IN RE: Jameer G.1 (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On February 22, 2012, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, hereafter “DCF,” filed a petition for the termination of the parental rights of Nicole G. and Jacy W., to their child, Jameer G. Jameer was removed from the care of his father by an order of temporary custody on February 10, 2011.   At that time his mother was incarcerated.   He had previously been adjudicated neglected and remained in the care of his father under an order of protective supervision, which had expired.   Subsequent to his last removal from his family, Jameer was again adjudicated neglected on June 15, 2011.   He has remained in the care and custody of DCF since that time.

The termination petition alleges that the parents have failed to rehabilitate so that they could parent Jameer.   See Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(3)(B).  The trial on the termination petitions took place on October 2, 3 4, and November 22, 2013.   Nicole G. attended the three of the four days of trial, but Jacy W. did not, despite having been duly served and represented earlier in these proceedings.   He was defaulted for failure to so attend.   The court finds from the record that there are no other custody proceedings affecting Jameer and that it has jurisdiction.   Nicole G., through her counsel, vigorously contested the petition.   She seeks to have the child returned to her or, recognizing that this may not yet be possible, that his guardianship be transferred to his paternal grandmother, Karen B. The court denies Nicole's motion for transfer of guardianship to Karen B. After duly considering all the evidence and for the reasons set forth in detail below, the court grants the petitions and finds that it is in the best interests of Jameer to terminate his biological parents' rights to him.

From the evidence presented, the court finds the following facts:

A. FACTS

1. Nicole G., Jameer's Mother

Nicole is now thirty-three years old.   Her own mother and her biological father were not married and only casually involved.   She was adopted by her step-father when she was three.   She is an only child.   She reports her own childhood as basically good, with bad times as well with much drinking in the home when her step-father could become very angry and verbally abusive.   She notes that until the 7th grade, things went well in school.   At that time, she learned she had been adopted and then began to get into difficulties, acting out, not caring about school or following her parents' rules at home.   She ran away from home frequently, got into fights with others and was placed in group homes by the Juvenile Court, from which she also ran away repeatedly.   She began to experiment with alcohol and drugs and has had a significant history as a poly-substance abuser.   Her behavior problems led to stays in juvenile detention and placement at the Long Lane School for eighteen months when she was thirteen.   At fifteen, she completed her stay there and returned home.   She was able to return to school through the eleventh grade, but did not graduate.   She continued to be in trouble with the authorities and was arrested from time to time.   During this time, she also began to exhibit mental health problems which have continued to the present time, variously diagnosed as attention deficit disorder, depression and bi-polar disorder.

Her criminal conduct continued well after her adolescence with increasing periods of incarceration.   She is a convicted felon and her convictions have been for multiple events of assault, criminal trespass, forgery, probation violation, larceny, and various drug offenses.²  During the years after high school, she had a number of troubled relationships with men and led a transient life style with ongoing substance abuse.   She has received substance abuse treatment from time to time with no measurable sign of remission until recently.

She is the mother of four children, all of whom were removed from her care by DCF and none of whom are presently in her care.   She had her first child when she was eighteen, in her senior year of high school, which she did not complete.   She was able to care for her first and second child, born in 2002, with the help of her mother until June 2003 when both were removed from her care due to physical abuse and then placed in the permanent guardianship of her mother.   Both children remain in the care of their maternal grandmother.   Since her most recent release from incarceration in August 2013, Nicole resides there with them as well.

Nicole's third child was born addicted to cocaine in 2006, and after various juvenile court proceedings, is now in the care of a paternal relative.   While she has regular contact with her two oldest boys, she is not in regular contact with her third child.

(a) Jameer's Removal From His Mother

Nicole's relationship with Jameer's father, Jacy W., continued the pattern of casual personal connections troubled by drug use, many disagreements, domestic incidents and frequent moves as well as arrests that she had begun at a young age.   She ended her relationship with Jacy W., when she became pregnant, as he apparently was not interested in having a child.   Her fourth and last child, Jameer G., the subject of this petition, was born in June 2008.   He too was born with drugs in his system, despite the active drug treatment Nicole was then undergoing.

