IN RE: Shane M. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS

In accordance with General Statute § 46b–124 and Practice Book § 32a–7, the names of the parties involved in this case are not to be disclosed, and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.

Before this court is the termination of parental rights petition filed by the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) in the interest of Shane M. The termination of parental rights petition was filed on November 23, 2011.   Father filed a motion to revoke commitment on January 4, 2013.   DCF filed an objection to the motion on January 14, 2013.   The court ordered the motion and objection consolidated with the termination of parental rights trial.   The respondent parents are Shariha N. (“mother”) and Matthew M. (“father”).  The respondent parents were served, appeared, were advised and appointed counsel.   The child was appointed an attorney.   The Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable.   The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction and there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child.   This matter was tried to the court on October 2, 2012, January 4, 2013 and March 18, 2013.   The respondent mother appeared for trial and was represented by counsel.   The respondent father appeared for trial and was represented by counsel.   The child was represented by counsel.   The court heard testimony from mother's probation officer, father's psychotherapist, father's probation officer, several employees from Radiance Innovative Services, a social worker from The Connection, the visitation supervisor from Radiance Innovative Services, three DCF social workers and the foster mother.   Thirty-five exhibits were entered into evidence.   Because the respondent parents did not testify, the representations in the social studies and affidavits were virtually uncontested and will be considered for dispositional purposes.   No adverse inferences were drawn from mother's and father's failure to testify.   The court took judicial notice of the entire record of the prior non-delinquency proceedings including pleadings, petitions, social studies, status reports, evaluations, court memoranda and specific steps as well as the dates and contents of the court's findings, orders, rulings and judgments.¹  All counsel participated in the examination of the witnesses and closing arguments.

By way of the procedural history of the case, DCF filed a petition of neglect on behalf of the minor child, Shane M., on August 23, 2010.   On November 16, 2010, a 96–hour hold was invoked by DCF on behalf of Shane and he was placed in a licensed foster home.   An order of temporary custody was filed by DCF on November 19, 2010.   Service as to mother and father was confirmed and the parents were advised of their rights.   The order of temporary custody was sustained on November 24, 2010.   Specific steps were ordered as to mother and father on November 24, 2010 to facilitate the reunification of Shane with mother and father.   Shane was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care of the commissioner DCF on April 28, 2011.   On September 27, 2011, the court approved the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption.   Final specific steps as to mother were ordered on April 28, 2011.²  Final specific steps were ordered as to father on March 15, 2011.³  The termination of parental rights petition was filed on November 23, 2011.   The permanency plan of termination of parental rights was approved by the court on September 27, 2011.

The statutory ground stated in the petition against the respondent parents allege that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and the parents failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, they would assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   The petition further alleges that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the mother and father.

FACTS AND FINDINGS

The court has carefully read and considered the petition, all of the documentary evidence and testimony presented, the demeanor of the witnesses and the arguments of counsel, according to the standards required by law.   On the basis of the evidence presented and for the reasons stated below, the court finds in favor of the petition and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent mother and the respondent father.

The court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

Shane M. was born on May 1, 2010.   The respondent, Shariha N., is his mother and the respondent, Matthew M., is his biological father.   Mother and father were married on March 25, 2011.   Mother and father were divorced in April 2012.   DCF became involved in May 2010 when a referral was made by the hospital on May 4, 2010 after the delivery of Shane.   Concerns were raised about mother's homelessness and inadequate shelter due to her transience as well as her history of psychiatric problems and incarcerations.   Thereafter, on June 8, 2010, the Windsor police were called with regard to a report of domestic abuse between mother and father.   An altercation took place wherein father refused to give mother the base to Shane's car seat and father physically moved mother out of the way.   After father got into his car, mother jumped onto the car at which time father drove away causing mother to fall to the ground.   During this incident, mother left Shane in the home where she was staying with twelve-year-old with no adult supervision.   Mother and father were charged with breach of peace.   The allegation of neglect was unsubstantiated.   As the result of this incident, a protective order was issued between mother and father and it was allowed to expire on August 4, 2010.   DCF was informed on July 6, 2010 that mother was told to leave the home where she was residing with Shane due to the theft and use of the residents' credit cards.   Thereafter, DCF filed a petition of neglect on August 23, 2010.   The allegation was substantiated due to mother's unaddressed mental health needs, history of stealing and domestic violence.   A 96–hour hold was invoked on behalf of Shane on November 16, 2010 due to mother's and father's ongoing criminal issues and arrests, and domestic violence.   On November 19, 2010, DCF filed a motion for order of temporary custody on behalf of Shane which was granted and subsequently sustained on November 24, 2010.

As to Respondent Mother Shariha N.

Mother has a lengthy history with DCF commencing when she was a child.   Numerous petitions of neglect were filed on mother's behalf resulting in fifteen placements through DCF from 1998 to 2006.

Mother has a history of depression, anxiety and oppositional defiance disorder.   While mother was in foster care, she received special education services along with a therapeutic component to address her depression.   She was prescribed psychotropic medications including Celexa and Seroquel.   Mother felt the medication was not necessary and stopped taking it.   During this period of time, mother was also referred for therapeutic services to North Central Counseling and Community Health Resources.   Mother was also diagnosed with Reactive Adjustment Disorder.   Mother met father in high school.   She became pregnant with Shane in her senior year and dropped out of school.   Mother has not completed her high school education.

Mother has a criminal history dating back to 2009 with multiple incarcerations.   As of the last day of trial, she was incarcerated.   She was convicted of Breach of Peace on February 3, 2010;  Disorderly Conduct on February 25, 2010;  Conspiracy to Commit Larceny on December 21, 2010, and Larceny 3 on February 9, 2011.   A re-arrest order was issued on July 21, 2011 stemming from mother's arrest on March 21, 2011 for Larceny 6 due to mother's failure to attend a court hearing.   Mother was arrested on August 4, 2011 for the failure to appear.   Mother was placed on probation for her conviction for Burglary 3 which was scheduled to expire on February 9, 2013 and the conviction for larceny 3 which expired on December 21, 2012.   Part of her probation requires mother to report twice a month to her probation officer and she was not compliant.   As of May 2012, she had failed to make her court ordered restitution payments.   She was arrested again on June 28, 2012 for Burglary 3, Larceny 6 and Criminal Trespass 1. As the result of the felony charge, mother was arrested on October 2, 2012 during the trial of this case for violations of the conditions of her probation.   She was incarcerated with an expected release date in April 2013.   Mother completed a parenting and re-entry group during her incarceration.   She plans to move in with a friend upon her release from prison.   Mother is currently unemployed due to her incarceration.

