IN RE: Aaliyah C. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS

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

Before this court is the termination of parental rights petition filed by the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) in the interest of Aaliyah C. (birth date:  May 29, 2010).   The termination of parental rights petition was filed on September 25, 2012.   The respondents are Angelica D. (“mother”) and Shawn C. (“father”).¹  Mother and father were served.   Mother and father were advised and appointed counsel.   The child was appointed an attorney.   As neither parent claims Native American Heritage, the Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable.   The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction and there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child.

This matter was tried to the court on July 10, 2013 and September 5, 2013.   The respondent mother and the respondent father appeared for the trial and were represented by counsel at trial.   The child was represented by counsel who was present at trial.   The court heard testimony from an employee of Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center (“ADRC”), the visitation monitor from Collaborative Family Resources, a DCF social worker and Dr. Derek Franklin, a clinical psychologist.   The parents did not testify.   Eight exhibits were entered into evidence as full exhibits by agreement of the parties.   These include the Social Study in Support of Termination of Parental Rights Petition, the Social Study in Support of Motion to Review Permanency Plan, Psychological Evaluation Report, mother's Specific Steps, father's Specific Steps, Alcohol & Drug Recover Center reports (father) and Certified Criminal History Report (father).   The court takes judicial notice of the entire record of the prior non-delinquency proceedings including pleadings, petitions, social studies, status reports, evaluations, court memoranda and specific steps as well as the dates and contents of the court's findings, orders, rulings and judgments.²  All counsel participated in the examination of the witnesses and closing arguments.

By way of the procedural history of these matters, DCF invoked a 96–hour hold on Aaliyah on September 30, 2011.   Motions for Orders of Temporary Custody and a Petition of Neglect was filed by DCF on October 4, 2011.   The Motion for Order of Temporary Custody was sustained on October 14, 2011.   On April 3, 2012, Aaliyah was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of DCF. A permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption was filed by DCF and approved by the court on July 31, 2012.   Final specific steps were ordered as to father on February 28, 2012.   Final specific steps were ordered as to mother on April 3, 2012.³

The statutory ground stated in the termination of parental rights petition against the respondent mother and the respondent father alleges that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for, and that mother and father have failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the lives of the child.  General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).   The petition allege that reasonable efforts were made to locate the respondent parents, that reasonable efforts were made to reunify the child with mother and father, and that mother and father are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

These proceedings are governed by General Statutes § 17a–112 et seq.   In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the petitioner must first prove by clear and convincing evidence, in the adjudicatory phase, a ground for termination alleged in the petition, as of the date of the filing of the petition or the last amendment.  Practice Book §§ 32a–3(b) and 35a–7;  In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 163 (2009);  In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 901 (1991).   Only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258 (1984);  In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 232, 242 (2000).   If a ground for termination is proven, the court must next consider the disposition stage.   Therein, the court must consider whether the facts, as of the last day of trial, establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interest.  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689 (1999).   As is permitted under our law, the evidence as to both adjudicatory and dispositional phases was heard at the same trial.   Practice Book § 35a–7(b).  As noted above, the termination of parental rights petition was filed on September 25, 2012 which is the adjudicatory date as of which the court must make its determinations as to reasonable efforts and the statutory grounds for termination.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The court has carefully considered the petition, the criteria set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes, the applicable case law as well as all of the evidence and testimony presented, all orders and prior findings, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the evaluation of their testimony with all other testimony and documentary evidence, and the arguments of counsel according to the standards required by law.   On the basis of the evidence presented and for the reasons stated below, this court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence and finds that DCF has met its burden of proof with respect to the termination petition as to the parents of Aaliyah C. and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent mother and the respondent father.

Mother

Mother was born on November 1, 1987.   Mother suffered depression as a child due to father's transience in her life.   Mother's mother had past involvement with DCF due to concerns of emotional and physical neglect.   Mother resided with maternal grandmother periodically in shelters and would live off and on with maternal great-grandmother.   Mother was exposed to step-father's alcoholism, drugs and criminal activity while he resided with mother and maternal grandmother.   Mother has never had her own apartment or lived on her own.   Mother graduated from high school.   Mother has a very limited work history and reports working at one job at Mohegan Sun Casino as a security guard for two years.   Her employment was terminated due to her tardiness.   Mother was unable to find another job and went into a depression.   She applied for social security disability in 2008.   She was awarded monthly Social Security Income in March 2011 in the amount of $678.00.   Mother also receives monthly food stamps in the amount of $100.00.   Mother was appointed a conservator over her finances by the Probate Court and receives $150.00 per month in spending money.

Mother met father in 2009 while staying at a shelter.   Mother and father have been in a relationship since that time.   Mother has a significant history of transience and unstable housing in addition to a history of unaddressed mental health and domestic violence issues.   She has resided in many different locations prior to September 2011 and in several shelters during the pendency of the case, most recently in Bridgeport.   Mother's transience has significantly impacted her ability to engage in and make progress with services including her mental health and medication services.   In February 2013, mother moved to the home of maternal great-grandmother in New London.   Mother obtained her own apartment as of May 17, 2013.