In April 2008, prior to Jameer's birth, Nicole was admitted to Blue Hills Hospital due to her poly-substance dependence, which included cocaine and opioid dependence as well as THC. She was then discharged to reside at Mother's Retreat, a residential program where she could receive drug treatment, other medication as needed, and have her child with her.   She stayed in the program until approximately a month after Jameer's birth in July 2008.   Upon learning that she had left the program, DCF filed for an order of temporary custody, hereafter “OTC,” and neglect petition, which OTC order was suspended upon her return to the program.   Nonetheless, Jameer was adjudicated neglected and he was placed with Nicole under an order of protective supervision, which began in November of 2008.   After her stay at Mother's Retreat, that fall Nicole attempted to find an apartment for herself and Jameer.   She spent some time in shelters, and then she secured housing.   Unfortunately, despite treatment for addiction and medication for her mental health issues, she again began to abuse drugs after she connected with a friend from her past life.

(b) Jameer's Removal From His Father

During the time Jameer was in Nicole's care, she was on probation for various domestic incidents and because of her positive drug tests, she was again incarcerated for violation of probation.   On June 16, 2009, a second OTC was granted and shortly thereafter Jameer's father, Jacy W., secured custody of his son, with whom he had had little contact up until that time.   Jameer remained with Jacy when the order of supervision expired in August, 2010, when Jameer was a little over two years old.   Unfortunately for Jameer, he continued to be in the care of adults with unstable, transient lifestyles and substance abuse issues similar to those of his mother.   Jacy lived in various locations with his son, and his girlfriends were often the child's caretakers.   He too abused substances and had frequent domestic incidents.   Jameer and Jacy W. were often in and out of the home of Jacy's mother, Karen B., who also cared for the child, sometimes for considerable periods of time.

The relationship between Jacy and his mother was volatile and marked with disputes and complaints by others to the condo manager where she resided.   The police were called about both his conduct and Karen B.'s behavior.   In addition, other casual acquaintances also cared for Jameer when Jacy and Karen were at work.   Due to such complaints, Karen B. told Jacy he could no longer stay with her and he moved out in November 2010.   He began to live with various friends, using Karen's address for mail and other more permanent contact.

In February of 2011, Jacy was arrested while Jameer was in his care.   He refused to allow Jameer to be placed with his mother.   DCF also did not consider her a resource.   Jameer again came into DCF custody where he has remained since the last OTC was granted on February 10, 2011.

(c) Services Provided to Nicole G.

During the course of DCF's involvement, Nicole has been referred to and received many significant services.   Specific steps were last ordered for her in February 2011.   Those steps included parenting and individual counseling, in order to develop strong parenting skills.   After her release from incarceration, she did begin to participate in the services ordered for her, received group and work therapy.   She was also evaluated for substance abuse and her mental health issues.   Intensive outpatient services were recommended for her.   After some months, when she was in the Community Partners in Action Resettlement program, she violated the terms of her probation and left the program to reside with Jameer's grandmother, Karen B. She then stopped attending any programs or cooperating with her service providers.   And within three weeks of her move to Karen's home, she was once again incarcerated.   And she has remained incarcerated during most of the pendency of this action until her release in August 2013.

While incarcerated, Jameer was brought to visit with her monthly.   She also completed many programs in the restricted setting that incarceration mandates.   Those included parenting, individual and group counseling, substance abuse counseling and treatment for her mental health issues.   The court finds that she was able to complete some of the programs and was doing well in therapy.

Upon her discharge, she returned to live with her mother and her two oldest children.   She has also been receiving services in the community since her release including mental health counseling, medication management, random drug screens and has secured limited employment.   She has weekly visitation with Jameer and is able to visit with him in the community under the supervision of a DCF case aide.   By all reports she has a decent relationship with her youngest child.   One troubling issue has been Nicole's desire for Jameer to know about his older half-siblings.   And some visits have included mention of them and presents from them to him, which indicate reluctance on Nicole's part to comply with DCF's directive not to facilitate contact with her older children and Jameer.