Mother has a history of domestic violence with father including arrests and the issuance of four protective orders between them.   Mother has been the protected person in three of the orders and father has been the protected person in one of the orders.   Mother was referred to a domestic violence consultant and encouraged to contact Wheeler Clinic to participate in the Women in Healing Group but was unable to do so to her current incarceration.   Mother failed to keep an initial appointment with her domestic violence consultant but did meet with her on May 16, 2011 to discuss the issue of violence in the relationship with father.   Notably, mother reported that father was jealous when they were involved in a romantic relationship and that he broke the door of her apartment complex.   She also reported that he threatened to harm himself and Shane.   Mother was encourage to contact the Women in Healing Group at the Wheeler Clinic but mother felt she did not need to participate in the trauma group nor in any domestic violence services.

Mother was referred to a young mother's support program in May 2010 after giving birth to Shane due to her lack of parenting experience but she failed to engage with the program.   The program made numerous attempts to connect with mother that were unsuccessful.   The program was terminated due to mother's incarceration.   Mother did complete a parenting education course on April 20, 2011.   Prior to her incarceration, mother was involved with therapy to address her mental health needs.   Mother failed to attend a meeting with a domestic violence consultant on October 25, 2010.   Mother failed to attend substance abuse evaluation and urine screens at ADRC on August 26, 2010 and October 25, 2010.   Mother did not attend a scheduled ADRC appointment on December 21, 2010 or June 6, 2011.   Mother was also again referred for a substance abuse evaluation in March 2012 but it was determined that she was not in need of services.   However, it was recommended that mother participate in random urine screens and hair testing due to her disclosure of using marijuana.   Mother failed to attend a screen on April 11, 2012 and she has not participated in urine screens.   She was referred for another hair test on July 11, 2012.   She was initially resistant to most of the offered services.

On November 6, 2010, mother participated in a clinical assessment at Radiance Innovative Services.   Her presenting issues were unresolved issues concerning childhood trauma, coping skills and anger management.   She was diagnosed with major depressive disorder recurrent without psychotic features, relational problems NOS, and history of Reactive Detachment Disorder, disinhibited type.   Long-term therapy was recommended to address symptoms of depression, history of abuse, poor decision making, poor self-esteem and past dysfunctional relationships.   Due to mother's incarceration at that time, she was not able to begin counseling until April 2011.   On June 29, 2011, mother's therapist reported that mother was resistant and again felt that she was not in need of services.   Mother was recommended to participate in a woman's support group focused on those with a history of trauma.   Mother was recommended to attend a Women in Healing Group but mother was resistant.   Mother did schedule an intake but was not able to attend due to her incarceration at that time.   As of August 4, 2011, mother's therapist reported that mother was angry, defiant and becoming resistant to therapy and wanted to stop therapy.   An intake was scheduled for mother to participate in a woman's support group at Wheeler Clinic.   Mother did schedule an intake for August 18, 2011 but could not attend due to incarceration on August 5, 2011.   Another intake was scheduled for September 2011 but mother did not attend as she had placed herself in the Coventry House inpatient substance abuse program on September 29, 2011 due to her disclosure that she was using marijuana.   Mother was initially compliant with services attending all six of her sessions and she was making slow but gradual progress.   She acknowledged her difficulty with anger and coping but consistently refused to work on her childhood trauma issues.   Mother left that program in November 2011 before completing her treatment.   Mother acted out during the program toward staff and did not pay her rent at Coventry House.   Mother left the program on November 4, 2011 after being informed that she would be placed back on orientation status in light of her behavior.   Mother was pregnant at the time with her son, Luis R., and refused to sign paperwork for her pre-natal vitamins, discharge summary or continuity of care plan requested by DCF. The discharge summary from Coventry House indicated that mother reported smoking marijuana several times a day several times a week.   Mother failed to attend an intake at ADRC on November 9, 2011 for outpatient services because she reported that she did not have a substance abuse problem.   She also failed to attend the ACR scheduled for November 17, 2011 but did appear later that day to review the case plan with the DCF worker.   She also attended the ACR scheduled for May 3, 2012 and she has been cooperating with the scheduled home visits and face to face contact.   However, she had not been consistent with attending her mental health treatment and had made minimal progress with regard to her mental health services.

In September 2011, mother was transferred to a new therapist at Radiance Innovative Services due to her inability to work with her prior therapist.   Mother appeared to be more willing to work with the new therapist and participate in services.   She attended services regularly and made progress towards addressing her past childhood trauma and how that impacts her in adulthood.   She was making great strides toward obtaining stability and continued to work on goals of addressing her trauma, utilization of coping strategies, and building effective interpersonal relationships and creating a safe and stable environment for herself.   Mother was then transferred to a new therapist in May 2012 and continued to be consistent in attending those individual sessions.   Mother was also referred to a women's support group due to her history of trauma and her report of trauma related to being physically and emotionally abused by father.

Additionally, mother was referred again to the Young Mother's Support Program in January 2012 for parenting education and case management.   Mother attended one group session on March 21, 2012 and arrived late.   Mother did not want to participate in the group and wanted to address her issues with anger management and trauma in individual therapy.

As of May 2012, mother was doing well overall with the services.   No concerns were reported about mother's parenting skills but there were continued concerns about how she was dealing with stress.

As noted above, mother continues to be involved with the criminal justice system.   Her involvement and resulting incarceration has impacted her ability to comply with her mental health treatment and domestic violence treatment.   It has also impacted her supervised visitation with Shane.

Mother delivered another child, Luis R. on December 20, 2011.   Father is the biological father of Luis. Luis was removed from mother's care on December 23, 2011.

Prior to mother's most recent incarceration, mother did not have stable housing.   After her incarceration in 2011, mother reported smoking marijuana in order to enter Coventry House to engage in a substance abuse program although she had not prior history of substance abuse.   Mother had a transient lifestyle thereafter residing with a relative of her then current boyfriend, a former foster parent and a relative.   Prior to her current incarceration, she resided at the home of a friend.

