IN RE: Natasha C. (2013)

Superior Court of Connecticut.

IN RE: Natasha C.

D03CP10002762A

Decided: July 03, 2013

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On January 25, 2012, the commissioner of the department of children and families (the department or DCF) filed a petition pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112 to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother Cheryl C.¹ and the respondent father Jaron W. with respect to the minor child Natasha C., born on April 27, 2010. For the reasons set forth below, the court (i) sustains the objection of Cheryl C. to the permanency plan and denies the petition insofar as it seeks to terminate the parental rights of Cheryl C. with respect to Natasha, and (ii) overrules the objection of Jaron W. to the permanency plan and grants the petition insofar as it seeks to terminate the parental rights of Jaron W. with respect to Natasha.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 28, 2010, the department received a referral from Danbury Hospital stating that Natasha tested positive for cocaine and opiates when she was born on April 27, 2010 at thirty-three weeks gestation. The department executed an administrative ninety-six-hour hold when Natasha was to be discharged from Danbury Hospital, and it placed her in a DCF-licensed foster home on May 17, 2010.

On May 18, 2010, the department filed a motion for an order of temporary custody and a neglect petition in this court. The court (Maronich, J.) granted the order of temporary custody and issued preliminary specific steps for both respondent parents on that date. The order of temporary custody was sustained on May 25, 2010 (Sommer, J.).

On August 3, 2010, Cheryl C. and Jaron W. entered written pleas of nolo contendere to the neglect petition. Natasha was adjudicated neglected and committed to the department until further order of the court (Maronich, J.). Judge Maronich ordered final specific steps for the respondent parents at that time.

The department filed a motion for review and approval of a permanency plan for Natasha on January 1, 2011. The proposed permanency plan was reunification with Cheryl C. and Jaron W. The court (Sommer, J.) approved the permanency plan on March 9, 2011.

On December 13, 2011, the department filed a motion for review and approval of a revised permanency plan for Natasha. The new proposed permanency plan was termination of parental rights and adoption. Cheryl C. filed a motion in opposition to the permanency plan on December 19, 2011. The court (Sommer, J.) approved the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption on January 25, 2012, without prejudice to the objections of the respondent parents.

The petition for termination of parental rights was filed on January 25, 2012. The respondent parents' objections to the permanency plan and Cheryl C.'s motion in opposition to the plan were consolidated for trial with the termination of parental rights petition.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The hearing on the termination of parental rights petition commenced in this court on October 22, 2012 and continued on November 2, 7, 14, 16, and 30, 2012. On February 27, 2013, the court granted the motion of the respondent mother Cheryl C. to open the record for additional evidence. The court heard further testimony on March 13, 2013 and reviewed new documents entered into evidence.

The respondent mother Cheryl C. and the respondent father Jaron W. were represented by counsel. Cheryl C. attended each day of the hearing. Jaron W. was not present after the first day of the hearing. The minor child Natasha was represented by counsel. The department was represented by an assistant attorney general.

Neither the respondent mother nor the respondent father 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 the minor child. The court has jurisdiction.

The court heard testimony from Barry Comen, outpatient counselor, Midwestern Connecticut Council for Alcoholism (MCCA); Brennan Fitzgerald, addiction counselor, Connecticut Counseling Center (CCC); Officer Scott Fabich, Danbury police department; Officer John Dickinson, Danbury police department; Robert B. Neems, Ph.D., licensed clinical psychologist; Carolyn Lyndley, State of Connecticut parole officer; Myriam Maldonado, DCF case aide; Noalee Darragh, DCF social worker; Jeanne Norvig, DCF social worker supervisor; Donna W., a friend of the respondent mother's family; and the respondent mother Cheryl C. The court reviewed the documents that were entered into evidence and took judicial notice of the following: the order of temporary custody issued on May 18, 2010; the adjudication of neglect and commitment to the department on August 3, 2010; and the approval of the permanency plan calling for reunification with the respondent parents on March 9, 2011. 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 Cheryl C.: Cheryl C. was born in Danbury, Connecticut on January 6, 1982. She is the oldest child of Debra and James B. Cheryl C. has two younger siblings, Tiffany B. and James B. Her parents are now divorced.

Cheryl C. graduated from Brookfield High School in 2000. She attended Gibbs College and received an associate's degree in office administration in 2003. She was on the Dean's List each semester, with a cumulative grade point average of 4.00. Cheryl C. testified that she paid for her college education without financial assistance from her parents. Cheryl C. enrolled in the business professional certificate training program at Gateway Community College following her release on parole from York Correctional Institution (York Correctional) in December 2012.

Cheryl C. had stable employment until she began to abuse illegal drugs. She worked in a doctor's office in Danbury from 1998, when she was 16 years old, until approximately 2005. She worked part time while she was in high school and college, and she worked full time after she received her associate's degree. More recently, Cheryl C. was employed as a waitress for Famous Al's from 2009 to 2010, and she worked at a deli before she was incarcerated in June 2011.

While in prison, Cheryl C. participated in the Hospitality Operations Technology Program. She received a grade of “good” on all five evaluation criteria and maintained a B average. The staff noted her “positive and professional attitude.” ² Cheryl C. also completed the Re–Entry Class in preparation for her release from incarceration.

Cheryl C. testified regarding her efforts to secure employment while she was in a halfway house in May 2012 and following her release from York Correctional in December 2012. She was enrolled in the EMERGE CT transitional work and training program on February 25, 2013.³ As of March 13, 2013, Cheryl C. was beginning a new job at PriceRite.