Mother has Sickle Cell Trait and Scoliosis.   She has a history of psychiatric hospitalizations.   She was hospitalized at Hartford Hospital at the age of 21 due to suicidal thoughts.   She was hospitalized a second time within two weeks again for suicidal thoughts.   She was hospitalized for 24 hours at the age of twenty-four at Middlesex Hospital with suicidal thoughts.   She has been diagnosed with Depression and Borderline Personality Disorder.   She has been prescribed Seroquel and Cymbalta as well as Depakote.   Mother was hospitalized twice at the Institute of Living in September 2011.   She was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder.   Mother participated in the Intensive Outpatient Program at Institute of Living and she was discharged on November 22, 2011.   She was referred to outpatient services once a week as well as medication management but mother did not follow up with the recommended outpatient services.   Mother completed intensive outpatient services at Institute of Living but did not follow through with outpatient services there.   Mother referred herself to Sound Community Services for mental health treatment and attended an intake appointment on February 13, 2012.   Mother cancelled an appointment on May 9, 2012 and failed to attend an appointment on May 15, 2012.   Mother did participate in services with the Homeless Outreach Team which provides case management services to homeless individuals.   She made no progress.   Mother stopped with those services when she moved to Bridgeport in February 2013.   Mother has not made sufficient progress with addressing her mental health needs since that time.

Mother underwent a court ordered psychological evaluation with Dr. Derek Franklin, a clinical psychologist in 2012 and 2013.   Mother was diagnosed with Axis 1 Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, Alcohol Abuse, Cannabis Abuse and Partner Relational Problems.   These diagnoses are exacerbated by mother's limited cognitive and intellectual processing.   Mother's Axis II is mentally deficient IQ. Dr. Franklin opined in his report that mother will continue to have difficulty managing and regulating her mood without medication.   He noted that she is likely to self-medicate through the use of illegal drugs and alcohol.   Her diagnosis “warrant medications to address depression and anxiety.”   He further noted that mother “is particularly vulnerable to psychosocial stressors and in that regard is psychologically unstable and emotionally liable.”   He opined that mother diagnoses strongly suggest that she will require ongoing services with regard to her mental illness and that her mental deficiencies are likely to significantly impact upon her ability to independently care for a young child.   Dr. Franklin also noted that mother is likely to continue to be a victim of domestic violence.   Dr. Franklin opined that mother is not “capable of achieving a measure of rehabilitation that would otherwise suggest that she is competent to provide independent care” to Aaliyah.  “He testified that mother could parent Aaliyah with 24 hour assistance from another person and that she is not able to independently care for her.   At the very minimum, she will require considerable assistance in caring for her child” in light of her mental retardation and mental deficits.   In light of his findings, Dr. Franklin supported termination of mother's parental rights.

As of April 2013, it was reported that mother was not successful with therapy and medication.   Mother was not compliant with taking her medication.   Mother was referred to the Southeastern Medical Health Authority in New London but she missed the intake appointment in May 2013 due to lack of transportation.

Mother has engaged in substance abuse and admitted using marijuana.   She disclosed using marijuana and cocaine since June 2012.   She was referred to the Southeastern Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (SCADD).   She missed several appointments there.   Another appointment was scheduled for September 13, 2012 but mother failed to attend that appointment as she had moved to Bridgeport.   She was then referred to Southwest Community Mental Health Center in Bridgeport but failed to attend evaluations on October 3, 2012, October 4, 2012, November 1, 2012 and November 26, 2012.   She did attend an evaluation in December 2012 at which time she disclosed daily alcohol consumption and marijuana and cocaine use.   Mother was recommended to attend a detox program but she refused to do so.   She was also recommended to participate in hair tests but mother failed to attend tests scheduled on January 16, 2013 and February 4, 2013.   Once mother moved to New London, she was referred for a new substance abuse evaluation at South Eastern Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence.   Mother failed to attend the appointment because she stated she overslept.   The appointment was rescheduled for June 2, 2013.   Mother admits spending some of her monthly allowance on drugs.   Mother is not currently engaged in mental health or substance abuse treatment.

