IN RE: Ammie P.-S. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On August 30, 2012, the petitioner, Joette Katz, the commissioner of the department of children and families (the department or DCF), filed petitions pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112 to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother Naida S.¹ and the respondent father Oscar P. with respect to the minor children Ammie P.-S., born on February 27, 1996, and Kimberly P., born on June 4, 1998, and to terminate the parental rights of Naida S. and the respondent father Anthony S. to the minor child Jacob S., born on December 7, 2006.   For the reasons set forth below, the court finds in favor of the petitioner, overrules the objections of Naida S. and Anthony S. to the permanency plans, terminates the parental rights of Naida S. and Oscar P. with respect to Ammie and Kimberly, and terminates the parental rights of Naida S. and Anthony S. with respect to Jacob.

I

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The department filed neglect petitions against Naida S. and Oscar P. with respect to Ammie and Kimberly on July 2, 2010.   Naida S. appeared and entered a denial of the allegations in the petitions on August 3, 2010.   Oscar P. was defaulted for his failure to appear on September 8, 2010 (Sommer, J.).   Naida S. entered a written plea of nolo contendere on January 5, 2011, and Ammie and Kimberly were adjudicated neglected on that date (Sommer, J.).   The court issued specific steps for Naida S. and ordered a six-month period of protective supervision.

The department filed a neglect petition against Naida S. and Anthony S. with respect to Jacob on December 2, 2010.   Naida S. entered a written plea of nolo contendere, Anthony S. stood silent, and Jacob was adjudicated neglected on March 30, 2011 (Sommer, J.).   The court also issued specific steps for Naida S. and ordered protective supervision until July 5, 2011, the date that protective supervision was to expire in the neglect proceedings relating to Ammie and Kimberly.

On May 31, 2011, the department moved to open and modify the disposition with respect to all three children from protective supervision to commitment.   The court (Sommer, J.) ordered that protective supervision be extended until further order of the court on June 8, 2011.   The court continued the hearing on the department's motion to open and modify the disposition.

After removing the children pursuant to an administrative 96–hour hold on August 15, 2011, the department sought orders of temporary custody for Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob on August 18, 2011.   The court (Sommer, J.) granted the department's motions for orders of temporary custody and issued preliminary specific steps for Naida S., Oscar P., and Anthony S., on August 18, 2011.

On August 23, 2011, the court (Maronich, J.) sustained the orders of temporary custody for Ammie and Kimberly, granted the department's May 31, 2011 motion to open and modify the disposition with respect to Ammie and Kimberly, and issued final specific steps for Naida S. Ammie and Kimberly were committed to the department on August 23, 2011 until further order of the court.   Judge Maronich also granted the department's motion to consolidate the contested order of temporary custody for Jacob with the department's motion to open and modify the disposition with respect to Jacob on that date.

On August 31, 2011, the court (Epstein, J.) sustained the order of temporary custody for Jacob by agreement of the parties.   The court also granted the department's motion to open and modify the disposition with respect to Jacob.   Jacob was committed to the department until further order of the court on August 31, 2011.   The court ordered final specific steps for Naida S. The court found, per the parties' agreement, that further efforts to reunify Jacob with Anthony S. were not required.

The department filed motions to review the permanency plans for Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob on May 22, 2012.   The department recommended plans of termination of parental rights and adoption for Kimberly and Jacob, and a plan of termination of parental rights and long-term foster care for Ammie.   On June 4, 2012, Naida S. filed a motion in opposition to the permanency plans for Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob.   Anthony S. filed a motion in opposition to the plan for Jacob on June 6, 2012.   The permanency plans—as amended to provide for termination of parental rights and adoption for Ammie as well as for Kimberly and Jacob—were approved on June 27, 2012 (Sommer, J.), without prejudice to the objections of Naida S. and Anthony S. The court ordered that the motions filed by Naida S. and Anthony S. in opposition to the permanency plans be consolidated for trial with the termination of parental rights petitions.

On August 30, 2012, the department filed petitions for termination of the parental rights of Naida S. and Oscar P. with respect to Ammie and Kimberly, and for termination of the parental rights of Naida S. and Anthony S. with respect to Jacob.   Naida S. appeared on September 19, 2012 and denied the allegations in the petitions.   Oscar P. and Anthony S. were defaulted on September 19, 2012 for their failure to appear

II

FINDINGS OF FACT

The hearing on the petitions for termination of parental rights commenced on January 28, 2013.   The hearing continued on February 1, 2013, and it concluded on February 4, 2013.   The respondent mother Naida S. was represented by counsel but did not attend the hearing.   The respondent father Jacob S. was represented by counsel but did not attend the hearing.   The minor children Ammie, Kimberly and Jacob were represented by counsel.   The children's guardian ad litem also appeared.   The department was represented by an assistant attorney general.   Oscar P. did not attend the hearing.

Neither the respondent mother nor either of the respondent fathers has claimed to have Native American tribal affiliation.   The court is not aware of any proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of any of the minor children.   The court has jurisdiction.

The court heard testimony from Peter Williams, clinical social worker, Danbury Hospital, Community Center for Behavioral Health (CCBH);  Debra Fraser–Coleman, primary clinical counselor, Crossroads, Inc. (Amethyst House);  Carolina Pires, outpatient clinician, Family and Children's Aid;  Noalee Darragh, DCF social worker;  Brennan Fitzgerald, addiction counselor, Connecticut Counseling Center (CCC);  and Jean McKeever, the guardian ad litem for the children.

The court reviewed the documents that were entered into evidence and took judicial notice of the following:  on July 2, 2010,² the department filed neglect petitions on behalf of Ammie and Kimberly;  on December 2, 2010, the department filed a neglect petition on behalf of Jacob;  on January 5, 2011, the respondent mother Naida S. entered a written plea of nolo contendere to the neglect petitions with respect to Ammie and Kimberly, and the court (Sommer, J.) adjudicated Ammie and Kimberly neglected, entered a disposition of six months protective supervision, and ordered specific steps for Naida S.;   on March 30, 2011, the respondent mother Naida S. entered a written plea of nolo contendere to the neglect petition with respect to Jacob, and the court (Sommer, J.) adjudicated Jacob neglected, entered a disposition of protective supervision until July 5, 2011, and ordered specific steps for Naida S.;   on May 31, 2011, the department moved to modify the dispositions to commitment with respect to all three children;  on June 8, 2011, the court (Sommer, J.) extended protective supervision until further order of the court;  on August 18, 2011, the court (Sommer, J.) granted the department's motion for an order of temporary custody on behalf of the children;  on August 23, 2011, the court (Maronich, J.) granted the department's motion to modify the disposition to commitment with respect to Ammie and Kimberly and issued specific steps for Naida S.;   on August 31, 2011, the court (Epstein, J.) granted the department's motion to modify the disposition to commitment with respect to Jacob and issued specific steps for Naida S.;   on August 31, 2011, the court (Epstein J.) made a finding, by agreement of the parties, that reasonable efforts to reunify Jacob with Anthony S. were no longer appropriate;  Naida S.'s motion for an in-court review, dated October 24, 2011;  the department's case status report, dated November 8, 2011;  Naida S.'s motion for an in-court review, dated January 21, 2012;  the department's case status report, dated January 26, 2012;  Naida S.'s motion for an in-court review, dated April 27, 2012;  the department's case status report, dated May 4, 2012;  Naida S.'s motion for an in-court review, dated December 11, 2012;  the department's case status report, dated December 18, 2012;  the report of the guardian ad litem, dated June 25, 2012;  and the report of the guardian ad litem, dated February 1, 2013.³

After considering all of the testimony and documentary evidence presented and judicially noticed, and having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, the court finds that the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence, unless otherwise specified.

The respondent mother Naida S.:  Naida S. was born in California on July 22, 1976.   She is the only child born to her mother, Maria A., and her father, Mr. S. Her parents' brief relationship reportedly ended after her father raped her mother.   Maria A. moved with Naida S. to Danbury, Connecticut, where Naida S. was raised.   Naida S. is one of Maria A.'s many children.   Naida S. has four brothers and three sisters.   Another brother died before Naida S. was born, and a sister died when Naida S. was very young.   Naida S. reported that her mother was physically abusive.   She said that she was basically raised by her oldest brother Eli, who later committed suicide.

Naida S. graduated from Danbury High School.   She attended nursing school and became a nurse.   She injured her back when she was working as a nurse, and she suffers from chronic back pain.   Naida S. is unemployed.   She receives federal supplemental security income (SSI) disability benefits and food stamps.

Naida S. was married to Oscar P., the father of Ammie and Kimberly.   Naida S. met Oscar P. when she was visiting Mexico.   She told the department that they had a good relationship for several years.   Naida S. said that Oscar P. had an affair with her brother Eli's wife, which led to Eli's suicide and, ultimately, to the end of her marriage with Oscar P. Naida S. reportedly was so distraught after her brother's death that she left Ammie and Kimberly with Oscar P. in Connecticut while she traveled with Anthony S. to California and Florida

Naida S. remained in Florida with Anthony S. for five years.   For most of that time, she had no contact with Ammie and Kimberly.   While in Florida, she gave birth to Jacob, the son of Anthony S., but her relationship with Anthony S. ended.   In early 2010, Naida S. returned to Connecticut with Jacob to live with Oscar P., Ammie and Kimberly.   The reunion was not a happy one, and Oscar P. moved into his own apartment.   Naida S. alleged that Oscar P. had sexually abused Ammie and Kimberly.   Although the girls adamantly denied the sexual abuse allegations, Oscar P. reportedly returned to Mexico to avoid potential criminal charges.

Naida S. has a history of abusing cocaine, heroin and prescription drugs.   She reportedly became addicted to Percocet when she was prescribed the medication for her chronic back pain.   She has been through detox at South Central Rehabilitation Center (SCRC) in New Haven twice, in September 2011 and again in December 2011.   She participated in substance abuse programs, including methadone maintenance, at Midwestern Connecticut Council for Alcoholism (MCCA), CCBH, CCC, and Amethyst House.   Naida S. did not successfully complete any of the substance abuse treatment programs.   She has not demonstrated any significant period of sobriety.

