her life);  In re Teshea D., supra, 9 Conn.App. 493–94 (“child's need for permanency in her life lends added support to the court's finding that her best interest warranted termination of the respondent's parental rights”).  “Virtually all experts, from many different professional disciplines, agree that children need and benefit from continuous, stable home environments.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Juvenile Appeal (83–CD), 189 Conn. 276, 285, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983);  In re Jeisean M., 270 Conn. 382, 401 (2004).

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

1. TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES— § 17a–112(k)(1)

Multiple timely and appropriate services were provided for both parents.   As was noted earlier, Michael elected to use the Veteran's Administration for many of his services and hospitalizations.   The problem for Michael is that he was either unwilling, as at first, or essentially unavailable for services for too long a period of time when considering the needs of an infant.   Even now his mental stability is fragile.   He needs on-going treatment for post traumatic stress disorder.

2. REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW— § 17a–112(k)(2)

DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite Mandy and her children pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, through the provision of timely reunification services over the past decade.   Reunification was not a feasible plan unless and until Mandy could conquer her adult life-long illegal drug usage.   She has not.

Michael's situation has been fully explored.   Michael was offered services prior to his incarceration.   Between December 2009, and March 2011, the only counseling he did was at the veteran's center which counseling was a condition of his probation.   He resented having to go to counseling.   The services offered by DCF were not accepted by Michael.   Thereafter, Michael was either incarcerated or inpatient at Lebanon Pines.   DCF offered services in accordance with the federal law.   It is up to the parent whether to engage or not engage.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS— § 17a–112(k)(3)

Mandy has violated a number of court orders pertinent to the specific steps.   All of the specific steps are subservient to the goal of substance abuse treatment, recovery and continued abstinence.   Mandy remains guarded, secretive and dishonest regarding her drug usage.   This alone, prevents successful treatment.   This alone is paramount in the hierarchy of Mandy's obligations.

Specific steps were issued by the court indicating the behavior which was required of Michael.   He consistently used drugs after the specific steps were issued.   He was arrested three times after the specific steps were issued and then did not actively participate in services (substance abuse treatment) until ordered and required to by the conditions of his release from prison.   This is not exactly the robust participation that signifies voluntary compliance with the specific steps.

4. THE CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES— § 17a–112(k)(4)

“Therefore, the interactional assessment between foster mother and Mikey (Michael, Jr.), revealed confirmation that the child remains securely attached to his foster mother referring to her as “mommy” and looking to her for reassurance, guidance and exploratory permission.   There were no overt or covert signs of anxiety and foster mother did well to encourage Mikey's growth and individualization while with her allowing further development of security and internalization of her as a working model.”(Exhibit R p. 18.)

Mandy has not had regular visitation since July 2012.   Michael has been regular and consistent in his visits.   He is appropriate with the child.   Michael and Mikey have a healthy visiting relationship.

5. AGE OF THE CHILD— § 17a–112(k)(5)

Michael Jr. was born on March 1, 2010.

6. PARENT'S EFFORT TO ADJUST CIRCUMSTANCES— § 17a–112(k)(6)

Mandy has not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform her conduct to even minimally acceptable parental standards.   Her persistent substance abuse has left her unfit to parent.   Mandy has had more than ten years of failure at recovery.

While Michael's rehabilitative efforts were not self-motivated, it does appear that after incarceration and mandatory substance abuse treatment, he engaged services and is on the road to personal recovery.   That does not render him competent to immediately parent.   Indeed, he is aware that his present mental health situation is fragile.   Stress from work or stress from school could be intolerable to Michael, according to him.   The court concludes that stress from parenting a two and a half year old child is likely to be as great or greater than working outside the home or vocational training.

7. EXTENT TO WHICH RESPONDENT WAS PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(7)

No unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties prevented Mandy from maintaining, at least a visiting relationship with Michael Jr. nor did the economic circumstances of the parent interfere with such relationship.

Michael Sr. was provided with visitation while in jail and during his substance abuse treatment.   His unavailability to have more visitation is a function of his own criminal conduct for which he assumes very little personal responsibility.   He blames DCF.

IV. Orders

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

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

That the parental rights of Mandy and Michael P. are hereby terminated as to the child Michael P. Jr. That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for him.   That a case plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.   That primary consideration for adoption of Michael shall be offered to the current foster parents.

The permanency plan calling for termination of parental rights and adoption is approved.   Objections to the permanency plan are over-ruled.   The court finds that the department has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan.

The Clerk of any with jurisdiction over a subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 81 Columbia Ave. Willimantic CT 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 19th day of November 2012

Foley, J.T.R. # 432

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Likely the 1/169 Aviation Regiment, CNG, Groton, CT..  FN2. Likely the 1/169 Aviation Regiment, CNG, Groton, CT.

FN3. The Veterans Administration says he was in Kuwait (Respondent's Exhibit 3 p. 19).   He told the psychologist he was in Iraq. He denied seeing anyone killed “He reported experiencing missiles flying overhead and gas attacks and “stuff like that.”   There is little likelihood of him experiencing a “gas attack.”   Michael was not a helicopter crew member..  FN3. The Veterans Administration says he was in Kuwait (Respondent's Exhibit 3 p. 19).   He told the psychologist he was in Iraq. He denied seeing anyone killed “He reported experiencing missiles flying overhead and gas attacks and “stuff like that.”   There is little likelihood of him experiencing a “gas attack.”   Michael was not a helicopter crew member.

FN4. Based upon his increased anxiety he qualified for a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder and a pension from the Veterans Administration effective in March 9, 2011..  FN4. Based upon his increased anxiety he qualified for a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder and a pension from the Veterans Administration effective in March 9, 2011.

Foley, Francis J., J.T.R.