Cheryl C. has been married once, to Slaven C. They were together for ten years before their marriage. Their marriage lasted for about a year. While they were married, they owned a new townhouse together. Cheryl C. was working full time, and she had a new car. She testified that she had a “very good life.” Cheryl C.'s marriage ended as a result of her substance abuse.⁴ She and Slaven C. are now divorced. They had no children together.

Cheryl C. reported that she met Jaron W. when she bought crack cocaine from him. Their relationship lasted for approximately five years. They were no longer together when the termination of parental rights hearing commenced. Cheryl C. and Jaron W. are the parents of Natasha. Cheryl C. has no other children.

Cheryl C. has a mental health history. She suffers from depression, and she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.⁵ She attended the Community Center for Behavioral Health (CCBH) for mental health treatment, including medication management. During her incarceration, Cheryl C. participated in mental health counseling. She completed the Coping Skills Group, the TARGET ⁶ Group, the Healthy Relationships program, the Stress Management Group, and the Alternatives to Violence Project. When the termination of parental rights hearing began, Cheryl C. was seeing a psychiatrist and a counselor at York Correctional. Following her release from York Correctional in December 2012, Cheryl C. continued to engage in mental health treatment.

Cheryl C. participated in parenting education while she was incarcerated. She completed the Mother Support Group on October 24, 2011 and the Parenting from a Distance program on January 9, 2012.

Cheryl C. has a history of substance abuse, beginning when she was 25 years old. She was on prescription medication for a bulging cervical disc, and her mother introduced her to crack cocaine. Cheryl C. used crack cocaine regularly, with some periods of sobriety, prior to her incarceration in 2011.

Before Natasha was born, Cheryl C. attended an inpatient detox program at Hall–Brooke and several outpatient programs at MCCA to address her substance abuse. Cheryl C. was also treated in the CCC methadone clinic because she had started using heroin when she was pregnant with Natasha.

Cheryl C. was using crack cocaine and methadone at the time Natasha was born. The department referred Cheryl C. to MCCA for a substance abuse evaluation in May 2010. On May 12, 2010, MCCA recommended that Cheryl C. attend the intensive outpatient program (IOP). Cheryl C. subsequently completed the inpatient Milestone Program at Community Prevention and Addiction Services, Inc. (CPAS). She was discharged on December 16, 2010 and referred back to MCCA. Cheryl C. attended an intake assessment at MCCA on December 21, 2010, but she was discharged as of January 28, 2011 because she relapsed on cocaine and discontinued treatment.

Cheryl C. testified that her counselors at CCBH thought that she needed more than an IOP, and she agreed. CCBH assisted her with applying to Crossroads. Cheryl C. completed the intake for Crossroads, and she was on the waiting list when she was incarcerated in 2011.

Cheryl C. received methadone treatment at CCC from April 8, 2010 until June 21, 2011, when she was discharged due to her incarceration. She attended all of her counseling sessions.

Cheryl C. attended the Tier One: Beat the Streets relapse prevention program in February 2012 while at York Correctional. After she was released to Shelter Now, a department of corrections (DOC) halfway house, on March 19, 2012, she attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings four nights a week.

In May 2012, Cheryl C. had two incidents at Shelter Now, one involving prescription drugs and another involving alcohol, that led to her being returned to York Correctional. Cheryl C. explained that another resident had stolen some Percocet and had given her one pill. Cheryl C. did not take the pill, and she returned it the following day. The second incident occurred three days later, when Cheryl C. purchased alcohol and brought it back to the halfway house. She consumed the alcohol, becoming intoxicated, and had a physical altercation with another resident. As a result, Cheryl C. was transferred from Shelter Now to Next Step, an inpatient program in Willimantic, on May 21, 2012. On June 5, 2012, Cheryl C. was sent back to York Correctional.

When Cheryl C. returned to York Correctional, she applied for the Tier II program and the Marilyn Baker program, another substance abuse counseling program. She testified that she was not accepted because her drug level score was too low.

When the termination of parental rights hearing commenced, Cheryl C. was not on methadone maintenance. During her testimony on November 16, 2012, she reported that she was no longer addicted to opiates or alcohol. She said that going to jail had saved her life, because nothing else had helped her to overcome her addiction.

Upon her release from incarceration on December 20, 2012, Cheryl C. became a resident of the Pam Allen sober house in New Haven. Cheryl C. completed her parole at the end of January 2013, and she is currently on probation. She is required to engage in drug and alcohol treatment, including random drug screens, while she is on probation. She attended the IOP at the Apt Foundation for two months. She finished the IOP and graduated to the Apt Foundation's step-down program, where she attends group sessions once each week. She has not used illegal drugs or abused alcohol, and all of her drugs tests have been negative for illegal substances since her release from York Correctional. Her clinician reported that “[s]ince admission to treatment Cheryl has done remarkably well in recovery.” ⁷

Cheryl C. explained that she sought suboxone treatment when she moved to the Pam Allen House in order to prevent a relapse. She is receiving suboxone treatment through the APT Foundation.

Cheryl C. said that she attended AA or NA every day or every other day following her release from York Correctional until she started classes at Gateway Community College. She testified that she now attends AA or NA two or three times each week.

