IN RE: Wyatt M. (5/20/2012) 1 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On July 30, 2013, Joette Katz, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Melissa M. and Dana L. to their child, Wyatt M. The parents have appeared.   The mother is represented by counsel.   The child is represented by counsel.   The father appeared without counsel.   He acknowledges having been advised of his rights and understanding that he had the right to apply for appointed counsel.   He understood throughout the proceeding his right to examine witnesses and his right to testify if he wished.   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of this child.   This court has jurisdiction.

On January 14, 2014, the biological parents appeared for a contested hearing.   The court heard testimony from various witnesses including the respondent-mother, hereinafter referred to as Melissa, the court appointed psychologist, Melissa's current probation officer and the DCF social worker.   The court reviewed the many documents entered in to evidence (Exhibits A through AA).   After considering the testimony and documentary evidence presented and having the opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor on the stand, and evaluate their testimony with all other testimony and the documentary evidence, the court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence.

Melissa

The respondent is soon to be twenty-four years old.   She is the youngest of four children born to different fathers.   Her family of origin was dysfunctional to the extreme.   Melissa never had a chance.   No intervention at any level by any provider, therapist, counselor or agency over the past ten years, was ever able to effectively remediate the monumental dysfunction that is Melissa's life.

Melissa's mother was under scrutiny by DCF for nine years prior to the birth of Melissa, reflecting among other things, neglect of Melissa's older siblings.   Melissa was born in 1990.   DCF had twenty-five separate investigations of this family between 1979 and 2003.   The child protective services were concerned with reports of inadequate supervision, alcohol and drug abuse, exposure to her mother's numerous boyfriends whom DCF consider inappropriate individuals and caretakers, unsanitary and unsafe home conditions, and failure to meet the children's educational and medical needs.   Additionally, there were issues of possible sexual abuse of Melissa's older sister by a father of one of the sisters.   Melissa's own father was domestically violent, frequently incarcerated and possessed of an extensive history of alcohol and substance abuse.   Melissa thinks he was in jail for 90% of her early life.

Melissa reports she hated school.   She says she was ostracized by her peers and picked on because “people didn't understand me.”   Her problems in school were magnified when she came into DCF care, by her frequent moves in placement.   She eventually became frustrated at having to continually repeat the ninth grade and she quit school.   She reports she got a high school diploma through an alternative high school program (not confirmed).

In 2002, when Melissa was twelve, DCF filed neglect petitions due to the family's chronic homelessness, unsafe and unsanitary living conditions, the substance abuse of her mother and the failure to attend to Melissa's, then identified, mental health needs.  “Of particular concern, were several reports stating [Melissa] was forced to beg for food from local restaurants as well as beg for money for clothing.”  (Exhibit A p. 4.)

On April 9, 2002, Melissa was in DCF care overnight since her mother failed to pick her up at school and authorities were unable to find her mother.   On August 2, 2002 Melissa and her older sister were committed to DCF. Thus began a tortured path through foster homes, safe houses, juvenile detention centers, children's shelters and group homes.  (See particularly the itemized accounts in Exhibit A pp 4–10.)   These various placements included a psychiatric evaluation at Riverview Hospital due to Melissa's out of control behaviors.   The hospital recommended that Melissa be placed in a locked facility.

While in the care of the Department, Melissa was diagnosed with the following:  Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) combined type, Adjustment Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Bipolar Disorder.   She has been prescribed several different psychotropic medications to include Concerta, Zoloft, Risperdal, Strattera, Topamax, Trilpetal, Abilify and Depakote.   She participated in a plethora of services to include the Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP) and Extended Day at Joshua Center, individual counseling at United Services, Positive Steps as well as intensive services provided by her multiple placements.   According to Melissa, the above mentioned services were not beneficial and did not help her cope with the stressors of being in out of home placements.  (Ex. A p. 10.)

Melissa could not be contained.   She was assaultive and ran, escaped, fled or eloped from all her placements.   For over five years this pattern of uncontrolled behavior and flight continued.   In February 2007, she fled to Ohio. In March, she was taken into custody as a homeless person in Kentucky.   A judge sent her to a foster home from which she absconded.   She was taken into custody again and confined until DCF could escort her by air back to Connecticut.   When they arrived at the Connecticut airport Melissa was taken in to custody on an outstanding probation violation.   In May 2007, her mother resumed guardianship of Melissa.   Neither DCF nor any service providers were able to bring Melissa into the realm of acceptable behavior.