Mother disclosed a history of domestic violence with father.   She reported that father has hit her and thrown her against a wall in the past.   Notably, mother allowed father to reside with her despite an active protective order.   In January 2012, mother requested separate visits from father due to concerns that he attempted to assault her.   On January 17, 2012, mother reported that father was continuing to harass her.   On January 18, 2012, mother reported she got into a fight with father and he broke her cell phone.   Mother did not file a police report.   Mother met with a DCF domestic violence consultant on January 27, 2012.   Mother was provided with information for all in state domestic violence agencies.   Mother referred herself to the Women's Center in New London and she was scheduled to attend domestic violence services at Women's Center.   Father began to appear at mother's supervised visitation to pick up mother.   On April 30, 2012, mother left with father in a car even though her previously arranged transportation was there to pick her up.   Mother advised DCF that she and father were friends and she looked at an apartment in West Hartford with father.   As of June 2012, mother reported obtaining an efficiency apartment in New London and was allowing father to reside there with her due to his discharge from his shelter due to his intoxication.   On June 27, 2012, mother reported to DCF that father was arrested on June 26, 2012 for assaulting her.   Mother was upset that father failed to save marijuana for her while she was at the store getting beer for him.   Mother called the police.   She also advised DCF that a protective order had been in place against father for two weeks prior to the assault due to father throwing a cell phone at mother during an argument with maternal grandmother.   As a result of the June 26, 2012 incident, father was charged with Assault 3rd and Violation of Protective Order.   A protective order registry check revealed two protective orders against father with effective dates of June 7, 2012 and June 27, 2012.   Both protective orders ordered father to stay away from the home of mother.   The June 7, 2012 protective order was terminated on August 3, 2012 when father's case was nolled.   Father was incarcerated as the result of the other charges.   He was released from prison in August 2012 and resumed living with mother after his discharge despite the active protective order.   Father was subsequently arrested due to an altercation with the maintenance man of mother's home and again arrested for violation of a protective order in addition to other charges.   Mother also reported being involved in a domestic violence incident with a male in February 2013.   Mother reported being involved with him since October 2012.   She contacted domestic violence services and was placed in a shelter in Danbury for two days.   At that point, she moved in with maternal great grandmother in New London.   A police report stated that mother reported that a man and woman had threatened to kill her.   Since residing in New London, mother has been encouraged to seek domestic violence services from the Women's Center.   Mother reported she met with the staff who indicated that she needed more intensive services.   As of May 2013, mother continues to maintain contact with father.

Mother has engaged in supervised visits with Aaliyah.   However, mother's transience issues have impacted her ability to consistently attend her supervised visits.   She has also been more consistent in attending the visits but missed fourteen out of thirty-six visits between September 2012 to May 2013.   She continues to work on her parenting skills with the parent mentor during the visits.   Mother was observed to be cognitively limited during the supervised visits.   Mother also demonstrated improvement in being better prepared for the visits by bringing more activities for Aaliyah and bringing appropriate food but she does continue to have trouble setting rules of Aaliyah and allows her to dictate the visits.   Mother fails to intervene and redirect Aaliyah but does so when prompted by the mentor.   However, mother fails to retain those instructions during the next visit.   Mother is affectionate, loving and nurturing with Aaliyah during the visits and Aaliyah appears to have a loving bond with her.   Mother has admitted being overwhelmed with parenting Aaliyah.

Mother does participate in Aaliyah's medical appointments to help her gain better understanding of Aaliyah's medical needs but has had no specific training in meeting Aaliyah's medically complex needs.   DCF provides mother transportation from Bridgeport to her visits with Aaliyah in Hartford.

Father

Father was born on March 8, 1970.   He was raised by maternal grandfather and his wife.   He graduated from high school and studied culinary arts.   He is currently incarcerated.   His most recent job before his incarceration was as a press operator in 2010.   His typical source of income is unemployment benefits and food stamps.   He has no medical issues other than Sickle Cell Trait.   Prior to his most recent incarceration, he did not have stable housing or employment.   Father resided in shelters, on the streets or with mother.

Father's presenting issues at the time of the neglect adjudication were his unresolved substance abuse issues and lack of stable and appropriate housing.

Father has been in a relationship with mother for over three years.

Father has a history of substance abuse involving the use of crack cocaine, beer and marijuana.   His substance abuse commenced at the age of eighteen.   Father has attempted inpatient treatment several times.   At the age of twenty-one, he completed a program at the Stonington Institute.   He received intensive substance abuse treatment at Farrell Hall Treatment from October 27, 2011 through November 27, 2011.   Father supported his drug habit by panhandling, stealing from other people or getting money from family members.   Father admits that cocaine continues to be a problem for him although he remains substance free while he is incarcerated.

As noted above, father has a history of committing domestic violence towards mother.   Mother reported several incidents of being assaulted by father.   Father has denied physically abusing mother but has admitted to verbal abuse.   Father participated in an intake for domestic violence services at Life Strategies/Non Violence Alliance (NOVA) on May 17, 2011.   Father was not recommended for the group program due to his failure to acknowledge and take responsibility for his conduct.   Father was recommended for individual treatment.   Mother did continue to allow father to reside with her on several occasions.   In June 2012, mother reported that father was arrested for assaulting her.   Mother reported that a protective order was in place against the father at the time due to an altercation with maternal grandmother and for throwing a phone at mother on June 7, 2012.   Father was arrested on June 26, 2012 for Assault 3rd and Violation of Protective Order.   A second protective order was issued on June 27, 2012.   Both protective orders provided that father was to stay away from mother's residence.   The second protective order remained active and father resumed residing with mother upon his release from prison on August 12, 2012.   Thereafter, father became involved in a fight with a maintenance man at mother's home and he was arrested for Violation of Protective Order in addition to other charges.   He is currently incarcerated.   Father has not yet adequately addressed his domestic violence issues although he did complete a domestic violence course during his incarceration after which further services were recommended.   He is currently on a waiting list at the prison to complete domestic violence services.