(d) The Psychological Evaluations

Two psychological evaluations were performed of the parents and Jameer in this case.   One was sought by DCF and was completed by Dr. Humphrey and the second was sought by Nicole's counsel and was completed by Dr. Freedman.   Both psychologists appeared in court and testified to their conclusions.   Dr. Humphrey completed his evaluation in November 2012.   At that time, he concluded that Nicole G. did not have the capacity to meet her son's needs.   The court concurs with this conclusion.   He stated

upon her release from prison, reunifying with any child within a year's time would be unwise, as in my opinion, the risk of relapse into substance abuse will be considerable during that period and because of [Nicole's] other psychological problems and antisocial behaviors are likely to manifest much more frequently and with greater intensity when she is abusing drugs.3

He also concluded that he did not believe the

prognosis is good for either parent to attain the degree of rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that reunification could occur in a timeframe that would suit Jameer's best interests.   He needs to develop a sense of permanency in which he experiences an assurance about where he will live and who his caretakers will be.4

Dr. Freedman completed his evaluation of Nicole, Karen B. and Jameer more recently in September 29, 2013.   He also was very pessimistic about Nicole's ability to parent Jameer.   He states:

Nicole [G.] had a significant, debilitating problem with narcotics abuse.   She has not shown adequate support and recovery ‘savvy’ to keep her from seeking out companions who could lead her back into substance abuse.   As a result, while she showed good parenting skills and a solid relationship with her son, she had not shown rehabilitation or adequate length or resiliency to warrant her child being placed with her.5

Karen B., Jameer's paternal grandmother, was included in both evaluations and seen both individually and with her grandson.

2. Jacy W., Jameer's Father

Jacy W. is now thirty-six years old.   He grew up in the care of his mother, Karen B., and has an older sister, who he believes was favored in the family.   His biological father was largely absent, but such contact as occurred was marked by negative interactions and some physical abuse.   By the time he was fourteen, he left his mother's house and resided with various friends and a friends' aunt.   He, too, did not complete high school.   He is the father of one child older than Jameer and his rights to that child were terminated.   He has two younger children and at present resides with their mother, who has care of these children.   He has had criminal arrests and convictions for domestic disputes and larceny;  he has apparently not been incarcerated.   He is self-employed but is seeking social security disability for a work-related injury.   He has significant mental health issues which remain unresolved and largely untreated.   He has a history of problematic relationships with women, including individuals with a history of substance abuse, mental health problems and child protection involvement.

His relationship with Nicole was troubled and did not continue for long.   He states that she would behave very differently while under the influence of drugs and would often be gone for days at a time.   Ultimately as noted earlier, the relationship ended before Jameer was born.   To his credit, he did attempt to care for Jameer when Nicole was incarcerated, but only with limited success.   He does not recognize the impact of his own chaotic and dysfunctional lifestyle on a very young child.   At present, however, he has had no contact with DCF for many months and has not seen Jameer for a long period of time.   He is absent from his son's life.

(a) Psychological Evaluation

Dr. Humphrey, the court appointed evaluator, stated that Jacy W., Jameer's father was not in a position to meet his son's needs.   He noted:  “he has numerous, varied psychological difficulties and is not so situated so that he could care for Jameer independently now or in the near future ․” ⁶ Jacy was not seen by Dr. Freedman as he had not been in contact with either his son or DCF for many months.   The court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that Jacy W. is not able to parent this child and is not a resource for his son.

(b) Services

DCF recommended that Jacy W. undergo a substance abuse evaluation, urine toxicology screening, as well as mental health counseling.   While he completed the assessment for substance abuse after some considerable time, he never followed any recommendations for treatment.   DCF also believes he could benefit from an evaluation to assess if he is in need of batterers' services.   Given his lack of contact for many months, none of these services have been utilized by him.

