IN RE: Jada B.1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a conterminous petition brought by Joette Katz as she is the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to adjudicate the child neglected and to terminate the parental rights of Melissa S. and Jeffrey B. to their infant child, Jada, born March 9, 2013.   The child is less than six months old.

DCF sought and obtained an order of temporary custody shortly after the birth of the child for reasons that will be soon apparent.   The order of temporary custody was sustained at the initial hearing.   The mother was advised of her rights, she received Specific Steps from the court, service was confirmed on both parents.   An acknowledgment of paternity has been signed by the father.   The father has not attended any court proceedings.   Counsel was appointed for the mother and an attorney was appointed for the child.  (Dyer, J.) Subsequently on April 17, 2013, the court found that the respondent, father, was not in the naval or military service of the United States or its allies and he was defaulted for his failure to appear.  (Dyer, J.)

The neglect petition alleges that the child was neglected as being denied proper care and attention physically educationally, emotionally or morally or that the child was permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being.   The clear and convincing evidence establishes that:

1) The child was born at Windham Hospital on March 9, 2013 and was immediately transferred to the University of Connecticut Medical Center, neo-natal intensive care unit (NICU) due to premature birth and respiratory distress.   (Exhibit B.)

2) Melissa initially denied the use of illegal drugs within the preceding twenty weeks of her pregnancy.

3) Medical tests confirmed that the child's meconium tested positive for cocaine indicating that Melissa used cocaine within the last twenty weeks of her pregnancy.

4) On March 18, 2013, Melissa admitted to the social worker that she had used cocaine “maybe one time.” in the last 3 to 4 months of her pregnancy.   She also told the social worker that she had stopped taking her prescribed psycho tropic drugs to control her bipolar disorder because she was aware of the dangers to the baby.

5) A hair toxicology test conducted on April 10, 2013, disclosed that Melissa had cocaine present in all three segments of her hair toxicology results, indicating she had been using cocaine in January, February and March 2013.   The most significant usage appeared to be in the most recent segment, i.e. March 2013.

6) While Melissa has an established history of substance abuse, she has rarely taken personal responsibility for her actions nor has she been forthcoming and honest until conclusively presented with incontrovertible facts.   Given the cocaine in the child's meconium and the positive hair toxicology, Melissa, who kept this information from her counselors, has recently admitted her cocaine use during her pregnancy.   During this trial, she testified and under cross examination, she admitted to the cocaine use during her pregnancy.

This evidence establishes to the court's satisfaction that the child was neglected by being denied proper care and attention physically educationally, emotionally or morally and that the child was permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being pursuant to § 46b–120(6).

Termination of Parental Rights

The grounds alleged in the petition as to respondent mother and father are that they are the parents of the child, under the age of seven years who is neglected or uncared for, and they have failed or are unable to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of the child, such 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 the Department of Children and Families.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).

Each item will be addressed individually.

1) Jada was born on March 9, 2013.   She is under seven years of age.   Melissa S. is the mother and Jeffrey B. is the father.

2). The parental rights of Melissa and Jeffrey were terminated as to another child Jason B., pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families on November 4, 2011 (Foley, J.T.R.)

3) A neglect petition was filed by DCF on March 21, 2013, as to Jada B. This court has just concluded that the child was neglected or uncared for in that Jada was permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to her well-being.

4) The last aspect of this ground relates to personal rehabilitation.   The court finds that considering the age and needs of the child, Melissa and Jeffrey could not assume a responsible position in the life of this child.   They have failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of Jada, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   Jada remains an infant, perhaps a toddler.   She needs twenty-four hour a day care by a responsible, competent and sober caretaker.   Melissa has been unable, during Jada's life, and for years before, to demonstrate that she can maintain sobriety or perform as a competent parent.   Indeed, the record confirms her inability to use good judgment, to accept responsibility for her conduct, and to remain sober over time.   She continues to test positive for illegal substances.   There is nothing in her history that is indicative of long-term reform and rehabilitation.