Naida S. attended substance abuse evaluations at MCCA and CCBH before her specific steps were ordered.   MCCA referred Naida S. to CCBH because it appeared that Naida S. needed a dual diagnosis program.   Naida S. was discharged from CCBH in August 2011 due to her noncompliance with psychiatric medications, her lack of attendance in the program, and her several positive urine screens for cocaine.   In addition, Naida S. was tapered off of methadone and discharged from CCC in August 2011 due to several positive urine screens for cocaine and benzodiazepines.   Both CCBH and CCC recommended that Naida S. enter inpatient treatment.

On September 21, 2011, Naida S. was seen at Amethyst House for an intake assessment.   Amethyst House is a long-term inpatient substance abuse program for pregnant woman and woman with young children.   Naida S. was not accepted into the program, due to a recent suicide attempt and suicidal ideation, which she disclosed to the intake coordinator during the course of her interview.   Naida S. was told she could interview again in sixty days.   Despite the department's encouragement, Naida S. refused to participate in any outpatient services or the inpatient program at Connecticut Valley Hospital after she was not accepted into Amethyst House.

On December 8, 2011, Naida S. had a second intake assessment at Amethyst House.   Although Amethyst House had an immediate opening, Naida S. was required to go through detox first.   She was using heroin every morning, including the morning of her intake assessment at Amethyst House.   Naida S. returned to SCRC for detox that day.   On December 12, 2011, she was admitted to Amethyst House.

Although Naida S. knew that Jacob would be placed with her at Amethyst House within ninety days, as long as she demonstrated progress in the program and a commitment to her recovery, she was not compliant with her treatment.   Naida S. missed group sessions, and she was caught smoking in the building twice.   She remained in the community at the methadone clinic without permission when the rest of the group returned.   She was not committed to her recovery.

Her counselor, Debra Fraser–Coleman reported to the department that Naida S. was unfocused and manipulative, that she accepted no responsibility for her actions, and that she blamed others for her noncompliance.   Ms. Fraser–Coleman also observed that Naida S. told inconsistent stories and was not close to making any progress.   Naida S. remained on sanctions and could not receive any community passes.   Ms. Fraser–Coleman described Naida S.'s treatment as unproductive, and she indicated that she could not recommend that Jacob come to stay with Naida S. at that time.

On February 4, 2012, Naida S. left Amethyst House voluntarily.   In a February 4, 2012 letter to the department regarding Naida S., Ms. Fraser–Coleman reported, “During her stay in residential treatment (sic) was not motivated, which was evidenced by her non compliance of program rules.   She struggled with engaging in the therapeutic process of recovery.” ⁴  Ms. Fraser Coleman further stated, “Recommendation for reunification was not recommended due to her consistent non compliance.” ⁵  She concluded, “Her stay in treatment was unsuccessful, due to her lack of motivation and her self termination.” ⁶

After another intake assessment in February 2012, Naida S. returned to CCC in May 2012 for methadone maintenance.   After initially testing positive for opiates, Naida S. had negative urine screens for a few weeks.   Naida S. subsequently tested positive for cocaine and/or opiates on June 25, 2012, July 18, 2012, August 6, 2012, August 7, 2012, August 18, 2012, September 14, 2012, September 18, 2012, October 18, 2012, December 11, 2012, and December 13, 2012.

In December 2012, Naida S. was again tapered off of methadone and discharged from CCC, due to a problem with her insurance, her failure to provide documents to CCC, and her failure to follow the weekly payment plan that had been arranged with CCC to pay the balance that Naida S. owed.   By the time of the termination of parental rights trial, the department reported that it had resolved the insurance issues, paid Naida S.'s “spend-down” to CCC, and was working with Naida S. to pay the balance due CCC so that Naida S. could return to the program.

Naida S. has a mental health history, with significant unaddressed mental health issues.   She has been diagnosed with PTSD, bipolar disorder, severe depression, and sleeping disorder.   She has a history of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, beginning when she was a teenager and most recently on May 5, 2012, when she attempted suicide by running into traffic on Main Street in Danbury.   She was taken by ambulance to Danbury Hospital.

Naida S. has participated in individual counseling at CCBH, CCC, and Amethyst House.   She did not complete any of these programs, and she has not made any progress toward addressing her mental health issues.   Naida S. was discharged from CCBH and CCC for noncompliance with her treatment, and she left Amethyst House after only six weeks.

Naida S. has not been consistent in seeing a psychiatrist for medication to treat her mental health issues.   After she left Amethyst House in February 2012, Naida S. attempted to reengage in counseling at CCBH, but CCBH would not provide services for her until she was clean and sober.

Naida S. participated in a court-ordered psychological evaluation with Barbara Berkowitz, Ph.D. on July 13, 2011 and July 28, 2011.   Naida S. reported to Dr. Berkowitz that she has been psychiatrically hospitalized three times for suicidality and severe depression.   In her report, dated August 5, 2011, Dr. Berkowitz stated, “Diagnostically, it appears that Ms. S. is characterized by a significant level of both personality pathology and acute clinical disorder.” ⁷  Dr. Berkowitz diagnosed Naida S. with PTSD, major depression and generalized anxiety disorder.   Although she did not give Naida S. an Axis II personality disorder diagnosis, Dr. Berkowitz stated, “Ms. S. appears to have incorporated her chronic depressive affect, cognition, and behavior into her character, leading to overly pessimistic, depressive, masochistic, and negativistic personality traits which pervade her lifestyle and interpersonal relations.” ⁸

Naida S. had a criminal history.   In May 2005, following an altercation with her sister Ana B.,⁹ she was charged with breach of peace in the 2nd degree, General Statutes § 53a–181, and criminal mischief in the 4th degree, General Statutes § 53a–117a.   A charge of failure to appear, General Statutes § 53a–173, was added when she did not appear in court with respect to these charges.   Amethyst House advised her in January 2012 that she had to resolve her outstanding arrest warrant, but she did not do so.   On September 4, 2012, Naida S. was arrested on the outstanding warrant and held at the York Correctional Institution until September 12, 2012, when Johnny F.¹⁰ posted her bond.   Naida S. returned to court on November 6, 2012 and pled guilty to the charge of criminal mischief in the 4th degree, General Statutes § 53a–117a.   She received an unconditional discharge.   The remaining charges were nolled.

Naida S. was evicted from her apartment on December 2, 2011.   She was homeless for a week, and then she moved into a one-bedroom apartment in Danbury.   She currently lives in the apartment with Johnny F.

The respondent father Oscar P.:  Oscar P. was born on January 9, 1970 in Mexico.   He is reported to be residing with his mother in Mexico City and working in the family business.   Oscar P. met Naida S. in Mexico.   They married and moved to Connecticut.   Oscar P. is the father of Ammie and Kimberly.   He was their main caretaker during the years that Naida S. was in Florida.   Oscar P. and Naida S. did not get along after Naida S. returned to Connecticut with Jacob.   They argued over where Ammie and Kimberly would live.   Oscar P. moved into his own apartment, leaving Naida S. in the house where he had been living with the girls.

Oscar P. returned to Mexico in 2010, reportedly because Naida S. alleged that he had sexually abused Ammie and Kimberly, and he was afraid of possible criminal charges.   He has not had any physical contact with Ammie and Kimberly since he returned to Mexico.   He has not visited them.   He has not provided financial support for either of the girls.   Oscar P. has not sent cards, gifts or letters to Ammie or Kimberly.   He has not contacted the department to inquire about their well-being.

Oscar P. was defaulted for failure to appear in the neglect cases and in the termination of parental rights proceedings relating to Ammie and Kimberly.   There are no specific steps in place for Oscar P. He has chosen not to initiate contact with the department or to participate in these proceedings.   Oscar P. had only three conversations with the department in 2012—in April, August and September 2012 and the department initiated all of these calls.

Since March 2012, Oscar P. has had telephone calls twice each month with Ammie and Kimberly, and he has maintained contact with their foster parents, Ana and Jose B. Although Oscar P. would have liked to have had Ammie and Kimberly returned to his care, he has acknowledged that he is not in a position to care for them.   In September 2012, Oscar P. advised the department that he was willing to consent to the termination of his parental rights so that Ammie and Kimberly can be adopted by Ana and Jose B., provided that Naida S.'s parental rights with respect to Ammie and Kimberly are also terminated.

The respondent father Anthony S.:  Anthony S. was born on January 5, 1965 in Danbury, Connecticut.   He was believed to be residing in Florida as of the date of the termination of parental rights trial.   Anthony S. is the eighth of his parents' nine sons.   He reported that he had a happy childhood, although his mother was an alcoholic.   His parents divorced in 1985, and his mother died nine years ago.

Anthony S. graduated from Danbury High School.   He played baseball and basketball and participated in track and field.   He has a certificate in auto body repair, and he has been employed in that field.   His employment history also includes jobs as a truck driver, landscaper and laborer.

Anthony S. married Bernice in 1989.   They were divorced in 1996, but they maintain contact with each other.   Anthony S. has temporarily resided with Bernice from time to time.   They have two daughters, Steffany, who was born on February 11, 1991, and Caitlin, who was born on November 26, 1992.   Steffany has two children Anthony S. maintains a relationship with his daughters and his grandchildren.

Anthony S. reported that he met Naida S. in Danbury.   He said that he went with Naida S. to California to meet her biological father.   They remained in California for a short while, and then they moved to Florida They became engaged, despite the fact that Naida S. was still married to Oscar P. Anthony S. said that he was a victim of domestic violence when he resided with Naida S. He stated that Naida S. once stabbed him in the side with a butter knife, and she cut him under his eye in a separate incident.

Anthony S. and Naida S. have one child, Jacob, who was born on December 7, 2006.   Anthony S. reported that he was Jacob's main caretaker when Jacob was a baby, because Naida S. was using illegal drugs and would often disappear for days at a time.   When Anthony S. obtained a job as a tractor trailer driver, he realized that he would not be able to care for Jacob.   Naida S. took Jacob and returned to Connecticut.   Anthony S. said that he tried to have a relationship with Jacob, but Naida S. would not allow him to have any contact with the child.