Cheryl C. has a criminal history, beginning with three misdemeanor arrests in 2008 and 2009, for which she paid fines. She was arrested on three separate occasions after this case began. On September 17, 2010, Cheryl C. was arrested following a physical altercation with her sister and charged with assault in the 3rd degree, General Statutes § 53a–61. On December 20, 2010, Cheryl C. was arrested for larceny in the 6th degree, General Statutes § 53a–125b. On May 8, 2011, Cheryl C. was arrested for larceny in the 4th degree, General Statutes § 53a–125, burglary in the 3rd degree, General Statutes § 53a–103, and possession of narcotics, General Statutes § 21a–279(a). Cheryl C. was admitted to York Correctional on June 15, 2011 because she was unable to post bond. On September 7, 2011, Cheryl C. was sentenced to serve seven years in prison, to be suspended after serving twenty-one months, and five years' probation. As discussed above, Cheryl C. was released to a DOC halfway house in March 2012 and returned to York Correctional in June 2012. She was released on parole in December 2012. Her parole concluded at the end of January 2013, and she is currently on probation.

By March 13, 2013, the last day of the termination of parental rights hearing, Cheryl C. had moved to the Pam Allen self-pay house from the Pam Allen sober house. She said that her father and her sister help her pay the monthly rent. She testified that she was applying for the Burke Program, which will provide three months of rent for an apartment, as well as the security deposit, once she can demonstrate three to four weeks of employment.

The respondent father Jaron W.: Jaron W. was born in Peekskill, New York on December 7, 1986. He is the only child of James W. and Cynthia T. Jaron W. reported that he was raised by his father.

Jaron W. attended Danbury High School to the eleventh grade, but he did not graduate. He was employed by Macy's (for approximately one year) and by Capitol Floor (also for a year). He has also worked for various moving companies. Jaron W. started a new job with Kingswood Kitchens in Danbury the day after the termination of parental rights hearing began.

Jaron W. has never been married. He maintains that Natasha is his only child. He mentioned during his court-ordered evaluation that he had been told that he was the father of a child born to another woman with whom he was involved, but he insisted that the child was not his.

Jaron W. has a substance abuse history. He reported prolonged and regular use of marijuana, phencyclidine (PCP) and Ecstasy during his court-ordered evaluation, but he denied that he was addicted to any substances. He told Dr. Neems that he did not need any further substance abuse treatment.

The department referred Jaron W. to MCCA in December 2010. Jaron W. reported during his December 15, 2010 intake assessment that he used marijuana and PCP, and he stated that he had last used PCP ten days earlier. The urinalysis at his MCCA intake was positive for PCP. MCCA recommended that Jaron W. participate in an IOP. Jaron W.'s attendance and participation in the IOP were poor. He missed all but one individual counseling session, and he attended group sessions only sporadically. Jaron W. was discharged from MCCA on July 23, 2011 because he stopped attending the program.

Jaron W. completed a Tier II program on June 26, 2012, during his incarceration at Niantic Annex Correctional Institution (Niantic). Jaron W. attended weekly AA and NA meetings following his release on parole to the Connecticut Renaissance halfway house in July 2012. His urine screens were negative while he was residing in the Connecticut Renaissance halfway house. Jaron W. was successfully discharged from Connecticut Renaissance on October 19, 2012.

Jaron W. also participated in the Fatherhood Program at Connecticut Renaissance, but he did not complete the program before his discharge in October 2012. He had previously completed the Embracing Fatherhood Program at Niantic, receiving grades of “excellent” in all five evaluation criteria on April 17, 2012.

Jaron W. has a criminal history. He was arrested ten times between October 2005 and May 2010, when this case began, and he has been arrested on three occasions thereafter. Jaron W. was arrested on September 2, 2010 and charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell, General Statutes § 21a–278(b). He was arrested on March 11, 2011 and charged with possession of narcotics with intent to sell, General Statutes § 21a–278(b). On May 6, 2011, Jaron W. received a sentence of eight years in prison, to be suspended after serving three years, and five years' probation. He was released on July 9, 2012 to the Connecticut Renaissance halfway house, and he was discharged from the halfway house on October 19, 2012. On November 30, 2012, counsel for Jaron W. advised the court that Jaron W. was unable to attend the hearing because he had been arrested the previous day for possession of cocaine and remained in custody.

The minor child Natasha C.: Natasha was born on April 27, 2010 in Danbury, Connecticut. She is the only child of Cheryl C. and Jaron W. She has been residing in the same DCF-licensed foster home since she was discharged from Danbury Hospital.

Natasha was born two months premature. She weighed only four pounds, eight ounces at birth. Cheryl C. had used cocaine and opiates while she was pregnant with Natasha. Natasha tested positive for both substances when she was born, and she suffered from withdrawal symptoms. Natasha was placed in the Danbury Hospital neonatal intensive care unit and treated with morphine to ease the withdrawal.

Natasha was discharged from Danbury Hospital on May 17, 2010. The department executed an administrative ninety-six-hour hold and placed her in foster care. The department sought and obtained an order of temporary custody the following day. The order of temporary custody was sustained on May 25, 2010.

Natasha is a healthy three-year-old girl. Natasha participated in a Birth–to–Three evaluation, but was found not to be eligible for services. Natasha is developmentally on target.

Natasha attends daycare daily. Ms. Maldonado, the DCF case aide, reported that Natasha had a difficult transition to her first daycare, but she was doing better in a new daycare setting. She plays with other children, and she talks and eats with them. She is also connected to the daycare staff. It took her several weeks to feel comfortable there, but she now interacts with the other children and enjoys the many activities and toys.