Some history is necessary.   This court made certain findings by clear and convincing evidence in the matter of Jason B., Superior Court, Child Protection Session at Willimantic Docket No. W10 CP10–015834–A (Nov. 4, 2011, Foley, J.T.R.) 2011 WL 6004356 (Conn.Super.2011).   These findings are confirmed by the testimony of the social worker and by Exhibits A, B, M, and L.

Extract findings made by this court from In re Jason B. regarding Melissa and Jeffrey who are now the parents of recently born Jada:

Melissa S.

The respondent mother of Jason is currently 34 years of age.   Melissa says she remembers nothing of her childhood before age seven.   She has an older sister who abused her.   The sister was subsequently diagnosed as schizophrenic.   Her parents divorced when Melissa was nine.   Her father was somehow able to terminate his parental rights to Melissa.   Her mother's new husband adopted her but later divorced her mother.   A child was born to that subsequent marriage.   Melissa was eleven at the time.   Her older sister left the home.   The marriage did not last, her mother was an alcoholic and so her mother left the child care responsibilities to Melissa.   Melissa called the child's father and told him to come and get his son.   He did but the child was subsequently returned to Melissa and her mother “after his father's legs were amputated.”   The family was living in a homeless shelter in Groton.   Melissa described her mother as emotionally detached and unreliable because she was intoxicated most of the time.

At twelve years of age, Melissa ran away from home and was subsequently referred to the Joshua Center.²  After she completed middle school and prior to entering high school, she became pregnant by a boy she met at the Joshua School.   Melissa gave birth to her first child in February 1994, when she was sixteen.   In September 1997, Melissa gave birth to a daughter, perhaps by the same male as her first child, but nonetheless was given the name of the man she was then dating.   She gave birth to her third child in September 2006.   None of those children are in her care.

In 2004 she was involved with another fellow and became pregnant again.   She miscarried a stillborn male at six and a half months.   Melissa reported that she miscarried having been beaten by the child's father.   There are present indications that Melissa has, among her multitude of problems, issues of grief and loss over this pregnancy.

Melissa has a criminal record dating back to 2003.   The criminal charges are those commonly associated with substance abuse:  threatening, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, multiple counts of larceny, burglary and probation violations.   In 2006, Melissa was sentenced to York Correctional facility for six months as a consequence of crack cocaine use and related criminal activities.

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment

2006—After release from York, Melissa was inpatient at the Connecticut Valley Hospital.

2007—She was inpatient for substance abuse treatment at Stonington Institute for fifty days.

October 24, 2007—Melissa was inpatient at the Natchaug Hospital Adult Inpatient Psychiatric unit for bi-polar disorder (296.66).

2008—She was unsuccessfully discharged from Quinebaug Valley Extended Day Treatment program for non-compliance.

It was about this same time of her psychiatric hospital admissions that Melissa met Jeffrey at the epicenter of downtown Danielson social life, the Times Square Café.   Within the year, Melissa gave birth to Jason on October 23, 2008.

Melissa said that Jeffrey became abusive to her during the pregnancy.   She reported that he tried to choke her with the cord from a mini-blind.   Melissa told the DCF social worker that Jeffrey was verbally insulting, emotionally abusive, a chronic gambler, a drug dealer and a drug addict.³

Between May 2009 and October 2009, Melissa had relapsed on cocaine and was attending a substance abuse clinic with a therapist, Stephen Eldridge.   Mr. Eldridge testified in court that he advised Melissa to change her domestic and social environment to avoid triggers for relapse.   Those triggers as reported by Melissa were that she was not in a good relationship with Jeffrey.   Her son's father did not demonstrate any fostering or nurturing behavior.   He demeaned her, did not provide for her financially or emotionally, did not come home at night, he was a drinker, a gambler and did not pay the bills.   She said they were $2,700 in arrears on the rent.   In spite of all these allegations, Melissa and Jeffrey remained, off again, on again, in a relationship that continued up to and including February 2011, if not to the very present.

March 2010—Melissa entered treatment again with Mr. Eldridge following a relapse of cocaine usage.   She remained in treatment for five weeks when she was discharged to a higher level of care in April 2010.