Anthony S. has a history of substance abuse, particularly with cocaine and marijuana.   He has not successfully completed substance abuse treatment.   After his probation officer referred him to MCCA, Anthony S. participated in an intake assessment at MCCA in October 2011.   MCCA recommended that Anthony S. participate in MCCA'S six-month substance abuse relapse prevention program.   Anthony S. completed the six-month program and chose to continue attending the program's weekly meetings;  however, he relapsed in May 2012.   His probation officer referred him back to MCCA for the IOP program, but Anthony S. did not return to MCCA. He continued to abuse illegal substances.   His July 5, 2012 and July 16, 2012 urine screens at his probation office tested positive for cocaine.

Anthony S. admitted to the department in August 2012 that he had been abusing illegal substances.   In December 2012, Anthony S. reported to the department that he was clean and sober, but the department has no information concerning any programs in which he has participated since May 2012.

Anthony S. has a mental health history and unaddressed mental health issues.   He reported that he has been diagnosed with depression and ADHD. On three occasions, Anthony S. presented with suicidal ideation or attempted suicide.   On August 17, 2002, Anthony S. told a firefighter that he had poured gasoline on himself and was going to light himself on fire because he wanted to end his life.   He also had self-inflicted cuts on his left forearm.   Anthony S. was transported to Danbury Hospital by ambulance.

On July 26, 2010, Anthony S. called 911 and reported that he was having thoughts of committing suicide.   He said that he had doused himself with gasoline and was going to set himself on fire.   The Danbury police found him in a local cemetery.   He was taken by ambulance to Danbury Hospital.

On June 6, 2012, Anthony S. called several people, including his ex-wife, his attorney, the department's social worker and the social worker's supervisor, and said that he was going to commit suicide.   The department called Anthony S.'s probation officer and the Danbury police department, and Anthony S. was finally located.   He had made several diagonal cuts on his forearms in a suicide attempt.   Anthony S. was taken by ambulance to Danbury Hospital and admitted to the inpatient psychiatric unit.   He was discharged two days later with medication and instructions to follow up with a psychiatrist, but he did not seek any outpatient mental health counseling.

Anthony S. participated in a court-ordered psychological evaluation with Dr. Berkowitz on February 1, 2012 and March 7, 2012.   Dr. Berkowitz did not provide a formal diagnosis for Anthony S., but rather her clinical impressions relating to Anthony S.'s personality.   In her report dated March 20, 2012, Dr. Berkowitz spoke of Anthony S.'s “dependent tendencies, significant lack of insightfulness and psychological-mindedness, and defensive attempts at rigid self-control.” ¹¹  Dr. Berkowitz stated, “Generally Mr. S.'s cognition is short-sighted, non-reflective, and highly concrete, as was noticed in clinical observations during his lengthy clinical interview.   He lacks the patience, skill and intellect to clearly think things through prior to responding.   Difficult issues and emotions tend to be ignored, minimized, or discharged through physical activity.   Long-term use of such ineffective coping strategies could readily lead to difficulties with impulse-control and poor judgment.” ¹²

According to Dr. Berkowitz, Anthony S. has an IQ of 75, which puts him in the “borderline” range of intelligence.¹³  Anthony S. reported that he was in self-contained special education classes through elementary, middle and high school.   Anthony S. has had a seizure disorder since he was seven years old.¹⁴  Anthony S. also said that he had been diagnosed at birth with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome due to his mother's alcoholism.

Anthony S. has a criminal history dating back to October 1985, when he was twenty years old.   He has been arrested thirteen times on twenty-one charges, including:  burglary in the 2nd degree, General Statutes § 53a–102, arson in the 3rd degree, General Statutes § 53a–113, burglary in the 3rd degree, General Statutes § 53a–103, criminal mischief in the 3rd degree, General Statutes § 53a–117, escape in the 1st degree, General Statutes § 53a–169, larceny in the 2nd degree, General Statutes § 53a–123, and violation of probation, General Statutes § 53a–32.   His last arrest was on September 23, 2010 for credit card fraud, General Statutes § 53a–128c, for which he served a one-year sentence, He was released from prison in September 2011.

As of the time of the termination of parental rights trial, Anthony S. had a warrant outstanding in Connecticut for violation of probation.   His last contact with his probation officer was on July 19, 2012.   He missed his appointment with his probation officer on August 1, 2012, and his probation officer was not able to locate him.

Anthony S. has not had stable housing or a legal income while the neglect and termination of parental rights proceedings have been pending.   He was evicted from his apartment in January 2012.   Since then, he has lived with a girlfriend and her parents, with his ex-wife (on more than one occasion), and in two different shelters.   He has also been homeless.   He advised the department that he was working for a landscaping and snow plowing company but was paid off the books.   He receives SSI disability benefits for his seizure disorder.

Anthony S. began visiting Jacob in October 2011, following his release from prison.   From October 2011 to May 2012, Anthony S. attended twenty-five of seventy-two scheduled visits with Jacob.   Anthony S.'s last visit with Jacob was on May 17, 2012.   Anthony S. has had no contact with Jacob since that date.   He did not send Jacob any cards or gifts for his birthday on December 7, 2012 or for Christmas.   He did not acknowledge Jacob's birthday at all.   Anthony S. has not provided financial support for Jacob.   He has not sent letters to Jacob, and he has not called regularly to inquire about Jacob's well-being.

Anthony S. has not kept the department apprised of his contact information.   The department does not have an address or a working telephone number for him.   Apart from two telephone calls, in June 2012 and in August 2012, Anthony S. had no contact with the department until the department reached him in December 2012.   During the August 2012 call, Anthony S. reported he was on his way back to Connecticut from Alabama.   He did not inform the department of his whereabouts, and the department heard nothing further from him.   In December 2012, Anthony S. advised the department that he was living in Florida, but he did not provide his address to the department.   He said that he would be returning to Connecticut to turn himself in on the violation of probation charge.   Anthony S.'s whereabouts were unknown from July 2012 through the date of the termination of parental rights trial.

Anthony S. has offered no explanation for why he disappeared from Jacob's life in May 2012.   Anthony S. has indicated to the department that he believes it is in Jacob's best interests to continue to reside with Ammie and Kimberly in the home of their maternal aunt and uncle, Ana and Jose B.

The minor child Ammie P.-S.:  Ammie is 17 years old.   She was born on February 27, 1996 in Mexico City. Naida S. gave birth to Ammie while she and Oscar P. were vacationing in Mexico.   Ammie was removed from her mother's care on August 15, 2011.   Ammie has been residing with Kimberly and Jacob in the home of their maternal aunt and uncle, Ana and Jose B., in Shelton, Connecticut since August 17, 2012.   Their home is licensed through the department as a relative foster home.

Ammie chose to remain in high school in Danbury after moving to Shelton.   She is a junior at Henry Abbott Technical School.   Ammie is in honors classes, and she does very well academically.   She is bilingual in English and Spanish.   Ammie has a strong desire to attend college, and she has started the college application process.

Ammie is in the auto body program at Henry Abbott Technical School.   She intends to use her auto body certification as a back-up job or as a side job, or she will simply continue it as a hobby.   Ammie recently began participating in the art club at school.

Ammie has been diagnosed with PTSD, resulting from the trauma that she suffered while in Naida S.'s care.   Ammie was physically abused by Naida S. and exposed to illicit drug activity and domestic violence.   Ammie was fearful for herself and Kimberly and Jacob.   She became hypervigilant, sleeping with a baseball bat next to her.   Ammie has attended weekly individual counseling sessions with Carolina Pires, a social worker with Family and Children's Aid, for over a year.   Ammie participated in a court-ordered evaluation with Dr. Berkowitz on July 19, 2011.

Ammie has been hospitalized in the psychiatric unit of the Hospital of Saint Raphael (Saint Raphael) three times since Naida S. returned to Connecticut with Jacob.   According to her October 25, 2011 discharge summary from Intensive In–Home Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Service (IICAPS), Ammie's first psychiatric admission was in November 2010 due to reported command hallucinations telling her to kill Jacob.¹⁵  On August 14, 2011, Ammie was transported to Saint Raphael from Danbury Hospital.   Ammie was discharged from Saint Raphael on August 24, 2011 and placed in a DCF-licensed foster home with Kimberly and Jacob.   On April 26, 2012, Ammie was hospitalized at Saint Raphael for a third time after an increase in her anxiety and depression led to her cutting herself.   Ammie was discharged on May 7, 2012 and placed in a foster home separate from her sister and brother, because Ammie and the department both felt that she needed some space from her siblings in order to focus on her own well-being.   Ammie joined Kimberly and Jacob in their aunt and uncle's home on August 17, 2012.   As of the date of the termination of parental rights trial, Ammie was doing very well emotionally.

Ammie is happy in the home of Ana and Jose B. She is attached to her aunt and uncle and her cousins, and she has adjusted well.   Ana and Jose B. are able to meet Ammie's physical and emotional needs.   Ammie wants to remain in their home and be adopted by her aunt and uncle.

The minor child Kimberly P.:  Kimberly is almost 15 years old.   She was born in Danbury on June 4, 1998.   Kimberly is the second child born to Oscar P. and Naida S. Kimberly was removed from her mother's care on August 15, 2011.   Kimberly lives with Ammie and Jacob in Ana and Jose B.'s home, where she was placed on June 15, 2012.

Kimberly is in the eighth grade at Shelton Intermediate School in Shelton.   She previously repeated the seventh grade, due to her excessive absences from school.   While she could have chosen to remain in school in Danbury, Kimberly decided to attend school in Shelton, beginning in September 2012.   She does her school work and homework, but she primarily enjoys the social aspect of school.   Her grades tend to be mostly Bs with some Cs. Kimberly is likely to attend college, but she is not thinking seriously about college yet.

Like her sister, Kimberly has been diagnosed with PTSD. She also attends weekly individual counseling with Ms. Pires.   Kimberly has been seeing Ms. Pires for over a year.   Kimberly also participated in a court-ordered evaluation with Dr. Berkowitz on July 19, 2011.

