IN RE: Amya D. (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 Amya D. The termination of parental rights petition was filed on March 22, 2013.   The respondents are Mirian R. (“mother”) and Girard D. (“father”).  The respondent parents were served, appeared, were advised and appointed counsel.   Mother consented to the termination of her parental rights on May 16, 2013 (Dannehy, J.).   She was represented by counsel.   She filed a written consent with the court and the court found that mother voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of her parental rights, having received the advice and assistance of competent legal counsel and having understood the consequences of her actions.   Her consent was accepted by the court.   The court also terminated the parental rights of the putative father, John Doe. The child was appointed an attorney.   The Indian Child Welfare Act was confirmed to be 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 November 4, 2013.   The respondent father appeared for trial and was represented by counsel.   The child was represented by counsel.   The court heard testimony from the DCF investigative social worker and the current DCF social worker.   Eight exhibits were entered into evidence.   These included correspondence from DCF to father, father's Specific Steps, the Social Study in Support of the Permanency Plan, the Social Study in Support of Termination of Parental Rights, and Addendum to the Social Study.   Pursuant to a Motion filed by DCF, judicial notice was taken of the neglect adjudication entered by the court on January 8, 2013 by agreement.   In addition, the court took 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.   All counsel participated in the examination of the witnesses and closing arguments.

On June 13, 2012, DCF filed a Petition of alleged Neglect and Motion for Order of Temporary Custody regarding Amya. DCF also alleged that Amya was uncared for due to her specialized needs.   The Motion for Order of Temporary Custody was sustained by agreement on June 22, 2013.   Father was not present although he was served on June 15, 2012.   Preliminary Specific steps were ordered as to father on June 13, 2012.   Father was advised on August 30, 2012.   Final Specific steps were ordered as to father on January 8, 2013.   The paternity of the father was confirmed by the court on August 6, 2013 pursuant to court ordered DNA testing.   Amya was adjudicated neglected on January 8, 2013 and committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of DCF.

DCF has alleged as to father, Girard D., the adjudicatory grounds of failure to rehabilitate pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I) and abandonment pursuant to General Statute § 17a–112(j)(3)(A).

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 as alleged in the petition, as of the date of filing the petition or the last amendment.  Practice Book §§ 32a–3(b) and 35a–7;  In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 163, 962 A.2d 81 (2009);  In re Joshua Z., 26 Conn.App. 58, 63, 597 A.2d 842, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 901, 600 A.2d 1028 (1991).   Only one ground need be established for the granting of the petition.  In re Juvenile Appeal (84–BC), 194 Conn. 252, 258, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984);  In re Shane P., 58 Conn.App. 234, 242, 753 A.2d 409 (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, 741 A.2d 873 (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).

The court has carefully considered the petition, all of the evidence and testimony presented, 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, the court finds in favor of the petition and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent father.

The court finds the following by clear and convincing evidence.

Amya was born on June 5, 2012.   She was placed in DCF's care on June 9, 2012 via a 96–hour hold due to alleged physical neglect.   A social worker at Hartford Hospital contacted DCF due to mother's significant history with DCF. A safety concern was presented regarding the mother's ability to properly care for and supervise the child in light of her ongoing issues and history and father's unaddressed issues.   Mother's parental rights had been terminated as to two of her older children and another was placed under guardianship with the maternal grandmother.   Another child was voluntarily given up for adoption by mother.   The neglect petition filed by DCF on Amya's behalf alleged neglect based upon mother's significant history with DCF, her unaddressed mental health and transiency issues.   It further alleged that father had a significant criminal history as well as unaddressed substance abuse and domestic violence issues.

Father

Father is presently 26 years old.   He has a history with DCF as a youth.   He was involved with DCF due to physical neglect by his maternal aunt and legal guardian.   He became homeless as the result of the maternal aunt being hospitalized.   He subsequently threatened the maternal aunt who would not allow father to return to her home because she feared for her safety.   Father reported being stabbed and having picture frames thrown at him by maternal aunt.   He was placed in a group home.   Father has another daughter in addition to Amya who was born on February 20, 2010 and who is in her mother's care.