April 15, 2010—That higher level of care was the Community Prevention and Addiction Services program known as New Life (Petitioner's Exhibit K).  The program was designed to deal with her substance dependence, grief and loss issues, her history of trauma, her mental health and medication issues, parenting skills, unhealthy relationships and relapse prevention skills.   She entered the in-patient program with her son Jason, then eighteen months old.   On July 6, 2010 she was discharged from the program for breach of her behavioral contract.   DCF removed Jason from her care.   He has been out of her care since.

August 9, 2010—Melissa enters Natchaug Hospital Pathways program (Petitioner's Exhibit N).  Her discharge summary includes the following identifying information:  “living with bi- polar disorder without behavioral health prescriber for her medication ․ Melissa states that her drug was cocaine powder, crack and further states worked in the manufacture of crack ․ At the age of 12 abandoned by her mother.   Her father is an active drug dealer with cocaine cannabis.”   Under Psychiatric Assessment:  “Here today for psychiatric care of bipolar disorder with long history of mood instability, high energy and pressured, manic behavior followed by long periods of depression.”   Her Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) was 40.   She remained in the program for one month and was successfully discharged with a GAF of 55 on September 9, 2010.   Her bipolar disorder was pharmaceutically managed and considered in full remission.   Her Cocaine dependence was considered to be in early full remission.   Her outpatient psychiatrist at United Services in Dayville, CT., prescribed Depakote, Seroquel, Zyprexa and Trazadone for Melissa.   In addition, whenever she is able to convince a physician, she gets Xanax to manage her anxiety and Vicodin for back pain.   Also, as a consequence of her mental health diagnosis she receives Social Security Disability benefits.

Within three months of her “successful” discharge, December 2010, Melissa stopped cooperating with DCF. She failed to cooperate with a hair toxicology screen.   She rescinded her releases to permit DCF to speak to the service providers including Day Kimball Hospital Mental Health Clinic.   Her visits with Jason steeply declined.   She became unavailable for announced and unannounced home visits.

September 12, 2011—Natchaug Hospital—Quinebay Day Treatment Putnam, CT. (Petitioner's Exhibit T.) Presenting Problem:  “REFERRED BY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE FOR SUICIDE ATTEMPTS, LAST ONE 3 WEEKS AGO. PATIENT DENIES SUICIDAL IDEATION AT THIS TIME. CRACK COCAINE, MARIJUANA ADDICTION.   LEGAL PENDING FOR 12 COUNTS OF BURGLARY AND LARCENY.   BIPOLAR, PTSD.” (Capitol letters in original.)

In addition to her usual admitting diagnosis of bipolar disorder, cocaine dependence cannabis dependence and post traumatic stress disorder she had “Anxiety D/O due to general medical condition -w/ Panic Attacks.”   On October 3, 2011, client left the program and her condition was unable to be determined.

On November 1 and 2, 2011, Melissa sat in court with her attorney and listened to the evidence.   She elected not to testify and no adverse inference need be drawn.

Jeffrey B.

The biological father of Jason is 44 years of age.   He has never been married nor has he been in the military service.   He is the seventh of eight children.   He recalled his childhood as uneventful other than having been physically abused by his mother with a leather strap.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A.) He does not understand why his parents got a divorce although he states that his father was an alcoholic and wrecked several cars while intoxicated.  “We grew up on state.”   His father visited them occasionally put did not support the family.

Jeffrey's mother was serially involved with violent abusive men following her divorce.

Jeffrey was involved in a nine-year relationship with a woman, by whom he had one child, a daughter.   Jeffrey acknowledges that the relationship ended due to his drinking and gambling.   Jeffrey has had three other relationships, each lasting about two years.   No children were born of these relationships.   His fifth relationship was with Melissa.

Jeffrey has a criminal history dating from a 1987 arrest for burglary, larceny and criminal mischief.   He had no further criminal involvement until a series of arrests surrounding his relationship with the tempestuous and moody Melissa in 2009.   He was arrested for assault and interfering with an emergency call.   Another arrest later was for criminal violation of a restraining order.   As a consequence of these skirmishes, Jeffrey was required as a condition of probation to attend a 26–week program known as the Explorer program.

