IN RE: Krissay C.1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 17a–112 et seq., the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has petitioned the court for the termination of parental rights (TPR) in the interest of Krissay C. (d.o.b.09/17/11).   The petitioner seeks to terminate the parental rights of Mother, Christina D., and Father, Jose C., on the statutory grounds of failure to rehabilitate after a prior adjudication of neglect and failure to rehabilitate with a child under seven years of age.   The petitioner also seeks to terminate the parental rights of Father, Jose C., on the additional statutory ground of abandonment.

On January 29, 2013, DCF filed the petition to terminate parental rights.   According to the returns of service, the petitions were properly served on both respondents at their respective abodes.   Service was confirmed by the court, Burgdorff, J. on February 28, 2013.   On the same date, the respondents both appeared and were advised of their rights and both were appointed counsel.   The matter was tried to the court on June 11, 2013.   The respondent mother appeared with counsel at trial to contest the termination of parental rights.   Respondent Father did not appear at trial.   Father's attorney did appear.   All counsel had the opportunity to examine and call witnesses.   The petitioner introduced thirteen exhibits without objection and called six witnesses.   No other party called witnesses or introduced exhibits.   The court also took judicial notice of the four previous terminations of parental rights and one previous transfer of guardianship for mother.   The court also took judicial notice of the three terminations of parental rights for Father.   The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction over the matter and that there are no other pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child.

The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to a TPR petition.   The court has carefully considered the petition, the evidence and testimony presented, and the arguments of counsel.   For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the petitioner has met the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.   The court finds in favor of the petitioner and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent parents.   Further the court orders the Department of Children and Families to be appointed the statutory parent of Krissay and that she become legally free for adoption.

II

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A petition of neglect was filed on 10/4/11 on behalf of Krissay C., (DOB 09/17/11).   On 02/21/12, Krissay C. was adjudicated neglected in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford, CT (Keller, J.) and an order of protective supervision entered.   Soon thereafter on 3/28/12 an OTC was granted.   A motion to open and change the disposition to commitment was filed on 4/15/12.   On 5/9/12 the child was committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford, CT (Keller, J.).   On 01/29/13 DCF filed a petition to terminate parental rights.   The matter was tried to the court on June 11, 2013.

III

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having heard the testimony and reviewed the evidence, the court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.

The respondents, Christina D. and Jose C., are the biological parents to four children together.   The children were born in 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011.   None of the children are in the care of the respondents.   The primary reason for DCF involvement has been substance abuse, unaddressed mental health issues and transience.   Both parents have been offered services for substance abuse, parenting and mental health and Mother has received certificates.   Despite the same, neither respondent has significantly benefitted from those services.

Mother:  Mother, Christina D., has been involved with DCF since 2005.   She was born on 12/08/85 in Hartford, CT and is the oldest of three girls.   Mother and her sisters share the same father.   Mother also has four half-siblings on her father's side.   Mother and her siblings were raised by her parents in Hartford, CT. Mother stated she had a great childhood until her father passed away from cancer when she was nine years old.   Following his death, Mother's mother became depressed and Mother states the family began to fall apart emotionally.   Mother attended school until the ninth grade when she dropped out.   She received special education services.   In March 2010, she enrolled in Adult Education but did not complete it.   She has had very sporadic employment throughout her lifetime and is currently unemployed.

Mother's parental rights to four other children, Jesus D., DOB, 11/15/06, Natasha C., DOB 11/21/07, Dominic C., DOB 03/06/09 and Persephone C., DOB 07/08/10, have been terminated for the same issues as the present case.   Parental rights were terminated as to Jesus on 8/12/08 at Hartford (Dannehy, J.) pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Parental rights were terminated as to Natasha on 6/15/09 at Hartford (Dannehy, J.) pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Parental rights were terminated as to Dominic on 06/28/10, by consent, at Hartford (Dannehy, J.) pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Parental rights were terminated as to Persephone on 12/07/10, by consent, at Hartford, pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Mother became pregnant with her first child at the age of eighteen.   Soon after the birth of her first child Mother became depressed and attempted suicide.   In each instance, Mother appeared with the same issues as she presents in the present case:  substance abuse, unaddressed mental health issues and transience.

