IN RE: Jonathan R.1 (2013)

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION dated August 20, 2013 Correction made was re parental rights of mother terminated based on the ground of consent

I

INTRODUCTION

Before the court is a petition for the termination of parental rights (TPR) filed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in the interest of Jonathan R. (DOB 09/13/06) and Janellys R. (DOB 07/26/08).   The petitioner seeks to terminate the parental rights of father, Jose R., on the grounds of failure to rehabilitate after a prior adjudication of neglect.  Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).   Mother, Carmen R., consented to the termination of parental rights on June 12, 2013.

On January 2, 2013, DCF filed a petition to terminate parental rights.   Both parents were properly served.   Mother and father appeared and were advised of their rights and both were appointed counsel.   Mother appeared on June 12, 2013 and consented to the termination of parental rights After mother was canvassed, her consent was found to be knowingly and voluntarily made.   The court terminated her parental rights after accepting her consent.   The petitioner proceeded at trial seeking to terminate the parental rights of father, Jose R. The matter was tried to the court on June 25, 2013, August 8, 2013 and August 12, 2013.   The respondent father appeared with counsel at trial to contest the termination of parental rights.   Respondent mother did not appear at trial.   All counsel had the opportunity to examine and call witnesses.   On June 25, 2013, the court took judicial notice of all prior orders and prior findings in the file.   The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction of the matter and that there are no other pending actions affecting the custody of the minor children.

II

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

A. Procedural History

On August 20, 2010, a 96–hour hold was invoked on behalf of Jonathan R. and Janellys R. On August 24, 2010 the court granted Motions for Temporary Custody on behalf of the children.   Petitions of Neglect were filed on the same date.   On September 3, 2010 the Orders of Temporary Custody were sustained.   The children were adjudicated neglected in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford on November 23, 2010 and committed to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) (Dannehy, J.).   On December 16, 2011, Jonathan was reunified with father.   On May 24, 2012 Janellys was reunified with father.   On August 14, 2012 the children were again removed from father's care via a 96–hour hold.   On August 17, 2012 an Order granting Temporary Custody was granted to DCF. On September 27, 2012 the children were again committed to DCF. On January 2, 2013 a petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed.

B. Facts

Mother. Mother, Carmen R. consented to a termination of parental rights on June 12, 2013.

Father. Father, Jose R. (DOB 06/23/74) was born and reared in Hartford, CT. Father reports that he lived with his grandparents because they intervened when he was going to be removed from his mother's care.   He is the second oldest of six children.   Father reports that his mother and father are half siblings and that he is the product of an incestuous union.   He reports that his parents had the same father but different mothers.   He indicates that he does not have a relationship with his biological parents.

Father received special education services while attending local schools in Hartford.   His highest level of education is the 10th grade.   He is the father of three children:  two sons and one daughter.   Two of the children are the subject of this petition.

Father met mother, Carmen R. (DOB 02/18/88) through a relative.   Father began to live with mother at the home of mother's paternal grandmother.   During that time when mother was 17 years old, she became pregnant with Jonathan R. Mother and father soon moved into their own place together.   At the time father was employed doing windows and siding.   Father reports that once the two lived together arguments began.   Mother did not want to clean the house and he had to work and clean.   He began to feel like he was raising mother and their son, Jonathan.   Father admitted to DCF that he was physically violent towards mother at times.   As a result of the violence father says he completed anger management counseling.   He claims he ended the relationship because of mother's behavior.   Father sought custody of his children through the family court and was granted sole temporary custody of the children through the court in January 2010.

On November 30, 2007, DCF substantiated sexual abuse/exploitation of mother's younger sister by father, Jose R. Father currently reports that he is married.   He resides in a three-bedroom home with his wife.   His wife has a history with DCF and currently does not have her own children in her care.

On August 11, 2010, DCF received a report from the West Hartford Police Department alleging physical abuse of Jonathan by father.   On August 15, 2010 the children, who would have been 3 and 2 years old at the time, were found alone outside unsupervised early in the morning.   On August 19, 2010 maternal grandmother reported to DCF that she observed bruises on Jonathan's back.   Jonathan reported that the bruises were caused by father.   Jonathan was examined by Connecticut Children's Medical Center where the attending physician stated that Jonathan had patterned bruising from injuries that appeared to have been intentionally inflicted.   As a result the children were removed from father's care after an Order of Temporary Custody was granted on August 24, 2010.   The children were later adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF on November 23, 2010.