Kimberly appears to be much happier in the home of Ana and Jose B. than she was in her previous foster home.   She has a close relationship with her aunt and uncle and her cousins.   She is comfortable in their home, and she wants to be adopted by her aunt and uncle.

The minor child Jacob S.:  Jacob is 6 years old.   He was born to Naida S. and Anthony S. in Kissimmee, Florida on December 7, 2006.   Jacob resided in Florida with Anthony S. and Naida S. until Naida S. returned with him to Danbury.   Jacob was removed from his mother's care on August 15, 2011.   Jacob resides with his sisters in Ana and Jose B.'s home in Shelton.   Jacob was placed in his aunt and uncle's home on June 15, 2012.

Jacob attends a half-day kindergarten at Long Hill Avenue School in Shelton.   He is repeating kindergarten this year.   Jacob enjoys school, and he is able to do his work without difficulty.

When Jacob attended a full-day kindergarten last year, he was significantly delayed both academically and socially.   Kindergarten was a struggle for him.   He did not know his letters, numbers, colors or shapes.   He did not know his own last name, or even what a last name was.   Although Jacob made significant progress during the year, it was decided that it would be best for him to repeat kindergarten.   His December birthday was also a factor, since Jacob was one of the youngest children in his class.

Jacob was found eligible for speech therapy during the 2011–2012 school year.   He continues to receive speech therapy at his present school.   His speech has improved significantly.

Jacob is a healthy, active little boy.   Jacob has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder.   He has been attending weekly therapeutic play therapy with Ms. Pires for almost a year.   Jacob also participated in a court-ordered evaluation with Dr. Berkowitz.

Jacob made a fairly easy transition to Ana and Jose B.'s home.   He had some initial difficulty with his cousin Jose, Jr., who is very close to him in age, but they now get along well most of the time and enjoy playing together.   The boys share a room and relate to each other like brothers.   Jacob is happy living in this home.   He is attached to his aunt, uncle and cousins.   Jacob is also very attached to his sisters since in the past he looked to them to meet his needs.

The neglect petitions, the orders of temporary custody, and the aftermath:  The family first came to the attention of the department in March 2010 due to allegations of educational neglect, because Ammie and Kimberly were not going to school.   The girls' stable life with Oscar P. had been disrupted when Naida S. returned to Connecticut after a five-year absence and battled with Oscar P. over their custody.   Within months, Oscar P. had left Danbury and gone back to Mexico;  and Ammie and Kimberly were living with Naida S. and taking care of Jacob.   Naida S. did not get up in the morning to make sure that Ammie and Kimberly went to school.   The girls reported that they were unable to awaken on their own because they were too poor to own an alarm clock.

Beginning in the spring of 2010, the department provided Naida S. and her children with a number of services, including case management services, home visits, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, mental health counseling, IICAPS through Family and Children's Aid, methadone treatment through CCC, and dual diagnosis treatment through CCBH. Due to Naida S.'s continued substance abuse and her neglect of the children, however, the department filed neglect petitions for Ammie and Kimberly on July 2, 2010, and for Jacob on December 2, 2010.   Ammie and Kimberly were adjudicated neglected on January 5, 2011, and Jacob was adjudicated neglected on March 30, 2011.   The court issued specific steps for Naida S. and ordered a period of protective supervision until July 5, 2011.   By May 31, 2011, when the department filed a motion to open and modify the disposition for all three children from protective supervision to commitment, it was apparent that Naida S. had failed to maintain her sobriety, and Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob were neglected, hungry and living in squalor.

On July 19, 2011, Ammie and Kimberly reported to the court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Berkowitz, that their house was filthy, their bedrooms were infested with bedbugs, and the kitchen had a nest of cockroaches.   The girls said that they did all the cleaning and the laundry, and Naida S. washed dishes only once a week.   Ammie and Kimberly took care of Jacob because Naida S. slept most of the time.   They said she often fell asleep in the bathroom with a lit cigarette in her hand.   The girls told Dr. Berkowitz that Naida S. used her food stamp card to get cash rather than to buy food, and there was no food in the house by the end of the month.   Naida S. was failing to provide for her children's basic needs.

Ammie went to the Danbury police department on August 14, 2011 and reported that she felt unsafe due to Naida S.'s substance abuse and the variety of men coming in and out of the home.   Ammie said that she also feared for the safety of Kimberly and Jacob.   Ammie was transported to Danbury Hospital and then admitted to Saint Raphael.   Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob were removed from Naida S.'s care under an administrative 96–hour hold on August 15, 2011.   The department moved for an order of temporary custody for the children on August 18, 2011.

Kimberly and Jacob were placed in a DCF-licensed foster home on August 15, 2011.   Ammie joined them on August 24, 2011, following her discharge from Saint Raphael.   Although the children initially thrived in this home, it became apparent that this foster home was not a good match for them.   In the meantime, Ana and Jose B., their maternal aunt and uncle, came forward requesting to be a placement resource for the children.   Kimberly and Jacob were placed with their aunt and uncle on June 15, 2012, and Ammie was united with them two months later.

Relationship between the children and Naida S.:  Naida S. professes to love her daughters, but she has a poor relationship with them.   Ammie and Kimberly remember the abuse and the neglect they suffered while living with Naida S. They are disappointed that Naida S. did not complete substance abuse treatment.   They are angry that Naida S. has never apologized or accepted any responsibility for the children's removal from her care, continuing to blame Ammie for their removal.

Kimberly and Ammie refused to attend visits with Naida after their visit on November 10, 2011, when Naida S. and Ammie became involved in a discussion that escalated into an argument.¹⁶  Naida S. blamed Ammie for Kimberly and Jacob being removed from her care.   Naida S. took no responsibility for her behaviors that actually led to the removal of the children.   Ammie was very upset and crying after she walked out of the visit.

Following the November 10, 2011 visit, Ammie and Kimberly indicated that they were willing to receive letters from Naida S., although they would not agree to see her.   Naida has written three letters to them.   Naida S.'s last letter to Ammie and Kimberly was in October 2012.   The girls read this letter and left it with their therapist.   Ammie and Kimberly have no desire to return to Naida S.'s care.   They want to remain in their current placement and be adopted by their aunt and uncle, Ana and Jose B.

Jacob had a more positive relationship with Naida S., due to his young age and the fact that his sisters safeguarded him from some of the abuse and neglect that they suffered.   Naida S. was loving and affectionate with Jacob during visits.   Jacob enjoyed the visits with Naida S., and he seemed happy to see her.   Jacob was disappointed many times, however, by Naida S.'s failure to attend visits.   Naida S. had only two visits with Jacob in October 2012, one visit in November 2012, one visit in December 2012, and none in January 2013.

A visit was scheduled for December 3, 2012, four days prior to Jacob's birthday.   Naida S. stated that she was coming to the visit and was planning a little party for Jacob.   Naida S. never appeared for the visit.   On the ride back to his aunt and uncle's home, Jacob repeatedly stated that he was very mad that he could not see his mother.

On January 14, 2013, Naida S. arrived early for her visit with Jacob, but she left just prior to his arrival.   She made a number of excuses, including that she did not feel well.   Jacob was told that his mother was not feeling well and would not be coming to the visit.   Jacob did not express any sadness, disappointment or anger.

Relationship between Ammie and Kimberly and Oscar P.:  Ammie and Kimberly are fond of Oscar P., and they have happy, positive memories of growing up with him.   Oscar P. loves Ammie and Kimberly and cares about their well-being.   Oscar P. was their primary caretaker for during the five years that Naida S. spent in Florida with Anthony S. Ammie and Kimberly have stated that they miss Oscar P. and would like to see him.   They speak to him on the telephone approximately twice a month and stay in touch through social media.   They hope to see him within the next few years.

Relationship between Jacob and Anthony S.:  At the time of Jacob's removal, Anthony S. was incarcerated.   He was released from prison in September 2011, and he requested visits with Jacob through the department.   Visits between Jacob and Anthony S. began in October 2011, on a somewhat sporadic basis.   Jacob adjusted well to the visits, despite the fact that he had no memory of Anthony S. Jacob had not seen Anthony S. since he was 2 years old.   Through their visits, Jacob developed a connection to Anthony S. Anthony S. attended only about a third of the scheduled visits between October 2011 and May 2012, including one visit in March 2012, one visit in April 2012, and two visits in May 2012.

Anthony S.'s last visit with Jacob was in May 2012.   For a short while after Anthony S. stopped visiting, Jacob asked when he would see Anthony S. again, then he stopped mentioning him.   Anthony S. has had no contact with Jacob since the last visit in May 2012.

Relationship of the children with each other and with their foster parents:  Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob are very attached and bonded to each other.   It has been important to keep the children together, due to their strong bond.   All three children are thriving in the home of Ana and Jose B. It would be detrimental for them to be separated.

Ammie is comfortable in her aunt and uncle's home.   Her mental stability appears to have improved.   She has become attached to her aunt and uncle and her cousins.   Ammie appears to have an especially close relationship with her aunt Ana B. In this home, Ammie can simply be a teenager, rather than the caretaker and protector of her siblings.   Ammie want to be adopted by her aunt and uncle, and they want to adopt her, if she is legally free for adoption.

Kimberly has adjusted extremely well.   She is happy living in her aunt and uncle's home.   Ana and Jose B. are able to meet Kimberly's physical and emotional needs.   Kimberly relates to her cousins as siblings, and she has a close relationship with everyone in the home.   Kimberly no longer has to play the role of peacemaker, placating her mother to avoid family discord.   Kimberly is attached to her aunt and uncle and her cousins.   Kimberly wants to remain in the home and be adopted by her aunt and uncle, and they want to adopt her, if she is legally free for adoption.

Jacob has also adjusted well to living in the home of his aunt and uncle.   Like his sisters, he is attached to his aunt and uncle and his cousins.   Ana and Jose B. take care of his physical and emotional needs, and he is happy and comfortable living in their home.   Due to his young age, Jacob does not fully understand what adoption means, but he has stated that he wants to remain with his aunt and uncle, as well as with his sisters.   His aunt and uncle also want to adopt him if he is legally free for adoption.

