IN RE: Kuwan R. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

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

Before this court are the co-terminous petitions of neglect to adjudicate the child, Kuwan R. Jr., uncared for and neglected, and termination of parental rights of the mother and the father pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112, et seq. filed by the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”).  The petitions were filed on January 13, 2012.   The respondent mother is Stephanie C. (“mother”) and the respondent father is Kuwan R. Sr. (“father”).  The respondent parents were served, appeared, were advised and appointed counsel.   The mother was served on January 16, 2012 and the father was served on January 16, 2012.   The child was appointed an attorney.   The Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable.   Notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the Practice Book. The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction and is aware of no other pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child.   This matter was tried to the court on April 30, 2013 and May 1, 2013.   Father and mother appeared for trial and each was represented by counsel.   The child was represented by counsel.   DCF was represented by an assistant attorney general.

The court heard testimony from the assigned DCF social workers, mother's licensed clinical social worker, the foster mother, father's probation officer, a Hartford police officer and Dr. Derek Franklin, a licensed clinical psychologist.   Thirty-six exhibits were entered into evidence.

A Motion for Judicial notice filed by DCF on August 17, 2012 was granted by the court.   The court took judicial notice of the entire record of the previous proceedings, findings and orders with respect to Kuwan R., Jr. and his siblings, Tyon D. (birth date:  10/26/2004), Jumal R. (birth date: 1/17/2006) and Kamron C. (birth date: 4/11/2007) including a Memorandum of Decision dated November 20, 2006 terminating mother's parental rights as to Tyon D., the order terminating mother's and father's parental rights as to Jumal R. and Kamron C. With regard to Kuwan Jr., the court takes judicial notice of the ex parte order of temporary custody, and accompanying affidavits, granted on January 13, 2012, the order sustaining the order of temporary custody, the preliminary specific steps, advisement of rights and confirmation of service as to mother and father entered on January 20, 2012.   The court also takes judicial notice of the court's finding that Kuwan Sr. is the biological father of Kuwan Jr. entered on June 28, 2012.   Additionally, at the time of trial, counsel agreed to the court taking judicial notice of the neglect adjudication and commitment of Kuwan Jr. on August 20, 2012, the approval of the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as to mother on November 13, 2012, the finding of reasonable efforts entered on March 12, 2012 as well as mother's consent to the termination of parental rights as to Jumal and Kamron.   The court also takes judicial notice of all pleadings, petitions, social studies, status reports, evaluations, court memoranda and preliminary specific steps as well as the dates and contents of the court's findings, orders, rulings and judgments as to Kuwan Jr.¹ The court also takes judicial notice of the neglect petition, the termination of parental rights petition and the summary of facts to substantiate the petitions of neglect and termination of parental rights filed on January 13, 2012 and the final specific steps ordered by the court on August 20, 2012.² ,³ Because the respondent mother and father did not testify, the representations in the social studies and affidavits were virtually uncontested and will be considered for dispositional purposes.   All counsel were given the opportunity to participate in the examination of the witness and closing arguments.

In the neglect petition, the statutory grounds alleged are that the child is being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally or the he is neglected in that he is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his wellbeing.   General Statutes § 46b–120(8)(c) et seq.

In the termination of parental rights petition, the statutory ground alleged against mother and father is as follows:  the mother and father are the parent of a child under the age of seven years who is neglected and uncared for, have failed, are unable or are unwilling to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parents could assume a responsible position in the life of the child and the parents' parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the commissioner of children and families.  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).   The petition also alleges that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate mother and father and that mother and father are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The court, having read and carefully considered the verified petitions, the arguments of counsel, the demeanor of the witnesses, and pursuant to the evidence and testimony presented, makes the following findings by a fair preponderance of the evidence as to the neglect petition, and by clear and convincing evidence as to the termination of parental rights petition as to mother and father.

As To The Respondent Mother, Stephanie C.

Mother was born on June 7, 1986.   Mother has a DCF history as a youth while living with her maternal grandmother who had a physical neglect history that included homelessness, substance abuse, inadequate supervision and abandonment.   Mother attended high school but did not progress beyond the 10th grade.   Mother is well-known to the child protection system dating back to November 2004 for issues of homelessness, transience substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal behavior and lack of proper parenting skills.   Mother has had four prior DCF referrals, two of which were substantiated due to substance abuse and erratic and impaired behavior with adverse physical impact and conditions injurious.   A 96–hour hold was invoked on Tyon D.'s behalf on November 1, 2004 when he was six days old due to neglect based on mother's homelessness and lack of provisions for the child.   As noted above, mother's parental rights to Tyon D. were terminated on February 13, 2007 on the grounds of failure to rehabilitate, abandonment and lack of ongoing parent-child relationship.   On April 12, 2007, DCF received a report alleging emotional and physical neglect of Kamron C. at the time of his birth as the result of allegations of substance abuse and concerns regarding mother's mental health status.   While pregnant with Kamron C., mother tested positive for marijuana on March 27, 2007.   She received pre-natal care at York Correctional Institute due to her incarceration.   Notably, mother threatened the social worker assigned to Kamron C.'s case at the time of DCF's investigation of the alleged neglect.   On May 24, 2007, the report was substantiated against mother due to her erratic behavior with adverse physical impact and circumstances injurious to the child's well-being.   Her parental rights as to Jumal R. and Kamron C. were terminated on March 7, 2008.

With regard to the child who is the subject of the instant petitions, St. Francis Hospital made a referral to DCF alleging the physical neglect of Kuwan Jr. by mother on January 10, 2012.   The report stated that Kuwan Jr. was born by c-section at thirty-five weeks gestation and weighed 6 lbs. 11 ounces.   He was placed in the NICU due to the manner of his birth, his prematurity and mother's gestational diabetes.   Kuwan Jr. appeared to be experiencing withdrawal symptoms which required medication and monitoring.   Pre-natal care was unknown as mother's report of treating with a private OB–GYN was unable to be verified.   Significantly, at the commencement of DCF's investigation, mother denied that she had a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, protective orders, police involvement, mental health issues or diagnoses, mental health medication, psychiatric treatment or prior involvement with DCF. She also denied ever making threats of harm to others.   Mother reported to hospital staff that her children were living with her.   She reported that she was employed as a nurse and had held that job for one year.   Mother admitted that she did not have a certificate to be a nurse and reported that she was a CNA. Mother also reported to the hospital staff that DCF sold her other babies.   Mother also reported to the social worker that she saw her children weekly and picked them up from school.