On January 13, 2011 and February 7, 2011 father participated in a psycho-sexual evaluation with Dr. William Hobson.   Dr. Hobson noted that both mothers of father's children are significantly younger than he is.   Dr. Hobson further noted that while this is not illegal, taken in concert with past allegations, it does raise some questions about his preference for younger adults.   Dr. Hobson indicated that he might have concerns if Janellys were an adolescent since this may elicit sexual feelings from father even if he did not act on them.   Dr. Hobson opined that at a minimum, both children and father should be engaged in family and individual therapy.

On February 11, 2011 father participated in a psychological evaluation with Dr. Logan Green.   Dr. Green opined that if father is to have the children in his care, he would need therapy to address the neuropsychological difficulties that appear to be present.   Dr. Green indicated that it would be difficult for father to incorporate more complex thinking without some remediation.   Dr. Green testified that father has had anxiety, depression, and a personality disorder for much of his life that has prevented him from acting in a smooth and comfortable way with others.   Dr. Green stated further that placing a child in a home such as father's, where there is continued adversity, would increase the likelihood of psychopathology in the child.   Dr. Green's expert opinion is that father's unaddressed mental deficiencies would continue to cause problems with his parenting.   Dr. Green administered a child abuse inventory instrument that predicts the likelihood that an individual will engage in physically abusive forms of discipline.   Father's results were on the high end of the evaluation.

In September 2011, father was referred to PATH Outpatient for a psychiatric evaluation and individual therapy.   He missed appointments and was discharged unsuccessfully from both services.   These services would have addressed the issues about which Dr. Green testified.

Father has a history of substance use which includes:  marijuana, cocaine, and PCP. Father admits to first using marijuana around the age of sixteen.   He admits to his first use of cocaine around twenty-five years old.   Father admitted to DCF that he had a cocaine relapse in April 2012.   He later recanted after speaking to his attorney.   Father submitted to a hair test in June 2012 that tested positive for cocaine.   Father began services with a substance abuse program, ADRC, in Hartford.   He tested positive for substances as late as September 2012.   On November 13, 2012 father was stepped down to the relapse portion of the ADRC program based on providing nine negative urine screens and attending fifteen sessions.

Father was also involved with Radiance Innovative Services for in-home parenting education.   According to the President, Charles Frasier, the program runs for 12 weeks with 5 hours of one-on-one parenting education.   Mr. Frasier reported that father was compliant with this service from 2010 until the children were reunified with him.

Jonathan was reunified with father on December 16, 2011 and Janellys was later reunified with father on May 24, 2012.   On August 14, 2012 a drug raid occurred at father's home and he was arrested.   Detective Matthew Barnwell testified at trial that he was a part of the raid that involved approximately six police officers from the Statewide Narcotics Division of Troop H. During the raid two ounces of pure cocaine was located in a pair of father's boots.   On December 6, 2012, father was convicted of possession with intent to sell and sentenced to two years to serve, suspended after eighteen months with three years of probation.   Since the children were removed on the day of the raid, August 14, 2012, they have not returned to father's care.

Since the removal, father has had supervised visits with his minor children through Radiance Innovative Services.   He is consistent with visitation, arrives on time, and brings food for the children.   Radiance employee Jamal Stanford reports that father is appropriate during the visits.   He further reports that it is evident that father loves his children and it appears that father and Jonathan have a very strong bond.

Children. Jonathan R.:  Jonathan was born on September 13, 2006 in Hartford, CT. He is considered medically complex due to mild intermittent asthmatic symptoms.   His weight and length were of no concern.   Jonathan resided with both of his parents until he was about 4 years old when his father took sole custody of him.   Jonathan lived with his father for just a few months before he was removed by DCF on August 20, 2010 due to physical abuse and inadequate supervision.   At that time Jonathan was placed in a non-relative foster home from August 20, 2010 until he was reunified with father on December 16, 2011.   Jonathan was again removed on August 14, 2012 and placed in a medically complex non-relative foster home.   On September 24, 2012 Jonathan was placed in a Village for Families and Children Therapeutic Foster Home after disrupting from his prior placement due to concerns for his foster siblings' safety.