Father is a convicted felon and has a criminal history dating back to 1999.   He was convicted of the following:  Sale of Controlled Substance and Violation of Probation in 1990;  Assault 2nd 1991;  Possession of Drugs/Marijuana in 1992;  Custody Escape in 1992;  Assault 2nd in 1997;  Sale of Hallucinogens/Narcotics in 1999;  Possession of Drug Paraphanalia in 2001;  Possession of Narcotics and Violation of Probation in 2001;  Possession of Narcotics in 2002;  Possession of Narcotics in 2005;  Forgery 2nd and two counts of Violation of Probation in 2006;  Possession of Narcotics in 2007;  Possession of Narcotics in 2010;  Assault 3rd, Violation of Protective Order, two counts of Larceny 6th, Failure to Appear 1st, Robbery 3rd, Interfering With Emergency C and Use of Drug Paraphanalia in 2012.   Father was incarcerated as the result of the Violation of Protective Order.   Father's maximum release date is June 21, 2014.

Father has been offered services at My People Clinical Services Father to Father Program, Family Connections for Supervised Visits, ADRC for substance abuse evaluation, Advance Behavioral Health for case management, NOVA for domestic abuse assessments, DCF case management services, ARG consult and bus passes.   Father was referred to My People Clinical Services Father to Father Program in February 2012.   He began services in April 2012.   Father has not completed the program due to his incarceration.

Father has participated in several substance abuse treatment programs.   Father was referred to a case manager at Advanced Behavioral Health and entered the Farrel Treatment Center on October 28, 2011.   Father chose to leave the program on November 25, 2011 prior to his planned discharge.   Father attended the ACR on November 30, 2011 and reported that he was going to attend substance abuse treatment at Community Health Services.   However, he failed to participate in those services.   Father then went to the Alliance Inpatient to address his substance abuse needs from December 28, 2011 to January 3, 2012.   Father was unable to continue with that program due to an arrest in January 2012.   Father then went to the ADRC inpatient program on January 25, 2012 but voluntarily left that program by January 29, 2012.   Thereafter, father participated in a substance abuse evaluation at ADRC on February 28, 2012 and was diagnosed with Alcohol Dependence, Cocaine Dependence and Cannabis Dependence.   ADRC recommended that father participate in Intensive Outpatient Group.   Father entered the Rushford ITP program on March 7, 2012 for substance abuse.   Father was discharged from the program on April 4, 2012 having successfully engaged with the program.   Father was then placed at the Hartford Recovery House while awaiting a bed at Stone Haven.   Father then moved to a shelter in New London after leaving the Hartford Recovery House without permission.   In June 2012, father reported that he was going to begin substance abuse outpatient services at SCADD in New London.   Father was forced to leave the shelter in New London due to his intoxication and he moved in with mother.   As noted above, father assaulted mother in June 2012.   He was arrested and incarcerated.   Father posted bond on August 3, 2012 and was discharged from the correctional facility.   Father then reported to the Thomas Murphy Center, an inpatient treatment facility.   Father then chose to leave that program to serve eighteen months in prison with the hope of being released in nine months rather than complete the ninety-day in patient treatment program and being on probation for three years.   Father is on the waiting list for the Tier 2 Substance Abuse Treatment program at the prison.

Father was provided weekly visitation with Aaliyah prior to his incarceration.   He currently has monthly supervised visitation at the correctional center.   Aaliyah does not respond well to father during the visits and appeared to be fearful of him.   Father does try to interact with her and appears to love her and his attempts to be affectionate with her during the visits.   Aaliyah does not appear to identify with father as an important figure and does not have a positive relationship with him.

Due to father's incarceration since August 2012, he has been unable to participate in parent education.   Prior to his incarceration, he participated in several sessions at My People Clinical Services Father to Father Program and he did actively engage in that service.   Father is on the waiting list at the prison for additional services.