Mother's DCF case history revealed the prior threatening behavior against DCF staff, prior protective orders and police involvement due to domestic violence as well as prior treatment with psychiatrists and therapists.   Specifically, a full no-contact protective order was entered against mother with father as the protected party effective from December 28, 2009 to December 1, 2010.   Mother also had four prior protective orders issued against her.

DCF, in attempting to verify mother's employment pursuant to mother's written release, confirmed that mother was employed by Allied Community Services and had been employed by them off and on for the prior year as a personal care assistant tending to the needs of a specific client.   Mother earned $12.75 per hour.   Mother reported that she received $200.00 in food stamps per month and that her monthly rent was $1,000.00 for which she received no monetary assistance.

DCF visited mother's apartment and confirmed that she lived on the second floor.   At trial, mother presented a lease for the apartment at a cost of $1,000.00 per month.   Mother is listed as the only tenant on the rental agreement.   The rental agreement was executed on November 1, 2011.   Mother informed DCF that she paid the rent in full for a year prior to her incarceration in 2012.   Mother's apartment was fully furnished and she had ample baby supplies.   Of note, a room in mother's apartment had an array of jewelry and other accessories on display.   Mother did confirm to the DCF social worker that shoplifting was her main source of income.   Mother denied that anyone lived with her including family members.   However, DCF confirmed that mother has a history of residing with her brothers at three different apartments including mother's current apartment dating back to 2010.   DCF confirmed that mother did let her father and brothers stay with her at the apartment.   Notably, mail addressed to the father was in mother's mail box.   DCF further confirmed that, as of March 5, 2013, mother's father was residing in the apartment.   Further, testimony at trial revealed that the police were called to mother's apartment on June 16, 2012 due a physical altercation between father and one of mother's brothers.   Her brother was arrested for Disorderly Conduct and Assault 3rd and is currently incarcerated.   That brother, Andre, has an extensive criminal history dating back to 2004 for charges including numerous narcotic possessions, Sale of Illegal Substances, Assault 3, Disorderly Conduct and Probation Violations.   Further, there was an active protective order between mother and Andre from September 13, 2010 to May 3, 2011.   Mother's father also has a lengthy criminal history.   Since mother's release from incarceration and the halfway house where she resided after her incarceration, she has been residing in the apartment and has part-time employment with McDonald's earning gross weekly wages in the amount of $445.21 per week.

Mother initially agreed to participate in a mental health evaluation as requested by DCF on January 11, 2012 but then refused to do so.   Further, she refused all services offered by DCF and insisted on finding her own provider.   Mother then found Center of Attention pursuant to the recommendation of a friend.   DCF accommodated mother's request even though Center of Attention was not one of DCF's contracted providers and agreed to pay for the services.   Mother attended sessions from January 19, 2012 through May 31, 2012 and was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Antisocial Personality Disorder.   At the time of the commencement of her treatment at the facility, mother presented with significantly impaired ego functioning including her judgment, impulse control and insight.   Her treatment included participation in substance abuse counseling, demonstrating her feelings and processing her grief and loss.   She also participated in treatment for learning adaptive skills to manage depressive symptoms, improving her judgment and improving her impulse control.   Mother appeared to be committed to the therapeutic process but was clearly overwhelmed.   Her attendance was excellent but she made only minimal to moderate progress.   Mother did make progress with regard to her significant trust issues but continued to be challenged with regard to practicing effective communication techniques, discipline techniques and adaptive coping mechanisms to manage stress.   Most troubling, mother reported that she was an experienced care giver and that she had provided a safe and loving environment for each of her children entrusted to her care, and that she had adequately parented her children prior to their removal from her care.

Although mother's clinician at Center of Attention indicated that mother made “minimal to moderate progress” in her treatment, she recommended that mother be reunified with her son.   Her clinician indicated that mother would benefit from a residential, transitional program with supportive services on site as this would enable her to develop skills necessary to keep herself and her family stable and safe, as well as foster a positive and consistent family structure.   A supportive housing program placement or residential support program to continue her education and maintain competency with parenting if reunification was the goal was also recommended to protect her son from being exposed to at risk situations or victimizations.   In the alternative, an intensive parenting program was recommended.   Mother participated in parenting classes at Center of Attention from January 2012 to June 2012 but did not complete the parenting sessions.   DCF subsequently referred mother to Hispanic Health Council in February 2013 for additional parenting education.   Mother stopped attending treatment at Center of Attention in May 2012.   She was incarcerated in July 2012.

After mother's discharge from incarceration and her release from a halfway house on April 29, 2013, DCF again offered mother services.   Mother refused to attend services anywhere other than Center of Attention.   Mother resumed her group and individual therapy at Center of Attention in January 2013 to address her continuing and unresolved mental health needs including coping skills, problem solving, trauma symptoms, Adjustment Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder.   Her presenting issues at that time were sadness, tearfulness, combativeness with significant others, conflict with peers, irritability, poor self-esteem, broken sleep pattern and high risk behavior which resulted in legal issues.   A new treatment plan was established to address these issues.   As of February 2013, mother was attending her weekly session and had made moderate progress.   Mother noted that the termination of parental rights proceeding with regard to Kuwan Jr. was causing her extreme stress and was exacerbating trauma symptoms such as flashbacks, increased anxiety and depressed mood.   Treatment stopped in April 2013 due to a mis-communication received by DCF from Center of Attention with regard to its billing charges resulting in a higher fee for the services.   DCF had approved the originally quoted amount but the higher fees were not preliminarily approved by DCF. Center of Attention refused to treat mother at the originally quoted rate.   Comparable alternative services were offered to mother by DCF but she refused them insisting that she would only treat with Center of Attention.   She continues to refuse to do so.

Mother participated in a substance abuse evaluation at ADRC on May 2, 2012.   However, mother was not forthcoming with regard to her previous substance abuse history, DCF history, mental health history or criminal history.   ADRC noted that mother would benefit from a thorough psychiatric assessment to determine an accurate mental health diagnosis with recommendations.   Mother refused a referral to a psychiatrist.   Mother continued to refuse to work with any other therapist or agency recommended by DCF. ADRC also recommended that mother participate in weekly random drug screens.   Mother participated in two screens on May 3, 2012 and May 24, 2012, both of which were negative.