Jeffrey has had problems with gambling.   His first relationship ended in part because of his gambling.   Melissa told Mr. Eldridge, her substance abuse clinician, that gambling was an issue in their relationship.   Jeffrey acknowledges losing $1,500 at a local casino in January 2010, the same month he admits using cocaine with Melissa.   Yet DCF did not direct Jeffrey to seek counseling for his gambling and he did not do so.   He does not believe he has a problem with gambling.

Jeffrey did not receive much attention initially from DCF as he was never deemed the primary parent.   There is no suggestion that he ever was a primary parent.   DCF focused on Melissa's rehabilitation and that was fine with Jeffrey as he too, was hoping for her restoration and their resumption of life as a family.   When it was beginning to become apparent that Melissa was not benefitting from the best available mental health and drug treatment in Eastern Connecticut, DCF began to talk to Jeffrey about getting his own residence for himself and Jason.   He said he would, but he never did.

Jeffrey continued to live with Melissa, at least until December 2010.   At that time he tepidly acknowledged that maybe Melissa wasn't going to be reunified with Jason.   Still Jeffrey didn't get his own place.   He moved in with his niece, leaving Melissa living rent-free in a house that had been in foreclosure for three years.

In February 2011, Jeffrey rented an apartment in a very undesirable neighborhood.   He vacated the apartment in March due, according to him, to rowdy neighbors and drug use.   Thereafter, Jeffrey moved in with his friend, Chuck.   Jeffrey rents one of the three bedrooms in Chuck's apartment.   This man is a friend of both Jeffrey and Melissa.   He told the DCF social worker that he was planning to relocate to a smaller place and would not be staying there.   DCF suspects that Jeffrey is still involved with Melissa and indicates that as recently as March, Jeffrey told DCF to drop off a lease or some other document for him at 23 Cottage Street, where Melissa continues to reside.   Whatever the reality, Jeffrey has not in the past twelve months secured appropriate accommodations for himself and Jason, such that Intensive Reunification services could be put in place.

Based upon the presentations in court, Jeffrey appeared to be suitable as a placement resource.   His identified problems were gambling, a history of drug/alcohol use and sales in nearly full remission, and a pattern of housing instability.   He has maintained stable employment over ten years.   In response to the requests of DCF, he engaged an individual therapist, Warren Avery and completed approximately 6 months of regular visits.   He had a modest arrest record involving an altercation with Melissa.   He attended and completed an anger management course as a condition of his probation which course had a domestic violence component.   He has a good record of attendance at visitation with his son and they each appear to enjoy the visits and are bonded in a visitation relationship.   He has substantially complied with the Specific Steps.   Why then isn't he a good candidate for reunification?   Neither the young social worker, her supervisor nor her attorney were able to articulate an answer.

That may be because Jeffrey is not grossly dysfunctional, a condition so typical in most of these cases.   But yet, he is very close.   He is on the margin.   Jeffrey is really very much like Melissa in many ways.   They share many characteristics which may draw them together:

1) Neither was well parented.   Neither had even one appropriate parental figure.   Their families were each profoundly dysfunctional.   Both lacked nurturing.   Their childhoods were chaotic.   Both had early experience with parental neglect and parental alcoholism.   Both had parents with multiple, unreliable, abusive partners.   The effects of this instability and inadequacy on their own parenting cannot be over-stated.  (Parental modeling.)

2) Each has a sibling diagnosed with schizophrenia.

3) Each has limited formal education.

4) Each left home while in high school.(15 and 16 years old)

5) Each has had children outside this relationship raised by others.

6) Each has had personal histories of teen-age alcohol abuse and adult cocaine use.

7) Each has had five unhealthy and unstable interpersonal heterosexual relationships.

This background has manifested itself in different ways for each Melissa and Jeffrey.   Melissa's problems have been previously described.   They completely disqualify her as a parental resource.   But Jeffrey's issues are more subtle, but nonetheless, apparent upon close examination.