Father did participate in a court-ordered psychological evaluation by Dr. Derek Franklin.   Father was diagnosed with Alcohol Abuse, Cannabis Abuse and Cocaine Abuse.   He also received an Axis II diagnosis of antisocial traits.   Dr. Franklin found no clinical evidence of psychological impairment but did recommend that he participate in substance abuse, domestic violence and parenting.   Test data raised concerns about anti-social proclivities and he was found to be self-centered and unsympathetic in interpersonal relationships.   Dr. Franklin noted that father “is an individual who is likely to participate in reckless and potentially dangerous activities.   Of particular concern is what appears to be unresolved issues specific to drugs and alcohol which has resulted in impairment in social and employment functioning.”   Dr. Franklin also noted that father had very little real significant involvement in Aaliyah's life due to his drug use.   Father also conceded to Dr. Franklin that it was unlikely that he would be able to independently take responsibility for his daughter.   Dr. Franklin opined that father would be unlikely to achieve a level of personal rehabilitation that would be consistent with Aaliyah's needs.

Aaliyah

Aaliyah was born on May 29, 2010.   She is presently three years of age.   DCF received a referral from the Institute of Living on September 14, 2011 alleging physical neglect of Aaliyah by mother.   DCF was informed that mother wished to be admitted to the mental health program after discharge from the Institute of Living but was unable to provide a plan for Aaliyah.   DCF met with paternal aunt on September 16, 2011 who confirmed that Aaliyah was staying with her and that she was providing her care.   Mother was scheduled to be discharged from the Institute of Living that day and was planning to attend day programing at the facility with subsequent referral to DDS. Mother had not made any arrangements for Aaliyah nor had she arranged for any of her provisions.   Mother also did not have a housing plan once she was discharged from the Institute of Living.   DCF received a call from the Institute of Living on September 22, 2011 advising that mother had been readmitted to Institute of Living on September 21, 2011 and was diagnosed with major depressive disorder.   She had been prescribed with 20 mgs.   Celexa.  Mother admitted to the DCF worker that she was feeling depressed and felt like “she wanted to hurt herself a little bit.”   A referral alleging physical neglect of Aaliyah by mother was made to DCF by paternal great-aunt on September 25, 2011.   Paternal aunt expressed concern that mother was homeless and was unable to provide proper medical attention to Aaliyah.   On September 30, 2011, a 96–hour hold was invoked due to Aaliyah being in immediate danger or serious harm without placement.   Neither mother nor father had permanent or stable housing.   Further, mother, as noted, had been hospitalized twice at the Institute of Living.   Father was actively using drugs and failed to maintain sobriety.   A safety assessment was completed and Aaliyah was found to be uncared for.   Prior to her removal, she was placed with her paternal aunt and also with paternal grandmother.   She was then placed in two parent licensed foster home due to medical issues with her paternal grandmother.

Aaliyah is a child with complex medical needs.   She has been diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anemia and she is Lactose Intolerant.   She is followed by the CCMC Hematology Oncology Department every three months due to her Sickle Cell. Aaliyah has required numerous visits to the hospital since coming into DCF's care and she has been hospitalized on several occasions.   She must be carefully monitored to make sure her temperature does not go over 100.5 degrees and medication must be carefully monitored.

Aaliyah was referred to Birth To Three due to concerns regarding her communication skills.   She was evaluated on January 11, 2012 and she was found to be age appropriate in social/emotional development, cognition/learning skills and fine motor skills.   She was found to be slightly delayed in the area of adaptive skills and gross motor skills.   Her language skills were found to be mildly delayed.   She was not found eligible for early intervention services with Easter Seals.   Another referral was made to Birth To Three Services due to foster mother's concerns regarding Aaliyah's speech.   An evaluation occurred in October 2012 and Aaliyah was found to be eligible for services at that time.   She receives services for delayed cognition.   As of May 2013, Aaliyah was found to be eligible for one hour of special education services per week.   She was also referred to Community Renewal Team Headstart Program.

Aaliyah has supervised visits with mother and father.   Maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother were welcome to attend the visits although neither has been consistent with the visitation.

The foster parents are certified to care for children with complex medical needs.   They are capable of meeting Aaliyah's physical needs and ensure that she follows up regularly.   Aaliyah is well-behaved in the home and is doing well there.   She resides there with her foster parents and their adopted son.   She is bonded with her foster family.   Her foster parents have expressed their desire to adopt her.

ADJUDICATION OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION

Reasonable Efforts

“The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ․ In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence.   If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase.   In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child.”  (Citation omitted.)  In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006).   In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under § 17a–112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that “it has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents 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.  “General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1);  In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 837, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005).  “[T]he statute imposes on the department the duty ․ to make reasonable efforts to unite the child or children with the parents.   The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof.   Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act by which the requirement was drawn ․ [R]easonable efforts mean doing everything reasonable, not everything possible ․” (Citation omitted;  emphasis added;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).

DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it used reasonable efforts to locate mother and father and to reunite them with Aaliyah as contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(i).   The evidence establishes that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the parents.   The parents were effectively served.   Mother and father were present during the court proceedings and the termination of parental rights trial.