Mother was referred by DCF to the Circle of Life Transition Center for domestic services due to her history of domestic violence with father.   She commenced participation in the program on April 26, 2012 and completed the program in June 2012.   However, mother subsequently informed DCF on July 11, 2012 that she wanted father to reside in her home upon his release from prison and use her car while she was incarcerated.   Further, mother has consistently denied any history of domestic violence.

Mother did complete a stress management group and participated in parenting classes, child development classes and Toastmaster International during her last period of incarceration

Mother's criminal history is most concerning.   Mother has convictions for two counts of Larceny 6 in 2005, Threatening 2 in 2007 and Larceny 4 in 2010.   As noted above, mother threatened to kill her former social worker.   Mother has a protective order history including a full no-contact order against mother with father as the protected party for the period December 28, 2009 to December 1, 2010.   Mother has prior police involvement due to domestic violence.   At the time of the order of temporary custody with regard to Kuwan, Jr., mother had pending charges for Larceny 4, Shoplifting, DVC and Failure to Appear 2nd stemming from an arrest on May 25, 2011.   Notably, mother attended a court date on March 21, 2012 in Milford with regard to a shoplifting arrest on March 15, 2011 and was arrested shortly thereafter on March 21, 2012 for shoplifting once again at the same location.   Mother was subsequently incarcerated and placed at York Correctional Institute and was bailed out on March 26, 2012.   She subsequently failed to attend any of her court hearings.   Mother was arrested due to numerous arrest warrants for Larceny 4th, two charges of Larceny 6th, Failure to Appear, Illegal Possession of a Shoplifting Device, Interfering with Police, Conspiracy, Credit Card Theft and Violation of Probation for failure to make court-ordered restitution as well as the two additional arrests for shoplifting.   On July 27, 2012, she was subsequently convicted and sentenced to serve twenty months incarceration with a maximum discharge date of February 19, 2014 and three years probation.   As noted, above, she left prison on November 28, 2012 and was placed at a half-way house until April 29, 2013.   She has been placed on three years parole and has been ordered to pay restitution and not engage in criminal activity.

Supervised visitation between mother and Kuwan Jr. was provided by Radiance Innovative twice a week from the time of Kuwan Jr.'s removal.   Mother was consistent with her visitation from January to April 2012.   Mother started to miss many of her visits including five out of six scheduled visits in June 2012.   DCF conducted supervised monthly visits with mother and Kuwan Jr. during her incarceration.   She had visitation every other week while in the halfway house.   Kuwan Jr. was inconsolable during many of the visits at the prison and at the halfway house.   Mother did attempt to comfort Kuwan Jr. but with little success.   Kuwan Jr. would calm down only when leaving the visits.   Mother was referred to the Hispanic Health Counsel on February 5, 2013 for additional parent education pursuant to the social worker's observation of mother during supervised visitation and his resulting concerns regarding her behavior.   Mother would walk away from Kuwan Jr. while he was on the couch.   Mother was also observed providing Kuwan Jr. with unhealthy snacks.   DCF referred mother to Radiance Innovative Services for additional parent education.   As of April 14, 2013, mother refused the parental education services.

Pursuant to court order, mother underwent a psychological evaluation by Dr. Derek Franklin, a clinical psychologist, on July 12, 2012 which the court finds most instructive.   Notably, Dr. Franklin performed prior evaluations of mother in 2006 and 2007, at which time mother was diagnosed with mood disorder, cannabis abuse by history, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and borderline personality traits.   At that time, he noted that there was little overt evidence to indicate that mother was emotionally attached to her children.   Dr. Franklin further opined in 2007 that termination of mother's parental rights was warranted to the extent she had “no real emotional connection with regard to her children.   He also noted at that time that mother had a serious Axis II diagnosis of personality disorder and had, at that time, no significant involvement in intensive psychotherapy or psychiatric consultation that could address very significant and real problems.”   He further opined at that time that mother “is incapable of reasonably addressing this concern in a timely manner that would otherwise promote the idea that an extended period of time could be required for reunification.”   He further opined that mother:

presents with significant oddities in thought proceeding.   Notwithstanding, this does not rise to the level of psychoticism.   This oddity appears to be consistent features of a personality disorder, i.e., borderline, characterized by instability in interpersonal relations and affective deregulation.   Her responses are the compilation of inadequacy, low self-esteem, social cues misrepresentations, mood deregulation and features of a personality disorder.   This is an individual who is quite limited in her understanding of the needs specific to children and will certainly require a great deal of education in this regard if she is to be the sole provider of care.   The mother, in my opinion, does not possess a level of insight or adequate judgment that could reasonably be determined as conducive to child rearing.

At the time of her most recent evaluation in 2012 with Dr. Franklin, mother's presenting issues with regard to child protective services were related to substance abuse, mental health, transience, domestic violence, criminal behavior and lack of proper parenting skills.   He noted that her present problems were related to her difficulties in functional socialization, a concern Dr. Franklin noted in mother's previous psychological evaluation.

Dr. Franklin's most recent diagnoses of mother include bipolar disorder I, mood disorder nos and post-traumatic stress disorder, the latter diagnosis as a rule out.   Notably, Dr. Franklin testified that he changed her prior diagnosis to bipolar disorder I because he felt that she was at manic levels for depression and ADHD. He noted that she was despondent much of the time, moody and dissatisfied.   He noted that her Personality Assessment Inventory reflected significant mania manifesting as irritability, hostility, grandiosity and mood cycling.   He further noted that those scores are typically associated with a bipolar condition and that there was evidence of a personality disorder.   He also opined that mother is viewed as psychologically unstable and emotionally fragile.   Dr. Franklin also commented that mother's prior treatment “was spotty at best” and that she had not followed through with some of her prior services.

Dr. Franklin opined that mother “frequently takes on more than she can handle and will react with hostility to suggestions that she alter or reduce her activities.   She is an anxious individual who engages in obsessive compulsive ruminations about some anticipated misfortune.   The data suggests that she has experienced some traumatic event in the past.   This event continues to impact her day-to-day functioning.”   Further, Dr. Franklin noted that mother “has little to no real understanding of why the Department of Children and Families is currently involved and either minimizes or discounts DCF's history with her children in the past.   It is unlikely that this type of thinking will change in any significant way.   Her thoughts are sufficiently influenced by paranoia, the grandiose aspects of bipolar disorder and features consistent with personality disorder.   The latter is likely to prove to be the more problematic with regards to treatment efficacy ․ Even in those instances when she successfully completes treatment, she is likely to dispute the actual benefits and is, therefore, unlikely to utilize any of the skills that she has acquired.”   He further opined that “mother continues to lack appropriate insight into the conditions which warranted the involvement of the Department of Children and Families.   She indicates that there are, in fact, no significant mental health concerns and she is not currently on medications and, in fact, ‘don't need no medications.’  “ He further noted that mother “has demonstrated a fairly extensive pattern of non-compliance, inadequate involvement in services or minimal progress when engaged.”   He recommended that mother undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether she would benefit from medication.   However, mother has refused to participate in a psychiatric evaluation.