1) Jeffrey is 44 years old.   He has maintained a job for ten years and yet he is only marginally, personally self-sufficient.   He lives in a rented room for $60 per week in someone else's apartment.   And notwithstanding the repeated direction of DCF, he has not been able to obtain and maintain a suitable residence for himself and his child.   DCF has been trying to get him to do this for more than a year.   He either doesn't get it, doesn't want it or is unable to do it.   Whatever the reason, he has not been able to demonstrate that he has the capacity to do this basic requirement, a necessary requisite, to reunification.

2) He is in complete denial, or completely doesn't understand the depth of Melissa's disqualification as a parent.   The psychologist says he idealizes Melissa as a parent.   That is a significant issue in that he may be unable to protect his son from harm.   All of his interviews with DCF and the psychologist, as late as November 2010, revealed that Jeffrey intended to rely on Melissa to be the primary parent and they would reunite as a family.   He had no insight into Melissa's chronic disability, just as he was unable to identify the reasons for his own parents' divorce.   Even with all of Melissa's problems, it is possible that she was a better mother than his own mother who went through serial, dysfunctional relationships and who abused him and “kicked him out of the house” when he was 16, due to Jeffrey's drinking and truancy.   (Parental modeling.)

In this regard, when questioned while testifying, Jeffrey says he came to the conclusion in November or December 2010, that he and Melissa could not live together as a family because she stopped visiting the child and was non-compliant with DCF. He does not say, that he recognized that Melissa has significant, chronic mental health issues and continues to abuse cocaine and would therefore be physically and emotionally unavailable to parent a young child and would be unable to keep the child safe.   He cannot comprehend this.   This is not inconsequential.   For example, what kind of a person would he select for child care or incidental baby-sitting?   His judgment appears very limited.

3) Relational instability.   He has never been able to maintain a healthy interpersonal, heterosexual relationship.   He has been unsuccessfully involved with five different women.  (Parental modeling.)

4) Like his father before him, Jeffrey has never provided financial support for his son, although he has the financial capacity.  (Parental modeling.)

5) His pattern of living does not provide confidence that he could deal with the stress of parenting a three-year-old child;  a completely self-less task with little identifiable reward.   His present existence is very limited and structured.   Jeffrey lives in a single room in someone else's apartment.   He goes to a job in a warehouse where he sorts items for shipment.   He has done this for ten years without advancement.   He plays cards with his friends two or three nights each week.   This is not a life of significant responsibility, tumult or stress.   He leads a completely structured, self-oriented life that enables him to function at a certain level.  (But see 7 below.)

He has never demonstrated an ability to parent.   Recall Melissa's description of life with Jeffrey.   Raising a child in a two-parent family is an extraordinary task of energy, patience, vigilance, organization, planning and devotion.   Single parenting can only be considered heroic.   Jeffrey has no experience, even observing, successful parenting.  (Parental modeling.)   His continued failure in relationships and his disastrous conduct as a father of Jason in 2009, do not bode well for his single fatherhood.

6) As of the date of trial, eighteen months after the child's removal, he has not fully and completely arranged the affairs of his life to care for the child.   Even if he did not recognize Melissa's unavailability to parent until November 2010, he has not obtained suitable quarters for himself and the child in the past year.   That is a long time in the life of two-year-old child.   He says he wants to.   He says he will.   But his motivation is wholly lacking.   This may be an example of his wishful thinking.   For example he states as his occupational goals “Manage restaurant or hotel—Real Estate.”  (Petitioner's Exhibit O, p. 5.) This is a person who cannot secure his own apartment.   He is very comfortable in his visitation role.   The child has been in foster care for half his life and Jeffrey has not altered his life to accommodate this threshold requirement of parenthood.   He does not appear to appreciate the significance of this requirement.

7) It is revealing that Jeffrey's United Services individual clinician, Warren Avery, after six months of individual therapy, assessed Jeffrey as currently having a Global Assessment of Functioning of 57.   Exhibit R. Dated 10/4/11.   It is likely that the burdens and responsibilities of full time single parenting would easily overwhelm a person with such a marginal level of current functioning.  (On March 29, 2010, a United Services evaluation listed his GAF as 58.  (Petitioner's Exhibit O, p. 9.)