Mother has engaged in supervised visitation with Shane.   Mother did engage with Shane during the visits but initially there were some concerns regarding mother's ability to anticipate Shane's needs, engaging in stimulation and age appropriate interaction with him.   Mother has made some progress with regard to the age-related play with Shane.   Prior to her incarceration, mother was consistent in attending her visits with Shane.   The visits were going well.   Mother was open to advice and tried to incorporate recommendations given to her during the visits.   On March 12, 2013, a supervised visit was attempted with mother at York Correctional but mother was not able to attend due to being placed on restriction.

Mother was referred for a court ordered psychological evaluation to Dr. Derek Franklin on November 5, 2012.   Dr. Franklin testified that mother had diagnoses of mood disorder NOS, generalized anxiety disorder and partner relational problems.   He found her to be pessimistic with regard to the future with indecisiveness and difficulties in making decisions and was overall very unhappy.   He further opined that she had exposure to some traumatizing event which left her changed in some fundamental way.   The data suggests that her aggression manifests as physical and verbal, and she has difficulty in modulating anger responses, and that she is self-centered and impulsive.   She had narcissistic personality traits.   He indicated that “individuals with similar profiles have a difficulty accepting responsibility for their personal concerns and become easily angered when others do not accept their viewpoint.   The data indicates that she is emotionally fragile subject to decompensation under the weight of psychosocial stressors and marginally psychologically intact.”   Testing revealed antisocial thought patterns and that she is distrustful of close, intimate relations.   Testing was inconclusive for substance abuse/dependence indicating that while mother may not be actively using drugs or alcohol, she may be thinking about using them.   Test results also indicated that mother has manias including restlessness and high energy levels with evidence of poor delay of gratification.   He further opined that mother lacks adequate insight and judgment.   Dr. Franklin observed that mother interacted appropriately with Shane but there was no verbal or affective evidence that Shane sees mother in a way typically associated with a parent-child relationship.   Dr. Franklin felt that this may be related to the fact that Shane was removed from mother's care at an early age and was likely bonding with his primary care provider.   He also opined that mother does not have a positive relationship with Shane and has a limited capacity to develop one in the future.   He noted that from a clinical perspective, mother is impulsive, can be hostile, can misinterpret subtleties of social clues and believes others do not have her best interests at heart.   As such, he opined that the challenges of raising a young child could cause mother to misinterpret a child's challenge of a parent as her parental competencies personally.   Dr. Franklin also expressed his concern that mother continues to engage in antisocial activities that bring her before the judicial system.   He indicated this would impact the issue of continuity of care for Shane.   He also felt further clarity was needed with regard whether mother has a substance abuse problem and that the data indicates there continue to be serious concerns regarding domestic violence and mother's capacity to manage anger and engage in appropriate conflict resolution particularly in the presence of a child.   Dr. Franklin further opined that mother has not achieved a level of rehabilitation that would suggest that she is currently a viable parent for Shane and that it is unlikely that she will be one in the foreseeable future.

As to the Respondent Father Matthew M.

Father's history with DCF commenced when he was a child dating back to 1993.   He was committed to DCF's care in August 1999 due to issues of physical neglect, substance abuse and lack of adequate supervision.   Father was placed with his paternal grandmother via subsidized transfer of guardianship.   He was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as a child and was prescribed Ritalin.

Father met mother in 2007 during high school.   Father had mother stay at his grandparent's home when she was no longer allowed to stay with her aunt.   Father did not have his grandmother's permission to do so and both father and mother left the home.   Father and mother then began sleeping in the train station or in father's car.   Thereafter, father requested permission from his grandparents for mother to reside with them.   When his grandparents refused, father threatened to hang himself.   Father was transported to the hospital after an attempted hanging at his grandparent's residence.   When mother became pregnant with Shane in 2009, father got an apartment where he and mother resided for approximately four months.   Father was not able to continue to pay the rent and was not able to continue living with mother so he returned to reside at his grandparent's home.   Father is the father of mother's younger son, Luis R.⁴

Father has a history of domestic violence with mother.   On June 8, 2010, both he and mother were arrested after an argument in the driveway of the home where mother was residing.   Father refused to give mother a car seat.   Mother got on top of father's car and father drove off while mother was holding on to the car which caused mother to fall off of the car.   Mother and father were arrested for breach of peace and protective orders were issued to each.   On September 27, 2010, he went to mother's residence, and tried to break down the door with a chair.   He was arrested for breach of peace and trespassing the result of that incident.   A full protective order was issued against father.

There have been a total of four protective orders between mother and father with mother being the protected person in three.   The most recent protective order expired on September 28, 2010.

Father has a history of mental health issues.   Father was admitted to the Institute of Living in June 1999 for four days.   He was diagnosed with Depressive Disorder and Cannabis Abuse.   He was discharged and was prescribed Celexa on a daily basis and was recommended to attend North Central Counseling.   Father did not continue to take the medication and did not follow up with attendance for the therapy.   Father does not believe he has any current medical issues nor does he feel he needs any mental health services.   On September 26, 2010, father participated in a clinical assessment at Radiance Innovative Services.   He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity disorder by history and cannabis abuse by history.   Long-term therapy was recommended to father to address symptoms of depression, anxiety, feelings of abandonment by his mother and past dysfunctional relationships.

Father was referred to the Non Violence Alliance Program in January 2011.   However, father did not feel that he was in need of domestic violence services and stated that he was the victim in the relationship with mother.   In February 2011, father was referred for services at Community Health Resources for psychiatric treatment and individual counseling.   Father stated he was attending only to appease DCF. He did not engage in the service and was not fully committed to working on his individual issues.   Father did attend a psychiatric evaluation at Community Health Resources in February 2011.   However, the report concerning that evaluation does not indicate that any independent sources were contacted nor that any medical records were reviewed by the evaluator.   Further, the information contained in the report appears to be self-reported by father.   Notably, the report states that father was only there to appease DCF, that he had no past history of violence and states that father reported that he was not using marijuana.   The evaluator appears to accept father's version of his history and indicates that no further psychiatric follow-up was indicated.   Father was referred to Radiance Innovative Therapy for outpatient services which began in April 2011 but he missed several sessions.   He presented with a very high anxiety level and with problems coping with stress.   Father continued to feel that he did not need therapy.   As of August 2011, he was consistent in attending his therapy.   His therapist did not find father to be clinically depressed but did recommend that father consider a medication evaluation.   Father was not in agreement and would not cooperate with an assessment as he felt he was not in need of medication.   It was noted by his therapist that mother was a trigger for father and that father may have some unrealistic expectations as to how he will care for his son.   There was a concern, however, with regard to an incident in November 2011, regarding father's threat to burn his grandfather's house, detailed below, as that occurred after he had successfully completed the domestic violence batterer's group and five months after he had engaged in treatment with Radiance Innovative Services which indicated that father had not benefitted from that treatment.   Because the primary focus of father's therapy had been to address his anxiety, it was felt that he could also benefit from anger management therapy and coping skills as well as his impulse control problems.