Melissa blamed DCF for all her problems including her mental health problems.   According to Melissa all her mental health issues went away after she was released from care of the Department.   She discontinued medication, counseling and all services in 2007.

Melissa drifted around eastern Connecticut living mostly with her mother or with friends.   She admits to daily use of marijuana and tobacco.   In February 2007, while briefly held in custody, she demonstrated her contempt for authority by impeding an order of a corrections officer.   She received punishment including punitive segregation, loss of privileges for visits and for telephone.  (Ex. J.) She was arrested in 2008 for assault and sentenced to 90 days in jail.   While in jail she was again placed in punitive segregation with loss of privileges.   In 2009, she pled guilty to shop lifting charges.   In 2010 she was arrested on motor vehicle charges.   In 2013, last year, she had four arrests which will be later described.

Her employment history is almost non-existent.   The only job she described to DCF was working in a carnival at the 2011 week-long Woodstock Fair. In an effort to gain employment skills she was enrolled in a program known as CTWorks.   Melissa reports that the services provided were not helpful.   She describes this period of her life as spiraling out of control.   After her separation from her prior boyfriend, she was selling drugs.   She met Dana L., one evening in 2011, in a local bar.   She described her relationship as nothing more than “being friends with benefits.”   As a consequence of these “benefits,” Melissa became pregnant.   Dana wanted her to have an abortion.   Melissa made the decision to maintain her pregnancy.   She gave birth to a son, Wyatt, on May 20, 2012.   The hospital staff was alarmed by Melissa's conduct, the positive toxicology report, and her untreated mental health issues.

Excerpt from Social Worker affidavit

On May 22, 2012, the Department became involved with this family after a referral was received from Day Kimball Hospital after Melissa gave birth to Wyatt.   Melissa and Wyatt tested positive for marijuana.   Melissa admitted to nursing staff her last use of marijuana was a week prior to Wyatt's birth.   Furthermore, hospital nursing staff was concerned about Melissa's behaviors, comments, parenting, and unrealistic expectations of Wyatt as she was talking to him like he were older and able to understand what she was saying to him.   Melissa was observed to pull Wyatt's hands out of his mouth when he attempted to self soothe, propped his bottle, threw a paper across the room, hitting Wyatt in the process and then made reference to it being his fault, as he moved and spoke to him in a harsh manner.   The referral also indicated Melissa has a history of mental health issues (bi-polar disorder and panic attacks), she lived with maternal grandmother who has a history of abusing crack cocaine and Melissa intended to discharge Wyatt and return to maternal grandmother's home.

On May 22, 2012, Intake Social Worker R. met with Melissa at Day Kimball Hospital who presented as agitated, volatile and minimized her substance use.   In addition, Melissa presented with poor judgment and possible intellectual limitations.   During this meeting at the hospital, Melissa needed to be told several times to lower her voice as she was startling Wyatt and potentially interrupting other patients on the unit.   In addition, Meg C., Social Worker at Day Kimball Hospital interrupted the meeting as Melissa's voice could be heard in the hallway.

Melissa stated she was not planning or prepared to have a baby and that she initially didn't want him.   Melissa acknowledged smoking marijuana for the majority of her pregnancy and minimized this use, stating she was often sick and could not eat and/or sleep and the marijuana use eased these ailments.   Melissa did not say she had intentions of stopping this use and she appeared more concerned for her own needs and could not focus on the potential impact to her unborn child.  (Exhibit B.)

As will be further reported, in an effort to understand the magnitude of Melissa's problems and to be able to offer appropriate services to Melissa, a court ordered psychological evaluation was ordered.   One aspect of that report was significant in that it related to Melissa's understanding of the birth and delivery of Wyatt.

Petitioner's Exhibit E—Psych Eval, Dr. Ciaramelia 12/05/13

․ Mother also reportedly disclosed to the Department that her placenta was “black” as quoted within the documentation at the time of Wyatt's birth due to how much she smoked marijuana during her pregnancy.   For this evaluation mother also reported to this writer that she smoked cigarettes daily during her pregnancy adding to her explanation as to why her placenta was noted to be black.   Additional issues noted within the documentation included unresolved mental health issues, anger management, substance abuse, poor parenting, inappropriate housing and lack of income.

At the hospital prior to discharge, DCF and Melissa agreed upon a safety plan that Melissa and the child would not live with the maternal grandmother.   They were to reside with Melissa's older sister Jessica.   The sister agreed to supervise all contact between Melissa and the infant.   That did not last long before the sisters got into an altercation and Melissa was told to leave by her sister.