Mother gave birth to Krissay C. on 9/17/11.   On 10/04/11 the Department filed a petition of Neglect towards Krissay C. with the SCJM citing predictive neglect.   On 2/21/12, Krissay was adjudicated neglected and an Order of Protective Supervision was granted for a period of 6 months.   On 3/26/12, the Department invoked a 96–hour hold with regard to Krissay C. citing that she was living in conditions that were injurious to her well-being.   On 3/23/12 a report came in from a social worker from Hartford Hospital reporting that Mother was in the hospital due to vaginal bleeding and PCP use.   Tests confirmed that she was positive for PCP and had also miscarried.   At the time of her admission, Mother had in her possession 6 bags of a green weedy looking substance as well as a black substance that mother identified as PCP and marijuana.   At the time Mother was parenting Krissay C. under an order of protective supervision with services.   On 3/28/12, an OTC was granted on behalf of Krissay C.

According to a report from Wheeler Clinic, Mother has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and has been prescribed medication.   She received a certificate of completion for LifeLine's Intensive Outpatient Group on 6/28/12.   Despite completing this group, she presented with urine positive for illegal substances on 7/24/12.   On 1/25/13, Mother stated to her DCF worker that she did not want to do a hair test as she knew the result would be positive and she asked what would happen if it turned out positive.

Mother submitted to urine screens on 5/31/12, 6/8/12, 6/15/12.   All screens tested positive for PCP. A hair test was scheduled for 01/25/13;  Mother did not show or call.   A hair test was rescheduled for 1/30/13 and Mother did go.   Mother has admitted to addiction to marijuana at age 14 and hallucinogens at age 15.   In addition, on 2/21/12, Father reported to his Family Relations counselor that he was actively using PCP and marijuana with Mother.

Mother previously lived with her sister and her sister's children in a two-bedroom apartment.   At the time of trial it was unclear where Mother was residing as she would not provide DCF with an address.   Mother was arrested on 01/05/07 and charged with possession of drugs and sale of a controlled substance.

Mother has been offered a number of services including weekly supervised visits, substance abuse evaluation with ADRC, outpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment through the Wheeler Clinic;  monthly bus passes and case management.   Mother has not benefitted from the services she has completed.   Mother does not have appropriate housing or income and continues to have unaddressed issues with substance abuse and mental health.   Mother continues to maintain that she is not in need of mental health services.

DCF attempted to rehabilitate Mother in the present case by allowing a period of protective supervision.   Despite the same, Mother appeared at the hospital as she was miscarrying, high on PCP.

Father:  Jose C. was born on 10/18/84 in Hartford, CT. His parents were never married.   According to Father, his Mother was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and was not consistent with medication.   He also indicated that both his parents were alcoholics.   His mother passed away in a motorcycle accident in 1997.   He does not know where his father is.   He is the third oldest in his family and has four half-siblings.   When he was young his mother moved to California with the older siblings leaving Jose and his sister with their maternal grandmother.   Father later found out his siblings in California were removed from his mother's care due to substance abuse issues.   Father attended schools in Hartford and finished the 11th grade.   He reported that his siblings returned home from California during the summer prior to his senior year and he got caught up with them being home and wanting to spend time with them.   Father subsequently received his General Equivalency Degree (GED) and stated a desire to go to college.

Father has had involvement with DCF since 2006.   He was in a relationship with Christina D. with the birth of his first child, Natasha C. on 11/21/07.   Natasha (DOB 11/21/07) was committed to the care and custody of the Department on 02/14/08.   Parental rights of mother and Father were terminated on 06/15/09 and Natasha has been successfully adopted.   Father's second child, Dominic C. was born on 03/6/09 and he was removed on a 96–Hour Hold from the hospital and was subsequently committed to the Department on 06/16/09.   The presenting issues at that time for Jose C. were substance abuse, unaddressed mental health issues, transience and incarceration.   A TPR was granted on behalf of Dominic on 6/28/10.   Father's parental rights to his third child, Persephone C. were terminated on 12/7/10 by consent.   On 05/09/12, Krissay C., who was born on 09/17/11, was adjudicated neglected by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford, CT (Keller, J.).