Father was referred for a substance abuse/mental health assessment due to concerns of substance abuse but father failed to attend the scheduled evaluation in 2011.   Father refuses to comply with DCF's request for a new substance evaluation.   Notably, father was arrested in May 2011 regarding concerns of marijuana and did not report the arrest to DCF. Father was referred for random urine screens and tested positive for marijuana on August 8, 2011, September 2, 2011, September 9, 2011 and September 16, 2011.   He did have a negative test on August 25, 2011.   As the result of the positive screens, father was referred to ADRC for a substance abuse/mental health evaluation and hair test.   Father failed to attend the appointment scheduled on October 27, 2011.   A subsequent evaluation was scheduled for December 27, 2011.   Father missed three scheduled appointments and, as a result, was discharged from ADRC. Father did request to be referred to another program and was referred to Wheeler Clinic but arrived late for the evaluation on May 21, 2012 and was not able to be evaluated.   Father then requested to be referred to an agency closer to his home and was referred to Community Health Resources on June 7, 2012 for an appointment on June 13, 2012.   Father tested negative for substances but his hair test was positive for marijuana.   Father was then recommended for group therapy but father refused to participate.   On June 25, 2012, father denied he was using marijuana and stated he would not participate in substance abuse treatment.   Most troubling, he has continued to refuse to engage in the hair testing since December 2012.

Father does continue with his individual therapy and domestic violence batterers group but continues to feel that he does not need therapy.   He began the Batterers group in August 2011 and understands domestic violence to be verbal, physical and mental abuse.   It was noted that father tends to minimize his situation and blame others.   He did successfully complete a domestic violence group on March 29, 2012.   As of March 2012, father was reported to be showing increased anxiety and was less focused during his individual counseling at Radiance Innovative Services.   His counselor testified that he was concerned as to father's ability to manage two young children in light of his anxiety issues.   Due to time constraints, father was then transferred to a new therapist.   Father's anxiety decreased thereafter and he was managing his ADHD. Father was also recommended to undergo a medication assessment but father continues to refuse to do so.   Father did complete Early Intervention Group at Community Health Resources on December 27, 2012 and no further treatment was recommended.   He participated in a urine screen on March 4, 2013 which was negative but was unsupervised.

Father participated in a father's parenting program through Radiance Innovative Services in July 2010.   Father was very focused and actively involved in the program.   He completed the in-home father to father program on December 28, 2010.   It was recommended that he be referred for support services based on his tendency to become over anxious and overwhelmed with the many demands of life.   He subsequently completed a parenting education course at the Hispanic Health Council on April 20, 2011.   In November 2011, father was again referred to the father's parenting program.   Father continued to engage in his supervised visits with Shane as well as Luis and was in tune with their needs although he continued to be overprotective.   It was recommended that father could benefit from some additional parenting education and father completed the program.   It was noted that father had a tendency to get hyperactive and that his ADHD limits him.   A parenting mentor was recommended for father as he appeared to be overwhelmed with handling the needs of an active toddler and a baby but father refused, feeling he did not need assistance with his parenting.   Father believes that he is fully capable of raising Shane.

Father graduated from high school in 2009.   Father is gainfully employed at two jobs.   He has remarried and resides with his wife in an apartment.   DCF. An initial assessment of his wife revealed no concerns.

Father has a criminal history dating back to 2009.   He was convicted of Breach of Peace 2 on December 10, 2009 for which he was sentenced to 90 days in jail, execution suspended and a conditional discharge for one year;  Possession of a Controlled Substance on May 3, 2011 for which he received a nolle.   He was arrested for Disorderly Conduct on November 27, 2011 for which there was an active protective order between father and his grandfather due to the above mentioned incident which occurred on November 27, 2011 when father became upset at the grandfather's home and began to pour a can of gasoline on the kitchen floor and threatened to light the house on fire.   It was also reported that father regularly kicked the dog.   As a result of this incident, father was arrested and placed on probation.   Father was sentenced to three months in jail, execution suspended and probation for one year on February 10, 2012.   Father's successfully completed the terms of his probation on February 10, 2013.

Dr. Derek Franklin, a clinical psychologist, whom the court finds to be highly credible, testified concerning his findings after a court ordered evaluation of father conducted on September 20, 2012 and September 25, 2012.   Dr. Franklin diagnosed father with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Cannabis Abuse and Anti Social Traits.   Dr. Franklin opined that the data suggests that there is a high potential for relapse, continued use or cravings which will need to be monitored and addressed.   Testing performed by Dr. Franklin indicated elevations the clinical domains of ADHD, anxiety, paranoia, substance abuse, antisocial and aggression.   There was no evidence of a major depressive disorder but there was sufficient evidence of mood dysregulation exacerbated by anxiety.   Specifically, “[d]omains tapping for anxiety suggest prominent worry.   These worries may be of such magnitude that concentration and attending are compromised.   He may also have problems with relaxation.   Individuals with similar profiles may typically misuse substances to obtain both emotional control and management of anxiety.”   Dr. Franklin also opined that father scored in the clinically relevant range for paranoia.  “He is hypervigilant and closely monitors his environment for evidence that others are out to harm him.   He is overly suspicious.   TAT card responses indicate hostility and mistrust of even close relationships.   He is easily insulted and tends to hold grudges.   Paranoia does not arise to a level of delusions.   There is no evidence of auditory, visual or kinesthetic hallucinations or disturbance in thought content or processing.   Domains for tapping for aggression are indicative of a short fuse as he is quick to anger ․ he is more likely to use verbal reasoning than physical aggression.   However, he may become frustrated easily and when provoked will not back down from confrontation.   This may lead to physical acts of violence.   He otherwise possesses adequate common sense reasoning and judgment is situation specific.”   Dr. Franklin further opined that father was emotionally stable but there was evidence to indicate that he may become hostile when under emotional duress.