Natasha has been described as a quiet and cautious child by nature, but she is more outgoing when she is comfortable with her surroundings. She is very shy, and she does not appear to recover easily from stress. Dr. Neems observed that she was very somber and easily overwhelmed by change, which made her visits with Cheryl C. and Jaron W. difficult for her.

In her foster home, Natasha appears to be a happy little girl. She is talkative and animated. She is very attached to her foster parents—particularly to her foster father—and their two college-age sons,⁸ and she looks to them to meet her needs and care for her.

Visitation between the child and the respondent mother: Cheryl C. has visited with Natasha consistently since Natasha was born. During her incarceration, Cheryl C. was initially provided with a monthly visit with Natasha, which was increased by court order to two visits each month in December 2011. Until the fall of 2012, Natasha was very shy during her visits with Cheryl C. She would not talk or play with Cheryl C. She would typically fuss and cry, or sit on Cheryl C.'s lap and fall asleep. By September 2012, Natasha began to interact more with Cheryl C., but she still did not talk and rarely smiled.

Their visits improved over the following months, particularly once Cheryl C. was released on parole. In March 2013, Cheryl C. testified that Natasha calls her “Mommy,” and the DCF social worker reported that Natasha gave Cheryl C. a spontaneous hug. Natasha now talks during her visits with Cheryl C., and she no longer cries.

Visitation between the child and the respondent father: Jaron W. initially received a monthly visit with Natasha, which was increased to twice monthly during his incarceration. In 2012, while he was residing in the DOC halfway house, Jaron W. had weekly visits with Natasha. These visits were difficult for Natasha. Jaron W. and Natasha had little interaction during their visits, which typically ended with Natasha falling asleep in Jaron W.'s arms. Since September 2012, Natasha has been interacting more with Jaron W., but she still has a flat affect and does not talk during the visits.

Individual psychological evaluations of the respondent parents and interactional evaluations with the minor child: On July 23 and 27, 2012, Robert H. Neems, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, conducted court-ordered individual psychological evaluations of Cheryl C. and Jaron W. and interactional evaluations of each of them with Natasha. Dr. Neems has been engaged in the practice of psychology for almost thirty years. He has performed approximately five hundred evaluations for the Juvenile Court since 1998. Dr. Neems testified at the termination of parental rights hearing, and his written report, dated August 9, 2012, was admitted into evidence. Dr. Neems was qualified as an expert in clinical psychology in the area of child abuse and neglect.

Dr. Neems testified that, in his opinion, Cheryl C. had significant substance abuse problems, complicated by psychiatric issues, which warranted much further intervention. He thought that Cheryl C. suffered from depression. He noted that Cheryl C. had previously been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but he thought that she might not have been properly diagnosed. He explained that bipolar disorder is frequently incorrectly diagnosed in individuals who are actively abusing substances or who are in the early stages of recovery. He observed that Cheryl C.'s employment history—she had stable employment for approximately seven years, without any medication for mood stabilization—suggested that she did not have bipolar disorder.

Dr. Neems testified that Cheryl C. had a long-standing problem of being overly dependent on other people; in his view, her situation was not characterized simply by substance abuse and depression. He was concerned about her dependency on Jaron W., which she acknowledged during her evaluation, when Jaron W. himself was not stable. Dr. Neems also noted Cheryl C.'s impulsivity, which led to poor decisions and put her at a greater risk of relapse. In his report, Dr. Neems stated that Cheryl C. “has a lot of work to do to establish her ability to function in a stable, drug free fashion ․ She is dependent on Mr. [W.] and has difficulty in thinking about how she would move forward without him ․ [S]he has not set a priority on being able to function without him. She is additionally challenged by her depression and by what might be manic states. She has a lot of work to do on her own recovery before she could be considered a reasonable prospect to provide the high degree of stability which Natasha needs.” ⁹

Dr. Neems testified that, in his view, Jaron W. had a significant substance abuse problem that he needed to take more seriously. He thought that Jaron W. had a personality disorder with issues of impulsivity, rationalization, and criminal behavior. Dr. Neems said that Jaron W. described having two kinds of employment: regular employment for “slow money” and selling illegal substances for “fast money.” Jaron W. justified selling illegal substances because he needed to make more money than he could earn in legal employment.

Dr. Neems concluded that Jaron W. not only had to address his substance abuse and personality disorder problems, but that he had to reconsider his entire lifestyle before he would be the stable parent that Natasha needed. In his report, Dr. Neems stated that Jaron W. was “impulsive, prone to using criminal activities to support himself, and fails to recognize his serious substance abuse problems. He has a lot of work to do to find ways to support himself without resorting to substance abuse and illegal activities ․ He too has a lot of work to do before he would be minimally able to provide for Natasha's needs.” ¹⁰

Dr. Neems was concerned that both Cheryl C. and Jaron W. advised him during their evaluations that they planned to resume their relationship. In his opinion, they appeared to place a higher priority on being together than on their own recovery. He thought that Cheryl C. did not appreciate the serious risk that Jaron W. posed to her own recovery process, and the situation was complicated by Jaron W.'s overly confident and superficial thinking.

Dr. Neems also observed the interaction between Natasha and each of her parents during the evaluations. He said that Natasha's behavior was similar in both evaluations, but that Cheryl C. and Jaron W. differed in their parenting capacities. Natasha avoided engaging with Cheryl C. and Jaron W. She did not relax or play in either interaction.