On June 14, 2012, Melissa admitted becoming frustrated with Wyatt when he was inconsolable after she changed him, fed him, and burped him and still he would not fall asleep.   She also acknowledged a verbal altercation occurred between her and [her sister] in the presence of Wyatt.   As a result of Melissa's inability to identify another appropriate living arrangement coupled with her unrealistic expectations with regard to the care of her infant son, and history of unresolved mental health issues the Department invoked an administrative hold on behalf of Wyatt.   Wyatt was placed in a non-relative foster home on the above referenced date.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A.)

So Melissa had the child with her for less than a month.   Wyatt has been in the same pre-adoptive, legal risk foster home since June 14, 2012, five hundred and eighty days;  nineteen out of the twenty months of Wyatt's life.   He is fully bonded in his foster family.

Almost immediately following removal, DCF began making referrals to appropriate agencies.   Melissa began counseling at Community Health Resources in Danielson.   Her initial appointment was on June 25, 2012.   The discharge summary stated:  “The client was initially attending weekly individual sessions, then began weekly Women's Early Recovery Group therapy.   She provided urine screens that were intermittently positive for THC. Her attendance had been erratic.   She attended a psychiatric evaluation with the APRN and then did not follow up with the medication management as well as subsequent appointments.”   She was discharged on June 25, 2013.  (Exhibit X.)

Her psychiatric evaluation on January 15, 2013 (Exhibit U) is a comprehensive evaluation of her psychiatric symptoms and her self-reported social history.   Curiously, when asked what her chief complaint was she said, “DCF thinks I have anger issues.”   The evaluation included a plan for medication management.   The therapist reported “a considerable amount of time was spent discussing medication options with the client ․” she was prescribed Vistaril 25 to 50 mg up to twice a day for anxiety.   They were to meet again in three weeks for further discussion and a complete metabolic panel (blood testing) was ordered to determine functioning of various organs.   Melissa never returned to the clinic.

Melissa was sent to Project S.A.F.E. for alcohol and drug screening.   As with many of her other providers, Melissa often denied on-going marijuana use.   Her drug screens at Project SAFE, if they were not so important, might be considered comical.   On her first visit June 25, 2012, she signed the first of many “Client Self Reports.”   The client is to check a box whether she did or did not recently use any alcohol or drugs.   She is required to sign and date the form.   On her first self report she admitted having recently used alcohol and marijuana.   However, on July 11, July 19, July 25, August 8, and on August 30, 2012 her last visit, for each of those visits Melissa checked the box “Not used any alcohol or drugs.”   She signed the form and dated it.   On each of those visits she tested positive for marijuana.  (Exhibits S and T.)

This past year, Melissa has been arrested four times.   May 25, 2013, for interfering with an emergency call, breach of peace and assault.   On October 8, 2013, she was arrested for reckless burning, criminal mischief, breach of peace and failure to appear on her prior charges.   On October 23, 2013, two counts of disorderly conduct and on November 17, 2013, another breach of peace.   While some of these charges seem relatively benign, they demonstrate a pattern of out of control behaviors that have continued up to the date of trial.   In one episode, Melissa provokes a fight with complete strangers:

Petitioner's Exhibit N—Putnam Police Dept. Report

On 10/19/13 at Sam's Sunoco, for a report of a disturbance.   Mr. P., Jr. identified himself as a witness /individual who broke up the altercation between his wife and Melissa.

According to [Mr. and Mrs. P.], they had pulled into the parking lot of the gas station and a female, identified as Melissa, walked out in front of their vehicle.   They stopped and Mr. P. waved her by and she went into the store, he then parked the vehicle and they went into the gas station.   Once inside, Melissa reportedly made comments to Mr. and Mrs. P. including calling Mr. P. an ass—and Mrs. P. a c–––t.   Mrs. P. stated that she and Melissa ended up outside and Melissa continued swearing at her then got within about a foot of Mrs. P.'s face.   Mrs. P. said that she did put her hand up and pushed Melissa back and said to get away from her.   Melissa then started “swinging” at Mrs. P. Mrs. P. reported that they ended up on the ground and her husband separated them.   According to Mrs. P., she put her hand up and pushed Melissa back because she thought Melissa was going to “swing” at her.   It should be noted that Mrs. P. and Melissa are strangers.