With regard to father's mental illness, Dr. Franklin opined that father's anxiety, mood dysregulations and ADHD marginally impact his day-to-day functioning but that these are likely to be exacerbated under the weight of emotional and psychological distress.   He recommended treatment for these issues as well as the substance abuse.   Notably, Dr. Franklin opined that it was imperative that father be referred for a psychiatric consultation in light of his impulse control issues and ADHD, and that would serve to identify medication that could be useful in ameliorating or managing his symptoms, and that without medication, father would most likely continue to have problems.   He further strongly advised that father engage in substance abuse groups due to his concern that father was actively using “as the clinical data suggests that at a very minimum he continues to crave cannabis and, therefore, is subject to relapse.”

Dr. Franklin observed father's interactions with Shane and found that father sufficiently engaged with Shane although father was hesitant in his interactions and appeared at a loss as to how to control Shane's actions.   He found their relationship to be positive and Shane referred to father as “daddy” and that there was no evidence to suggest that father did not have the ability to develop a more positive relationship with Shane.   Dr. Franklin noted the foster parents were active and animated in their interactions with Shane, and that Shane regards them as “relevant individuals,” and that he has a “special relationship” with his foster parents.   He further noted that the foster parents took the lead in playing with Shane and controlling the environment and Shane's actions.

Based on his review of the history, the empirical data, and his findings that a number of concerns continue to persist, specifically father's failure to continue with substance abuse treatment, his need for active monitoring and testing for drug abuse, his lack of insight in addressing his ongoing anger issues, his need for a comprehensive evaluation concerning his medication needs, and his failure to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation after such an extensive period of time, Dr. Franklin recommended termination of father's parental rights.   He further opined that Shane has a sufficient bond with his foster family.   He noted the cordial relationship between father and the foster parents, and felt that an open adoption may be appropriate.

As to the Child Shane M.

Shane is thriving in his DCF licensed non-relative foster home where he been placed since November 10, 2010 when he was six months old.   He is doing well at this placement and is bonded with his foster family.   He has been observed to be a happy child.   He is in good health and has no developmental delays or concerns.   He does have a swollen lymph node on his neck which is being monitored as are his enlarged tonsils.   His foster parents have indicated their desire to adopt him if he becomes legally free.   Shane enjoys his visits with his parents as well as his younger brother, Luis. The foster parents have expressed that they are willing and interested in having an open adoption agreement with father.

ADJUDICATION

These proceedings are governed by General Statutes § 17a–112 et seq.  “The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ․ In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence.   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 termination is in the best interest of the child.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006).   The court considers the evidence regarding the circumstances and events prior to November 23, 2011, the date on which the termination of parental rights petition was filed as to the allegations regarding reasonable efforts as required by Practice Book § 35a–7(a).⁵  With regard to the allegations that both mother and father have failed to achieve rehabilitation, which requires the court to assess the child's present needs and interests, the court has considered such evidence, as well as evidence related to circumstances through the close of trial, as permitted by Practice Book § 35a–7(a).   See In re Luciano B., 129 Conn.App. 449, 469 (2011).

Reasonable Efforts

In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under § 17a–112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that “it has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and reunify with the child unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.”  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1);  In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 837, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005).  “Because the two clauses are separated by the word ‘unless', this statute is plainly written in the conjunctive.   Accordingly, the department must prove either that is has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.”  (Emphasis in the original.)  In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 552 (2009).  “[T]he statute imposes on the department the duty ․ to make reasonable efforts to unite the child or children with the parents.   The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof.   Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act by which the requirement was drawn ․ [R]easonable efforts mean doing everything reasonable, not everything possible ․” (Citation omitted;  emphasis added;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).   As is permitted under our law.   The evidence as to both the adjudicatory and dispositional phases is heard at the same trial.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 676, 688–90 (1999).   As to each parent, DCF has alleged that it made reasonable efforts to reunify and that, in the alternative, each parent is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from rehabilitation services.

Based on the findings of fact made by the court, as noted in detail above, the court finds that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, prior to the date of the filing of the termination of parental rights petition, it made reasonable efforts to reunify Shane with his mother and father.   In the alternative, the court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that, as of the adjudicatory date, mother and father have been unable to benefit from reunification efforts.   In making this determination, the court has taken into account the numerous, appropriate and reasonable services offered to mother and father to enable them to reunify with Shane.   Mother was consistently offered services for mental health treatment, parenting, domestic violence and was offered weekly visitation with Shane.   She failed to consistently engage in the services offered to her and had continued involvement with the criminal justice system which adversely impacted her ability to engage in and benefit from these services.   The services offered to mother constituted reasonable efforts at reunification.   The court also finds that mother did not benefit from reunification efforts.   Father was consistently offered services for mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence and parenting.   He was also offered weekly visitation with Shane.   As noted, although father did engage in and complete in many of the offered services, he did not sufficiently benefit from these services.   He continued to engage in substance abuse as evidenced by his positive test results.   Father refused the assistance of a parent aide.   Father clearly did not fully engage in the services as he repeatedly stated that he did not need the services.   The court finds that all of the services offered to father constituted reasonable efforts at reunification.   The court further finds that father has been unable to benefit from the reunification efforts.

Failure to Rehabilitate

“The sole ground alleged in this petition was that the respondents had failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(ii) which allows for termination if a child has found to be neglected, and the parents have “failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child ․ “Personal rehabilitation ․ refers to the restoration of the parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [and] requires the trial court to analyze the parents' rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ The statute does not require [the parents] to prove precisely when they will be able to assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.   Nor does it require [them] to prove that [they] will be able to assume full responsibility for [their] child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court, to find by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation they have achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.”  (Citations omitted;  emphasis in original;  internal quotation marks omitted).  In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004).   If the parents of a child who has been found by the court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding fail to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of the child they could assume a reasonable position in the life of the child, grounds for termination exists.   General Statutes § 17a–112(b)(2);  In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 149 (2009).  “The critical issue is whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child as issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 261 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 (2001).   The ultimate question is whether the parent at the time of the filing of the termination petition is more able to resume the responsibilities of a parent than he or she was at the time of the making of the commitment.  In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112 (1992).   In making this determination, the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time.  (Emphasis in the original.)  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).