Father has a significant criminal history dating back to 2005.   He has been convicted of Robbery 2nd, Violation of Probation, Breach of Peace 2nd, Possession of Drugs/Marijuana, Possession of Hallucinogen/Marijuana, Sale of Controlled Substance, Drugs Near Prohibited Place and Drug Paraphernalia.   He was convicted of Violation of Probation 2nd and sentenced to a one-year jail term on April 26, 2013 and currently remains incarcerated.   His anticipated maximum release date is in March 2014.

Father's presenting issues at the time of Amya's removal were concerns of substance abuse, transience, domestic violence and parenting.   Father has a history of substance abuse.   Father admitted to ongoing substance abuse and that he has used marijuana on a daily basis since he was 18 years old.   Father further indicated that he uses marijuana when he wants to mediate or calm down when he is angry.   Father has not engaged in any substance abuse evaluations or drug testing assessment.   He has not engaged in any parenting services or anger management services that have been verified by DCF. Prior to his incarceration, he was living a transient lifestyle.   Father has also admitted to a conflicted relationship with mother.   Mother filed a restraining order against father in September 2012.   Father has not engaged in any domestic violence services that have been verified by DCF.

Father has not complied with his court ordered Specific Steps.¹  The preliminary Specific Steps were ordered on June 13, 2012 and were ordered as final Specific Steps by the court on January 8, 2013.   Specifically, he has failed to participate in any home visits or appointments by DCF since the inception of the case.   He failed to attend Administrative Case Reviews held on July 27, 2012 and January 23, 2013.   Prior to his incarceration, he did not maintain contact with DCF. He did not respond to written communications to father at the address provided by father.   DCF made repeated attempts to contact father at his place of employment as well as through his probation officer.   When DCF did speak to father, he repeatedly advised DCF that he did not want anything to do with DCF because needed to get his life in order.   He refused to attend his scheduled court dates.   Father did advise DCF in January 2013 that he was involved with individual counseling at Hartford Behavioral Health and services with ADRC pursuant to the direction of his probation officer.   However, DCF was unable to verify this information.   Father reiterated at that time that he did not want DCF involved in his life and would not follow through with any recommendations for services.   In June 2012, DCF referred father to Wheeler Clinic for a substance abuse evaluation and drug screen.   Father failed to attend the scheduled evaluation on July 6, 2012.   Father has refused to cooperate with any services recommended by DCF. Prior to his incarceration, father did not maintain adequate housing.   Father did maintain a legal income prior to his incarceration.   Father failed to attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program.   Father has not seen Amya since her removal on June 9, 2012.   He did not request any visitation with her until after his incarceration when he directed his attorney to file a motion for visitation in September 2013.

Notably, father questioned his paternity of Amya at the time of her removal.   DCF advised him that a court ordered paternity test would be scheduled for him.   Father initially indicated that he would attend.   Tests were scheduled on July 16, 2012, September 17, 2012 and October 2, 2012.   Father failed to attend the paternity testing nor did he attempt to reschedule the testing.   The court finds that father received notice of these scheduled tests but deliberately chose not to attend.   Father advised DCF that he did not want to participate in the paternity testing because he did want to pay child support on her behalf.   During his conversations with the DCF social worker, father advised DCF that his main focus was to avoid any potential for financial liability.   It was only after his incarceration that father submitted to the paternity testing.   His paternity of Amya was found and confirmed by the court on August 6, 2013.

Father has not seen Amya since her birth at the hospital in June 2012.   As noted above, he has not sought visitation with her nor has he inquired after her well-being.   He has failed to make a plan for her care.   He has provided no financial support for Amya, he has never sent her any cards, gifts or letters.   He has never participated in or shown an interest in her health or welfare.   Father has no bond whatsoever with Amya. He is a complete stranger to her.