Jonathan presents with significant behavioral issues including:  impulsivity, bolting and running away, physical aggression, extended temper tantrums, and defiant behavior.   He requires intensive therapeutic supports to maintain him in both individual therapy and in his school placement.   These supports include weekly individual therapy through the Community Child Guidance Clinic, Intensive In Home Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services (IICAPS) through the Village for Families and Children;  Therapeutic Foster Care Case Management through the Village of Families and Children, Therapeutic Mentoring and Respite Services through Radiance Innovative Services, Adult Paraprofessional Support in his school classroom, and ongoing psychiatric evaluation and medication management through the Village for Families and Children.   Jonathan's current foster home is not a pre-adoptive home but they are willing to foster Jonathan long term.

Jonathan has been diagnosed with PTSD and ADHD. His early childhood experiences are significant for exposure to domestic violence, substance abuse, transiency, and exposure to criminal activity.   He presents as hyper vigilant, impulsive, anxious, and unpredictable.   He requires line of sight supervision in order to keep him and others safe.   He appears as parentified and has experienced a great deal of sadness as he has significant worries about his sister and parents.   The second removal from his father's care magnified his fragile mental state.

Jonathan was initially a special education student at Naylor.   However, DCF changed his school after multiple reports of inappropriate physical discipline to Jonathan.   He receives his medical care with a doctor in Windsor and dental care at CHS. He is up to date on his immunizations and well child visits.

Jonathan is significantly bonded with his sister, Janellys.   He seems to enjoy his role as a big brother.   Jonathan also strives to make his father happy.   Father's opinion is very important to Jonathan.   For example, Jonathan has been known to change his hairstyle or stop wearing a pair of shoes if his father shows displeasure.   Jonathan appears extremely bonded to his father.

Jonathan's current placement is a therapeutic foster home.   The family is skilled at working with Jonathan's behaviors and helpful in getting him to his many services.   His current foster home is not a pre-adoptive foster home.   While Jonathan has expressed an interest in returning to father—that interest is conditional.   Jonathan says he wants to return if daddy stops doing the bad things.   Jonathan has been exposed to a significant amount of trauma.   Jonathan reports seeing his father hit his mother by peeking through his hands while they covered his face.   Jonathan has also reported that father physically hit him.   Jonathan is also aware that his father has been incarcerated.

Janellys R. Janellys R. was born on July 26, 2008 in Hartford, CT. She shares the same parents as her brother Jonathan.   Her weight and length at birth were average.   Janellys received medical care in Windsor.   She is medically complex due to asthma for which she takes daily preventative medication.   She is up to date on her dental cleanings.   She shows no signs of developmental delays.   She does not present with behavioral issues in the school or foster home.   Janellys appears to be bonded with her brother and expresses excitement to see him during their visits.

Janellys was initially removed from her father's care when she was 2 years old due to the physical abuse of Jonathan and inadequate supervision.   She remains in the care of her foster parents with whom she has been placed since August 20, 2010.   She was reunified with Father for a brief period of time from May 24, 2012 until August 14, 2012.   During this time she visited with the foster parents from Friday to Monday every week.   She is significantly bonded to her foster parents and refers to her foster home as her home.   The foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt Janellys.

III

LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

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

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

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.   Here the grounds of failure to rehabilitate after a prior finding of neglect require the court to assess the past conduct of the respondent, the degree to which the respondent has been rehabilitated, and the prospects for future rehabilitation within a reasonable time period in relationship to the needs of the children.   The court has considered the evidence of the events preceding the filing of the petition, as well as evidence related to circumstances through the close of trial,] as permitted by Practice Book 35a–7(a).   See In re Luciano B., 129 Conn.App. 449, 469, 21 A.3d 858 (2011).

1. Reasonable Efforts

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 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.   Connecticut General Statute 17a–112(j)(1).

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).

In this matter, the petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that, as of the adjudicatory date, significant reasonable efforts to reunify father with both children have been made.   The presenting issues were physical abuse, substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence.   A number of services were offered to address these issues, including:  substance abuse treatment at ADRC;  mental health treatment at St. Francis Behavioral Health (PATH program);  parenting education at Radiance Innovative Services Reunification services at Radiance Innovative Services;  and supervised visitation at Radiance Innovative Services.   Mother, Carmen R. consented to the termination of parental rights.

While the children were reunified with father for a brief period because he appeared to benefit from the programs offered, father was arrested and charged with serious crimes on August 14, 2012.   Further, father tested positive after the children were reunified with him.   Father also did not follow through with mental health services.   Father was offered services to deal with each presenting issue.   The court finds the Department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the father with his children.