The court ordered specific steps as to both mother and father were designed to facilitate the reunification of the child with the mother and father.  “The court in proceedings to terminate parental rights ․ considers the specific steps issued in the [neglect proceeding] as a measure of the degree of personal rehabilitation ․ The specific steps are also considered a ‘fair warning’ of the potential termination of parent's rights in subsequent proceedings pursuant to § 17a–112.”  (Citations omitted.)  In re Jeffrey C., 64 Conn.App. 61–62, rec'd. on other grounds, 261 Conn. 189 (2002).   Specific steps outline certain conduct and certain requirements that would lead to reunification if the parents participated and overcome their identified parental deficiencies.   Notably, they are designed to improve parenting skills, address mental health issues and conquer addiction issues.   Compliance with a program or even substantial compliance with all specific steps does not inexorably lead to parental competence or rehabilitation.  In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782 (2009).   The proof is in achieving parental competence as it relates to the age and needs of the child.   Thus, the issue for both mother and father is not compliance with the specific steps but rather have they improved in their respective abilities to parent Shane.

As detailed above, numerous services were provided to mother and father over an extensive period of time to enable them to reunify with their son.   The services provided by DCF constituted efforts at reunification for both mother and father.   These services were continually offered and provided to mother and father during the pendency of the petitions up through the time of trial.   While mother and father initially attempted to cooperate with the services recommended and provided to them they did so with varying degrees of motivation and little success.   Both mother's and father's court ordered specific steps clearly outlined the court's expectations of what they needed to do to address their issues in order for them to gain custody of their son.   As detailed above, the parent's compliance is inadequate.   They each fail to comprehend the negative impact that their outstanding and long unresolved issues have on their ability to parent Shane.

As noted above, mother was offered parenting classes, counseling services and self-esteem groups.   The evidence demonstrates that she failed to consistently engage in services and has failed to adequately address her longstanding mental health issues Most troubling is her continued involvement with the criminal justice system.   Her current and prior incarcerations have negatively impacted her ability to engage in services.   She fails to comprehend the negative impact that her mental health issues have on her ability to effectively parent a young child.   Mother's housing continues to remain unstable.   Mother proved unable to benefit from services even though DCF was actively involved and pressing her for compliance.   She clearly has not demonstrated the kinds of stability that Shane needs.   The court must conclude that mother has not gained sufficient insight into her mental health issues.

As detailed above, father did engage in most of the recommended services and did comply with some of his court ordered specific steps.   For example, father has maintained consistent employment and he has been working two jobs.   However, he has failed to sufficiently benefit from the services offered to him.   The record is replete with father's assertions that he was participating in the services to appease DCF and he continually stated that he did not require any services.   This is a clear indication to the court that he has not gained sufficient insight into his long-standing issues.   Most concerning and troubling to the court is father's continued engagement in substance abuse as well as his refusal to engage in substance abuse hair testing.   Father continues to state that he does not smoke marijuana but the evidence clearly refutes that.   The court infers that father's refusal was due to father's fear that the hair test would be positive for the presence of illegal substances.   The court is also concerned by father's refusal to be evaluated by a psychiatrist as recommended by Dr. Franklin for a determination as to whether he requires medication.   Father also continues to refuse the assistance of a parent aide during his visitation with his sons as recommended by DCF. As discussed, father has continuously stated his opinion that he does not need services, that he does not need a psychiatric evaluation or medication, and that he does not engage in substance abuse.   This clearly demonstrates to the court that father has not gained sufficient insight or acknowledgment of his ongoing issues and is, therefore, unable to put son's interests before his own.   As Shane's attorney astutely pointed out, father's continual refusal to cooperate with these court ordered recommendations when doing so would aid in his effort to be reunified with his son is deeply troubling.   The court concurs.   The court notes that father does have loving relationship with Shane based on his interaction with him during visits but that in and of itself is not sufficient to prevent termination of parental rights.  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744–762–63 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920 (2008).

Thus, in light of the statutory law as well as the case law interpreting it, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF have proven that the level of rehabilitation achieved by the parents falls far short of that which would reasonably encourage the belief that at some future date either parent could assume a safe, reliable and responsible position in Shane's life given his age and needs.  “Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than “any rehabilitation.”  (Internal quotations omitted.)  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 254 (2003).   It is, therefore, abundantly clear to the court that mother and father have failed to achieve the degree of rehabilitation to warrant reunification within the foreseeable future.   All indications are that the parents have not and will not have any permanent benefits from the services offered to them.   They are no closer to being able to safely parent Shane than they were at the time of his removal.   Shane has been out of the care of his parents since November 2010.   It is convincing and clear to the court that neither parent will be sufficiently rehabilitated to the point of being a responsible parent in the foreseeable future.   Given the comprehensiveness of and the abundance of the services offered to each parent, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that it made reasonable efforts to reunify Shane with his parents.   Mother and father have failed to achieve the necessary degree of rehabilitation to assume a responsible position in Shane's life within a reasonable period of time and, therefore, the Court finds for the DCF. The court further finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents are largely unable to benefit from reunification services.   Although the parents participated in most of the services, albeit with varying degrees of motivation, their failure to adequately address their substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence issues remain significantly deficient.

In considering all of the clear and convincing evidence before the court, the court agrees with Dr. Franklin's credible assessment and recommendation of termination of the parents' parental rights.   Shane's attorney has informed the court that he agrees that termination of the parents' parental rights is in Shane's best interest.   For all of the reasons as stated above, the court concurs.

Accordingly, the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the court's finding that Shariha N. and Matthew M. are unable to achieve rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time and that they have been unable to do over the past year and a half, given the age and needs of Shane.   The court further finds that both parents are unable or are unwilling to benefit from reunification services.