As noted above, DCF has alleged that it made reasonable and active efforts to reunify the children with mother and father and that, in the alternative, mother and father are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reunification services.   The evidence establishes that mother has been provided numerous referrals for her mental health and substance abuse issues as well as for parenting, domestic violence, visitation and housing since at least 2011.   The evidence also established that DCF attempted to provide father with services including referrals for substance abuse, domestic violence and parenting.   As noted in detail above, mother has been inconsistent at best in following through with her services and with her supervised visitation.   She has not engaged in any recent substance abuse and mental health treatment.   Her transience has remained a significant problem and she has only recently obtained an apartment.   Father has failed to follow through with most of the services largely due to father's conduct that continues to involve him in the criminal justice system.   It is clear and convincing to the court that both mother and father are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.   The court has considered mother's and father's failure to sufficiently address their issues and rehabilitate.   Neither has made significant gains with regard to their ongoing and significant issues.   It is clear and convincing to the court that mother and father do not have the resources to meet the basic needs of their child.   They have not made sufficient progress to a level that demonstrates appropriate insight regarding their ongoing mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence and transience issues.   It is clear that mother and father will need to continue to participate in mental health and substance abuse services for the long term.   They have been unable to put their child's need ahead of their own and has been unable to do so for a majority of Aaliyah's life.   The court, therefore, finds that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify mother and father with their daughter.   In the alternative, the court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that, as of the adjudicatory date, mother and father have been unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services particularly with respect to services to address their mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence and parenting issues.   Each has failed to adequately address their issues over a protracted period of time which is clearly indicative that they will not make any adequate rehabilitative progress in the foreseeable future.   Therefore, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify as to mother and father.

Failure to Rehabilitate

General Statutes Section 17a–112(j) provides in relevant part “that the court may grant a petition for termination of parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that ․ the child ․ has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding ․ and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child ․” “Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [Section 17a–112] requires the court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   In re Jorden T., 119 Conn.App. 748, 755–56, cert. denied, 296 Conn. 905 (2010).  “The statute does not require [the parents] to prove precisely when they will be able to assume a responsible position in [the] child's life.   Nor does it require [the parents] to prove that [they] will be able to assume full responsibility for [their] child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court, to find by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation they have achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life.”  (Citations omitted;  emphasis in original;  internal quotation marks omitted).  In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004).   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 a parent than he or she was at the time of the making of the commitment.  In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112 (1992).   In making this determination, the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the 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 crux of the adjudicatory ground of failure to rehabilitate is whether a parent has sufficiently addressed the problems and deficiencies in parenting that led to state intervention in the family so that the parent can, considering the age and needs of the child, assure a responsible position in the child's life, or will be able to do so in the reasonably foreseeable future.   What is a reasonable time is a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the age and needs of the particular child.   See In re Shannon S., 41 Conn.Sup. 145, affirmed, 19 Conn.App. 20 (1989).

In light of the statutory elements of this ground as well as the case law interpreting it, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to mother and father.   The court finds that Aaliyah was adjudicated neglected on April 3, 2012.   It is quite clear to the court that, as of the adjudicatory date, neither mother nor father had sufficiently rehabilitated themselves to assume a responsible position in Aaliyah's life in view of her age and needs, on that date or in the foreseeable future.   Further, the court finds that mother and father do not have nor have they gained the ability to care for the primary needs of Aaliyah.   As noted above, mother has had ongoing mental health and substance abuse issues as well as chronic transience for a number of years.   Her subsequent failure to sufficiently benefit from and consistently engage in her mental health treatment services offered by DCF is clear and convincing evidence that mother has failed to rehabilitate.   Mother was repeatedly encouraged to seek services for her mental health and transience issues.   She failed to attend many of her scheduled appointments with her service providers and is not currently engaged in treatment.   She has not retained employment.   While the court acknowledges and commends mother for realizing that she was in need of mental health services and seeking those services prior to DCF's involvement, that effort is not enough in light of her failure to consistently engage in and benefit from her services even after DCF involvement.   As the court in In re Jennfer W., 75 Conn.App. 485 (2003) held, this court is not required to consider evidence of the mother's rehabilitative status after the adjudicatory date for purposes of the failure to rehabilitate ground.   Further, while mother has attempted to participate in her services since the adjudicatory date, the court must consider the age and needs of the child.   It is clear that mother's efforts are too little and too late.   There has been virtually no improvement in mother's ability to parent her child.

Father has yet to sufficiently address his substance abuse and domestic violence issues.   As noted above, he has not adequately addressed his violence directed toward mother.   He will not be able to assume a responsible position in Aaliyah's life within the foreseeable future.   Further, father's current incarceration and continued involvement with the criminal justice system also serves as an impediment to his rehabilitation.   As such, it is quite clear and convincing to the court that, as of the adjudicatory date, neither mother nor father had sufficiently rehabilitated themselves to assume a responsible position in Aaliyah's life in light of her age and needs on that date or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The court further finds that Dr. Franklin's testimony and report highly credible with regard to his evaluations of mother and father.   His findings are lucid, well-reasoned, credible and persuasive.   As such, the court accepts his expert opinion.   See Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn.App. 173, 195 (2002), citing Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 281 (1981).   Specifically, the court notes his opinion that termination of the parental rights of both mother and father is in Aaliyah's best interest.