Amya

Amya was initially placed in a legal risk foster home in June 2012 directly from the hospital.   On November 28, 2012, she was placed in another legal foster home due to her prior foster parent becoming ill.   She currently resides in a two-parent foster home and resides there with their two sons.   All of Amya's emotional and physical needs are being met by her foster parents.   She has a strong emotional bond with her foster parents who wish to adopt her if she becomes legally free for adoption.   She gets along well with her two older foster brothers.   She is in good health with the exception of a heart murmur which is being monitored by her pediatrician.   She has no developmental concerns.   She appears happy and bonded with her foster family.

III. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION

A. Reasonable Efforts

As to father, DCF has alleged that it made reasonable efforts to locate father and to reunify and that in the alternative, father is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reunification services.

In order to terminate parental rights, unless the court grants the petition due to the consent of the respondent parent, DCF must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made “reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).  “[The] court need not make that finding, however, if the evidence establishes that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 47, 887 A.2d 415 (2005).   See also In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 550–53, 979 A.2d 469 (2009).   Moreover, “such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to [§ ]17a–111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   See also In re Jaiden S., 120 Conn.App. 795, 993 A.2d 1017 (2010).

“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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Shaiesha O., supra, 93 Conn.App. 48.   Although “[n]either the word reasonable nor the word efforts is ․ defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn ․ [r]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Ryan R., 102 Conn.App. 608, 619, 926 A.2d 690, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 923, 924, 933 A.2d 724 (2007);  In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 255, 763 A.2d 71 (2000).   The court must look to events that occurred prior to the date the petition was filed, to determine whether reasonable efforts at reunification were made.  In re Shaiesha O., supra, 93 Conn.App. 47.

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that as of June 13, 2012, DCF made reasonable efforts to locate father.   Father was duly served with notice of the temporary custody notice and the neglect petition and termination petitions in accordance with the law.   Father was present in court on May 16, 2013 and advised of his rights.

This court further finds by clear and convincing evidence that by March 22, 2013, when DCF filed the termination of parental rights petition, father was unable and unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.   The evidence is undisputed that Amya was adjudicated neglected on January 8, 2013 and committed to the custody of DCF. Further, during the entire period prior to the adjudicatory date, father did not or was unable to address his outstanding issues.   He refused to engage with DCF and clearly expressed no interest in reunification with Amya. He chose not to visit her.   DCF made repeated attempts to contact father and attempted to engage him in services as well as visitation with Amya since June 2012.   Father made it abundantly clear to DCF that he did not want any involvement with DCF or with Amya. Father by his own admission has been dismissive of DCF's recommendations that he participate in services to address his issues.   He has refused to engage in the services as ordered in his specific steps.   He advised DCF that he did not want to be burdened financially in caring for Amya. Further, father has remained involved in the criminal justice system as reflected by his present incarceration where it is anticipated he will remain until at least until March 2014.   His incarceration further hindered his already quite lacking ability to engage in reunification efforts.  “Although incarceration alone is not a sufficient basis to terminate parental rights, incarceration, nonetheless, may prove an obstacle to reunification due to the parent's unavailability ․” In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 661 (2010).   This court concludes, therefore, that as of the adjudicatory date of March 22, 2013, DCF has met its burden as to this ground by clear and convincing evidence.   DCF clearly and convincingly made reasonable efforts to reunify Amya with father to the extent possible, given father's lack of communication of interest, his lack of compliance with his specific steps and continued criminal behavior.   Accordingly, DCF has proven that it made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify father with Amya and that, in the alternative, father was both unable and unwilling to benefit from reunification services as of the adjudicatory date.

B. Adjudicatory Grounds of the Termination of Parent Rights Petition

1. Failure to Rehabilitate

General Statutes § 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 ․ (B) 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 trial 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 Jordon T., 119 Conn.App. 748 (2010), citing In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706 (1999).   Moreover, “[i]n the adjudicatory phase, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of 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 assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved his or her ability to manage his or her life, but rather whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue.”   In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 157, 180, 743 A.2d 165 (1999).