3. Karen B., the Paternal Grandmother, and the Motion to Transfer Guardianship

Nicole G. has filed a motion for transfer for guardianship of Jameer to his paternal grandmother.   Karen B. supports this position and is willing to take Jameer into her household, but was denied intervener status and has not, therefore, filed an independent motion for transfer of guardianship.   Karen has been involved with Jameer since he was an infant and continues to have monthly visitation with the child.   She is also presently permitted to attend some visits that Jameer has with his mother.

Karen's own background reveals similar early adolescent relationships and difficulties to those of her son.   She became pregnant at a young age and ultimately had two children with her first boyfriend.   Jacy W. is the younger of the two.   When she was eighteen, she secured work as a cocktail waitress and was able to hold her family together against significant odds.   Subsequently she received job training and was able to secure work with an insurance company and has had long-term stable employment.

During the ensuing years, she had another relationship, during which time she again became pregnant and had a stillborn child, which took a great emotional toll on her.⁷  Nonetheless the boyfriend was very good with her daughter and son.   By the time her own daughter was fifteen, her daughter too became pregnant and became emancipated.   Karen helped her have her own apartment.

And in the years since, she has had custody of her granddaughter, Ashley, her daughter's child, from the time Ashley was thirteen until she was seventeen.   As stated, there were also periods of time when Jacy was living with her with Jameer and she is willing to have the permanent care of Jameer.   She clearly has done her best to help her children and their offspring.

She has not, however, without great reluctance, taken the steps necessary to become a licensed foster parent and has not accepted until recently the necessity of following DCF's recommendations to make the possibility of permanently caring for Jameer likely.   In particular, the court concludes from her testimony that she demonstrates a significant resistance to any authority.   She exhibits a lack of candor about the few instances of police involvement in her life.   She was very guarded and defensive about anything that did not put her in the best light.   From her demeanor at trial and the other evidence, the court concludes that her ability to safeguard Jameer from unpredictable intrusions in his life by either of his parents is very much in doubt.   And if there were ever any questions raised about her conduct, the court finds that she would be an unreliable reporter of such events.   The court cannot credit that she would be candid about their occurrence and impact on Jameer.

(a) The Psychological Evaluations

While Dr. Freedman concluded that Karen B. could care for Jameer, even he, who is supportive of her efforts, believed that this would require gradually increased visits with DCF working with Karen to establish rules for any contact Jameer had with his parents.   He also recommended yet another round of parenting classes and live parent coaching before such a plan could be so recommended.

Dr. Humphrey, who saw her approximately one year ago, was less sanguine about such possibilities.   He was unable to fully evaluate her because of her anxiety and defensiveness.   Nonetheless, he stated that he was:

very concerned about her capacity to care for Jameer.   In part this is because of her extreme defensiveness on testing.   However I am also concerned about her history of troubled relationships and the possibility that the parents might have unsupervised access to Jameer while he was in her care.   Of all three relatives posed as caretakers, Ms. B. appears to have the most stability, but I am far from convinced that it would be in Jameer's best interest to be placed in her care at this time.8

From her own testimony and the court's observations as to credibility and demeanor, the court concurs with Dr. Humphrey's pessimistic conclusions and finds that, while Jameer exhibits a reasonable relationship with his grandmother, it is not in his best interests to be placed with her on a permanent basis.

Consideration of a motion to transfer guardianship generally requires the court to consider whether the proposed guardian is suitable and worthy and whether the proposed placement would be in the best interests of the child;  that is, whether such placement would foster the sustained growth, development and well-being of the child, as well as the continuity and stability of the child's environment.  General Statutes § 46b–129(j);  In re Haley B., 81 Conn.App. 62, 67, 838 A.2d 1006 (2004).   The court concludes from the evidence presented that the proposed guardian, Karen B., is not a suitable guardian for Jameer and that there remain serious doubt as to whether she could in all instances foster his sustained growth, wellbeing and provide him with the stability he requires.