2. Consent— § 17a–112(i)—as to respondent Mother

On June 12, 2013, mother, Carmen R, appeared and consented to the termination of her parental rights.  Connecticut General Statute § 17a–112(i) contains the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights based on consent:

The Superior Court upon hearing and notice, as provided in sections 45a–716 and 45a–717, may grant petition for termination of parental rights based on consent filed pursuant to this section if it finds that (1) upon clear and convincing evidence, the termination is in the best interest of the child, and (2) such parent has voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of parent's parental rights with respect to such child.

The respondent mother submitted her written consent to the termination of her parental rights as to both children on the form promulgated, as required by the office of the chief court administrator.   The court conducted a thorough canvas and found on June 12, 2013, and finds by clear and convincing evidence here as well, that the respondent mother had knowingly and voluntarily consented to the termination of her parental rights;  with full awareness of the consequences of doing so and after having been adequately and effectively advised by competent counsel.   Her attorney reviewed the consent with her and was present for the court's canvas of mother.   The court finds that the petitioner has sustained her burden of proof against the mother with regards to the grounds of consent by clear and convincing evidence

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

If the parents of a child who has been found by the court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding fail to achieve 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, grounds for termination exists.   General Statutes § 17a–112(b)(2).

The first element has been satisfied in that on November 23, 2010 and again on September 27, 2012, the children were adjudicated neglected and specific steps were issued on both occasions and signed by the respondents.

The second element is the issue of rehabilitation.   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 responsibility of a parent 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).

The primary issues at the time of the children's removals were physical abuse, substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence.   A number of services were offered to address these issues, including:  substance abuse treatment at ADRC;  mental health treatment at St. Francis Behavioral Health (PATH program);  parenting education at Radiance Innovative Services;  Reunification services at Radiance Innovative Services;  and supervised visitation at Radiance Innovative Services.

At first glance it may appear that father benefitted from these services.   Father successfully completed his parenting class.   Father was stepped down by ADRC to the relapse portion of his substance abuse program in November of 2012.   Father attended all supervised visits with his children.   Father was even reunified with the children for a brief period.   However, father's arrest on August 14, 2012 paints a fuller picture about his failure to rehabilitate.   Despite having utilized the many programs, father failed to realize the gravity of his decision to sell narcotics after he was reunified with his children.   In his report dated March 2, 2011, Dr. Logan Green opined—if father is to have the children in his care, he would need therapy to address the neuropsychological difficulties that appear to be present.   Dr. Green indicates that it would be difficult for father to incorporate more complex thinking without some remediation.   He further offered that placing a child in a home, such as father's, where there is continued adversity, would increase the likelihood of psychopathology in the child.   Dr. Green's expert opinion is that father's unaddressed mental deficiencies would continue to cause problems with his parenting.   Dr. Green also administered a child abuse inventory instrument that predicts the likelihood that an individual will engage in physically abusive forms of discipline.   Father's results were on the high end of the evaluation.

Based on these recommendations father was referred to PATH Outpatient for a psychiatric evaluation and individual therapy in September of 2011.   He missed appointments and was discharged unsuccessfully from both services.   These services would have addressed the issues about which Dr. Green testified.

Jonathan presents with significant behavioral issues including:  impulsivity, bolting and running away, physical aggression, extended temper tantrums, and defiant behavior.   He requires intensive therapeutic supports to maintain him in both individual therapy and in his school placement.   While father and Jonathan appear to love one another dearly—love is not enough.   Janellys was initially removed from her father's care at the age of two.   She was only reunified with father for a brief period of time from May 24, 2012 until father's arrest on August 14, 2012.   Father has had nearly three years to rehabilitate.   He has not benefitted from the services offered.   Accordingly, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner has established that father does not have the ability to assume a responsible position in the life of Jonathan R. and Janellys R. The petitioner has proven the ground of failure to rehabilitate by clear and convincing evidence.

IV

DISPOSITIONA. General Statute § 17a–112(k) Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory ground alleged by the petitioner for the termination of father's 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(j).  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.”

DCF offered father substance abuse treatment at ADRC;  mental health treatment at St. Francis Behavioral Health (PATH program);  parenting education at Radiance Innovative Services;  Reunification services at Radiance Innovative Services;  and supervised visitation at Radiance Innovative Services.   Any delay in the implementation of those services was due to father's lack of participation and involvement in the criminal justice system.

(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.”