Dr. Franklin did not recommend reunification of mother with Kuwan Jr. Based on her history and continued lack of insight and serious diagnoses, Dr. Franklin opined that mother would not benefit from any further treatment based on her lack of sufficient progression from the last time her parental rights were terminated.   He saw no appreciable difference from 2007 to 2012 in mother's progression.   He recommended that permanency be sought for Kuwan Jr. by way of termination of parental rights.

As To Father Kuwan R. Sr.

Father was born on August 29, 1979.   Father reported a happy childhood with no history of domestic violence, substance abuse or child protective services in his childhood.   He has attended Weaver High School but was incarcerated during the 10th grade.   He received his GED during his incarceration.   Father has no history of mental health concerns.

Father was incarcerated at the time of Kuwan Jr.'s birth.   Father has a significant and lengthy criminal history dating back to 1995.   He was arrested on September 22, 1995 for Larceny 6. He was arrested on December 13, 1995 for Robbery 1, Assault 1 and No Pistol Permit.   He was sentenced to fourteen years incarceration with five years to serve and five years probation for the Robbery 1 conviction, five years incarceration for the Assault 1 to run concurrent with the Robbery 1 incarceration and five years incarceration for the No Pistol Permit to run concurrent with the Robbery 1 incarceration.   He was arrested on September 9, 2006 for Weapon In A Motor Vehicle and Violation of Probation for which he was sentenced to three years incarceration, three years suspended and three years probation.   Father was arrested again on October 5, 2010 for Weapon In A Motor Vehicle and was incarcerated for eight months.   On August 22, 2011, father was charged with Strangulation 2. He was sentenced to three years in jail, one year to serve, three years probation and 100 hours of community service.   He was discharged on July 24, 2012.   His conditions of probation include complying with DCF and recommended service providers.   As of March 2013, father had not completed any of his community service hours.

Father has a prior history of marijuana use.

Father has eight children including Kuwan.   His parental rights as to his sons with mother, Jumal R. and Cameron R., as noted above, were terminated.

Father was referred to My People Clinical Services Father to Father program in August 2012.   As of October 2012, father had missed three out of seven sessions but had been making some progress.   He completed the program in November 2012.   He has also been participating in a domestic violence program through the Wheeler Clinic and completed the program on April 22, 2013.   Father participated in a substance abuse evaluation at Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center (ADRC) with a recommendation for no treatment.   DCF has made recommendations for individual counseling for father which has not yet been scheduled.

Father received monthly visits with Kuwan Jr. during his incarceration.   Father has been receiving weekly supervised visits with Kuwan Jr. as of September 26, 2012.   However, of the seventeen visits scheduled since October 2012, father has attended only seven visits.   Father had minimal interaction with Kuwan Jr. during the visits.   He held him, changed his diaper and fed him but rarely actively engaged with him.   However, father appears to love his son.

Father was married on August 29, 2012.   He currently resides with his wife in her home along with her three biological children.   Father's wife did indicate to DCF that she was in agreement with having Kuwan Jr. reunified to her household if possible.

Father has been working part-time since his release from prison.   He works approximately 15 hours per week earning approximately $12.75 per hour.   Father was able to purchase a motor vehicle and has no car payments.

Pursuant to court order, father was evaluated by a clinical psychologist, Dr. Derek Franklin, on August 22, 2012.   Dr. Franklin diagnosed father with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (situation specific), Cannabis Abuse by history and Antisocial Personality Traits.   He noted that father “experiences stress as a result of difficulties in some major life area.   He perceives himself surrounded by crises with nearly all life areas in turmoil.   This condition may also be a function of the stresses associated with his incarceration.   Individuals with similar profiles are more likely to misuse mood altering substances, illegal or otherwise.”   Dr. Franklin also noted that the data suggests that father has “adequate common sense reasoning and insight but stated that his PAI scores were “significant for egocentricity, antisocial and stimulus.”   Specifically, Dr. Franklin opined that father “has little regard for the property of others, has difficulties expressing guilt and remorse of any longstanding nature, and is likely bored by routine and conventional norms.   Co-morbid problems include difficulties with respect to managing anger ․ Regarding domestic violence, the data strongly suggests that there is a propensity to use both verbal and physical aggression.   He is hostile and easily provoked and displays anger quite easily.   This is consistent with a history of criminal acts with regards to aggression and his recent charge of strangulation.”   He also felt that while father's substance abuse was not a concern at the present time, it would need to be monitored in the future as he does not do well with stressors and may be prone to use illegal substances to manage symptoms of anxiety.   He further noted that while father had no significant contact or involvement with Kuwan Jr., there was nothing to suggest that he represented an active danger to Kuwan Jr.'s emotional or physical well-being.  “The data suggests that he cares deeply for his child ․ His ability to sufficiently engage in his role as parent is likely to be influenced by often competing variables.   His commitment to his availability to his child is questionable.”   Dr. Franklin observed father to interact well with Kuwan Jr. Of note is father's explanation provided to Dr. Franklin with regard to the termination of his parental rights as to his two children with mother:  “We just gave up our rights as parents;  there was too much going on and we were confused.”   With regard to treatment, Dr. Franklin indicated that father would need cognitive behavioral therapy interventions, as opposed to medication, with regard to his generalized anxiety disorder.   He felt it “imperative” that father be referred for anger management classes and that it was important that he continue with community-based anger management/domestic violence and substance abuse treatment until successful completion.

As To The Child Kuwan R. Jr.