With respect to the interaction between Cheryl C. and Natasha, Dr. Neems said that Cheryl C. had told him in advance that Natasha had difficulty with their visits. He observed that Cheryl C. was aware of Natasha's discomfort and tried to react to her in a supportive fashion. Cheryl C. did not pressure Natasha; rather, she took an encouraging approach to try to help Natasha adjust. Dr. Neems thought that Cheryl C. showed a degree of sensitivity to Natasha, which he viewed as a positive sign.

Jaron W. had also informed Dr. Neems prior to the parent/child interaction of Natasha's unhappiness during their visits. Dr. Neems considered Jaron W.'s style of interacting with Natasha to be insensitive and counterproductive. He said that Jaron W. tried to interact with Natasha with too much intensity, while she looked away and cried. Dr. Neems thought that Jaron W. demonstrated insensitivity to Natasha's needs specifically, as well as poor basic awareness of what children are like in general and what they need from their parents.

Dr. Neems also discussed Natasha's needs during his testimony and in his report. He stated that “Natasha's adjustment is such that her stability should not be disrupted. She needs a prolonged period of time in which to feel stable and to develop the sense that she can cope with the changes that will inevitably come her way.” ¹¹ He testified that, in his opinion, neither Cheryl C. nor Jaron W. was able to provide Natasha with the stability that she needed. He noted that Cheryl C.'s recognition of Natasha's issues and her sensitivity to the child's needs was positive, but he felt that Cheryl C.'s capacity to provide a stable environment for Natasha in the near future appeared to be poor.

Respondent mother's compliance with specific steps: On August 3, 2010, the court (Maronich, J.) ordered final specific steps for Cheryl C. to follow in order to facilitate her reunification with Natasha. As of the January 25, 2012 adjudicatory date, Cheryl C. had not complied fully with the specific steps ordered by the court. Since that time, however, Cheryl C. has continued her efforts toward rehabilitation and reunification, albeit with some setbacks along the way. Cheryl C. appears to have taken Dr. Neems's advice to heart: she has worked diligently on her own recovery so that she can be a better parent to Natasha.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child(ren)'s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem:

Cheryl C. complied with this step.

Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and the children are at all times.

Cheryl C. did not comply fully with this step. Cheryl C. had a period of transiency prior to her incarceration in 2011, and the department did not know where she was. Since that time, she had kept the department informed of her whereabouts.

Take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals (parenting and individual).

The following treatment goals were expressly identified in Cheryl C.'s specific steps: demonstrate the ability to effectively parent an infant, and address mental health issues. Cheryl C. did not comply fully with this step prior to the filing of the termination of parental rights petition on January 25, 2012.

Cheryl C. was referred to the Family and Children's Aid Reconnecting Families Program for parenting education, but she was not able to complete the program due to her incarceration in 2011. Cheryl C. also participated in parenting classes at the Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center prior to her incarceration. Cheryl C. completed the Mother Support Group and the Parenting from a Distance program while at York Correctional.

Cheryl C. participated in mental health counseling at CCC and CCBH, but she had not completed treatment when she was incarcerated. Cheryl C. also engaged in mental health counseling when she was admitted to the halfway house in March 2012. She did not complete treatment because she was returned to prison. While at York Correctional, Cheryl C. participated in and completed several programs, including the TARGET Group, the Coping Skills Group, the Healthy Relationships program, the Alternatives to Violence Project, and the Stress Management Group. Since her release, she has continued to engage in mental health counseling.

Accept in-home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them.

This step was not applicable because Natasha was not in Cheryl C.'s care.

Submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow the recommendations about treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.

As of the adjudicatory date, Cheryl C. had not complied fully with this step. Cheryl C. participated in the methadone program at CCC and received substance abuse treatment at CCBH, MCCA, and CPAS, but she failed to complete outpatient treatment prior to her incarceration in June 2011. Cheryl C. had an alcohol-related incident in May 2012. Since that time, she has maintained her sobriety.

Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of the testing will be up to DCF to decide.

Cheryl C. complied with this stPC⌑Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine.

Cheryl C. did not comply fully with this step prior to the January 25, 2012 adjudicatory date. Cheryl C. abused illegal drugs before her incarceration in June 2011. In May 2012, while she was residing in the Shelter Now halfway house and after a period of sobriety, Cheryl C. drank a pint of alcohol and was involved in an altercation with another resident, which ultimately resulted in her return to York Correctional. Cheryl C. has maintained her sobriety since this incident.

Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment.

The service providers recommended in Cheryl C.'s specific steps were CCC, CCBH, and Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center. Cheryl C. did not comply fully with this step prior to the adjudicatory date because she was incarcerated beginning in June 2011.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

Cheryl C. 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.

Cheryl C. complied with this step.

Get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal income.

As of the adjudicatory date, Cheryl C. had not complied with this step. Cheryl C. was transient and unemployed prior to her incarceration in 2011. Since her release from prison, however, Cheryl C. has made substantial efforts to comply with this step. In March 2013, she was residing at the Pam Allen House in New Haven and beginning a new job. She was applying for the Burke Program, which would provide her with housing assistance once she demonstrated a period of regular employment.

Not get further involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole.

Cheryl C. did not comply with this step prior to the adjudicatory date. As discussed above, Cheryl C. was arrested three times after her specific steps were ordered, and she was sentenced to serve seven years, execution suspended after twenty-one months, and five years' probation in September 2011. Cheryl C. was released on parole on December 20, 2012. Her parole ended in late January 2013, and she is currently on probation.

Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF permits.

Cheryl C. complied with this step.

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).

Cheryl C. complied with this step.

Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren).

Cheryl C. complied with this step.

Respondent father's compliance with specific steps: On August 3, 2010, the court (Maronich, J.) ordered final specific steps for Jaron W. to follow in order to facilitate his reunification with Natasha. As of the January 25, 2012 adjudicatory date, Jaron W. had not complied fully with the specific steps ordered by the court. Since that time, Jaron W. made some efforts toward rehabilitation, including obtaining employment in October 2012, but he was unable to avoid further involvement with the criminal justice system.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child(ren)'s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.

Jaron W. complied with this step.

Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and the children are at all times.

Jaron W. complied with this step.

Take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals (parenting).

The following treatment goal was expressly identified in Jaron W.'s specific steps: demonstrate the ability to effectively parent an infant. Jaron W. did not comply fully with this step prior to the adjudicatory date. Jaron W. participated in parenting classes at the Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center between periods of incarceration and through the DOC while in prison. He completed ten sessions of the Embracing Fatherhood Program at Niantic in 2012, earning grades of “excellent” in all five evaluation criteria.

Accept in-home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them.

This step was not applicable because Natasha was not in Jaron W.'s care.

Submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow the recommendations about treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.

Jaron W. did not comply with this step prior to the adjudicatory date. He attended an intake assessment at MCCA in December 2010, but he failed to attend and participate in the recommended IOP. He was discharged from MCCA because he stopped attending the program. Following his release on parole in July 2012, he resided at a Connecticut Renaissance halfway house, where he participated in the substance abuse program. He was successfully discharged from the halfway house in October 2012. Jaron W.'s attorney reported that he was arrested for possession of cocaine on November 29, 2012.

Submit to random drug testing; the time and method of the testing will be up to DCF to decide.

Jaron W. did not comply with this step prior to the adjudicatory date. He failed to attend the IOP at MCCA as recommended. After his release from incarceration in July 2012, his urine screens at Connecticut Renaissance were negative.

Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine.

Jaron W. did not comply with this step prior to the adjudicatory date. Jaron W. was abusing illegal drugs before he was incarcerated in May 2011. His urine screens at Connecticut Renaissance were negative following his release on parole in July 2012. As reported by his attorney, Jaron W. was arrested for possession of cocaine in November 2012.

Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment.

The service providers recommended were MCCA and the Danbury Regional Child Advocacy Center. Jaron W. did not comply fully with this step prior to the adjudicatory date. After an intake assessment at MCCA in December 2010, he failed to participate in the recommended IOP, missing all but one individual counseling sessions and attending group sessions only sporadically. He was discharged from MCCA in July 2011 due to his lack of attendance.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

Jaron W. complied with this step.

Get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal income.

Jaron W. did not comply with this step prior to the adjudicatory date. Jaron W. was transient before his incarceration in May 2011. He moved between his mother's home, Cheryl C.'s father's home and various friends' homes. He held a few jobs over a period of several months for different moving companies, but he had no steady income. Jaron W. was released from prison in July 2012 and admitted into a Connecticut Renaissance halfway house. He was unable to locate employment until October 2012, shortly before the termination of parental rights hearing commenced.

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.

Jaron W. did not comply with this step. He was arrested three times after this case was commenced. On May 6, 2011, he was sentenced to serve eight years, execution suspended after three years, and five years' probation. On July 9, 2012, Jaron W. was released from prison to a Connecticut Renaissance halfway house. He was successfully discharged from the halfway house on October 19, 2012. On November 30, 2012, his attorney advised the court that Jaron W. would not be present to testify at the termination of parental rights hearing because he had been arrested the previous day for possession of cocaine and remained in custody.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

Jaron W. complied with this step.

Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren).

Jaron W. complied with this step.

Reunification efforts by the department: In addition to providing case management services and administrative case reviews, the department offered the following services to facilitate the reunification of Natasha with Cheryl C. and Jaron W.: substance abuse evaluations and treatment; random drug screens (including hair analysis for Cheryl C.); participation in AA and NA; individual counseling; parenting education; parent/child visitation; and services provided by the department of social services (DSS), DOC and adult probation. The department also referred Cheryl C. to detox treatment and supportive housing. In addition, the department requested psychological evaluations of Cheryl C. and Jaron W. and interactional evaluations of each parent with Natasha to assist with case planning.

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).

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).

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 reunite Natasha with Cheryl C. by providing case management services, administrative case reviews, psychological and interactional evaluations, parent/child visitation, and services through DSS, DOC and adult probation. The department also referred Cheryl C. for substance abuse evaluation and treatment, random drug screens and hair analysis, detox treatment, participation in AA and NA, individual counseling, parenting education, and supportive housing. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to reunite Natasha with Cheryl C.

The department also alleges that, as of the adjudicatory date, the department had made reasonable efforts to reunite Natasha with Jaron W. by providing case management services, administrative case reviews, psychological and interactional evaluations, parent/child visitation, and services through DOC and adult probation. The department also referred Jaron W. for substance abuse evaluation and treatment, random drug screens, participation in AA and NA, individual counseling, and parenting education. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to reunite Natasha with Jaron W.

B. Statutory Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

The department alleges the statutory ground of failure to rehabilitate, General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(ii) (Ground B–2), in the petition for termination of the parental rights of Cheryl C. with respect to Natasha. The department alleges the same statutory ground to terminate the parental rights of Jaron W. Section 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(ii) 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 ․ (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b–129 and 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)(ii).