I spoke with Melissa who was not very forthcoming about the incident.   She acknowledged that she had been in a fight however said that she didn't do anything wrong.   She stated that she didn't want to talk to police any further as she did not want to incriminate herself.   It should be noted that I have had prior interactions with Melissa, and on this occasion, I observed that she appeared to be under the influence.   Her eyes were partially closed and her speech was delayed and slurred.   I did not observe Melissa to have any physical injuries and she did not disclose any injuries to me.

Another far more concerning episode concerned Melissa going to the house of her latest ex-boyfriend, getting hysterical, screaming, beating on the house and then setting her ex-boyfriend's clothes on fire near the house.

Petitioner's Exhibit M—Arraignment Reports & Affidavit, Excerpts

Date & Time of Arrest:  10/8/13 at 1957 Place of Arrest:  Putnam, CT

Name of Accused:  Melissa M. D.O.B:  2/15/* * * *

Charges:  53a–114 Reckless Burning

53a–117 Criminal Mischief 3rd Degree

53a–181 Breach of Peace

We spoke with the witnesses separately.   Witness 1 provided a sworn written statement in which he stated among other things that sometime in the hour before we had arrived, he had been behind his building and heard a female yelling around the front of the house.   He went to the front to see what was going on and saw a female he recognized as Melissa.   He said Melissa was yelling about wanting to get her stuff from the victim's apartment.   Witness 1 stated that the victim was not home, however witness 2 was there and would not let Melissa into the apartment.   Witness 1 stated that Melissa had a shopping bag of clothes that she dumped out on the ground near the residence then lit on fire.   Witness 1 described the clothing to be about 1 foot from the building when she lit them on fire.

Statement of Tyler F. (Melissa's ex-boyfriend)

I guess Melissa tried knocking on my door but I was not home.   James said she put my clothes next to my house and lit them on fire.   James said he told Melissa to put that out because he had a new born upstairs.   James said Melissa said that she was not putting it out, she doesn't give a f* * * *, and she was going to punch him face.

James said everyone within a half a block heard it.   James said she was loud and trying to set my house on fire.   I had some clothing at her house that included a black Carhart jacket, a brown/tan Carhart jacket, a pair of plaid boxers, socks, and t-shirts.   We dated for about three weeks to a month tops.   We broke up last Wednesday.   I haven't seen her or heard from her since tonight.   She texted me today at about 6:30 PM saying that she was coming over my house to get her stuff.   I was over my parents in east Putnam.   James told me that Melissa said she was coming back over to my apartment tonight and was going to break the windows and set the house on fire.

․ [Facebook for Melissa I found two relevant Facebook status updates that state the following:

This is going to be fun going to my ex to get my s* * * that I been asking for and to drop off his crap and he better give me my stuff or I'm going bug out.

I am that girl you need to be worried about you want to see how far you can push me or my anger.   I hate you.   You're a scum bag that is all you will never be.

Melissa told the psychiatric evaluator that she had spent about three years in jail.   Her most recent incarceration began on November 18, 2013, when she was detained relative her new arrests including her failure to appear in court charges.   She remained in jail until December 10, 2013 when she pled guilty to interfering with an emergency call, reckless endangerment (substituted for reckless burning) and a breach of the peace charge.   She received a two and a half year effective sentence, fully suspended, and was placed on probation for two years.   She was scheduled to appear at the office of her probation officer on December 26, 2013, for initial evaluation and to schedule mental health treatment as required as a condition of her probation.

Her probation officer testified on January 14, 2014.   The probation officer reschedule appointments due to Melissa's failure to come on December 26, January 3, January 10, and January 13, 2014.   She did not make any of her scheduled appointments.   Melissa has two and a half years of suspended jail time and she hasn't kept one appointment with her probation officer.   There is always a reason why she didn't attend.   During her testimony she effectively blamed the probation officer for the missed visits.

Melissa testified at the trial.   Her testimony was pressured, rapid, agitated and whenever she wished emphasis, it was extremely loud.   She accepted no personal responsibility for the removal of the child:  “DCF hasn't helped with anything.”   Very loudly;  “It was only marijuana in his blood.”   And later, “My anger was not that bad until this last year.”  “Yes, I understand I got arrested.   I never should have been arrested.” the implication that the police were to blame.   She blames her probation officer for her missed visits saying “I called (speaking very, very loudly) she wasn't even in the office!”   She has no transportation, no employment and continues to live with her mother.   She is in complete denial and does not accept responsibility for her actions.

The psychologist was asked about Melissa's understanding of Wyatt's needs.