Kuwan Jr. was born on January 9, 2012.   He was discharged from the hospital on January 15, 2012 and placed in a DCF licensed foster home.   Kuwan Jr. did well in the foster home, sleeping and eating well.   He was subsequently placed in a pre-adoptive licensed foster home on April 9, 2012 where he has remained to the present time.   He is medically up to date and doing extremely well in that placement.   He appears to be reaching all of his developmental milestones.   There are no concerns with regard to his health, safety or well-being.   He began to walk in March 2013.   He is very bonded with his foster family which includes his foster parents and an older foster brother who is presently five years of age.   He seeks out his foster parents for comfort and support.   Kuwan Jr.'s foster mother, who testified at trial, expressed her willingness and eagerness to adopt Kuwan Jr. along with her husband if he should become legally free for adoption.   She expressed her deep love for Kuwan Jr. and her desire to become his legal mother.   The foster parents have expressed the desire to establish a sibling connection with Kuwan Jr.'s biological brothers, Kamron C. and Jumal D. Kamron C.'s and Jumal D.'s care giver who is willing to building that relationship with the brothers.

ADJUDICATION

Neglect Adjudication

In addressing coterminous petitions, ‘the judicial authority first determines whether the child is neglected, uncared for or dependent by a fair preponderance of the evidence;  if so, then the judicial authority determines whether statutory grounds exist to terminate parental rights by clear and convincing evidence ․” Practice Book § 35a–3.   See In re Jonathan M., 255 Conn. 208, 211 (2001).   In making the initial determination, the court has considered the evidence in its entirety according the applicable legal standards.   Under this analysis, the court finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence, as of the date of the petition, that Kuwan R. has been neglected in that he has been denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally or morally and has been permitted to live under circumstances injurious to his well-being.

The evidence presented at trial proves that Kuwan Jr., as of the adjudicatory date, has been neglected in that he has been denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally or morally and has been permitted to live under conditions injurious to his well-being.   Based upon mother and father's extensive child protection history as well as their mental health, domestic violence and criminal histories, the court finds that mother and father do not have the necessary skills to care for Kuwan Jr. Mother and father, together and independently of one another, could not possibly be considered as safe, secure, consistent and nurturing caretakers of Kuwan Jr. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the court finds as proven that Kuwan Jr. was in immediate physical danger from his surroundings as the time of his removal as mother and father were suffering from mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence issues as well as continued involvement with the criminal justice system.   Further, based upon the child protection history of this case, at the time of birth of Kuwan Jr. and at the time of the filing of the instant neglect petition, the respondent mother's mental health status and respondent father's ongoing involvement with the criminal justice system and resulting incarcerations as well as his domestic violence history had been conclusively established as unsuitable for the care and custody of a young child and dangerous to such child's safety and welfare.   Under the statutory scheme and the pertinent case law, therefore, the court, under the circumstances of this case, can and does find that the child, Kuwan Jr., has been neglected in that he has been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or association injurious to his wellbeing.  General Statutes § 46b-(8)(C).

Mother will not be able to assume a responsible position in Kuwan Jr.'s life within a reasonable period of time due to her history of refusing to cooperate with DCF and the recommended service providers dating back to 2004.   She continues to have ongoing issues with her mental health, continued involvement with the criminal justice system, employment and housing in addition to the three prior terminations of her parental rights.   She continues to deny her history of domestic violence and mental health issues.   She continues to lack the proper parenting skills and an understanding of how her behaviors adversely affect the well-being of her child.   She clearly has not benefitted in any lasting way from her services and certainly has not progressed with regard to her ongoing issues in any significant way.   She has not parented any of her children for an extended period of time.   Mother cannot safely parent in the foreseeable future.   Father has been involved with DCF since 2006 due to domestic violence, controlling and violent behaviors and ongoing involvement with the criminal justice system which has prevented him from providing care for his children including Kuwan Jr. In addition, he has a lengthy history of domestic violence.   As noted, father was incarcerated for Strangulation 2 at the time of Kuwan Jr.'s removal and for the six months of his life.   There are two prior protective orders between he and mother.   Further, father has failed to understand the significance of the seriousness of mother's mental health concerns and the risk that this poses to Kuwan Jr. Father will not be able to assume a responsible position in Kuwan Jr.'s life within a reasonable period of time due to his continued involvement with the criminal justice system dating back to 1995 and numerous incarcerations.   He has two prior termination of parental rights with two of his eight children.   He is not raising any of his own biological children.   He has limited understanding of how to properly parent and a limited understanding of how his past and present behaviors affect the well-being of Kuwan Jr. to permit Kuwan Jr. To return to the care of his father would compromise Kuwan Jr.'s safety.

All of these ongoing issues reflect on mother and father's continuing lack of insight, judgment and lack of responsibility even after an exhaustive array of services over many years.   In light of this chronic history, the likelihood of a successful reunification and assumption of a responsible position with Kuwan Jr. within the foreseeable future is poor.   It is clear to the court that neither parent is willing or able to benefit from the efforts made by DCF via a multitude of services including referrals to providers to address their mental health and domestic violence issues.   Neither mother nor father have demonstrated an extended period of sustained stability and, therefore, cannot be appropriate full-time care givers for Kuwan Jr. at his young age.   Neither parent has been willing or able to provide competent, safe and nurturing parenting to Kuwan Jr. Neither has fully availed themselves of or benefitted from the extensive array of services offered to them in order to improve their circumstances to such an extent that either could play a responsible role in Kuwan Jr.'s life.   They have not been able to put Kuwan Jr.'s interest before their own.   They have not adjusted their circumstances to permit Kuwan J. to safely return to their care.   To do so would endanger Kuwan Jr.'s safety.

As noted by the clinical psychologist, Dr. Franklin, who performed a court-ordered evaluation of mother and father, neither mother nor father have demonstrated a level of function of insight that would indicate a return of Kuwan Jr. to father or mother would be in Kuwan Jr.'s best interest.   Further, Dr. Franklin opined that neither mother nor father have developed additional skills that would promote a safe transition or maintenance of Kuwan Jr. to their care in light of their history of termination of parental rights.   Dr. Franklin also noted that it can be assumed that Kuwan Jr. has developed a strong bond with his foster parents who have addressed his daily emotional, psychological and physical needs and are his “psychological” parents.

Therefore, based upon the circumstances of the mother and father as of the adjudicatory date, the court finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it was more likely than not that Kuwan Jr. had been permitted to remain in the care and custody of either mother or father, it would have caused Kuwan Jr. to be denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally or he would have been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well-being.   The neglect of Kuwan Jr. by the respondent parents has been conclusively established.   Under the statutory scheme and the case law, the court, under the circumstances of this case, can and does find that the child, Kuwan Jr., has been neglected.