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 Amya D. As noted in this court's findings of fact, Amya was adjudicated neglected on January 8, 2013.   This court has already found that father refused to engage in services to address reasonable concerns relating to a long history involving substance abuse and criminal activity.   In addition, father has a history of domestic violence and transience.   The evidence clearly and convincingly supports the court's finding that father, as of the date of the filing of the termination of parental rights petition, had not achieved a reasonable degree of rehabilitation.   There is no evidence of conduct on his part subsequent to the date of the filing of the petition that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of Amya, he could assume a responsible position as her parent.   DCF made reasonable and ongoing efforts to engage father in services and visitation with Amya. Father rejected all of these efforts.   As noted above, father failed to comply with his court ordered Specific Steps.   A parent's compliance with Specific Steps set during the pendency of a neglect case is a relevant and important consideration in reaching a rehabilitation finding.  In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 167–68;  In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 167, 179 (1999).   From his testimony, in addition to the other evidence submitted, this court concludes that father has had no interest in parenting Amya. He is putting his own interests before those of Amya's.   He has made it abundantly clear that he did not want to be involved with DCF and did not want to be financially responsible for Amya. He has made no attempt to visit her or establish a relationship with her.   His attempt to seek visitation with her in September 2013 is much too little and much too late.   He is not anywhere close to establishing an ability to care for himself let alone Amya. He has completely subverted his own interests with that of Amya's.   He has been a cipher in her life directly as the result of his own choices.   Not once did he take into account that through no fault of her own, Amya has been in the loving and nurturing care of her foster parents.   The court finds no credibility in father's assertion to the court that he could provide Amya “ten times better care” than her foster parents.   The court finds this testimony highly uncredible in light of father's actions, or lack thereof, towards Amya since her birth in addition to his clear inability to parent her.   Any further delay of permanency to allow for parental rehabilitation will only prolong Amya's seventeen-month long lack of permanency.   She requires a patient, sober, reliable and informed caretaker which she has with her foster parents.   There is no satisfactory evidence that father could ever meet the level of parenting and attentiveness that her needs require.

The court, therefore, finds by clear and convincing evidence that as of the adjudicatory date, father had not achieved a status where he was more able to capably parent Amya than at the time of the initiation of the neglect petition.   Furthermore it is quite clear that there is no evidence to conclude that rehabilitation by father into the role of a constructive parent for Amya could be achieved by him within a reasonable period of time especially in light of his current incarceration and lack of participation in his court ordered services.   These facts overwhelmingly support DCF's claims that father cannot rehabilitate within a reasonable period of time, given the age and needs of Amya. Accordingly, father's failure to rehabilitate, pursuant to § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I) has been established by clear and convincing evidence.

2. Abandonment

In addressing this ground, the court determines whether the proof provides that abandonment existed as of the adjudicatory date.   The court, in determining whether or not abandonment has occurred, is limited to events preceding the date of the time of the filing of the petition.  In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000).

“A parent abandons a child if the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child ․ Abandonment focuses on the parent's conduct ․ Abandonment occurs when a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare ․ Section 17a–112[ (j)(3)(A) ] does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of the a child.   A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child.   Maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted).  In re Ilyssa G., 105 Conn.App. 41 (2007) cert. denied, 285 Conn. 918 (2008).  “The commonly understood obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes:  (1) express love and affection for the child;  (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child;  (3) the duty to supply necessary food, clothing and medical care;  (4) the duty to provide adequate domicile;  and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.”  (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 732 (2010);  In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53 (1998);  In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17–18 (1993).   Indicia of interest, concern and responsibility includes “attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the send of cards and gifts and financial support.”  In re Drew R., 47 Conn.App. 124, 129 (1997).