Father's criminal history includes Sale of narcotics and probation violation on 5/4/04;  Failure to Appear in 2005;  Possession of Narcotics, Sale of narcotics, Probation Violation in 2007;  Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Trespass on 2/27/12.   Father's whereabouts were unknown to the Department from 9/11/12 until sometime in April.   DCF previously indicated in the petitioner's social study that there had been no contact with Father since 9/11/12.   However, at trial, DCF Social Worker Case Aid Gloria Walker testified that she supervised a visit with Father sometime in April 2012.   In addition the foster parents testified that they had received communications from Father.

Father has a criminal history dating back to 2004.   He spent four months in jail from 5/04 to 9/04 and was given Probation.   Father was convicted of the following charges:  two counts of Sale of a Hallucinogen/Narcotics, Violation Probation, Sale of Narcotics and Failure to Appear.   On 01/05/07, Father was arrested when the home he was sharing with Mother and her family was raided.   He was charged with Possession with Intent to Sell. He explained that the police found heroin, marijuana, PCP and $2,500 in cash.   Father was also charged with Violation of Probation as he was on Probation at the time of his arrest.   Father was incarcerated from 7/16/07 to 5/5/08 and was re-incarcerated on 7/25/08 due to Violation of Transitional Supervision for not obeying curfew at the half-way house.   Father was released on 3/2/09 with 3 years reporting probation and a 5–year suspended sentence with the stipulation that if he accrues new criminal charges during this probation period, he will be charged with a Violation of Probation and therefore will serve out five years in prison.

On 7/23/10, Father was admitted to the Department of Corrections–Hartford Correctional Center with a primary charge of Violation of Probation;  his next court date was set for 09/13/10.   Father denies this violation stating it was a mistake and he should not have been arrested.   There is a current Re–Arrest order dated 9/13/12 for Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Trespass 1st degree.

Father has an employment history working at CNS Wholesale Grocer for 25 days;  Outsource, a temporary employment agency for 3 weeks and Alden Manufacturing for 6 months.   Father also stated he was employed as a tutor for a Community College in Hartford in 2010;  however, there is no other evidence of his employment, as he indicates he is paid “under the table.”

There are also reports of domestic violence between Mother and Father.   Since the birth of Krissay C. on 09/17/11, the police have been called to the apartment of Christina D. on one occasion concerning Father.   On 02/27/12, police were dispatched to the apartment of Christina D. due to Father going to the home and trying to gain access into the apartment by knocking and kicking at the door.   The police charged him with Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Trespass.   During a Psychosocial Evaluation completed on 02/24/09 at CRT, Mother disclosed being a victim of violence by her ex-boyfriend;  however she was not able to provide a time frame or a name.   Mother stated that the abuse lasted about 5 months.

Father admitted himself into detox at St. Francis for 4 days due to PCP use in late 2006.   He denies having substance abuse issues, and has failed to attend any scheduled appointments for testing in the past.   Father uses the address of his grandmother in Hartford to receive mail but it does not appear he actually lives there.

Father's presenting issues were substance abuse, inappropriate parenting and incarceration.   He reported that he has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder and Depression.   He was initially visiting Krissay on a weekly basis but visits eventually became sporadic.   He has not called to request visits through DCF or to inquire as to his daughter's well-being.   Father was offered weekly supervised visitation, substance abuse evaluation, and DCF case management.   He did not utilize these services.   Father's whereabouts were unknown for a significant period of time.

Child:  At the time of the filing of the TPR petition Krissay C. was a 16–month–old toddler who entered DCF care with significant developmental delays.   She was also classified as medically complex within a month of her placement due to severe asthma symptoms which require daily nebulizer treatments.   Krissay is placed in a legal risk foster home and appears to be very bonded to her foster parents as well as her 3 older full siblings, Natasha, Dominic and Persephone, who were adopted by the same family.   The foster parents are willing to adopt Krissay, if she is freed for adoption, so that she can grow up with her siblings who, according to the foster parents, want to be near her all the time.   Krissay is the sixth child born to Christina D. and the fourth child born to Jose C. Krissay's oldest half-brother resides with his paternal grandmother under a subsidized guardianship.   Her second-oldest half-brother spent part of his life at the Hospital of Special Care in New Britain and has subsequently been adopted.