4. The child, Jameer G.

Jameer is now five years and one-half years old and has been in foster care for more than half of his life.   When he came into care, he had significant developmental delays and medical issues.   He had and continues to have vision problems which require correction.   He has received services and has made great strides recovering from his developmental delays.   He now receives special education services.   He has a good relationship with his foster parents, who are caring and nurturing.   His foster mother is more serious and his foster father more playful, but both are well attuned to this child and his needs.   He has made great personal strides while in their care.

B. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

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

“The legal framework for deciding termination petitions is well established.   [A] hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases:  the adjudicatory phase and the dispositional phase.   During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must determine whether one or more of the ․ grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in § 17a–112[ (j)(3) ] exists by clear and convincing evidence ․ If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, then it proceeds to the dispositional phase.   During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child ․ The best interest determination also must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 163.  “Except in the case where termination is based on consent, in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall consider and shall make written findings regarding” the seven statutorily enumerated criteria.   See Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(k).

1. Reasonable Efforts

In order to terminate parental rights, DCF must initially show by clear and convincing evidence that it “has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and reunify the child with the parent ․ unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such a finding is not necessary if the court has determined at a hearing ․ that such efforts are not required ․” General Statutes § 17a–112(j)(1).   The court has reviewed the services provided to these parents and the repeated attempts to permit them to demonstrate that they had learned a sufficient amount to be able to care for their son.   The court finds, from the clear and convincing evidence that more than reasonable reunification efforts were made for these parents and neither Nicole nor Jacy are sufficiently rehabilitated to be able to care for Jameer in the reasonably foreseeable future, given his age and needs.

(a) Nicole G.

Jameer was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF most recently on June 15, 2011.   He has remained in care continuously since February of 2011.   The court further finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that as of the filing of the termination petition and since that time, Nicole had not achieved such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of her child, she could assume a responsible position in his life.  Connecticut General Statutes §§ 17a–112(j)(3)(B).  She has only been released from incarceration for a short period of time and her abstinence from drug use is of very short duration outside of that setting.   In the past while in the community, she has been unable to remain drug free.

The crux of this case is time.   Time and again Nicole has had the opportunity to be a responsible and nurturing parent to Jameer and time after time, she has been unable to sustain herself without drug use.   She would now need considerable time to establish herself in the community to show that she truly has forsaken drug use, that she can be compliant with her course of medication and counseling and demonstrate that she is capable of being a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for the child.   Jameer has already spent more than half of his life in foster care.   He cannot delay any longer his need for permanency any longer, as “long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development ․” (Citations omitted.)  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873, re-argument denied, 251 Conn. 924, 742 A.2d 634 (1999).   Furthermore, the court notes that “[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence” when resolving issues related to permanent or temporary care of neglected children.  In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992).

The court's primary concern is Jameer's stability and permanence as well as his sense of time.   See In re Katia M., 124 Conn. 650, 666–67, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 930, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010).   Jameer has done very well in his foster home where there are individuals who can meet his needs for nurturance, care and permanency.

(b) Jacy W.

The same ground is alleged against the child's father.   As to his failure to rehabilitate so that he could care for the child, the court finds from the clear and convincing evidence that Jacy has not rehabilitated.   He has not completed all necessary services, he has now been absent from his son's life for a considerable period of time and has not visited him for many months.   The court finds that the adjudicatory grounds alleged against both parents have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

2. Disposition

(a) The Seven Statutory Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of Nicole G. and Jacy W.'s parental rights have been proven.  “․ [B]efore making a decision whether or not to terminate parental rights, “the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in Connecticut General Statutes § 17a–112(k).”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Devon W., 124 Conn.App. 631, 648, 6 A.3d 100 (2010);  In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 835, 863 A.2d 72, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 403 (2005);  In re Vanna A., 83 Conn.App. 17, 26, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004).

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

As set forth above, the court finds that DCF offered timely, appropriate and reasonable services to both parents.

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

As noted above, DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify both of the parents with their son.

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

The court finds that specific steps were ordered for both parents through which DCF offered them timely, appropriate and reasonable services.   Although Nicole was cooperative with the steps, it is not in Jameer's best interest to be returned to her care.   In Jacy W.'s case he has not complied with the steps necessary to have the child returned to him.