“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.

As discussed in part III above, where the ground alleged in the termination of parental rights petition is failure to rehabilitate under General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B), the court may, in the adjudicatory phase, rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition in considering whether a parent has sufficiently rehabilitated. In re Jennifer W., supra, 75 Conn.App. at 495. Natasha was adjudicated as a neglected child on August 3, 2010, nearly three years ago. At the time of the adjudication, the presenting problems were Cheryl C.'s failure to address her mental health issues and to participate in and complete substance abuse treatment successfully, and Jaron W.'s failure to engage in and successfully complete substance abuse treatment. Cheryl C. and Jaron W. appeared to be unable to take care of their own basic needs, let alone those of Natasha. By the time the termination of parental rights petition was filed on January 25, 2012, both Cheryl C. and Jaron W. had been incarcerated for several months. When the hearing on the termination of parental rights petition began, Cheryl C. was anticipating her release on parole, and Jaron W. had just started a new job. By the last day of the hearing, Cheryl C. was on probation and employed, and Jaron W. was back in custody.

Cheryl C. testified that going to prison saved her life. While incarcerated, she addressed her substance abuse and addiction. She has not used illegal substances for more than two years (most of which she spent in prison), and she prepared for the challenge of remaining clean and sober upon her release by moving to the Pam Allen House, attending programs at the Apt Foundation, and seeking suboxone treatment. She relapsed with alcohol once, more than thirteen months ago, and she has maintained her sobriety since that time. Cheryl C. also took advantage of available resources to improve her mental health, attending a number of programs at York Correctional and continuing her mental health treatment during her probation.

In addition, while she was in prison and since her release, Cheryl C. enrolled in courses to update her office administration skills and enhance her employment prospects. She is now employed, and she is taking steps to move from the Pam Allen House and obtain her own apartment. She has shown considerable initiative to become gainfully employed and live independently, returning to the productive life she once had, until she became involved with illegal drugs.

Cheryl C.'s personal improvement does not, in and of itself, defeat the claim in the termination of parental rights petition that she has failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation. “Thus, even if a parent has made successful strides in her ability to manage her life and may have achieved a level of stability within her limitations, such improvements, although commendable, are not dispositive on the issue of whether, within a reasonable period of time, she could assume a responsible position in the life of her children.” (Citations omitted.) In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 260, 881 A.2d 450 (2005). “[I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384, 784 A.2d 457 (2001). In this case, however, Cheryl C. has consistently demonstrated sensitivity to Natasha's shy and cautious personality and interacted with the child in an appropriate and caring manner; by managing her own life more effectively, Cheryl C. has removed impediments to her ability to care for Natasha and meet her specific needs.

“[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. Cheryl C.'s single-minded determination to maintain her sobriety, reestablish her career, find suitable housing, and be the best mother to Natasha that she can be demonstrates that she has achieved a level of personal rehabilitation such as would reasonably encourage a belief that she can assume a responsible position in Natasha's life now or within a reasonable period of time.

In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the department has the burden of proving the grounds alleged for termination by clear and convincing evidence. “The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence, but less than the highest legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist ․ Its emphasis on the high probability and the substantial greatness of the probability of the truth of the facts asserted indicates that it is a very demanding standard and should be understood as such ․ [T]he clear and convincing standard should operate as a weighty caution upon the minds of all judges, and it forbids relief whenever the evidence is loose, equivocal or contradictory.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Giovanni C., 120 Conn.App. 277, 279–80, 991 A.2d 638 (2010). In view of the degree of rehabilitation that Cheryl C. has achieved already, and the likelihood that she will be able to assume a responsible role in Natasha's life within a reasonable time, the department has not sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the ground alleged for termination of Cheryl C.'s parental rights with respect to Natasha.

Unlike Cheryl C., Jaron W. has failed to demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation to meet Natasha's needs now or within a reasonable period of time. Although he complied with his specific steps to a certain extent, Jaron W. was unable to refrain from using illegal substances and avoid involvement with the criminal justice system. Jaron W. failed to recognize that he had a serious substance abuse problem. He was in prison when Natasha was born and when the termination of parental rights petition was filed. He was arrested three times after this case was commenced. His last arrest, reportedly for possession of cocaine, occurred while the termination of parental rights hearing was proceeding, and while he was on probation. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Jaron W. has failed to achieve a level of rehabilitation that would support a belief that he will assume a responsible position in Natasha's life within a reasonable period of time.

DISPOSITION

Having found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of Jaron W. with respect to Natasha, the court must next determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child. “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 Jaron W. is in the best interests of Natasha, 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.

The department provided case management services, administrative case reviews, psychological and interactional evaluations, parent/child visitation, foster care services, Birth to Three evaluation, and services through DOC and adult probation to facilitate reunification of Natasha with Jaron W. The department also referred Jaron W. for substance abuse evaluation and treatment, random drug screens, participation in AA and NA, individual counseling, and parenting education.

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 Natasha with Jaron W. pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, by (i) providing case management services, administrative case reviews, psychological and interactional evaluations, parent/child visitation, foster care services, Birth to Three evaluation, and services through DOC and adult probation, and (ii) by referring Jaron W. for substance abuse evaluation and treatment, random drug screens, participation in AA and NA, individual counseling, and parenting education.