Aaliyah has begun to stabilize in her placement.   She has spent the majority of her young life in the care of various relatives and the last year in foster care.   She needs a permanent and stable living arrangement in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner.   She has made progress in her current foster home which provides a structured, safe and loving environment where she is well cared for especially in light of her complex medical needs.   To return Aaliyah to her mother or father would be detrimental to her physical safety and well-being.

Accordingly, in light of the statutory elements of this ground, as well as the case law interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to Aaliyah.   DCF has proven that Aaliyah has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the court's finding that the respondent mother and respondent father are unable to achieve rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time, given the age and needs of their child ․ There is nothing in the conduct of mother or father that suggests that rehabilitation can be realized within a reasonable period of time given the age and needs of Aaliyah who has been out of the care of her parents since September 2011.   Mother and father are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.

DISPOSITION

As our courts have long observed, the deleterious effects of prolonged temporary care is well known.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983).  “It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents.   There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty ․” Lehman v. Lycoming Country Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct, 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982).

For all of the above reasons, the court, having found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by the petitioner for the termination of the parent's parental rights have been proven, the court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Aaliyah's best interest that her parents' rights be terminated.   The court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(k).

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.”  In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 356–57 (1994).   During this dispositional phase, “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 § 17a–112[k].”  In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 361–62 (1995).   We note that those “seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ․ There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”   (Citation omitted.)  In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261 (2003).

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

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

Mother and father were provided with ample services to facilitate the return of their child.   Mother was offered supervised visitation, parent education, transportation, domestic violence services and DCF case management.   Father was offered substance abuse services, parent education, supervised visitation, transportation, domestic violence services and DCF case management.   The services offered were appropriate, were offered in a timely manner and were made available to mother and father to facilitate reunification of Aaliyah to their care.   Although mother and father did utilize some of the services offered, they never gained sufficient insight to understand the consequences of their actions.   They failed to make significant progress with regard to their transience, employment, substance abuse, mental health issues and domestic violence issues.

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

Reasonable efforts to reunify the child with mother and fathers were made by DCF pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.   Ample services to facilitate the return of Aaliyah to her parents were made.   Mother was provided with Parent Mentor Services, Supportive Housing Referral, bus passes, supervised visitation services, ARG Consult, substance abuse evaluation, mental health treatment and transportation.   Father was referred for substance abuse evaluation, supervised visitation services, domestic violence services, parent education and bus passes prior to his incarceration.

3. The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order.

The court ordered specific steps for mother on April 3, 2012 and for father on February 28, 2012.   The parents have not fulfilled their obligations as outlined in the court ordered specific steps.   Mother has cooperated with the services offered to her to a limited degree and with very little success.   She failed to consistently engage in services and has not sufficiently benefitted from the services as discussed above.   She only very recently obtained stable housing and has not gained any meaningful employment.   She has not made significant progress with regard to her mental health and substance abuse issues.   She has not fulfilled her obligations with respect to Aaliyah to the extent that her daughter can safely be returned to her care.   Father has not fulfilled his obligations with respect to Aaliyah in that he has failed to rehabilitate to a degree that would allow his daughter to be safely returned to his care.   He has not made any significant progress with regard to his chronic substance abuse and domestic violence issues.   Neither parent has gained insight into their issues and its impact on their parenting skills.

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

Aaliyah does appear to have an attachment to her mother and father but she appears to be bonded with her foster family and has a loving relationship with them.   Her foster parents meet all of her needs.   She seeks comfort and attention from them.

5. The age of the child

Aaliyah is three years old.   She was born on May 29, 2010.

6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.

Mother and father have made little effort to adjust to their circumstances to permit their child to safely return to their care.   Mother and father each continue to have unresolved issues that impede their ability to safely and appropriately care for their daughter.   Both mother and father have attended supervised visits with Aaliyah.

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

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

BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.   The best interest standard is inherently flexible and fact specific, giving the court broad discretion to consider all the different and individualized factors that might affect the specific child's welfare.   The factors to be considered in deciding whether it would be in the best interest of a child to permit further time for a relationship with her parent to develop include “(1) the length of stay with the foster parents, (2) the nature of the child and relationship with the foster parents, (3) the degree of contact maintained with the natural parent and (4) the nature of the child's relationship with his or her natural parent.”  In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 22 (1993).   In considering all the above noted factors and after weighing all of the evidence, the court finds that the clear and convincing evidence has established termination of the respondent parents' parental rights is in the best interest of Aaliyah.   It is clear that mother and father are in no better position today to provide for Aaliyah than they were at the time of the her removal in September 2011.   The problems that led to the removal have not been rectified and the prospects of improvement particularly with regard to mother's mental health, substance abuse and transience issues and father's domestic violence, substance abuse and criminal activity.   Mother and father have failed to consistently avail themselves of available services in order to improve their circumstances to the point where they can assume a responsible role in the lives of their child.   Both mother and father have failed to understand the impact their behaviors have on their child's physical and emotional needs.   They have not been able to put their child's interests ahead of their own.   Clearly, neither parent is a resource for their daughter.   Aaliyah needs a permanent and stable living arrangements in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner.   This conclusion is supported by the testimony and evidence presented at the time of trial.