Naida S.'s compliance with specific steps:  On January 5, 2011, when the court (Sommer, J.) adjudicated Ammie and Kimberly as neglected children and entered a disposition of six months of protective supervision, the court ordered specific steps for Naida S. Specific steps were not ordered for Oscar P. On March 30, 2011, the court (Sommer, J.) adjudicated Jacob to be neglected and entered a disposition of protective supervision until July 5, 2011.   Judge Sommer again ordered specific steps for Naida S. The court did not order specific steps for Anthony S.

The court (Sommer, J.) granted the department's motions for an order of temporary custody of the children on August 18, 2011 and issued preliminary specific steps for Naida S., Oscar P., and Anthony S. On August 23, 2011, the court (Maronich, J.) sustained the orders of temporary custody and ordered final specific steps for Naida S. to follow to facilitate her reunification with Ammie and Kimberly.   No final steps were ordered for Oscar P. On August 31, 2011, the court (Epstein, J.) sustained the order of temporary custody and issued final specific steps for Naida S. to follow to facilitate the return of Jacob to her care.   Final steps were not ordered for Anthony S. because he stated that he did not want to pursue custody of Jacob.   As of August 30, 2012, the adjudicatory date, Naida S. had not complied fully with many of the specific steps ordered by the court.

Keep all appointments set by or with the Department of Children and Families.   Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child(ren)'s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   Naida S. failed to attend an administrative case review in March 2012, and she missed three scheduled meetings with the department in March and April 2012.

Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child know where you and the children are at all times:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   The department did not know where Naida S. was living on two occasions.   When Naida S. was evicted from her apartment in December 2011, the department did not know where she was until six days later.   After Naida S. left inpatient treatment at Amethyst House on February 4, 2012, she waited two weeks to contact the department.   Until then, the department did not know her whereabouts.

Take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals (parenting, individual and family):  The following treatment goals were expressly identified in Naida's specific steps:  address mental health issues;  work towards a more positive relationship with the children;  and substance abuse and all other mental health issues as identified.   Naida S. did not comply with this step.

Apart from her indifferent participation in parenting education group sessions during her stay at Amethyst House, Naida S. did not attend, much less complete, a parenting education program.   Her lack of parenting skills was apparent in her choosing to watch a movie that was rated PG–13 with Jacob, providing excessive unhealthy snacks for him, and engaging in blaming behavior with Ammie and Kimberly.

Naida S. attended individual counseling at CCBH, but she was discharged from CCBH in August 2011 for her noncompliance with treatment.   Naida S. also engaged in individual counseling during her six-week stay at Amethyst House.   Since her voluntary departure from Amethyst House in February 2012, Naida S. has not participated in individual mental health counseling.

Accept in-home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them:  Naida S. failed to comply with this step while the children were in her care.   She did not consistently cooperate with IICAPS, and she was frequently absent from sessions in the home.

Submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow the recommendations about treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   She participated in substance abuse evaluations at MCCA and CCBH, prior to the order of her specific steps.   In August 2011, Naida S. was discharged from CCBH, due to her noncompliance with psychiatric medications, lack of attendance in the program and several positive urine screens for cocaine.   Also in August 2011, Naida S. was tapered off of her methadone in preparation for her discharge from CCC. She was discharged due to several positive urine screens for cocaine and benzodiazepines.

Both CCBH and CCC felt that Naida S. needed a higher level of care and recommended that Naida S. enter inpatient treatment.   Naida S was admitted to the detox program at SCRC in September 2011.

Naida S. attended an intake assessment at Amethyst House in New Haven on September 21, 2011.   Naida S. was not accepted into the program because she disclosed a recent suicide attempt and suicidal ideation to the intake coordinator during the course of her interview.

On December 12, 2011, after another detox admission to SCRC, Naida S. entered inpatient treatment at Amethyst House.   Her treatment was unproductive.   She was noncompliant and did poorly in the program.   She missed group sessions, and she was caught smoking in the building on two occasions.   She was not committed to her recovery.   Naida S. left Amethyst House voluntarily on February 4, 2012.

Following her discharge from Amethyst House, the department recommended that Naida S. return to CCBH and CCC. Naida S. participated in an initial intake assessment on February 14, 2012 at CCC, but she did not return with the required documents so that she could begin methadone maintenance.   CCC attempted to reach Naida S., but was unable to do so at that time.

Naida S. had been resistant to returning to CCBH. She initially stated she was not going to return to the program, but she later changed her mind.   In March 2012, during a meeting with DCF, DCF offered to take Naida S. to CCBH immediately to schedule an intake and prioritize her services.   Naida S. refused.

On April 12, 2012, the department contacted CCBH at Naida S.'s request to schedule an intake for her.   The department was informed that Naida S. had to call herself to schedule the appointment.   Naida S. said that she was going to CCBH to schedule an intake, and then she reported that she did not go to CCBH, but called CCBH instead and was waiting for a return call.   When the department contacted CCBH, CCBH advised that Naida S. would not be provided services unless she was clean and sober.

On May 15, 2012, the department recommended that Naida S. participate in an evaluation at MCCA to determine the most appropriate level of treatment for her.   Naida S. refused to do so.   She maintained that she was emotionally stable and free of substances.

On May 17, 2012, Naida S. returned to treatment at CCC. She initially tested positive for opiates, then she had negative urine screens for a few weeks.   Naida S. subsequently tested positive for cocaine and/or opiates on June 25, 2012, July 18, 2012, August 6, 2012, August 7, 2012, and August 18, 2012.   Naida S. also had positive urine screens after the adjudicatory date, on September 14, 2012, September 18, 2012, October 18, 2012, December 11, 2012, and December 13, 2012.

As part of the CCC methadone program, Naida S. was required to attend weekly group meetings.   Since she began treatment in May 2012, Naida S. attended only two group meetings.   CCC recommended that Naida S. participate in the IOP program, which would include substance abuse and mental health treatment.   Naida S. declined to participate in the IOP program.

As of the adjudicatory date, Naida S. was at risk of being discharged from CCC for noncompliance, because she had not been participating in any required mental health treatment and had not been turning in her prescriptions, which she said that she obtained from CCBH in June 2012.   She remained in the CCC program until she was discharged on December 14, 2012.

Submit to random drug testing;  the time and method of the testing will be up to DCF to decide:  Naida S. did not comply fully with this step.   On May 15, 2012, Naida S. refused to participate in a substance abuse evaluation, which would have included a urinalysis.   Naida S. did cooperate with urinalysis drug screens at CCC.

Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   Naida S. has a history of abusing cocaine, heroin, and prescription pills.   In August 2011, she rendered positive urines for cocaine and benzodiazepines at CCBH and CCC. She entered the detox program at SCRC in September 2011.   In December 2011, she admitted that she was using heroin on a daily basis and returned to SCRC. After Naida S. left Amethyst House prematurely on February 4, 2012, she did not participate in any substance abuse programs until she began attending the methadone program at CCC. Naida S. had positive urine screens for cocaine and/or opiates on May 17, 2012, June 25, 2012, July 18, 2012, August 6, 2012, August 7, 2012, and August 18, 2012.   Naida S. also had several positive urine screens after the termination of parental rights petition was filed:  on September 14, 2012, September 18, 2012, October 18, 2012, December 11, 2012, and December 13, 2012.   Naida S. was discharged from CCC on December 14, 2012.

Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   Naida S. failed to cooperate with almost every service provider recommended to her, including CCBH, CCC, and Amethyst House.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing:  After failing to attend her appointment the first time it was scheduled, or to call to cancel and reschedule it, Naida S. complied with this step.

Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check on your attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings with this court.   Sign the release within 30 days:  Naida S. complied with this step.

Get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal income:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   Naida S. was evicted from her apartment in December 2011 for nonpayment of rent.   She was homeless for about a week and then relocated to a small one-bedroom apartment in Danbury, where she continues to reside with her boyfriend, Johnny F. This apartment is inadequate for Naida S.'s three children.   Naida S. has not been employed for many years.   She receives SSI disability benefits and food stamps.

Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the child(ren):  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   Naida S. did not keep the department apprised of who was living with her.   Her boyfriend, Johnny F., was residing with her at the time of the termination of parental rights trial.   Johnny F. was believed to be a substance abuser.   He is a convicted felon, with a significant criminal record.

Not get involved with the criminal justice system.   Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   Although Naida S. had no recent criminal charges, she had an outstanding arrest warrant that was issued on March 14, 2006, after she failed to return to court following her May 16, 2005 arrest for breach of peace in the 2nd degree, General Statutes § 53a–181, and criminal mischief in the 4th degree, General Statutes § 53a–117a.   A charge of failure to appear, General Statutes § 53a–173, was added when she did not return to court.   Naida S. was aware of these charges and the warrant for her arrest.   On September 4, 2012, after the filing of the termination of parental rights petitions, Naida S. was arrested on the outstanding warrant and held on a $2,000 bond.   She was admitted to York Correctional Institution on September 5, 2012, and Johnny F. bonded her out on September 12, 2012.

Take care of the child(ren)'s physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including keeping the child(ren)'s appointments with his/her/their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers:  Naida S. did not comply with this step while the children were in her care.   She put her own needs ahead of those of her children.

Cooperate with the child(ren)'s therapy:  Naida S. did not comply with this step while the children were in her care.   She failed to engage with the IICAPS team, and she was frequently absent from sessions.

Make all necessary child-care arrangements to make sure the child(ren) is/are properly supervised and cared for by appropriate caretaker(s):  Naida S. did not comply with this step while the children were in her care.   She left Ammie and Kimberly to care for Jacob while she slept or went out.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits:  Naida S. did not comply with this step.   Naida S. has been offered visits with the children since they were removed from her care on August 15, 2011.   Initially, Naida S. said that she found visits to be too painful.   She did not visit any of the children until September 29, 2011.