Over a nearly three-year period of time, DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify father with Jonathan and Janellys.   DCF did successfully reunify the children with father for a brief period of time.   Despite the same, father's conviction for possession with intent to sell and ultimate incarceration disrupted the reunification.   Father's criminal activity was also an indication that he had not benefitted from the services offered.   Father was offered numerous services for reunification including:  mental health services, parenting programs, substance abuse programs, and supervised visitation

(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.   Father was consistent with visits.   Father continued substance use despite his treatment.   Father continued his involvement in the criminal justice system through his conviction and incarceration.   Father was unsuccessfully discharged from PATH services that would have addressed his mental health needs.

(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 and significant emotional tie between father and Jonathan.   While he has expressed an interest in returning to dad—that interest is conditional.   Jonathan says he wants to return if daddy stops doing the bad things.   Jonathan appears to be torn because he has also bonded with his foster family.   Janellys appears to be significantly bonded to her pre-adoptive foster parents.   She refers to their home as her home.   She visited with her foster parents on a weekly basis even during her brief reunification with father.

(5) “The Age of the Child”

Jonathan is almost seven years old.   Janellys is five years old.

(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.”

Father has attended regular visits with the children.   While he has secured a three-bedroom home, stable employment, and maintained a strong bond with Jonathan, he continued his involvement in criminal activity and has failed to address his mental health needs.

(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.”

Neither parent has been prevented from having or maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by any act or conduct on the part of DCF. Father did not face any unreasonable interference from any person and no economic circumstances prevented him from establishing or maintaining a meaningful relationship with his children.   Services were offered, at no cost to father, including programs to address his mental health, substance abuse, and parenting issues.   He was provided with opportunities to visit the children.   He was also provided with free legal representation.

B. Best Interests of the Child

The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children.   This is part of the dispositional phase of a termination proceeding.  “The best interest of the child include the child's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of [his or her] environment.”  In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 340, 16 A.3d 1250, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 928, 22 A.3d 1275 (2011).

In this matter, the children were initially removed in 2010 at ages 3 and 2. Throughout the pendency of this matter multiple issues including physical abuse, substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence were addressed.   DCF offered numerous services to father to address these issues.   Despite the many services offered, father continued to engage in destructive behavior.   He continued to use after he was reunified with his children.   He made the decision to sell narcotics after he was reunified with his children.   He did not heed the recommendation of Dr. Logan Green to engage in mental health treatment.   Dr. Green indicates that placing a child in a home, such as father's, where there is continued adversity would increase the likelihood of psychopathology in the child.   Dr. Green's expert opinion is that father's unaddressed mental deficiencies would continue to cause problems with his parenting.   Dr. Green also administered a child abuse inventory instrument that predicts the likelihood that an individual will engage in physically abusive forms of discipline.   Father's results were on the high end of the evaluation.

Jonathan presents with significant behavioral issues including:  impulsivity, bolting and running away, physical aggression, extended temper tantrums, and defiant behavior.   He requires intensive therapeutic supports to maintain him in both individual therapy and in his school placement.

Janellys was initially removed from her father's care at the age of two.   She was only reunified with father for a brief period of time from May 24, 2012 until father's arrest on August 14, 2012.   Father has had nearly three years to rehabilitate.   He has not benefitted from the services offered.   While Jonathan has expressed an interest in returning to his father—that interest is conditional.   Jonathan says he wants to return if daddy stops doing the bad things.   Jonathan has been exposed to a significant amount of trauma.   Jonathan reports seeing his father hit his mother by peeking through his hands while they covered his face.   Jonathan has also reported that father physically hit him.   Jonathan is also aware that his father has been incarcerated.

While father and Jonathan in particular appear to love one another dearly—love is not enough.   Father would need to provide a stable environment for the children.   The safety and wellbeing of the children must be considered.   Given the age and needs of his children, father's capacity and ability to parent the children is the focus of the court.   Placing the children in father's care would not be in their best interest.

Accordingly, the court has considered Jonathan and Janellys' best interests, including their health, safety and need for permanency.  “It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents.   There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty ․” Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed 2d 928 (1982).   It is in the best interest of the children to terminate the parental rights of father, Jose R., and mother, Carmen R. to free the children for adoption and to provide them with the permanency, stability, and nurturing they require.

V

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the termination of parental rights petition is granted and judgment may enter terminating the parental rights of both respondent parents, Jose R. and Carmen R. It is further ordered that the Commissioner of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for the children, Jonathan R. and Janellys R.

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 for the children, as defined by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 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 children as expeditiously as possible.   The Clerk of the Superior Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoptions shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford of the date on which the adoptions are finalized.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Westbrook, J.

Westbrook, Dawne G., J.