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 ordered final specific steps on August 3, 2010, when Natasha was adjudicated neglected and committed to the department until further order of the court. The terms of the specific steps ordered by the court and Jaron W.'s compliance with the specific steps are more fully described in part II of this decision. Jaron W. did not comply fully with his obligations under the specific steps. The department fulfilled its obligations under the specific steps and other court orders.

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.

Natasha is three years old and has resided in foster care since her release from the hospital three weeks after her birth. Jaron W. has been incarcerated for much of the time since Natasha was born. Natasha has not demonstrated any attachment to Jaron W. She has minimal interaction with him during her visits, she does not talk, and she cries or maintains a flat affect.

Natasha is developing a bond to Cheryl C. Since the fall of 2012, Natasha's visits with Cheryl C. have progressively improved. In March 2013, Cheryl C. testified that Natasha calls her “Mommy,” and the DCF social worker reported that Natasha gave Cheryl C. a spontaneous hug. Natasha now talks during visits with Cheryl C., and she no longer cries.

Natasha has been in the care of her foster parents her entire life. She is bonded to them, and she looks to them to meet her needs and care for her.

5. The age of the child.

Natasha was born on April 27, 2010. She is now three 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.

Although he has maintained contact with Natasha through his regularly-scheduled visitation, Jaron W. has not made the effort required to adjust his circumstances, conduct or conditions so that it would be in the best interest of Natasha to return to his care. Jaron W. has not demonstrated an ability to rehabilitate himself to the point of being able to provide a safe, stable environment for Natasha.

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.

Jaron W. has not been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Natasha by anyone, including Cheryl C., or by his economic circumstances.

The court has considered the best interests of Natasha, including her 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). Natasha is bonded to her foster parents, particularly her foster father, with whom she has lived for nearly all of her life. She has recently demonstrated more affection during her regular weekly visits with Cheryl C., calling her “Mommy” and hugging her spontaneously. Natasha does not have a secure or stable relationship with Jaron W. As Dr. Neems observed, Jaron W. appears to be insensitive to Natasha's needs. He has been incarcerated for much of Natasha's life, and he is not a positive role model for her. He is a convicted felon, and he was arrested again during the termination of parental rights hearing, reportedly for possession of cocaine, while he was on probation. He appears to be in denial about his serious substance abuse issues. He does not have stable housing or employment. He is unlikely to become a financial resource for Natasha. The court finds upon clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of Jaron W. is in the best interests of Natasha.¹²

CONCLUSION

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ordered as follows:

The objection of Cheryl C. to the permanency plan for Natasha is sustained;

The petition for termination of the parental rights of Cheryl C. with respect to Natasha is denied;

The objection of Jaron W. to the permanency plan for Natasha is overruled;

The petition for termination of the parental rights of Jaron W. with respect to Natasha is granted; and

The parental rights of Jaron W. are hereby terminated with respect to Natasha.

The department shall prepare a new permanency plan for Natasha and shall timely present such further reports to the court as required by law.

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. Mother's Exhibit 14, Offender Work Performance & Program Removal/Refusal Form, October 12, 2012.. FN2. Mother's Exhibit 14, Offender Work Performance & Program Removal/Refusal Form, October 12, 2012.

FN3. Cheryl C.'s parole officer referred her to EMERGE CT, a program for re-entry parolees. Of the eighteen candidates who started the program, Cheryl C. was one of the three who graduated.. FN3. Cheryl C.'s parole officer referred her to EMERGE CT, a program for re-entry parolees. Of the eighteen candidates who started the program, Cheryl C. was one of the three who graduated.

FN4. Cheryl C. reported that her husband discovered her smoking crack cocaine with her mother.. FN4. Cheryl C. reported that her husband discovered her smoking crack cocaine with her mother.

FN5. During his testimony, Dr. Neems suggested that Cheryl C. may have been misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.. FN5. During his testimony, Dr. Neems suggested that Cheryl C. may have been misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.

FN6. TARGET is an acronym for Trauma Adaptive Recovery Group Education and Therapy.. FN6. TARGET is an acronym for Trauma Adaptive Recovery Group Education and Therapy.

FN7. Mother's Exhibit 15, letter from Queenie Moore, clinician, Apt Foundation, dated March 7, 2013.. FN7. Mother's Exhibit 15, letter from Queenie Moore, clinician, Apt Foundation, dated March 7, 2013.

FN8. Both of the foster siblings attend college and reside on campus, but they are home frequently because the college they attend is not very far away.. FN8. Both of the foster siblings attend college and reside on campus, but they are home frequently because the college they attend is not very far away.

FN9. State's Exhibit 2, Report of Robert H. Neems, Ph.D., dated August 9, 2012, at 18.. FN9. State's Exhibit 2, Report of Robert H. Neems, Ph.D., dated August 9, 2012, at 18.

FN10. Id.. FN10. Id.

FN11. Id.. FN11. Id.

FN12. In determining the issue of the best interests of Natasha, 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 Natasha that is less restrictive than termination of the parental rights of Jaron W. 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, 64 A.3d 119 (2013); In re Julianna B., 141 Conn.App. 163, 61 A.3d 606 (2013).. FN12. In determining the issue of the best interests of Natasha, 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 Natasha that is less restrictive than termination of the parental rights of Jaron W. 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, 64 A.3d 119 (2013); In re Julianna B., 141 Conn.App. 163, 61 A.3d 606 (2013).

Heller, Donna Nelson, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law