Accordingly, for all of the reasons discussed above, the court finds that the petitioner has proven both of the grounds as alleged in the neglect petition by a fair preponderance of the evidence and adjudicates Kuwan Jr. to be a child who was neglected.

Termination of Parental Rights Adjudication

Having adjudicated Kuwan Jr. a neglected child, the court is next called upon to determine whether DCF has met its burden of proving the allegations presented in the pending termination of parental rights petition as to mother and father.   As previously noted, the statutory ground stated in the petition against the respondent parents alleges the respondents are the parent of a child under the age of seven years who is neglected and uncared for or the respondents have failed, are unable or are unwilling to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, the respondents could assume a responsible position in the life of the child, and the parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the commissioner of children and families.  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).  “In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under § 17a–112, the petitioners are required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that:  (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family;  General Statute § 17a–112(j)(1);  (2) termination is in the best interest of the child;  General Statute § 17a–112(j)(2);  and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds delineated in § 17a–112(j)(3).”  In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628 (2004).  “The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition․  In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence.   If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase.   In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006).   As is permitted under our law, the evidence as to both the adjudicatory and dispositional phases is heard at the same trial.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 676, 688–90 (1999).   As to each parent, DCF has alleged that it made reasonable efforts to reunify and that, in the alternative, each parent is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from rehabilitation services.

In determining whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify a parent and child or whether there is sufficient evidence that a parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, the court is required in the adjudicatory phase to make its assessment on the basis of the events preceding the date on which the termination of parental rights petition was filed.   Thus, the court considers the evidence regarding the circumstances and events, and the reasonable efforts made prior to January 13, 2012, the date on which the termination of parental rights petition was filed, pursuant to Practice Book § 35a–7(a).⁴  With regard to the allegations that both mother and father have failed to achieve rehabilitation, which requires the court to assess the child's present needs and interests, the court has considered such evidence, as well as evidence related to circumstances through the close of trial, as permitted by Practice Book § 35a–7(a).   See In re Luciano B., 129 Conn.App. 449, 469 (2011).

Reasonable Efforts

In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under § 17a–112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that “it has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent[s] and to reunify with the child ․ unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.”  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1);  In re Kamal R., 142 Conn.App. 66 (2013);  In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 837, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005).  “Because the two clauses are separated by the word ‘unless,’ this statute is plainly written in the conjunctive.   Accordingly, the department must prove either that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.”  (Emphasis in the original.)  In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 552 (2009).  “[T]he statute imposes on the department the duty ․ to make reasonable efforts to unite the child or children with the parents.   The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof.   Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act by which the requirement was drawn ․ [R]easonable efforts mean doing everything reasonable, not everything possible ․” (Citation omitted;  emphasis added;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).

Based on the findings of fact made by the court, as noted in detail above, the court finds that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, prior to the date of the filing of the termination of parental rights petition, it made reasonable efforts to locate mother and father and to reunify Kuwan Jr. with his mother and father.   In the alternative, the court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that, as of the adjudicatory date, mother and father have been unable to benefit from reunification efforts.   As noted above, the primary issues leading to Kuwan Jr.'s removal were mental health, criminal, domestic violence and parenting issues.   The court has taken into account the numerous, appropriate and reasonable services offered to mother and father to enable them to address these ongoing issues and to reunify with Kuwan Jr. Mother was consistently and repeatedly offered services for mental health treatment, parenting, domestic violence and was offered weekly visitation with Kuwan Jr. and monthly visits during her incarceration.   DCF accommodated mother's request to treat with Center of Attention until the billing dispute arose.   DCF offered mother alternative services thereafter which were refused by mother.   Further, she failed to consistently engage in the services offered to her and had continued involvement with the criminal justice system which adversely impacted her ability to engage in and benefit from these services.   The services offered to mother constituted reasonable efforts at reunification.   The court also finds that mother did not benefit from reunification efforts.   She made, at best, minimal to moderate progress with her services.   Father was incarcerated at the time of Kuwan Jr.'s removal which prevented DCF from offering him services until his release from prison approximately six months later.   He was then consistently offered services for mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence and parenting.   He was also offered weekly visitation with Kuwan Jr. and monthly visits during his incarceration.   Father did not fully participate in the services offered and has continued to remain involved with the criminal justice system which impeded his ability to participate and benefit from the services offered to him.   The court finds that all of the services offered to father constituted reasonable efforts at reunification.

Personal Rehabilitation

“Personal rehabilitation ․ refers to the restoration of the parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [and] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable period of time ․ The statute does not require [the parents] to prove precisely when they will be able to assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.   Nor does it require [them] to prove that [they] will be able to assume full responsibility for [their] child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that the level of rehabilitation [they have] achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.  In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628 (2004);  In re Jordan T., 119 Conn.App. 748, cert. denied, 296 Conn. 905 (2010).   If the parents of a child who has been found by the court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding fail to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of the child they could assume a reasonable position in the life of the child, grounds for termination exists.  General Statutes § 17a–112(b)(2).  “The critical issue is whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   In re Mariah, 61 Conn.App. 248, 261 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 (2001).   The sole ground alleged in this petition was that the respondent parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from rehabilitation efforts pursuant to § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(ii) or 17a–112(j)(3)(E) which allows for termination if a child has found to be neglected, and the [parents] have “failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, such [parents] could assume a responsible position in the life of the child ․”

The ultimate question is whether the parents at the time of the filing of the termination petition are more able to resume the responsibilities of a parent than he or she was at the time of the making of the commitment.  In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112 (1992).   In making this determination, the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parents may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time.  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).

The court incorporates by reference here all of the factual findings it has previously made in this memorandum of decision.   In light of the statutory elements of this ground, as well as the case law interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to mother, Stephanie C. and father, Kuwan R. Sr. Specifically, the court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to locate both parents, who were both served and appeared in this process, that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify Kuwan Jr. with his parents and that mother and father are unable or unwilling to benefits from services and reunification efforts.   See In re Jordan R., 295 Conn. 539, 551 (2009).