The court finds that father has abandoned Amya by clear and convincing evidence with the meaning of 17a–112[ (j)(3)(A).   Preliminary Specific Steps were ordered as to father in June, 2012, nine months before the termination petition was filed.   As noted above, DCF attempted to schedule three paternity tests for father which father failed to attend.   It is indisputable that father, as of the adjudicatory date, had fallen far short of the minimal standards for attentive parenting and exhibited no interest, concern or responsibility toward Amya. Father has not seen Amya since shortly after her birth at the hospital.   He has never visited her.   He never contacted DCF to inquire as to her welfare.   He has provided no financial, emotional or physical support to her.   He has not met with DCF, has failed to participate in administrative case reviews and has failed to engage in any services as recommended by DCF pursuant to his court ordered Specific Steps.   Father has sent no cards, gifts or letters to Amya nor has he acknowledged her birthday or other special days.   He has no relationship with her whatsoever.   He is a complete stranger to her.   Amya has no memories of father nor experiences with him nor does she have any bond with him.   In short, he has not demonstrated even the slightest acceptance of his responsibility for his failure to develop a relationship with Amya. Prior to his incarceration, father chose not to perfect, protect or advance his parental rights when he had ample opportunity to do so.   Further, he subsequently again became involved with the criminal justice system resulting in his incarceration which clearly indicates father's lack of responsibility to his daughter.   While incarceration alone is insufficient to prove abandonment, while a parent is in prison, he should “take advantage of programs that would have permitted him to maintain contact with the child.”  In re Jaime S., supra, 120 Conn.App. 733.

Therefore, father has clearly failed to demonstrate any reasonable degree of care, interest, concern or responsibility for his daughter and, therefore, has abandoned her within the meaning of 17a–112(j)(3)(A).   See In re Ashley C., 62 Conn.App. 305, 314–15 (2001).   To allow this father, who has completely abandoned his daughter, further time to establish a relationship with Amya would be detrimental to her best interest in permanency.

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).

DISPOSITION

In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, “the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child.”  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.

Services for substance abuse, parenting and domestic violence were offered to father.   Father was made aware of the court's expectations and was offered services to assist him in meeting those expectations.   Father failed to attend scheduled services.   Father refused to engage in any of the court ordered services all of which were offered in a timely manner.

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 Amya father were made by DCF pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.   Father has been offered substance abuse treatment, parenting supervised visitation and case management all of which were refused by father.

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.

Father has not fulfilled his obligations pursuant to the court ordered specific steps.   He has refused to engage in all recommended services and failed to attend scheduled evaluations and case review meetings.   He failed to visit with Amya or seek visitation with her since her removal in June 2012.   Father remains involved in the criminal justice system and is currently incarcerated.   He has not maintained adequate housing nor is he currently employed due to his incarceration.   He has gained no insight whatsoever into his issues and their impact on his 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.

Amya has no relationship whatsoever with father and has not seen him since the time of her birth.   Amya has strong relationship with her foster mother and foster father and their family since her placement with them in November 2012.   They meet all of her needs.   Amya seeks comfort and attention from them.   She recognizes them and appears happy and comfortable in the household.   Her foster parents have expressed a desire to adopt her.

5. The age of the child

Amya is almost one and a half years old.   She was born on June 5, 2012.

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.

Father has made no efforts to adjust his circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in Amya's best interest to return to father's home in the foreseeable future.   Notably, father does not have a home due to his incarceration.   Further, father has a history of transcience.   Father has maintained no contact with Amya and has not made any effort to reunite with her.   Father has abandoned Amya. He has made no effort to maintain regular contact or communication with the foster parents.

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 father from a meaningful relationship with the child.   DCF has encouraged father to maintain a meaningful relationship with Amya. The economic circumstances of father have not prevented him from having a relationship or visits with Amya. There has been no claim that father was unable to obtain services due to lack of financial resources.   Legal counsel was appointed for him at no cost to him.