Kimberly attended the first half hour of five visits with Naida S. Ammie chose to attend only one visit, on November 10, 2011.   Naida S. and Ammie became involved in a discussion during that visit that quickly escalated into an argument.   Kimberly and Jacob were also present.   Ammie and Kimberly chose to stop visiting their mother following this altercation between Naida S. and Ammie.

Naida S. continued to visit with Jacob, but her attendance was inconsistent.   The department eventually required that Naida S. call in advance to confirm that she will attend a visit.   The visits were originally intended to be weekly visits lasting for one hour.   On February 21, 2012, the schedule was expanded to two one-hour visits each week.   In September 2012, following the adjudicatory date, the schedule was changed again to weekly two-hour visits.   Naida S. missed almost two-thirds of her scheduled visits with Jacob from September 2011 to January 2013, attending only thirty-five of ninety-one visits.

Within thirty (30) days of this order, and at any time after that, tell DCF in writing the name, address, family relationship and birth date of any person(s) who you would like the department to investigate and consider as a placement resource for the child(ren):  Naida S. complied with this step.

Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren):  Naida S. complied with this step.

Reunification efforts by the department:  In addition to providing case management services, administrative case reviews, and assistance with the department of social services (DSS), the department offered the following services to facilitate the reunification of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob with Naida S.:  substance abuse evaluation;  detox treatment;  psychological evaluation;  psychiatric services;  individual mental health counseling;  outpatient substance abuse treatment;  inpatient substance abuse treatment;  long-term inpatient substance abuse program for woman with children;  methadone maintenance;  dual diagnosis program;  medication maintenance and monitoring;  parenting education;  parent/child visitation;  transportation;  and bus passes.

The department also offered the following services to facilitate the reunification of Jacob with Anthony S.:  case management services;  administrative case reviews;  psychological evaluation;  substance abuse evaluation and treatment;  sobering center;  inpatient substance abuse treatment, dual diagnosis program;  psychiatric services;  individual mental health counseling;  parenting education;  parent/child visitation;  transportation;  and assistance with services through DSS;  and services provided by the department of corrections and adult probation.

The department did not offer services to Oscar P. because he did not come forward as a placement resource for Ammie and Kimberly.   Oscar P. was residing in Mexico when the case commenced.   He was defaulted for his failure to appear in the neglect case on September 8, 2010, and he was defaulted for his failure to appear in the termination of parental rights proceeding on September 19, 2012.

III

LEGAL STANDARD

A proceeding for termination of parental rights is governed by General Statutes § 17a–112.  “In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under § 17a–112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that:  (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family;  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1);  (2) termination is in the best interest of the child;  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(2);  and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a–112(j)(3).”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 148–49, 962 A.2d 81 (2009).

A hearing on a termination of parental rights petition proceeds in two phases—adjudication and disposition.   In the adjudicatory phase, the court must determine whether the department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that one of the statutory grounds for termination existed as of the date the petition was filed or last amended.  Practice Book § 32a–3(b);  Practice Book § 35a–7(a);  In re Keyashia C., 120 Conn.App. 452, 455, 991 A.2d 1113, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 909, 995 A.2d 637 (2010).   When a termination of parental rights is sought under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B) on the ground of failure to rehabilitate, however, the court may consider events subsequent to the filing date when deciding whether the parent's rehabilitation “is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time.”  In re Jennifer W., 75 Conn.App. 485, 495, 816 A.2d 697, cert. denied, 263 Conn. 917, 821 A.2d 770 (2003).   The court need find that only one statutory ground for termination has been established to grant the petition.  In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 473, 816 A.2d 707 (2003).

If the court finds that the department has proven at least one statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, the court then proceeds to the dispositional phase “In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child[ren] ․ In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent's parental rights is not in the best interest of the child[ren].”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 340, 16 A.3d 1250, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 928, 22 A.3d 1275 (2011).   In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a–112(k) ] ․” In re Jason B., 137 Conn.App. 408, 422–23, 48 A.3d 676 (2012).

Evidence as to adjudication and disposition may be heard in the same proceeding, but disposition may not be considered until the adjudicatory phase has concluded.  In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 15 A.3d 194 (2011);  Practice Book § 35a–7(b).

IV

ADJUDICATIONA. Reasonable Efforts Finding

A reasonable efforts finding is a predicate for granting a petition for termination of parental rights.   The court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the department “made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a–111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to section 17a–111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).  “[Section 17a–112] imposes on the department the duty, inter alia, to make reasonable efforts to reunite 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 from which the requirement was drawn ․ [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 767–68, 23 A.3d 18 (2011), aff'd, 306 Conn. 438, 51 A.3d 334 (2012).  “Thus, the department must prove [by clear and convincing evidence] either that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.   Section 17a–112(j) clearly provides that the department is not required to prove both circumstances.   Rather, either showing is sufficient to satisfy this statutory element.”  (Emphasis in original;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 191, 16 A.3d 1244 (2011).

The department alleges that, as of the adjudicatory date, the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob with Naida S. by providing case management services, administrative case reviews, psychological evaluations, parent/child visitation, transportation, bus passes, and assistance in dealing with DSS. The department also referred Naida S. for substance abuse evaluation and treatment, both inpatient and outpatient, detox treatment, mental health counseling, methadone maintenance, dual diagnosis treatment, medication maintenance and monitoring, and parenting education.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob with Naida S.

On August 31, 2011, the court ordered, by agreement of the parties, that the department did not have to make reasonable efforts to reunify Jacob with Anthony S., based on Anthony S.'s representation that he did not intend to pursue custody of Jacob.   After his release from prison in September 2011, however, Anthony S. contacted the department to request visits with Jacob Anthony S. also informed the department that he wanted to be reunited with Jacob.   Accordingly, although specific steps were never ordered by the court for Anthony S., the department provided services to Anthony S. to work towards reunification with Jacob, including case management services, administrative case reviews, psychological evaluations, parent/child visitation, transportation, services through DSS, and services provided by the department of corrections and adult probation.   The department also referred Anthony S. for substance abuse evaluation and treatment, sobering center, inpatient substance abuse treatment, dual diagnosis program, psychiatric services, parenting education, and individual counseling.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify Jacob with Anthony S.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to locate Oscar P. and to reunite Ammie and Kimberly with Oscar P. The department's social worker spoke with Oscar P. by telephone.   He elected not to participate in court proceedings.   The department could not do more because Oscar P. remained in Mexico and never made himself available for the department to provide him with reunification services.

B. Statutory Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

The department alleges the statutory ground of failure to rehabilitate after adjudication, General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i) (Ground B–1), in the petitions for termination of the parental rights of Naida S. with respect to Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob.   The department alleges the statutory ground of abandonment, General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A) (Ground A), in the petitions for termination of the parental rights of Oscar P. with respect to Ammie and Kimberly.   The department alleges both statutory grounds—abandonment and failure to rehabilitate after adjudication—in the petition for termination of the parental rights of Anthony S. with respect to Jacob.

The respondent mother's failure to rehabilitate after adjudication (Ground B–1):  The statutory ground alleged for termination of the parental rights of Naida S. is that set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i)—failure to rehabilitate after adjudication.  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i) provides:  “The Superior Court ․ may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ (3) ․ (B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ․ and the parent of such child ․ has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).

“Personal rehabilitation as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ In conducting this inquiry, the trial court must analyze the respondent's rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child ․ The trial court must also determine whether the prospects for rehabilitation can be realized within a reasonable time given the age and needs of the child ․” In re Destiny R., 134 Conn.App. 625, 646, 39 A.3d 727, cert. denied, 304 Conn. 932, 43 A.3d 660 (2012).  “The statute does not require [a parent] to prove precisely when she will be able to assume a responsible position in her child's life.   Nor does it require her to prove that she will be able to assume full responsibility for her child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation she has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date she can assume a responsible position in her child's life.”  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–3), 1 Conn.App. 463, 477, 473 A.2d 795, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 802, 474 A.2d 1259 (1984).  “Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than any rehabilitation ․ Successful completion of the petitioner's expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Destiny R., supra, 134 Conn.App. at 646–47.

On January 5, 2011, Ammie and Kimberly were adjudicated neglected, and a period of protective supervision was ordered.   Jacob was adjudicated neglected on March 30, 2011, and protective supervision was also ordered.   The disposition of protective supervision was modified to commitment on August 23, 2011 with respect to Ammie and Kimberly, and on August 31, 2011 with respect to Jacob.

As of the January 5, 2011 adjudication of Ammie and Kimberly as neglected children, the presenting problems were Naida S.'s failure to address her mental health issues and her failure to complete—or even successfully participate in—substance abuse treatment.   These issues remained unresolved on March 30, 2011, when Jacob was adjudicated neglected Since that date, Naida S. has failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation to meet the needs of any of her three children, now or within a reasonable period of time.

“[A] finding of rehabilitation is not based on a mechanistic tabulation of whether a parent has undertaken specific steps ordered.   The ultimate issue the court must evaluate is whether the parent has gained the insight and ability to care for his or her child given the age and needs of the child within a reasonable time.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Destiny R., supra, 134 Conn.App. at 627.   As of August 30, 2012, the date the termination of parental rights petitions were filed, the department had been working with Naida S. for nearly two and a half years.   During this time, Naida S. made little, if any, progress in addressing her mental health and substance abuse issues.   She failed to demonstrate any ability to refrain from substance abuse for an extended period of time.   She left Amethyst House voluntarily after only six weeks rather than continue her treatment.   She did not confront her mental health issues and how they affected her judgment and decision-making.   She failed to take responsibility for her own actions, continuing to blame others instead.   Naida S. did not obtain adequate housing, she did not visit consistently with her children, and she showed little interest in improving her parenting.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Naida S. has failed to achieve a level of rehabilitation that would support a belief that she will assume a responsible position in the lives of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob within a reasonable period of time.