8) Within the past six months Jeffrey has mentioned his sister as a potential custodial resource.  (One may ask, why isn't he robustly acting on his own to parent?)   His sister testified in this proceeding.   Whenever placement with her was discussed previously with DCF or in court, she predicates her response with the phrase that she is willing to provide “temporary” care for Jason.   This response creates a number of problematic issues.   She would have to quit one of her two jobs.   Her nineteen-year-old daughter who lives in the home does not support such a placement believing that her mother is only asking for trouble with DCF and from Melissa.   Significantly, she expresses hope that Jeffrey or Melissa will ultimately be available to parent.   Her answers were always qualified.   This is not the robust, explicit family commitment to raise Jason for better or worse, no matter what the circumstances, as long as it takes.

In summary, neither Melissa nor Jeffrey appear emotionally or educationally equipped to parent.   Neither has been able to fully overcome their early childhood adverse experiences.⁴  While Jeffrey expresses a desire to parent, his inaction betrays him.   He is not highly motivated in any aspect of his life.   That is what DCF has been unable to articulate or correct.   Caring for a three-year-old requires a person who is highly motivated to parent and who can make decisions and act on them instantly.   Delaying personal gratification, a parent must be completely dedicated, hyper-vigilant and available to the child.   Full time parenting of a child is not like attending and enjoying a structured, predictable two-hour weekly visit.

Reasonable efforts to reunify § 17a–112(j)(1)

Based upon Melissa's substantiated drug use, likely continuous for the past thirteen years, the court finds that she is unable or unwilling to benefit from services and reunification efforts.  In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 551 (2009).   That is not to say that DCF did not offer reasonable and appropriate services.   Indeed, appropriate, reasonable and focused efforts were made to address her most disabling issue of drug abuse but Melissa would only tepidly engage in substance abuse treatment before withdrawing or being involuntarily terminated for poor attendance.   But participation in services is not the test.   Before a court could possibly consider returning a child to a parent under these circumstances, the court must be fully satisfied that the parent has benefitted by the services and has made significant progress toward personal rehabilitation.   The clear and convincing evidence presented to this court is that Melissa is unable to maintain herself free of illegal substances thus disqualifying herself from a parental role.

Since this court's previous findings those findings have only been further confirmed.   It is interesting to note that Melissa was evaluated by a court appointed psychologist in November 2010.   Dr. Mary H. Cheyne, concluded in part:

Psychological Evaluation—Dr.   Mary Cheyne 11/28/2010 (Exhibit C)

Current Psychological Functioning of Melissa S.

[Melissa] has a lot of psychological issues to deal with.   Her history of bipolar disorder is a longstanding issue for her and is expected to be an ongoing presence in her life that will need lifelong attention and treatment.   Her history of substance abuse continues to be of concern in that she has not successfully completed a recent substance abuse treatment and has the tendency to relapse to substance abuse in times of stress (i.e., the anniversary of her baby's death).   It is clear that [Melissa] has not adequately addressed her grief and loss at her baby's death.   All these issues are further complicated by the details that [Melissa] is less than accurate in reporting information, has a pattern of nonattendance at programs and blames others for her circumstances and for own poor judgment.   Her prognosis is poor to fair for staying out of trouble.

Since Dr. Cheyne wrote that report, Melissa has not stayed out of trouble.   She has been convicted of three counts of larceny in the 6th degree and sentenced to 90 days in jail for each offence, concurrent.   Burglary and disorderly conduct charges were not prosecuted.  (Exhibit E.)

During testimony in court it was clear that Melissa did not reliably inform her counselors of her recent cocaine use until, months later, when she was aware that the counselors would find out independently.   For example she testified:  “I told Officer Valliere (her current probation officer) on September 18, (2012).”   That was the day she went to court and was about to enter jail based on her larceny convictions.   She said:  “I told her about the relapse when I knew she would get the positive results of the hair tox that the State was holding.”