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 court finds that termination of the respondent father's parental rights is in the best interest of Amya. It is abundantly clear that father is in no better position today to provide for Amya than he was at the time of her removal in June 2012.   The problems that led to the removal have not been rectified and the prospects of improvement, particularly with regard to the father's ongoing substance abuse, domestic violence and involvement with the criminal justice system are bleak.   This conclusion is supported by the testimony of the social workers as well as the information contained in the exhibits presented at the time of trial.

In addition to the above the court has considered multiple relevant factors including Amya's interest in sustained growth, development, wellbeing, stability, continuity of her environment, the length of stay in her foster home as well as the nature of her relationship with her foster parents, and the non-existent relationship with father.   The court has balanced Amya's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with her father.

Amya has been in the care and custody of DCF since shortly after her birth in June 2012.   Amya is a healthy, active, happy child.   Her needs are those of all children.   Father is not able to provide a home for her nor will he be able to do so within a reasonable period of time considering Amya's age and needs.   In light of father's complete lack of contact with Amya since June 2012 and his abandonment of her, she should not have to wait any longer for permanency in her life.   To allow that lack of permanency to continue any longer is clearly inconsistent with her best interests.   Father will continue to need substantial help to maintain himself, with no reasonable prospect for success in the foreseeable future.   To expose Amya to the same degree of uncertainty is not in her best interests.   Amya's attorney advocates for termination of father's parental rights and as being in her best interest.   The court agrees.   In deciding the issue of best interest in this case, the court has considered the adjudicatory and dispositional evidence in its entirety, and has concluded that there is no other credible and realistic plan achievable within a reasonable time to secure and protect Amya's best interest other than a termination of father's parental rights.

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing findings, and having considered the exhibits, testimony, judicially noticed items and arguments of counsel, the court concludes that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it is in Amya's best interest to terminate the parental rights of her father, Girard D. so that she may be free for adoption.

It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental right of Girard D. are hereby TERMINATED as to Amya D.

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 father were made and that father was and continues to be unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts, and that further efforts are no longer required, that grounds exist to terminate father's 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 father, Girard D., are hereby terminated as to his child, Amya D., born June 5, 2012;

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, with first consideration to be given to the current foster parents;

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;

That should DCF file adoption petitions in the Probate Court, the Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford of the date when said adoption is finalized, as shall the petitioner.

Judgment shall enter accordingly.

BY THE COURT

BURGDORFF, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Father's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of his whereabouts;  take part in counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals for parenting and individual to address issues of anger and domestic violence;  accept in home support services;  cooperate with service providers recommended regarding assessment and treatment including parenting;  substance abuse and domestic violence including Common Sense Parenting, Institute of Living, Village for Families and Children and NOVA Explorer Program for domestic violence;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from using illegal drugs and not abuse alcohol or medicine, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  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 income;  immediately let DCF know about changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with restraining/protective orders;  attend and complete 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 child in State of Connecticut;  visit child as often as DCF permits;  take care of child's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs and;  provide DCF with name, address and family relationship of persons who he would like DCF to investigate as a placement resource and to identify the child's grandparents..  FN1. Father's final specific steps included the following:  cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of his whereabouts;  take part in counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals for parenting and individual to address issues of anger and domestic violence;  accept in home support services;  cooperate with service providers recommended regarding assessment and treatment including parenting;  substance abuse and domestic violence including Common Sense Parenting, Institute of Living, Village for Families and Children and NOVA Explorer Program for domestic violence;  submit to substance abuse evaluation, treatment and random drug testing;  refrain from using illegal drugs and not abuse alcohol or medicine, and involvement with the criminal justice system;  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 income;  immediately let DCF know about changes in the household;  get and/or cooperate with restraining/protective orders;  attend and complete 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 child in State of Connecticut;  visit child as often as DCF permits;  take care of child's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs and;  provide DCF with name, address and family relationship of persons who he would like DCF to investigate as a placement resource and to identify the child's grandparents.

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.