As noted in detail above, DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, as of January 13, 2012, mother and father were unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.   In making this determination, the court has taken into account the numerous, appropriate and reasonable services offered to mother and father to enable reunification with their son.   These included visitation, parenting education, substance abuse services, mental health management, reunification services, domestic violence counseling and monitoring services.   The services provided by DCF constituted efforts at reunification which continued during the pendency of these petitions up and through the time of trial.   Mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from reasonable efforts to reunify.   She initially denied her history with DCF, her involvement with domestic violence and her need for services.   Although participation in services was attempted by mother, she clearly has had no lasting benefit from her services.   Mother's clinician testified that mother made minimal to moderate progress and that mother continued to struggle with insight and poor impulse control.   Further, mother continued to be involved with the criminal justice system and her incarceration adversely impacted her ability to participate in her services.   At the time the petition was filed, mother was clearly not near to being in a constructive role as a parent.   She was not in treatment and was in denial of her need for treatment.   Once engaged in services, she was inconsistent in her participation.   While she did seek to resume services after her release from incarceration, she has not sufficiently benefitted or progressed from these services she received.   Father was incarcerated at the time the petition was filed and for the first six months of Kuwan Jr.'s life.   This clearly indicates his lack of stability as a parent.   He was unable to participate in any services other than those provided by the Department of Corrections until his release on July 24, 2012.   Father did participate in and complete some of his services.   However, his incarceration prevented him from engaging in services until his release from prison.   DCF was unable to offer him services during his incarceration.   See In re Anvannay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 193 (2011).   While father appears to have a loving relationship with Kuwan Jr. based on his interaction with him during visits, that in and of itself is not sufficient to prevent termination of parental rights.  In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 762–63 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920 (2008).   Accordingly, the court finds that mother and father were unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification services.

The court gives great credence to Dr. Franklin's expertise and opinion pursuant to his report admitted into evidence as well as his testimony at trial.   In particular, Dr. Franklin noted that mother “has demonstrated a fairly extensive pattern of non-compliance, inadequate involvement in services and minimal progress when engaged.”   As Dr. Franklin also noted, a substantial amount of time and complete involvement in services would be required at the expense of permanency for Kuwan Jr. Further he opined that “neither parent has demonstrated a level of function or insight that would indicate a return of Kuwan to mother or father would be in the child's best interest.  “Neither parent appears to have full understanding of the emotional needs of young children or a level of awareness that would indicate that the parent's absence from a child can cause significant emotional harm.”   In considering all of the clear and convincing evidence before the court, the court agrees with Dr. Franklin's assessment and opinions and finds that termination of their parental rights as to Kuwan Jr. is indicated.

It is, therefore, abundantly clear to the court that, based upon the evidence presented to the court, mother and father have failed to achieve any degree of rehabilitation to warrant reunification with Kuwan Jr. within the foreseeable future.   All indications are that the parents have not and will not have any permanent benefits from the services offered to them.   They are no closer to being able to safely parent Kuwan Jr. than they were their other children.   Kuwan Jr. has been out of the care of his parents since January 2012.   He is emotionally bonded with his foster family and his foster parents are clearly his emotional parents.   Given the comprehensiveness of and the abundance of the services offered to each parent, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that it made reasonable efforts to reunify Kuwan Jr. with his parents.   Under the circumstances of this case, the court cannot and will not allow reunification of either parent with Kuwan Jr. Mother and father have not been restored to a constructive role as parents within a reasonable period of time nor can they be within a reasonable period of time.

Accordingly, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child, Kuwan Jr., is under seven years old and has been found to be neglected or uncared for, and that the respondent parents have failed, or are unable or unwilling, to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, the parents could assume a responsible position within the life of the child, and such parent's parental rights of another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by DCF. General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).   Kuwan Jr. has never been in the care of his mother or father since the day of his birth.   He is an infant who is need of twenty-four-hour-a-day care by a responsible, competent and sober adult.   Mother and father have each been unable during Kuwan's short life, to demonstrate that they can perform as a competent parent.   Further, it is convincing and clear to the court that neither mother nor father will be sufficiently rehabilitated to the point of being a responsible parent to Kuwan Jr. in the foreseeable future.   Although mother and father attempted to participate in the services offered, their failure to adequately address their issues remain significantly deficient.   The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that mother and father are both unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.   Mother and father have failed to achieve the necessary degree of rehabilitation and therefore, the court finds for DCF. The evidence clearly and convincingly supports the court's finding that Stephanie C. and Kuwan R. Sr. are unable to achieve rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time, given the age and needs of Kuwan Jr.

DISPOSITION

On disposition, the court may consider information through the close of the evidentiary hearing.   In the dispositional phase of this case, the court has considered the evidence and testimony relating to the facts and circumstances through May 1, 2013, the final date upon which the evidence was taken in this matter.   In making the dispositional findings, the court incorporates by reference here all of the factual findings it has previously made in this memorandum of decision.   The court notes that, as our courts have long observed, the deleterious effect of prolonged temporary care is well known.   In re Juvenile Appeal (84–CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292 (1983).  “It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents.   There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty ․” Lehman v. Lycoming Country Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed. 928 (1982).

For all of the above reasons, the court, having found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by the petitioner for the termination of the parent's parental rights have been proven, the court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(k).  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345 (1994).   These “seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ․ There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261 (2003).   The court has considered these findings in determining that it is in Kuwan Jr.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of his parents.

The seven statutory findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:

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

Termination of the parental rights of mother is in the best interest of the child.   Appropriate, timely and relevant services with regard to reunification were offered to mother by DCF since the opening of the case.   The services were appropriate in that they were designed to address the problems that led to the removal of the child.   The services included case management services, mental health services, substance abuse services, domestic violence and parent education as well as supervised visitation with Kuwan Jr. Mother has failed to demonstrate such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering Kuwan Jr.'s age and needs, she could assume a responsible position in his life.   At the time of Kuwan's removal, father was incarcerated.   At the time of his release from prison, he was referred for services by DCF to a parenting program in August 2012.   Father attended several session and made some progress.   He completed the program in November 2012.   He is in the process of attending services for domestic violence.   He participated in a substance abuse evaluation at the Alcohol and Recovery Center which recommended no treatment.   He has also been attending weekly supervised visitation albeit somewhat sporadically.   Both mother's and father's continued involvement with the criminal justice system adversely impacted their ability to participate and complete the services offered.

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.

DCF has made reasonable efforts to help the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.   Reasonable efforts made were relevant, available, adequate and accessible.   As detailed above, these efforts included services for mental health, parenting, domestic violence and substance abuse.

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.