Melissa still does not fully accept her own culpability in the loss of her children.   She has had five children, none are in her care.   Her oldest child is a nineteen-year-old daughter.   Melissa testified that Jaimie lived with her for her first eight years and “then she wanted to live with her father.”   No reason is offered.   She testified that she had two children during her marriage to Mr. S. The daughter Stephanie S. is now sixteen.   She was in Melissa's care until age four.   Her son Kenneth S. IV, is now thirteen.   Melissa did not see him for the past eight years.   She is now attempting to establish visitation with him.   She says that her ex-husband stole them from her, she said she went to court and the judge said that “since I didn't have a 3–bedroom apartment, my husband who stole them, could keep them.”   Her fourth child Jason has had his parental rights terminated.   Her fifth child is Jada, born prematurely and contaminated by cocaine.

She makes no attempt to explain her lack of relationship with her children except to blame others.   She has no insight into her personal failure.   Her judgment is historically problematic in that she has had legal problems and child protection issues for more than a decade.   In 2013, she used monumentally bad judgment in using cocaine while she was pregnant.   She did not admit the extent of it until she was caught by virtue of the April 10, 2013 hair test.   Her mental health and substance abuse issues have been frequently addressed through numerous clinical referrals, substance abuse evaluations, periods of sobriety and always, relapse.   No infant child could be safely placed in her care.

Melissa makes much of the fact that since late May or early June 2013, she has again entered treatment.   She continues to receive social security disability income, food stamps and medical insurance.   She has resumed her individual counseling with a therapist at InLight counseling.   She has attended a substance abuse evaluation and treatment through Community Health Resources.   She has successfully completed a portion of that program.   She has taken another hair test in August which confirms her sobriety for the past four months.   These are encouraging developments.   It is also clear that Melissa wants to parent.   She demonstrates affection for the child in her own way.

But given her decade of highs and lows, with no extended periods of confirmed sobriety, four months of sobriety does not account for much.   She would need to have established sobriety for a very extended period of time together with consistent mental health counseling before any court would consider placing a child in her care.   Furthermore, Melissa's lack of insight into her own conduct, her failure to be forthcoming with her therapists, and her failure to take personal responsibility for the loss of her children remain very problematic.   It does not bode well for rehabilitative success unless she can identify why she has failed all her children.   It is also noteworthy that in November 2011, Melissa was then making similar claims of rehabilitation, and as we have seen, she was still abusing cocaine two years later.

Jada has been with the foster family since birth.   The child needs to be free to bond with parental figures, to be able to completely attach without the prospect of removal.   And Jada needs to be secure.   Melissa's sobriety is tenuous.   Her history, the best indicator of future behavior, demonstrates an inability to maintain sobriety and to establish an appropriate parental bonds with any of her children.

As to Jeffrey B., as with Jason, he has not shown himself to be a placement resource.   He last saw Jada when she was in the hospital at her birth.   He has made no overtures to DCF or the foster family to see the child or to inquire about her wellbeing or to offer assistance and support.   He has not sought visitation.   He has not sought services.

Adjudication

The court finds that respondent mother and father are the parents of the child, Jada, who is under the age of seven years who has been adjudicated neglected or uncared for, and they have failed or are unable to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child and such parent's parental rights to another child were previously terminated pursuant to a petition filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(E).   The petitioner has sustained her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

Statutory Findings

During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.  In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000).  “In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a–112(k) ].”  In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)).   The seven factors “serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.”  In re Quanitra M., supra, at 104.  “There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009).   The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section.

1. TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES— § 17a–112(k)(1)

Multiple timely and appropriate services were provided for these parents over the past years.   Those services included, but are not limited to:  treatment and permanency plans;  case management services;  and administrative case reviews;  transportation services for visitation supervised by DCF personnel, or by therapeutic visitation programs;  and most urgently, repeated referrals so that Melissa could participate in both hospital and community-based substance abuse and mental health counseling and/or evaluations over the past five years.   As indicated the services recently included InLight Counseling, Community Prevention and Addiction Services /Community Health Resources, a co-occuring facility for persons with mental health and addiction problems.

Jeffrey has been unavailable for services and has no interest in being a placement resource for the child.

2. REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW— § 17a–112(k)(2)

DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, through the provision of timely reunification services.   Reunification is not a feasible plan unless and until Melissa can conquer her adult life-long illegal drug usage and maintain her medication management.   She has not.   She has been criminally involved and abusive of marijuana and cocaine following years of services and programs.   She is wholly unable to benefit or unwilling to benefit from these services.   Her present success over four months is encouraging but not assuring.

Jeffrey does not seek reunification.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS— § 17a–112(k)(3)

Melissa has violated a number of court orders pertinent to the specific steps.   All of the specific steps are subservient to the goal of substance abuse treatment, recovery and continued abstinence from cocaine and other noxious substances.   Melissa remains guarded, secretive and dishonest regarding her drug usage.   This alone, prevents successful treatment.   This alone is paramount in the hierarchy of Melissa's obligations.   It is unnecessary to address her relational problems with others, her issues of childhood neglect and abuse, if she remains a criminally involved, active drug abuser.

Jeffrey has made no attempt to cooperate or comply.

4. THE CHILD'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES— § 17a–112(k)(4)

Jada is a four-month-old infant who knows only her foster family as her parents.   Jada goes to visits with Melissa but has no concept of her role in her life.   She smiles and enjoys the visits.

5. AGE OF THE CHILD— § 17a–112(k)(5)

Jada was born on March 9, 2013.   She is four months old.

6. PARENT'S EFFORT TO ADJUST CIRCUMSTANCES— § 17a–112(k)(6)

Melissa has not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform her conduct to even minimally acceptable parental standards.   Her persistent substance abuse and lack of ability to remain substance free has left her unfit to parent.   Her use of cocaine during the pregnancy demonstrates Melissa's colossally bad judgment.   Melissa has had more than five years of failure at recovery.   Giving Melissa additional time would not likely bring her performance, as a parent, within acceptable standards sufficient to make it in the best interests of Jada to be placed with her.

7. EXTENT TO WHICH RESPONDENT WAS PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN— § 17a–112(k)(7)

No unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties prevented Melissa from maintaining, at least a visiting relationship with Jada, nor did the economic circumstances of the parent interfere with such relationship.   Jeffrey has not maintained or even established a relationship with this child.

After a consideration of these enumerated considerations and the other matters contained herein, the court finds that it is in the best interest of Jada that the parental rights of his biological parents should be terminated.

IV. Orders

“The public policy of this state is:  To protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through injury and neglect;  to strengthen the family and to make the home safe for children by enhancing the parental capacity for good child care ․” General Statutes § 17a–101(a).  “Time is of the essence in child custody cases ․ This furthers the express public policy of this state to provide all of its children a safe, stable nurturing environment.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Juvenile Appeal (Docket No. 10155), 187 Conn. 431, 439–40, 446 A.2d 808 (1982).

After due consideration of the child's sense of time, her need for a secure and permanent environment and the totality of circumstances;  and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights;  and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the child's best interests, the court issues the following order:

That the parental rights of Melissa and Jeffrey are hereby terminated as to the child Jada B. That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child for the purpose of pursuing adoption.   That a case plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.   That primary consideration for adoption of Jada shall be offered to the current foster parents.

The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 81 Columbia Ave., Willimantic CT 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 28th day of August 2013.

Foley, J.T.R. # 463

FOOTNOTES

FN2. A subsidiary of Natchaug Hospital providing day treatment programs and partial hospitalization for children.   Partially funded by the Department of Children and Families..  FN2. A subsidiary of Natchaug Hospital providing day treatment programs and partial hospitalization for children.   Partially funded by the Department of Children and Families.

FN3. Petitioner's Exhibit O, page 1—Substance abuse evaluation, Jeffrey admitted to the clinician a history of excessive drinking, cocaine abuse, marijuana use and selling cocaine..  FN3. Petitioner's Exhibit O, page 1—Substance abuse evaluation, Jeffrey admitted to the clinician a history of excessive drinking, cocaine abuse, marijuana use and selling cocaine.

FN4. Without any reference to findings in the case herein, see http:// developingchild.harvard.edu..  FN4. Without any reference to findings in the case herein, see http:// developingchild.harvard.edu.

Foley, Francis J., J.T.R.