IV

LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

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

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

A

ADJUDICATION

Each statutory basis set out in General Statutes Sec. 17a–112(j) is an independent ground for termination.  In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263.   The petitioner is required to prove at least one of the grounds alleged in its petition by clear and convincing evidence.

1. Reasonable Efforts (as to both respondents)

In order to terminate parental rights, DCF must show by clear and convincing evidence that “it has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.”

Construing the “reasonable efforts ․ to reunify” element of § 17a–112(j)(1), our courts have stated that “[t]he 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 ․ [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 668 [6 A.3d 86 cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051] (2010).  In re Chevol G., 125 Conn.App. 618, 621, 9 A.3d 413 (2010).  “[T]he 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.   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.)  In re Alison M., supra, 127 Conn.App. 205 (citing In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 552–53, 979 A.2d 469 (2009)).   See also In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 191, 16 A.3d 1244 (2011).

According to the returns of service, the petitions were properly served on both respondents at their respective abodes.   Service was confirmed by the court, Burgdorff, J. on February 28, 2013.   On the same date, the respondents both appeared and were advised of their rights and both were appointed counsel.   DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and did locate them.

Specific steps were ordered to deal with the presenting issues.   Mother was offered a number of services including weekly supervised visits, substance abuse evaluation with ADRC, outpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment through the Wheeler Clinic;  monthly bus passes and case management.   Despite these services, Mother submitted to urine screens on 5/31/12, 6/8/12, 6/15/12.   All screens tested positive for PCP. A hair test was scheduled for 01/25/13;  Mother did not show or call.   A hair test was rescheduled for 1/30/13 and Mother did go.   Mother remains unemployed.   At the time of trial it was unclear where Mother is residing as she will not provide DCF with an address.   Mother has been unable to benefit from the services she has completed.   Despite the services offered she continues not to have appropriate housing or income and continues to have unaddressed issues with substance abuse and mental health.

Father was offered weekly supervised visitation, substance abuse evaluation and DCF case management.   Father did not utilize these services.   Father's whereabouts were unknown for most of the pendency of the case.   Father did not appear at trial.   Father through his attorney put on no evidence that he engaged in services on his own.   Father has been unwilling to benefit from the services as he has not engaged in any of the services.

Despite numerous services offered to both parents, the respondent parents have been unable and unwilling to benefit from the services.   Thus, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify the respondents with the minor child.

2. Termination Grounds

a. Failure to Rehabilitate—General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)

The court may grant a petition for termination of parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents of a child who has been found by the court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding after being provided specific steps to facilitate the return of the child have “․ 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, they could assume a reasonable position in the life of the child.”  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B).

Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a respondent to a constructive and useful role as a parent.  In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194 (1986).   The parent's compliance with the court ordered expectations entered at the time of the neglect adjudication are relevant but not dispositive to the rehabilitation finding.  In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157 (1989).   The ultimate question is whether the parent at the time of the filing of the termination petition is more able to resume the responsibilities of parents than he or she was at the time of the commitment.  In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112 (1992).   In making this determination the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time.  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).

Here the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that both parents failed to rehabilitate after a prior adjudication of Neglect.   On 10/04/11 a Petition of Neglect/Uncared for was filed on behalf of the child.   On 02/21/12, Krissay C., date of birth 09/17/11, was adjudicated neglected in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford, CT (Keller, J.) and an order of protective supervision entered.   On 3/28/12 an OTC was granted.   A motion to open and change disposition was filed on 4/15/12 and the child was committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of the Children and Families on 5/9/12 by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford, CT (Keller, J.).

The court issued specific steps in this matter.   The presenting problems were Mother's substance abuse history, transience, mental health, and domestic violence.   The presenting problems for Father were substance abuse, transience, mental health, domestic violence and incarceration.   Both parents were offered services for substance abuse, parenting and mental health.