Does mother have a good understanding of the child's needs and the capacity to meet them?  If not, what types of services would be recommended?

No. It does not appear that mother has a good understanding of her son's needs.   As aforementioned, she has denied her mental health and substance abuse issues, denied her own mother's inadequate parenting to the degree that she can accept how it has affected her life (meaning she can give it lip service but nothing more), does not believe that her marijuana use during pregnancy with Wyatt was at all of consequence to her son, has failed to recognize that her substance dependence can influence her parenting and judgment and does not truly believe that treatment is of value to her and that once DCF is out of her life her issues will simply disappear.   Naturally, without admission for some of these issues it stands to reason that clinically, Melissa will not progress as needed in order to ensure that she is improving in sound mind and decision making as well as achieving mood regulation modulation and anger management skills.

Thus, it does not appear that Melissa can gain the insight, skills, and tolerance she needs to meet her son's needs based on the aforementioned issues highlighted and outlined.   This is not to say that she does not love her son and desire to care for him;  it is evident she does.   The concentration, however, appears to be on Melissa's inability for the reason outlined above to care for Wyatt in an aware, thoughtful, consistent, reliable and safe manner.

Dana L.

Mr. L. (hereinafter referred to as Dana) is twenty-three years of age.   He is the only child of his mother and his father, although he has two maternal half-sisters, one paternal half-sister and one paternal step-sister.

His parents separated at age 2 or 3, the mother re-married an abusive husband.   They separated.   Dana does not have any recollection of his father as a parent and has no interest in developing a relationship with him.

Dana's mother worked various jobs to support the family.   They frequently moved living in Putnam, Eastford, Killingly, Brooklyn and Plainfield.   As a consequence Dana did not do well in school.   He was a special education student.   He says he did not participate in class or in extra-curricular activities.   He had no interest in academic success and dropped out of school in the 9th grade.   He reports he obtained a general equivalency degree (GED) while in prison.

At age 18, Dana was convicted of felony burglary and larceny charges which Dana reports involved the theft of a gun.   His controlling conviction resulted in a 5 year jail sentence, suspended after one year and five years of probation.   He reports to receiving his GED and after release resumed living with his mother.

Dana's Department of Correction record (Exhibit K) indicates that Dana entered prison on June 9, 1999, and was transferred to transitional supervision on December 22, 1999.   While still in transitional status on March 4, 2000, Dana was arrested for robbery 1, assault 2, and kidnaping 1. Dana says he was accused of using a bat in the assault and admits he was drinking at the time.   The charges were reduced to robbery 2, assault 2, and unlawful restraint for which Dana was convicted on April 3, 2001.   His total effective sentence, including concurrent sentences, was for 10 years in jail, 4 years to serve and 5 years of probation.  (Exhibit I.) Dana was discharged from corrections on June 7, 2004.

Dana's most recent arrest was for operating under the influence on February 13, 2012.   He was convicted and sentenced to the minimum possible sentence of 6 months in jail, execution suspended after 48 hours, and 18 months probation with a $500 fine.   Despite two previous alcohol related charges, Mr. Landry denied issues with alcohol.   Prior to the Department's involvement in May 2012, Mr. Landry said he would “drink more” when he was unemployed.   He estimated he could consume twelve to fourteen Busch beers during the course of the day while he is fishing.   He did not feel this was an issue as he explained his body is able to metabolize one beer per hour.

Dana has had one serious relationship with a woman by the name of Ms. H. Dana has two children ages six and seven by this relationship.   The children are in care of the mother.   The parents were never married.

As Dana did not formally complete his education, has no technical training in any skill, and has a felony record, he has never held a job beyond entry level positions.   He worked for a forest products company which he eventually quit and returned from Putnam to live with his mother.   He lived off and on over four years with his one serious girlfriend.   They separated four years ago and Dana moved in to his sister's basement.   Dana says he lost two jobs where he was terminated because his girlfriend would call him at work and harass him.

Dana's most recent jobs from January 2012, to the summer of 2012, was terminated for lack of transportation.   It was during this time that he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.   Since June 2013, Dana has worked as a permanent, part-time employee of Frito–Lay corporation.   His adult probationary period ended on December 31, 2013.   While on probation he successfully completed a substance abuse program provided by New Perceptions and rehabilitation services provided by the Alternative Incarceration Center.