Abandonment of Ammie and Kimberly by the respondent father Oscar P. (Ground A):  The statutory ground alleged for termination of the parental rights of Oscar P. with respect to Ammie and Kimberly is that set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A):  “The Superior Court ․ may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ (3)(A) the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A).   Abandonment focuses on the conduct of the parent.  In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17, 632 A.2d 1122, cert. denied, 228 Conn. 915, 636 A.2d 847 (1993).  General Statutes § 45a–717(g) defines “abandonment” as “the fail[ure] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of a child ․” The statute “does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child.   A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child.   Maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern ․” In re Ashley E., 62 Conn.App. 307, 314–15, 771 A.2d 160, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 910, 772 A.2d 601 (2001).  “Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child ․” Id.

Oscar P. has been residing in Mexico since 2010.   He has had no physical contact with Ammie and Kimberly since that time.   He has not sent any cards, gifts or letters to Ammie and Kimberly, and he has not provided financial support for either of the girls.   He has not initiated any contact with the department to ask about their welfare.   Oscar P. had only three conversations with the department in 2012—in April, August and September 2012 and the department initiated all three of these calls.   He has chosen not to participate in these cases.

Although Oscar P. speaks with Ammie and Kimberly by telephone twice each month, the calls are no substitute for his presence.   The fact remains that when Oscar P. returned to Mexico in 2010, he left Ammie and Kimberly in Naida S.'s care, despite being fully aware of Naida S.'s substance abuse and mental health issues.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that both Ammie and Kimberly have been abandoned by Oscar P. in the sense that Oscar P. has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to Ammie's welfare and Kimberly's welfare.

Abandonment of Jacob by the respondent father Anthony S. (Ground A):  The first statutory ground alleged for termination of the parental rights of Anthony S. with respect to Jacob is abandonment, as set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A).   As discussed above with respect to Oscar P., the respondent father of Ammie and Kimberly, abandonment focuses on the conduct of the parent.  In re Kezia M., supra, 33 Conn.App. at 17.

Anthony S. has disappeared from Jacob's life.   He has had no contact with Jacob since May 17, 2012.   He did not acknowledge Jacob's birthday on December 7, 2012.   He has not sent letters, cards or gifts to Jacob.   Anthony S. has not provided financial support for Jacob.   He has not called the department regularly to inquire about Jacob.   In August 2012, Anthony S. told the department that he was returning to Connecticut.   He did not inform the department of his whereabouts, and the department heard nothing further from him.   When the department reached him in December 2012, Anthony S. reported that he was living in Florida, but he did not provide his contact information to the department.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Jacob has been abandoned by Anthony S. in, the sense that Anthony S. has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to Jacob's welfare.

The respondent father Anthony S.'s failure to rehabilitate after adjudication (Ground B–I):  The second statutory ground alleged for termination of the parental rights of Anthony S. with respect to Jacob is Anthony S.'s failure to rehabilitate after adjudication, as set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).   As of March 30, 2011, the date that Jacob was adjudicated a neglected child, the presenting problems were Anthony S.'s incarceration and his inability to provide for Jacob's basic needs, as well as his own.   Since that time, Anthony S. has failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation to meet Jacob's needs now or within a reasonable period of time.

When Anthony S. was discharged from Danbury Hospital's psychiatric unit in June 2012 following another suicide attempt, he did not continue with mental health counseling.   When he relapsed in May 2012 after completing a substance abuse program, he refused to return to treatment.   He did not attend any visits with Jacob after May 17, 2012.   He failed to obtain stable housing, and he stopped reporting to his probation officer in July 2012.   Neither his probation officer nor the department knew where he was living as of August 30, 2012, when the petition to terminate his and Naida S.'s parental rights with respect to Jacob was filed.   At the time of the termination of parental rights trial, a warrant for his arrest was outstanding.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Anthony S. has failed to achieve a level of rehabilitation that would support a belief that he will assume a responsible position in Jacob's life within a reasonable period of time.

V

DISPOSITION

Having found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of Naida S. and Oscar P. with respect to Ammie and Kimberly, and to terminate the parental rights of Naida S. and Anthony S. with respect to Jacob, the court must next determine whether termination is in the best interests of each of the children.  “The best interests of the child include the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of its environment.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000).   In determining whether the department has established by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of Naida S., Oscar P., and Jacob S. is in the best interests of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob, the court must consider the seven factors set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(k) and make written findings concerning those factors.  “The 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;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Jason B., 137 Conn.App. 408, 422–23, 48 A.3d 676 (2012).   The court makes the following written findings with respect to each of the seven factors:

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:  Naida S. has been offered services since March 2010, months before the neglect petitions were filed.   The following services were offered, provided, and made available to Naida S. to facilitate reunification of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob with Naida S.:  case management services;  administrative case reviews;  assistance through DSS;  IICAPS;  substance abuse evaluations;  detox treatment;  outpatient and inpatient substance abuse treatment;  methadone maintenance;  long-term inpatient substance abuse program for woman with children;  dual diagnosis program;  psychological evaluation;  psychiatric services;  medication maintenance and monitoring;  individual counseling;  parenting education;  parent/child visitation;  transportation;  and bus passes.   The following services were offered, provided, and made available to Ammie and Kimberly to facilitate reunification with Naida S.:  case management services;  administrative case reviews;  foster care services;  IICAPS;  psychological evaluation;  psychiatric services;  medication maintenance and monitoring;  individual counseling;  parent/child visitation;  and transportation.   The following services were offered, provided, and made available to Jacob to facilitate reunification with Naida S.:  case management services;  administrative case reviews;  foster care services;  psychological evaluation;  individual counseling;  parent/child visitation;  and transportation.

Although Anthony S. indicated in August 2011 that he did not desire to be a placement resource for Jacob, he requested and the department provided services to facilitate reunification with Jacob after Anthony S. was released from prison.   The following services were offered, provided, and made available to Anthony S. to facilitate reunification of Jacob with Anthony S.;   case management services;  administrative case reviews;  psychological evaluation;  substance abuse evaluation and treatment;  inpatient substance abuse treatment;  dual diagnosis program;  psychiatric services;  parenting education;  parent/child visitation;  individual counseling;  sobering center;  transportation;  services through DSS;  and services provided by the department of corrections and adult probation.   The following services were offered, provided, and made available to Jacob to facilitate reunification with Anthony S.:  case management services;  administrative case reviews;  foster care services;  psychological evaluation;  individual counseling;  parent/child visitation;  and transportation.

Services were not offered to Oscar P., as he did not come forward as a placement resource for his children.   Prior to the opening of this case, he has been residing in Mexico.   Additionally, he has not had any contact with the court.

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:  The department made reasonable efforts to reunite Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob with Naida S. pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, by offering, providing, and otherwise making available the following services:  case management services;  administrative case reviews;  foster care services, assistance through DSS;  IICAPS;  substance abuse evaluations;  detox treatment;  outpatient and inpatient substance abuse treatment;  methadone maintenance;  long-term inpatient substance abuse program for woman with children;  dual diagnosis program;  psychological evaluation;  psychiatric services;  medication maintenance and monitoring;  individual counseling;  parenting education;  parent/child visitation;  transportation;  and bus passes.

Although Anthony S. initially indicated that he did not desire to be a placement resource for Jacob, the department also made reasonable efforts to reunite Jacob with Anthony S. pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, by offering, providing, and otherwise making available the following services:  case management services;  administrative case reviews;  foster care services;  psychological evaluation;  substance abuse evaluation and treatment;  sobering center;  inpatient substance abuse treatment;  dual diagnosis program;  psychiatric services;  transportation;  parenting education;  parent/child visitation;  individual counseling;  services through DSS;  and services provided by the department of corrections and adult probation.

Services were not offered to Oscar P., because he did not indicate that he was willing to be a placement resource for Ammie and Kimberly.

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:  The court issued final specific steps for Naida S. on January 5, 2011, when Ammie and Kimberly were adjudicated neglected and a period of protective supervision was ordered.   Final specific steps were also ordered for Naida S. on March 30, 2011, when Jacob was adjudicated neglected and protective supervision was ordered.   Preliminary specific steps were again ordered for Naida S. on August 18, 2011, when the court granted the department's motions for an order of temporary custody on behalf of the children.   On August 23, 2011, the court sustained the order of temporary custody for Ammie and Kimberly, granted the department's motion to open and modify the disposition to commitment with respect to Ammie and Kimberly, and issued final specific steps for Naida S. On August 31, 2011, the court sustained the order of temporary custody for Jacob, granted the department's motion to open and modify the disposition to commitment with respect to Jacob, and ordered the preliminary specific steps for Naida S. as final specific steps.   The terms of the specific steps ordered by the court and Naida S.'s compliance with the specific steps are more fully described in part II of this decision.   Naida S. did not comply with all of her obligations under the specific steps.   The department fulfilled its obligations under the specific steps and other court orders.

Oscar P. and Anthony S. were defaulted for their failure to appear in the neglect cases relating to their children.   The court did not order specific steps for either of the respondent fathers at that time.   The preliminary specific steps issued on August 18, 2011 for Oscar P. and Anthony S. were never ordered as final specific steps.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to such child's parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties:  Ammie and Kimberly still love and care for Naida S., but they do not want to visit with her at this time.   They do not want to be returned to Naida S.'s care.   Jacob appeared to enjoy his visits with Naida S. when they happened, but he was not upset or angry when she left before he arrived for their visit on January 14, 2013.

Ammie and Kimberly speak to Oscar P. on the telephone approximately twice a month.   They miss him and would like to have a visit with him.   They have not seen him since early 2010, but they have positive memories of him.

When he was a baby, Jacob knew Anthony S. He did not have any memory of Anthony S. when Anthony S. began visiting with him in October 2011.   Anthony S. abruptly stopped visiting Jacob in May 2012.   At first, Jacob asked for him, but then no longer talked about him.

Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob have developed significant emotional ties to their maternal aunt and uncle, Ana and Jose B., in whose home they have been living since June 2012 (Kimberly and Jacob) and August 2012 (Ammie).   They want to be adopted by Ana and Jose B.

Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob were not similarly bonded to their previous foster parents.

5. The age of the child:  Ammie was born on February 27, 1996.   She is now 17 years old.   Kimberly was born on June 4, 1998.   She is 14 years old, and she will turn 15 soon.   Jacob was born on December 7, 2006.   He is 6 years old.