DISPOSITION

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

On disposition, the court may consider information through the close of the evidentiary hearing.   In the dispositional phase of this case, the court has considered the evidence and testimony relating to the facts and circumstances through March 18, 2013, the final date upon which the evidence was taken in this matter.   In making the dispositional findings, the court incorporates by reference here all of the factual findings it has previously made in this memorandum of decision.   For all of the above reasons, and given that mother and father have not demonstrated an adequate period of stability and commitment to services, the court, having found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by the petitioner for the termination of the mother's and father's parental rights have been proven, the court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(k).  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345 (1994).   These “seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ․ There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Victoria B,. 79 Conn.App. 245, 261 (2003).   The court has considered these findings in determining that it is in Shane's best interest to terminate the parental rights of his parents.   Shane has a warm and nurturing relationship with his foster parents and has thrived in their care.   He deserves to be with a family who can offer him the permanency and stability that he requires.   The seven statutory findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:

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.

DCF offered timely services to mother and father to facilitate reunification between Shane and his parents.   The services were sufficient and were offered on a timely and consistent basis.   Mother was provided with DCF case management services, substance abuse evaluations, intensive in home safety planning services, domestic violence services, individual therapy, group therapy, supervised visitation services, a mental health consult, parenting education and a monthly bus pass.   Father was provided with DCF case management, substance abuse evaluations and treatment, domestic violence services, individual therapy, supervised visitation services and father inclusive parenting group.

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.

Reasonable efforts to reunify the child with mother and father were made by DCF pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.   Services were offered to address the issues that led to the removal of the child.   Mother and father were made aware of the court expectations and were offered and provided services, as outlined above, to assist them in meeting those expectations.   In addition, supervised visitation was offered and provided.

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.

Mother was issued court ordered specific steps on April 28, 2011.   Father was issued court ordered specific steps on November 24, 2010.   As discussed above, although mother and father have complied with some of the specific steps, neither mother and father have successfully addressed all of the problems that led to DCF's involvement and Shane's removal although they have had well over a year to do so.   They have cooperated with the services offered to them to a limited degree.   Mother has continued to be involved with the criminal justice system and has not sufficiently addressed her mental health issues.   Father has complied with many his court ordered specific steps but has failed to adequately address his substance abuse and mental health issues.   Father tested positive for illegal substances and has refused to submit to hair tests to monitor his substance abuse.   Father has also refused to engage in a psychiatric evaluation as recommended by Dr. Franklin to determine whether he requires medication.   Neither parent has gained sufficient insight into their issues and its impact on their parenting skills.

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 for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.

Shane has a relationship with mother and father and appears to enjoy his supervised visits with them.   Mother and father both interact well with him during the visits.   At age three, Shane is unable to express his feelings or emotions.   Shane has strong and loving relationship with his foster mother and her family since his placement with them in November 2010, and he has clearly bonded with them.   They meet all of his needs.   He calls his foster mother “Meemaw” and his foster father “Papa.” He has a good relationship with the foster mother's children.   Shane seeks comfort and attention from them.   He recognizes them and appears happy and comfortable in the household.   Shane relies on his foster mother for his every need.   His foster mother has expressed a desire to adopt him.

5. The age of the child.

Shane will turn three years old on May 1, 2013.   His birth date is May 1, 2010.

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.

As noted above, both mother and father have made limited efforts to adjust to their circumstances, conduct or condition to make it in the best interest of Shane to reunite with either of them.   Mother and father have maintained contact with DCF and Shane.   Mother's history of mental issues, domestic violence and involvement with the criminal justice system have been noted in detail above.   While mother did attempt repeatedly to make efforts to comply with her specific steps, she had repeated lapses and was resistant to many of the offered services.   She continues to be involved with the criminal justice system and was again incarcerated during the pendency of the trial.   She continues to need to address her mental health issues.   She has failed to benefit in any meaningful and lasting way from the services in which she participated.   As such, she has not adjusted to her circumstances.   She has maintained visitation with Shane except during her periods of incarceration.   Father has continued to test positive for illegal substances and has been noncompliant with the rehabilitative services offered to him to the extent that he has refused to engage in hair testing and has refused to engage in a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether he requires medication.   Father's efforts with his court ordered specific steps were more substantial and prolonged but insufficient.   The record is replete with father's position that he does not need any services or treatment.   He has failed to benefit from his services in a meaningful and lasting way, and has clearly not gained sufficient insight as to how his actions, especially with regard to his ongoing substance abuse, would affect Shane if he was returned to his care.   Neither parent has made efforts within a timely manner to adjust their circumstances or their conditions to the extent that DCF would be able to reunify them with Shane.   They have failed to fully meet or comply with the court ordered steps and they are still unable to care for Shane.   They do continue to have supervised visits with Shane but have not made significant progress with regard to their services.   Father continues to address his mental health needs but has failed to comply with DCF's request for an updated substance abuse evaluation and testing.   It is clear and convincing to the court that neither mother nor father have demonstrated a level of progress that would deem them appropriate to care for Shane.

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.

No unreasonable act or conduct of any person or the other parent has prevented the parents from a meaningful relationship with the child.   DCF has encouraged mother and father to maintain a meaningful relationship with Shane.   The economic circumstances of mother and father have not prevented them from having a relationship or visits with Shane.   Mother and father were offered and provided programs at no cost to assist them with their issues.   Bus passes and case management were provided to mother and father without cost to them.   There has been no claim that mother and father were unable to obtain services due to lack of financial resources.   Legal counsel was appointed for them at no cost to them.

BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.  In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 163.   In determining the issue of the best interest of the child, the court has considered the adjudicatory and dispositional evidence in their entirety, and the court concludes by clear and convincing evidence there is no permanency plan that could have secured the best interest of Shane that is less restrictive than termination of the parental rights at issue.   See In re Azareon Y., 139 Conn.App. 457 (2012), cert. granted, 307 Conn. 950 (2013);  In re Julianna B., 141 Conn.App. 163 (2013).   The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of the respondent parents' parental rights is in the best interest of Shane.   In making this determination, the court has considered the child's age, growth, development, need for stability, length of stay in the foster home, nature of his relationship with his foster family and his biological family, the degree of contact maintained by the biological parents and the genetic bond to the respondents.  In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559 (2000);  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167 (2000).   It is clear that mother and father are in no better position today to provide for Shane than they were at the time of the removal in November 2010.   The problems that led to the removal have not been rectified and the prospects of improvement, particularly with regard to the mother's mental health issues and involvement with the criminal justice system and father's substance abuse issues.   Shane cannot wait indefinitely for the resolution of these issues.   Mother and father have not been able to put Shane's interests ahead of their own.   Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for all children.   Shane's best interests will not be served by reunifying him with his parents.   This conclusion is clearly and convincingly supported by the testimony and evidence presented to the court at the time of trial.