While Dana has been provided with Specific Steps to aid him in securing custody of his son, Dana has not manifested any serious interest in being a placement resource.   He has never had his own housing sufficient to care for an infant.   He has recently indicated to DCF his current housing is not permanent nor conducive to reunification.

Once paternity was confirmed in September 2012, Dana began supervised visits with the child.   As he appeared during the contested trial proceedings, Dana is a quiet and reserved individual, speaking at most in one word or very short sentences, only when directly addressed.   His verbal contact with the child, Wyatt, was similarly sparse.   Dana was encouraged to verbally communicate with Wyatt through conversation, stories and song.   Otherwise, Dana's interactions were age appropriate.

As with his other children, Dana is content to have others raise his children.   He has not ever asked to be considered a placement resource, he is not motivated to be a full-time caretaker, and is only marginally caring for himself.   Insufficient time has passed to effectively assess whether he can remain free of addictive and criminal behavior.   DCF observes that Dana has made some personal gains including securing a job and participating in services as directed by his probation officer.  “However, [Dana] does not appear to possess the commitment or desired required to raise a son.”  (Exhibit AA.) He has told DCF that he is not going to fight the court as he has “nothing to fight for.”

Wyatt

This child has been with the foster family virtually since birth.   He is, according to documents and testimony, completely bonded in the foster home.   He is well-adjusted and has developed a strong bond and attachment to the foster family.   The family consists of mother, father, four biological children and one adopted child.   Wyatt is developmentally appropriate, gaining physical and verbal skills.   He is in good health and his medical and dental needs are actively addressed.   He does not present with any social or emotional problems.

Grounds Alleged

The ground alleged against the parents is failure to rehabilitate C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).   This ground alleges in the petition that on March 18, 2012, the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, either of them could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   The factual determination for this court is whether the parents or either of them has achieved rehabilitation as contemplated under C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B), that is, rehabilitation sufficient to render them or either of them, able to care for Wyatt.

The court finds that the child has been in foster care for eighteen months.   The child's biological mother has certainly made no improvement in her mental health, parenting skills, impulse and anger control and her abuse of substances.   Indeed, she is probably in worse overall functioning than she was at birth.

While Dana has made some marginal improvement in his overall status, he is not motivated to parent.   No amount of available services can provide enthusiasm and motivation where there is none.   This child needs selfless dedication, twenty-four hours a day by highly motivated care-takers, who can keep a child safe, and meet the child's educational, emotional, medical and spiritual needs.

The court finds that neither of these parents can offer this kind of care to the child nor is it likely that giving them more time would bring them into parental compliance.   Accordingly, the court finds that the petitioner has met her burden of proof.

DISPOSITION

During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the children.   In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a–112(k) ].  The seven factors serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.   The court makes the following seven written findings:

(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the mother and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with respondent, the court finds that DCF offered services including parenting education, individual mental health counseling, anger management, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, visitation, transportation and psychological evaluations.   The court relies upon the findings above regarding parent's cooperation and benefit with the offered services.

(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts.   The court finds that appropriate services were provided or offered to Melissa, most of which she failed to complete, but whether offered, attended or completed, she did not benefit from services.

Dana was offered most of his services through the office of adult probation.   He has finished his incarceration and probation.   He has completed some appropriate services.   But for reasons stated herein, he has neither the motivation nor robust enthusiasm necessary to selflessly dedicate himself to raising Wyatt.

(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered as to both parents.   The degree of compliance has been previously discussed.

(4) As to 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 of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties, the court has previously addressed this issue.   There is affection and loyalty between the parents and Wyatt.   Melissa loves her son, as does Dana. That does not equate to parental competence.   While both parents have a visiting relationship with Wyatt, the child looks to his foster parents as his parents.   After all, they have raised him and he is firmly attached to them.

(5) As to the age of the child:  Wyatt was born on May 20, 2012.

(6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children 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;  this has been previously addressed.

(7) As to 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, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties.   Indeed, the foster family has allowed contact and communication beyond visitation and has indicated that they would consider continuing contact consistent with the child's best interests.

With respect to the best interests of the child contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Melissa M. and Dana L. is in the best interest of Wyatt.

In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and need for supportive, safe, structured stable and nurturing caretakers;  their need for permanency, the nature of the relationship with the prospective legal-risk foster family that is willing to provide them with long-term care;  the degree of contact maintained with the biological parents;  and the genetic bond to the parents.

It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Melissa M. and Dana L. to Wyatt are hereby 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 these children as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.

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

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 22nd day of January 2014.

Foley, J.T.R. # 479

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