6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return 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:  Naida S. did not make the effort required to adjust her circumstances, conduct or conditions so that it would be in the best interest of Ammie, Kimberly or Jacob to return to her care.   Naida S. has not rehabilitated herself to the point of being able to provide a safe, stable environment for her children.   She has not refrained from substance abuse for any significant period of time or addressed her mental health issues.   Naida S. has missed many scheduled visits with Jacob.   Although Ammie and Kimberly have chosen to not attend visits with Naida S., they indicated that they were willing to receive letters from her.   As of the date of the termination of parental rights trial, Naida S. had sent only three letters to Ammie and Kimberly, the last one being in October 2012.

Oscar P. did not make the effort required to adjust his circumstances, conduct or conditions so that it would be in the best interest of Ammie and Kimberly to return to his care.   Oscar P. left Connecticut and moved back to Mexico in 2010.   He was involved in the girls' lives before he returned to Mexico, but he did not maintain contact with them after he left.   It was not until Match 2012 that Ammie and Kimberly began having regular telephone contact with Oscar P. He has not proposed to return to Connecticut to care for them.

Anthony S. did not make the effort required to adjust his circumstances, conduct or conditions so that it would be in the best interest of Jacob to return to his care.   Anthony S. has not rehabilitated himself to the point of being able to provide a safe, stable environment for his child.   He has not refrained from substance abuse for any significant period of time or addressed his mental health issues.   Anthony S. has not had any contact with Jacob since May 17, 2012.

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:  Naida S. and Oscar P. have not prevented each other from maintaining meaningful relationships with Ammie and Kimberly.   Naida S. and Anthony S. have not prevented each other from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Jacob.   None of the respondent parents has been prevented by any other person, or by his or her economic circumstances, from maintaining a meaningful relationship with any of the children.

The court has considered the best interests of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob, including their health, safety and need for permanency.  “It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents.   There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty ․” Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982).   Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob deserve to have permanency and stability in their lives.   These children should not have to worry about whether they will have enough food, whether their mother will fall asleep and set the bathroom on fire, or whether the strange men coming in and out of their home will cause harm to them or to their mother.

For Ammie in particular, she should not have to assume the role of a parent, taking responsibility for her sister and brother, when her father is gone and her mother has put her own needs ahead of those of her children.   Ammie has the right to be a 17–year–old girl, enjoying high school and planning for college.   After struggling with her own mental health issues, Ammie is happy and secure in the home of her maternal aunt and uncle, Ana and Jose B. Ammie wants to be adopted by her aunt and uncle, and they have stated that they wish to adopt her, if she becomes legally free for adoption.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of Naida S. and Oscar P. is in the best interests of Ammie.

Kimberly, at the age of almost 15, should not have the burden of providing emotional support for her older sister and caring for her little brother, while coping with her mother's substance abuse and mental health issues.   Kimberly is doing well in the home of Ana and Jose B., and she is happy living there with her sister, her brother, and her cousins.   She wants to be adopted by her aunt and uncle, and they also wish to adopt her, if she becomes legally free for adoption.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of Naida S. and Oscar P. is in the best interests of Kimberly.

Jacob has the right to know where his home is and who will be taking care of him.   He should not have to worry that an adult he loves will disappear from his life.   Jacob has adjusted well to his aunt and uncle's home.   He is too young to understand completely what adoption means, but he wants to remain with his aunt, his uncle, his sisters, and his cousins.   Ana and Jose B. wish to adopt Jacob, if he becomes legally free for adoption.   The court finds that termination of the parental rights of Naida S. and Anthony S. is in the best interests of Jacob.¹⁷

VI

CONCLUSION

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ordered as follows;

The objection of Naida S. to the permanency plans for Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob is overruled;

The objection of Anthony S. to the permanency plan for Jacob is overruled;

The parental rights of Naida S. and Oscar P. are hereby terminated with respect to Ammie, and the commissioner of the department of children and families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Ammie so that Ammie may be placed for adoption;

The parental rights of Naida S. and Oscar P. are hereby terminated with respect to Kimberly, and the commissioner of the department of children and families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Kimberly so that Kimberly may be placed for adoption;  and

The parental rights of Naida S. and Anthony S. are hereby terminated with respect to Jacob, and the commissioner of the department of children and families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Jacob so that Jacob may be placed for adoption.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(o), the statutory parent shall report to the court within thirty days of this judgment on the case plans for Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob, and shall timely present such further reports to the court as required by law.

The department shall file petitions for the adoptions of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Danbury pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–129b, or the clerk of the Probate Court which has jurisdiction over the adoptions of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Danbury when and if any such adoptions are finalized.

Judgment shall enter accordingly.

BY THE COURT:

HELLER, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In accordance with General Statutes § 46b–124 and Practice Book § 32a–7, the names of the parties are not disclosed, and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest in the matter and only upon order of the court..  FN1. In accordance with General Statutes § 46b–124 and Practice Book § 32a–7, the names of the parties are not disclosed, and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest in the matter and only upon order of the court.

FN2. In its motion for judicial notice, filed on January 8, 2013, the department asked that the court take judicial notice of the neglect petitions filed on “June 23, 2010”;  however, the petitions were filed on July 2, 2010.   The summary of facts substantiating the neglect allegations in each petition was dated June 23, 2010..  FN2. In its motion for judicial notice, filed on January 8, 2013, the department asked that the court take judicial notice of the neglect petitions filed on “June 23, 2010”;  however, the petitions were filed on July 2, 2010.   The summary of facts substantiating the neglect allegations in each petition was dated June 23, 2010.

FN3. The February 1, 2013 report of the children's guardian ad litem was also marked as State's Exhibit 23 and admitted into evidence..  FN3. The February 1, 2013 report of the children's guardian ad litem was also marked as State's Exhibit 23 and admitted into evidence.

FN4. State's Exhibit 13, letter from Debra Fraser–Coleman, primary clinical counselor, Amethyst House, dated February 4, 2012..  FN4. State's Exhibit 13, letter from Debra Fraser–Coleman, primary clinical counselor, Amethyst House, dated February 4, 2012.

FN5. Id..  FN5. Id.

FN6. Id..  FN6. Id.

FN7. State's Exhibit 2A, Report of Barbara P. Berkowitz, Ph.D., dated August 5, 2011, at 12..  FN7. State's Exhibit 2A, Report of Barbara P. Berkowitz, Ph.D., dated August 5, 2011, at 12.

FN8. Id..  FN8. Id.

FN9. Naida S. was involved in a physical altercation with her sister, Ana B. (then known as Ana L.).   After being told by Ana B. that she could no longer live in her apartment because she was not paying rent, Naida S. responded with curses and threats to physically harm and to kill Ana B. When Ana B. began to dial 911, Naida S. attempted to strike her and then threw the phone base at her, narrowly missing Ana B. and her daughter, who was then 3 years old.   Naida S. left with her boyfriend, Johnny F., before the police arrived..  FN9. Naida S. was involved in a physical altercation with her sister, Ana B. (then known as Ana L.).   After being told by Ana B. that she could no longer live in her apartment because she was not paying rent, Naida S. responded with curses and threats to physically harm and to kill Ana B. When Ana B. began to dial 911, Naida S. attempted to strike her and then threw the phone base at her, narrowly missing Ana B. and her daughter, who was then 3 years old.   Naida S. left with her boyfriend, Johnny F., before the police arrived.

FN10. Johnny F. has been Naida S.'s boyfriend for many years.   He is a convicted felon with an extensive considerable criminal record..  FN10. Johnny F. has been Naida S.'s boyfriend for many years.   He is a convicted felon with an extensive considerable criminal record.

FN11. State's Exhibit 2B, report of Barbara P. Berkowitz, Ph.D., dated March 20, 2012, at 10..  FN11. State's Exhibit 2B, report of Barbara P. Berkowitz, Ph.D., dated March 20, 2012, at 10.

FN12. Id. at 11..  FN12. Id. at 11.

FN13. Id. at 3..  FN13. Id. at 3.

FN14. Dr. Berkowitz reported that Anthony S. suffered a grand mal seizure right before he was to attend his interactional evaluation with Jacob on February 1, 2012.  Id. at 13–15..  FN14. Dr. Berkowitz reported that Anthony S. suffered a grand mal seizure right before he was to attend his interactional evaluation with Jacob on February 1, 2012.  Id. at 13–15.

FN15. State's Exhibit 3B, IICAPS Discharge Summary, dated October 25, 2011 at 1..  FN15. State's Exhibit 3B, IICAPS Discharge Summary, dated October 25, 2011 at 1.

FN16. Kimberly attended the first half hour of five visits with Naida S. in 2011.   Ammie chose to attend only one visit..  FN16. Kimberly attended the first half hour of five visits with Naida S. in 2011.   Ammie chose to attend only one visit.

FN17. In determining the issue of the best interests of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob, the court has considered the adjudicatory and dispositional evidence in its entirety, and the court has concluded by clear and convincing evidence that there is no permanency plan that could have secured the best interests of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob that is less restrictive than termination of the parental rights at issue.   See In re Azareon Y., 139 Conn.App. 457, 60 A.3d 742 (2012), cert. granted in part, 307 Conn. 950, 60 A.3d 739, and cert. granted in part, 308 Conn. 928 (2013);  In re Julianna B., 141 Conn.App. 163, 61 A.3d 606 (2013)..  FN17. In determining the issue of the best interests of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob, the court has considered the adjudicatory and dispositional evidence in its entirety, and the court has concluded by clear and convincing evidence that there is no permanency plan that could have secured the best interests of Ammie, Kimberly, and Jacob that is less restrictive than termination of the parental rights at issue.   See In re Azareon Y., 139 Conn.App. 457, 60 A.3d 742 (2012), cert. granted in part, 307 Conn. 950, 60 A.3d 739, and cert. granted in part, 308 Conn. 928 (2013);  In re Julianna B., 141 Conn.App. 163, 61 A.3d 606 (2013).

Heller, Donna Nelson, J.