Shane is a healthy, active, happy child.   His needs are those of all children.   He has an interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and a continuous, stable environment.   He has this in his foster family.   Mother and father will continue to need substantial help to maintain themselves, with no reasonable prospect for success in the foreseeable future.   To expose Shane to the same degree of uncertainty is not in his best interests.

It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental rights of Shariha N. and Matthew M. are hereby TERMINATED as to Shane M.

Motion to Revoke Commitment

Father has moved for revocation of commitment of Shane.   Father contends that he has successfully complied with all of the court ordered specific steps, has completed all required courses and has achieved a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   DCF objects to the motion for the reason that a cause for commitment of the child still exists and it is in the best interest of the child to remain in DCF's care and custody.

Connecticut General Statutes § 46b–129(m) provides that “[t]he commissioner, a parent or the child's attorney may file a motion to revoke commitment, and upon a finding that cause for commitment no longer exists, and that such revocation is in the best interests of the child ․ the court may revoke commitment of such child ․” The initial burden of proof with respect to this motion rests upon the father.  “The burden is clearly upon the persons applying for the revocation of commitment to allege and prove that cause for commitment no longer exists.   Once that has been established, the inquiry becomes whether a continuation of commitment will nevertheless serve the child's best interests.”  (Internal citations omitted.)  In re Patricia C., 93 Conn.App. 25, 30 (2006) ․ “[W]hen it is the natural parents who have moved to revoke commitment, the state must prove that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be returned to his or her natural parents.”  Id. See also Connecticut Practice Book § 35A–14A.  “Generally, questions of custodial placement are resolved by determination of what is in the best interest of the child as shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”  In re Halley B., 81 Conn.App. 62, 65 (2004).  “To determine whether a custodial placement is in the best interest of the child, the court uses its broad discretion to choose a place that will foster the child's best interest in sustained growth, development, wellbeing and the continuity and stability of its environment.”  In re Karl J., 110 Conn.App. 22 (2008).

For the reasons as outlined in detail above pursuant to the court's order to terminate the parental rights of father, the court finds that father has not achieved the degree of personal rehabilitation that would warrant revocation of Shane's commitment.   Contrary to father's assertions, he has not completed all of the court ordered specific steps and has not achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation to warrant reunification with his son.   Accordingly, based upon the above finding of facts and the totality of the evidence presented, father has not proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the cause for commitment no longer exists.   The court also finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that DCF has proven that is it not in Shane's best interest to restore him to his father's care.   Accordingly, the Motion to Revoke Commitment is hereby DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, based upon the foregoing findings and having considered all of the evidence, after due consideration of the child's need for a secure, permanent placement, the totality of the circumstances, and having considered all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that efforts at reunification with mother and father were made and that the parents were and continue to be unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts, and that further efforts are no longer required, that grounds exist to terminate mother's and father's parental rights as alleged, and that it is in the child's best interest to do so, it is accordingly ordered:

That the parental rights of the respondent mother, Shariha N. and the respondent father, Matthew M. are hereby terminated as to their child, Shane M., born May 1, 2010;

That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent of the child for the purpose of securing the child's adoption as expeditiously as possible, with first consideration to be given to the current foster parents;

That a written report of the plan for the child shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be timely filed and presented to the court as required by law;

The Clerk of the Probate Court which has jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of Shane shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford when and if any such adoption is finalized, or DCF shall file a Petition for Adoption with the Superior Court pursuant to Public Act 12–82, § 16.

The respondent father's motion to revoke is hereby denied and DCF's objection thereto is sustained.   Judgment shall enter accordingly.

BY THE COURT

BURGDORFF, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The trial court may take judicial notice of relevant court actions.   In re Amanda A., 58 Conn.App. 451, 452–53 (2000)..  FN1. The trial court may take judicial notice of relevant court actions.   In re Amanda A., 58 Conn.App. 451, 452–53 (2000).

FN2. Mother's specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling and cooperate with recommendations regarding assessment and treatment;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from drug and alcohol use, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  get and maintain adequate housing and income;  visit child as often as DCF permits;  and inform DCF of any person who the parent would like DCF to consider as a placement for the child.   The goals specified for mother were “safe & nurturing parenting;  no domestic violence.”.  FN2. Mother's specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling and cooperate with recommendations regarding assessment and treatment;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from drug and alcohol use, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  get and maintain adequate housing and income;  visit child as often as DCF permits;  and inform DCF of any person who the parent would like DCF to consider as a placement for the child.   The goals specified for mother were “safe & nurturing parenting;  no domestic violence.”

FN3. Father's specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling and cooperate with recommendations regarding assessment and treatment;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from drug and alcohol use, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  get and maintain adequate housing and income;  visit child as often as DCF permits;  and inform DCF of any person who the parent would like DCF to consider as a placement for the child The goals specified father were “safe and nurturing parenting;  father to learn appropriate child development, address issues of depression and anger management.”.  FN3. Father's specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling and cooperate with recommendations regarding assessment and treatment;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from drug and alcohol use, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  get and maintain adequate housing and income;  visit child as often as DCF permits;  and inform DCF of any person who the parent would like DCF to consider as a placement for the child The goals specified father were “safe and nurturing parenting;  father to learn appropriate child development, address issues of depression and anger management.”

FN4. Father was legally married to mother at the time of Luis R.'s birth.   The court (Keller, J.) found father to be the biological father of Luis R. on July 26, 2012.   Luis R. is the subject of a pending neglect action..  FN4. Father was legally married to mother at the time of Luis R.'s birth.   The court (Keller, J.) found father to be the biological father of Luis R. on July 26, 2012.   Luis R. is the subject of a pending neglect action.

FN5. Practice Book § 35a–7(a) provides:  “In the adjudicatory phase, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events proceeding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment, except where the judicial authority must consider subsequent events as part of its determination as to the existence of a ground for termination of parental rights.”.  FN5. Practice Book § 35a–7(a) provides:  “In the adjudicatory phase, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events proceeding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment, except where the judicial authority must consider subsequent events as part of its determination as to the existence of a ground for termination of parental rights.”

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.