(4) “The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the parents, any guardians of his person and any person who has exercised physical care custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.”

Jameer has resided with non-relative foster parents for two years.   He has done well there, and appears to have recovered from his developmental delays.   He has had regular visitation with his mother and his paternal grandmother and has been observed to have a good relationship with them.

(5) “The Age of the child.”

Jameer is five years old.   He was born on June 17, 2008.

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

As set forth above, Nicole has made such efforts, including regularly attending supervised visitation.   Her efforts have been inadequate to rehabilitate her as a parent.   While Jacy W. initially made such efforts, he has not done so in more than a year and has not visited for a lengthy period of time.   It is not in his son's best interest to be returned to his father's care.

(7) “The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship 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.”

There has not been any such conduct that has prevented the maintenance of a meaningful relationship between either parent and the child, nor have economic circumstances stood in the way of development of a meaningful relationship.

3. Best Interests of the Child

The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.   See In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992), “Our statutes and case law make it crystal clear that the determination of the child's best interest comes into play only after statutory grounds for termination of parental rights have been established by clear and convincing evidence.”

In every termination case, the state has an interest in safeguarding the welfare of children which must be weighed against the constitutionally protected right of parents to maintain their connection and relationship to their children.  “The desire and right of a parent to maintain a familial relationship with a child cannot be separated from the desire and best interest of a child either to maintain or to abandon that relationship, or the interest of the state in safeguarding the welfare of children.   These legitimate interests of parent, child and require a balancing of the factors involved in those interests.   In every case involving parental rights, a struggle exists between parents and the state to determine what is in the child's best interest, the child being the focus of the struggle.”  (Internal quotations marks omitted).  In re Shaquanna M., 61 Conn.App. 598–99, 767 A.2d 155 (2001).   In this case, Jameer's interests in a safe and stable environment outweigh his parents' right to his society.

In considering whether it is in Jameer's best interest to terminate his parents' rights, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his environment;  his length of stay in foster care;  the nature of his relationship with his biological parents;  the degree and quality of contact maintained with his biological parents;  and his genetic bond to his extended family.

Dr. Freedman testified eloquently about the importance of familial ties and how the severance of such ties can often contribute to feelings of loss and worthlessness that surface in adopted children years in the future.   Nonetheless, he concluded that severance of these ties would not be traumatic for Jameer, but that there would be some emotional distress.   He noted that, based on Dr. Humphrey's report, whose opinion he valued, there existed a solid connection with his foster parents that would buffer some of those difficulties.

The court has also balanced this child's crucial need for safety, emotional stability, validation, consistency and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with his biological parents.   See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).   After such scrutiny, and after considering the child's age, and the totality of circumstances, the court concludes from the clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parents' rights to him is in his best interests.

From all of the evidence, court finds that termination is in Jameer's best interest.   It is time he has permanency and a secure and safe placement so that he can grow and mature to become a productive child and adult.   He has waited a long time for such an outcome.   Neither of his parents is able to provide such stability and care for him.   His mother is only newly released from incarceration and has some significant drug dependency issues and mental health difficulties.   His father also is not available to care for him.

ORDERS

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the parental rights of Nicole G. and Jacy W. to Jameer G. are terminated.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child.   The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of this child as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.   Judgment may enter accordingly.

BY THE COURT

Barbara M. Quinn, Superior Court Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN2. See Petitioner's exhibit *..  FN2. See Petitioner's exhibit *.

FN3. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 41..  FN3. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 41.

FN4. Id., page 41..  FN4. Id., page 41.

FN5. Respondent's Exhibit G, p.26..  FN5. Respondent's Exhibit G, p.26.

FN6. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, p. 41..  FN6. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, p. 41.

FN7. Respondent's Exhibit D, Dr. Freedman's psychological report, page 7..  FN7. Respondent's Exhibit D, Dr. Freedman's psychological report, page 7.

FN8. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 42..  FN8. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, page 42.

Quinn, Barbara M., J.