Specifically, Mother was offered a number of services including weekly supervised visits, substance abuse evaluation with ADRC, outpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment through the Wheeler Clinic;  monthly bus passes and case management.   Despite these services, Mother submitted to urine screens on 5/31/12, 6/8/12, 6/15/12.   All screens tested positive for PCP. A hair test was scheduled for 01/25/13;  Mother did not show or call.   A hair test was rescheduled for 1/30/13 and Mother did go.   Mother admitted to the DCF social worker that the hair test would be positive if she took it.   At the time of trial it was unclear where Mother is residing as she will not provide DCF with an address.   On 2/21/12, Father reported to his Family Relations counselor, that he was actively using PCP and marijuana with Mother.   Despite the services offered she continues not to have appropriate housing or income and continues to have unaddressed issues with substance abuse and mental health.

Father was offered weekly supervised visitation, substance abuse evaluation and DCF case management.   Father did not utilize these services.   Father's whereabouts were unknown for most of the pendency of the case.   Father did not appear at trial.   Father through his attorney put on no evidence that he engaged in services on his own.   Father has been unwilling to benefit from the services as he has not engaged in any of the services.

Despite numerous services offered to the parents, the respondent parents have failed to rehabilitate and would not be able to do so within a reasonable time period in the future in view of the age and needs of the child.   Accordingly, the court concludes that the petitioner has proved the ground of failure to rehabilitate by clear and convincing evidence.

b. Failure to Rehabilitate with Child Under Seven Years General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(E)

The court may grant a termination of parental rights for “the parent of a child under the age of seven years who is neglected or uncared for, has failed, is unable or is unwilling to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child and such parent's 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)

Krissay C. was born on 09/17/11 and therefore is less than seven years old.   The parental rights to four of the respondents' other children, Jesus D., DOB 11/15/06, Natasha C., DOB 11/21/07, Dominic C., DOB 03/06/09 and Persephone C., DOB 07/08/10, have been terminated.   Parental rights were terminated as to Jesus on 8/12/08 at Hartford (Dannehy, J.) pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Parental rights were terminated as to Natasha on 6/15/09 at Hartford (Dannehy, J.) pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Parental rights were terminated as to Dominic C. on 06/28/10, by consent, at Hartford (Dannehy, J.) pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   Parental rights were terminated as to Persephone on 12/07/10, by consent, at Hartford, pursuant to a termination of parental rights filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.

The respondents will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of their child within a reasonable time period.

c. Abandonment (as to Father, Jose C.)

Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(A)

The petitioner alleges that the petitions should be granted as to the respondent Father on the ground of abandonment.   Abandonment focuses on the parent's conduct.   A lack of interest in the child is not the sole criterion in determining abandonment.   Attempts to achieve contact with the child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child.   Abandonment occurs when a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare.  In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 52 (1998).

Despite the petitioner's representations in the social study submitted, Father has made some attempts to display love and concern for the child.   DCF represented that Father's whereabouts had been unknown since 9/11/12.   However at trial DCF Social Worker Case Aid Gloria Walker testified that she supervised a visit with Father during the month of April 2013.   In addition foster Mother testified that Father has communicated on at least 3 occasions with her via email while this matter has been pending.   Father expressed his gratitude and thankfulness at Krissay's placement with the foster parents.   In addition Father sent a Christmas gift directed to all of his children in the care of the foster parents.

The court finds that the petitioner has not established this ground by clear and convincing evidence.

B

DISPOSITION

“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 ․ The best interests of the child include the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of [his or her] environment ․ 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.   In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [General Statutes § 17a–112(k) ] ․ 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.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Janaza S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 97–98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009).

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the necessary statutory ground alleged by the petitioner for the termination of both respondents' parental rights has been proven.   Before making a decision on whether or not to terminate the respondents' parental rights, the court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set out in General Statute § 17a–112(k).  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345 (1994).   These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:

(1) “The timeliness, nature, and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.”