Preliminary court-ordered specific steps were issued to mother and father on January 13, 2012.   Final specific steps were ordered on August 20, 2012.   Mother participated in services for her mental health needs, substance abuse drug screens and parent education.   She also attended the court-ordered supervised visitation.   Mother continues to have mental health issues that continue to remain unresolved and she continues to be involved with the criminal justice system.   Mother has failed to fully avail herself of the services and has failed to rehabilitate to the degree that would be required to reunify with Kuwan Jr. and to provide for all of his needs.   Father has participated in a domestic violence program, a substance abuse evaluation and he has completed a parenting program.   Father continues to remain involved with the criminal justice system.   He has not completed all of his court-ordered services including individual counseling.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of such child's person, and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.

Kuwan Jr. is a toddler who is in need of a caretaker who understands his needs and responds to them in a consistent, nurturing and developmentally appropriate way.   Termination of the parental rights of the mother and father will help to free Kuwan Jr. for adoption, a solution that provides for permanency.   He has been in foster care since his placement shortly after his birth.   He is doing well in his foster family's care where he has resided since April 2012.   He has a significant and loving bond with his foster family.   His foster family has expressed a desire to adopt Kuwan Jr. if he should become legally free for adoption.   Mother initially had twice weekly visitation with Kuwan Jr. During her incarceration, she had monthly visitation with Kuwan Jr. commencing at the time of her incarceration in June 2012.   Upon her discharge on November 28, 2012, mother had supervised visits with Kuwan at her halfway house every other week.   Since her discharge from the halfway house, she has resumed weekly supervised visits.   Kuwan Jr. has demonstrated his lack of bonding with mother during his visits with her by becoming emotionally distraught.   Father has minimal emotional interaction with Kuwan Jr. during their visits and has been inconsistent in his visitation.

5. The age of the child.

Kuwan Jr. is seventeen months old.   He was born on January 9th, 2012.

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.

Mother and father have failed to adjust to the conditions or circumstances in their lives to make it in the best interest of Kuwan Jr. to be reunified with them in the foreseeable future.   Mother does have weekly visitation with Kuwan.   She continues to have unresolved mental health issues and continues to be involved with the criminal justice system.   She remains on probation.   She has a history of domestic violence.   She does not have stable housing due to the presence of family members in the home and is only recently employed full-time.   She has a limited understanding of how to properly parent and the effect of her past and present behaviors on the well-being of her child.   She has not benefitted from her services to such an extent as to make it in the best interest of Kuwan Jr. to be reunited with her in the foreseeable future.   Father continues to be involved with the criminal justice system with numerous incarcerations and remains on parole.   He has a history of domestic violence.   He has a limited understanding of how to properly parent and the effect of his past and present behaviors on the well-being of his child.   He has not benefitted from his services to such an extent as to make it in the best interest of Kuwan Jr. to be reunited with him in the foreseeable future.

7. The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.

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

Best Interest of the Child

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

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

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

That the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption is approved as to father;

That the parental rights of the respondent mother, Stephanie C. and father, Kuwan R. Sr., are hereby terminated as to their child, Kuwan R. Jr., born January 9, 2012;

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

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

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

Judgment shall enter accordingly.

BY THE COURT

BURGDORFF, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The trial court may take judicial notice of relevant court actions In re Amanda A., 58 Conn.App. 451, 452–53 (2000).   Father did not file a timely objection to the permanency plan..  FN1. The trial court may take judicial notice of relevant court actions In re Amanda A., 58 Conn.App. 451, 452–53 (2000).   Father did not file a timely objection to the permanency plan.

FN2. Mother's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals;  cooperate with recommendations regarding assessment and treatment;  submit to random drug testing;  refrain from illegal drug use and refrain from abuse of alcohol or medication;  cooperate with service providers recommended, and involvement with the criminal justice system, cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing and complete evaluation with Dr. Franklin;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for child;  get and maintain adequate housing and legal income;  immediately let DCF know about any changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with restraining;/protective order;  keep child in State of Connecticut visit child as often as DCF permits;  do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole.   The goals specified for mother were to address mental health, gain parenting skills, be able to provide safe and nurturing parenting, participate in whatever services are available from Department of Corrections;  upon release notify social worker immediately and meet with social worker so that referrals can be made..  FN2. Mother's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals;  cooperate with recommendations regarding assessment and treatment;  submit to random drug testing;  refrain from illegal drug use and refrain from abuse of alcohol or medication;  cooperate with service providers recommended, and involvement with the criminal justice system, cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing and complete evaluation with Dr. Franklin;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for child;  get and maintain adequate housing and legal income;  immediately let DCF know about any changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with restraining;/protective order;  keep child in State of Connecticut visit child as often as DCF permits;  do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole.   The goals specified for mother were to address mental health, gain parenting skills, be able to provide safe and nurturing parenting, participate in whatever services are available from Department of Corrections;  upon release notify social worker immediately and meet with social worker so that referrals can be made.

FN3. Father's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of his whereabouts;  take part in counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals for parenting;  cooperate with service providers recommended regarding assessment and treatment including parenting, substance abuse and as referred by parole;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from using illegal drugs and not abuse alcohol or medicine, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for child;  get and maintain adequate housing and income;  immediately let DCF know about changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with restraining/protective orders;  attend and complete appropriate domestic violence program;  do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole;  keep child in State of Connecticut;  visit child as often as DCF permits.   The goals specified for father were to understand the emotional and developmental needs of a child and meet them;  understand the impact of substance abuse and criminal activity on child..  FN3. Father's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of his whereabouts;  take part in counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals for parenting;  cooperate with service providers recommended regarding assessment and treatment including parenting, substance abuse and as referred by parole;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from using illegal drugs and not abuse alcohol or medicine, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for child;  get and maintain adequate housing and income;  immediately let DCF know about changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with restraining/protective orders;  attend and complete appropriate domestic violence program;  do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole;  keep child in State of Connecticut;  visit child as often as DCF permits.   The goals specified for father were to understand the emotional and developmental needs of a child and meet them;  understand the impact of substance abuse and criminal activity on child.

FN4. Practice Book § 35a–7(a) provides:  In the adjudicatory phase, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events proceeding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment, except where the judicial authority must consider subsequent events as part of its determination as to the existence of a ground for termination of parental rights.”.  FN4. Practice Book § 35a–7(a) provides:  In the adjudicatory phase, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events proceeding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment, except where the judicial authority must consider subsequent events as part of its determination as to the existence of a ground for termination of parental rights.”

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.