Aaliyah's needs are those of all children.   She has an interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and a continuous, stable environment.   She has this with her foster family.   Mother will continue to need substantial help to maintain herself with no reasonable prospect for success in the foreseeable future especially with regard to her mental health and substance abuse issues.   Father will continue to need substantial services with regard to his substance abuse and domestic violence issues all of which are thwarted due to his incarceration.   To expose Aaliyah to the same degree of uncertainty is not in her best interests.   The child's attorney recommends termination of parental rights and the court agrees.   DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Aaliyah's best interest to terminate the parental rights of her parents.

It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental rights of Angelica D. and Shawn C. are TERMINATED as to their child Aaliyah C.

CONCLUSION

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

That the parental rights of the respondent mother, Angelica D., and the respondent father, Shawn C., are hereby terminated as to their child, Aaliyah, born May 29, 2010;

That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent of the child for the purpose of securing the child's adoption as expeditiously as possible;

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

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

Judgment shall enter accordingly.

BY THE COURT

BURGDORFF, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. An Acknowledgment of Paternity was executed by father and filed with the court on October 14, 2011..  FN1. An Acknowledgment of Paternity was executed by father and filed with the court on October 14, 2011.

FN2. The trial court may take judicial notice of relevant court actions.   In re Amanda A., 58 Conn.App. 451, 452–53 (2000)..  FN2. The trial court may take judicial notice of relevant court actions.   In re Amanda A., 58 Conn.App. 451, 452–53 (2000).

FN3. Father's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of his address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling with specific goals of developing coping skills and improve his relationship with Aaliyah, accept in home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them;  submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow recommendations for treatment;  submit to random drug testing, not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine;  cooperate with service providers recommended including My People's Clinical parenting program, ADRC for substance assessment and treatment deemed appropriate and Non–Violence Alliance;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for child;  get and maintain adequate housing and legal income, immediately let DCF know about any changes in the household;  get and cooperate with a restraining order/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents;  attend and complete and an appropriate domestic violence program, do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole;  keep the child in the State of Connecticut while the case is ongoing;  visit the child as often as DCF permits;  provide the name and addresses and family relationship of any person mother would like DCF to investigate and consider as a placement resource and;  tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child.Mother's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  let DCF, her attorney and the child's attorney know where she and the child are at all times;  take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals for parenting and individual with specific goals of safe and nurturing parenting and sustain mental health;  not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine;  cooperate with service providers recommended including Sound Community Services for mental health;  Women's Center for domestic violence, My People's Clinical Services for parenting and Family Connections for supervised visits;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations or testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for children;  get and maintain adequate housing and legal income;  immediately let DCF know about any changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with a restraining order/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents;  attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program;  do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole;  learn to take care of the child's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs, including keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers and;  visit the child as often as DCF permits..  FN3. Father's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of his address;  undergo individual and parenting counseling with specific goals of developing coping skills and improve his relationship with Aaliyah, accept in home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them;  submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow recommendations for treatment;  submit to random drug testing, not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine;  cooperate with service providers recommended including My People's Clinical parenting program, ADRC for substance assessment and treatment deemed appropriate and Non–Violence Alliance;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations and testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for child;  get and maintain adequate housing and legal income, immediately let DCF know about any changes in the household;  get and cooperate with a restraining order/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents;  attend and complete and an appropriate domestic violence program, do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole;  keep the child in the State of Connecticut while the case is ongoing;  visit the child as often as DCF permits;  provide the name and addresses and family relationship of any person mother would like DCF to investigate and consider as a placement resource and;  tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child.Mother's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address;  let DCF, her attorney and the child's attorney know where she and the child are at all times;  take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals for parenting and individual with specific goals of safe and nurturing parenting and sustain mental health;  not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine;  cooperate with service providers recommended including Sound Community Services for mental health;  Women's Center for domestic violence, My People's Clinical Services for parenting and Family Connections for supervised visits;  cooperate with court ordered evaluations or testing;  sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers;  sign releases for children;  get and maintain adequate housing and legal income;  immediately let DCF know about any changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with a restraining order/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents;  attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program;  do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole;  learn to take care of the child's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs, including keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers and;  visit the child as often as DCF permits.

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.