As detailed above, DCF made referred each of the respondents to numerous providers that offered services that would have facilitated a reunion with the child.   The referrals were made on a timely and consistent basis.   Despite the same the respondents have failed to benefit from the services.   DCF has been involved with the respondents since 2006.   DCF has offered services to the respondents to addresses substance abuse, mental health, housing, and parenting.   DCF allowed the child to return home under an order of Protective Supervision with services.   The parents have not significantly benefitted from the services.

(2) “Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.”

As detailed above, DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the parents with their child by referring the parties to a number of services to address the needs that brought the matter before the court and by providing visitation.   Mother has been offered a number of services including weekly supervised visits, substance abuse evaluation with ADRC, outpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment through the Wheeler Clinic;  monthly bus passes and case management.   Mother has not benefitted from the services she has completed.   Mother does not have appropriate housing or income and continues to have unaddressed issues with substance abuse and mental health.

Father was offered weekly supervised visitation, substance abuse evaluation and DCF case management.   Father did not utilize these services.   In addition Father's whereabouts were unknown for a significant period.

(3) “The terms of any court orders entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which the parties have fulfilled their expectations.”

The court issued specific steps to the respondents.   Both parents were offered services for substance abuse, parenting and mental health.   Despite the same the primary reason for DCF involvement with both respondents remains the same;  substance abuse, unaddressed mental health issues and transience.   Father did not participate in any substance abuse evaluation offered since the birth of the child.   He was whereabouts unknown for a significant period of time.   Mother admitted that she would test positive if given a drug test as recently as 1/25/13, four days before the TPR petition was filed.

(4) “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the parents, any guardians of his 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.”

There is a strong bond between the child and her foster parents as well as strong emotional ties.   There is also a bond and emotional tie between the child and her Mother.   Father failed to substantially engage in visits with the child so few observations were made regarding his bond with the child.

(5) “The Age of the Child.”

The child was born on September 17, 2011.   She was 20 months old at the time of trial.

(6) “The effort of the parent has made to adjust his circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to his home in the foreseeable future including but not limited (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 with the guardian or other custodian of the child.”

Mother has made limited efforts to adjust her circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to reunify with her.   While she has maintained contact with the child, she has failed to remedy her substance abuse, mental health and housing issues.   Father did not avail himself with any of the services offered by DCF. Father has had one visit with the child since 9/20/11.

(7) “The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship by the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.”

The parents did not face any unreasonable interference from any person and no economic circumstance prevented them from establishing or maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child.   They were offered, at no cost to them, programs to address their substance abuse, mental health and parenting.   They were provided with opportunities to visit the child.   They were also provided with free legal representation.

The court has considered Krissay's best interests, 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).   Krissay has bonded with her foster parents, with whom she has lived for most of her life.   Her foster parents have adopted Krissay's three older siblings.   Krissay has enjoyed the bond she shares with those siblings.   The foster parents, who are open to adopting Krissay as well, have provided her with a stable and nurturing environment.   Based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights respondent parents is in the best interests of Krissay.

In determining the issue of the best interests of the child pursuant to General Statute 17a–112(j)(2), 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 Krissay that is less restrictive than termination of the parental rights at issue.   See In re Azareon Y., 139 Conn.App. 457, 60 A.3d 742 (2012), 307 Conn. 950, 60 A.3d 739, and cert. granted in part;  In re Julianna B., 141 Conn.App. 163, 61 A.3d 606 (2013).

Having found the foregoing, the court further finds, based upon all of the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in the child's best interests to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father.

V

CONCLUSION

The termination of parental rights petition is granted and judgment may enter terminating the parental rights.   It is further ordered that the Commissioner of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for the child.

Pursuant to General Statute 17a–112(o), DCF shall report to the court, not later than 30 days after the date judgment is entered, on case plans, as defined by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, for the child which shall include measurable objectives and time schedules.   At least every three months thereafter, DCF shall report to the court on the progress that has been made on the implementation of the plans.

DCF is directed to facilitate the adoption of the child as expeditiously as possible.   The Clerk of the Superior Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford of the date on which the adoption is finalized.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Westbrook, J.

Westbrook, Dawne G., J.