IN RE: Matthew H.1 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Re Termination of Parental Rights

On October 4, 2013, Joette Katz, as she is the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a–112 et seq., to terminate the parental rights of Denise H. and David H. to their minor child, Matthew.   The mother and father have appeared and are represented by counsel.   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.²  This court has jurisdiction.   Matthew was born on August 31, 2001.   He is presently twelve years of age.   He was removed from his parents home three years ago in March 2011.

FACTS

The petition alleges that 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, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.  C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(I).   The file reflects a finding of neglect was made on May 26, 2010.

The court heard the testimony of thirteen witnesses including a DCF social worker, Dr. David Mantell an evaluating psychologist, a case manager for the mother, the child's therapist, the mother's therapist, the father's therapist, two visitation supervisors, a Reconnecting Families social worker, mother's supportive housing case worker, the parenting education services provider, the foster mother, a United Services case manager for the mother and the respondent-father of Matthew.   The mother did not testify and no adverse inferences are drawn.   Documents were entered into evidence including social studies, social worker affidavits, psychologists reports, signed specific steps (Exhibits E and F) and many reports from service providers (Exhibits A–CC, plus Respondent Father's Exhibit 1).

The court was able to closely observe the witnesses.   It is well settled that the trier of fact can disbelieve any or all of the evidence proffered and to determine the weight to be accorded any evidence received into evidence.   In this case the observations of the court are particularly critical.  “[A]lthough a judge [charged with determining whether termination of parental rights is in a child's best interest] is guided by legal principles, the ultimate decision [whether termination is justified] is intensely human.   It is the judge in the courtroom who looks the witnesses in the eye, interprets their body language, listens to the inflections in their voices and otherwise assesses the subtleties that are not conveyed in the cold transcript.”  In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42 (2006), In re Davonta, 285 Conn. 483, 497 (2008).   With respect to all findings regarding the termination of parental rights, these findings are made independently by the court by clear and convincing evidence based on all the documentary evidence and testimony presented.   Testimony commenced on February 18, 2014, and concluded on February 19th.

David H., The father

There are two principal sources of information on the parent's social history;  the Social Studies (Exhibits A & D) and the Psychological Assessment Report (Exhibit H).  The latter document contains a personal narration of the family of origin history of each parent from their perspective.   David told Dr. David Mantell, the court appointed psychologist his social history and he gave an account to the DCF social worker.   There are numerous parallels from his early childhood to his present situation.

David reports to being six feet tall and weighing 225 pounds.   He will be fifty years of age at his next birthday.   He reports problems in his early home life due to his father not being home.  “He drank and smoked most of his life and was a very muscular, overweight man and a truck driver.”  (Ex. H.) David believes he was neglected by his parents.   He reports his father was an alcoholic.   He has two older sibling and one younger sister, five years his junior, Laurie, who is mentally retarded according to David.   He said he graduated from high school and has one year of postgraduate study as an auto technician.

“[Father] reports that he began consuming alcohol at 14 years of age and smoking cigarettes and marijuana, using hash and pills and cocaine a couple of times as well as other substances that his friends gave to him.   His brother, Paul, was at VITAM and sister, Ellen, in Meriden.   His mother was working all day, and by the time he was 12 or 13 years of age, he was bathing and dressing his sister;  doing Hartford Courant route;  would get his sister, Laurie, and himself to school;  do the afternoon route;  care for Laurie;  and do his homework.   He would cook supper for his mother, clean the kitchen, get his sister showered and into bed, and then he had about 1/2 hour of free time.   By high school, he wanted an escape, and he got into drugs and alcohol and into cars.   He reports that at 17 years of age “I was brought to the hospital and pronounced dead from drug-induced seizure.”   He stopped doing drugs at 17 years of age, stopped smoking at 24 years of age, and at 25 years of age, he was told he would lose a lung.   He rejuvenated his lung, however, and at 26 or 27 years of age, at a New Year's Eve party, while exhausted, he had a few drinks and turned his car and was pronounced dead.   His shoulder bone had gone through his skin;  his ribs were broken;  and he had head injuries.   The doctor “told my mother your son is dead.”   After 1 1/2 days, he came out of it and woke up 2 weeks later.   He became a born-again Christian.”  (Ex. H.)

David reports two marriages both ending in divorce.   He reports to having three children by two mothers.   Between his marriages David had a relationship with a woman named Kim for 8 to 10 months.  “Her pastor sent her to Missouri to have their baby, which was immediately put up for adoption”.   His third relationship was with [Denise], and he said he prayed to God to bring someone into his life and saw a singles ad of a single mom and son, which he answered.

In 1996, prior to his involvement with Denise, David had testicular cancer which was remediated through surgery and chemotherapy.   He reports to a later spread of cancer which was treated by chemotherapy.   This is now in remission.  “He has some nerve and muscle damage from treatments, which have left him with some limitations.   When Denise became pregnant with Matthew and Rachael, he said the doctors asked him if he was sure whether the children are his.   He said he has wondered whether the children are his.”  (Ex H, p. 16.)

David has worked for more than ten years as a bus driver for a local school bus enterprise.   He is, by his own analysis, an invaluable employee who can cover all of the routes.   He has little control over his work schedule according to him and frequently works ten to twelve hour days.   His workday begins at 4:30 a.m. and he often works until 6:00 p.m. or later.   His priority of work over family has caused him considerable conflict and, ultimately, unhappiness.

Denise H., the Mother

Denise is currently forty-eight years of age.   She has, according to Dr. Mantell, “a strong history of ineffectuality, submissiveness, and dependency.”   She describes her history as a child as difficult and disruptive.   Her father was an alcoholic and her mother physically and verbally abused her and her siblings.   Denise went to the Holy Family Academy in Baltic, CT., which she disliked and where she did not have many friends.   She has never held a job due to her many mental health issues, which shall be later described.   She receives disability insurance of $1,124 per month.   She describes her goals as, to lose weight and get her driver's license.   Neither of those goals has she met.

She has hospitalizations dating back to 1994 at the Institute of Living for depression.   She has since been hospitalized at Johnson and Memorial Hospital, Day Kimball Hospital and Natchaug Hospital twice for depression and suicidal ideations.

As will be reported, she has been in almost constant counseling throughout her adult life to limited benefit.   Her diagnosis are major depressive disorder, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.   Her most long-standing therapist believes that Denise also carries a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.

When Denise was twenty-five years old she gave birth to a child, Ryan. She did not provide DCF with the name of the father but did disclose a name to Dr. Mantell.   The child had some physical anomalies at birth which required surgical repair.   In an operation on the child's heart at age two, apparently a mistake in the nature of malpractice (a stroke) occurred which resulted in the child becoming profoundly handicapped, requiring tube-feeding and constant care.   He is diagnosed with cerebral palsy causing him to be wheel-chair bound, incontinent and non-verbal.   The amount of physical care that Denise has devoted to provide care for this child can only be imagined.   The child is now twenty-two years old and within the past two years has been placed in a Department of Developmental Services facility.

When Ryan was about four years old, Denise placed an ad in a Christian paper seeking companionship.   She was living with her mother and Ryan. David answered the newspaper ad, and apparently due to his skill at caring for his retarded sister, he was able to get along with Ryan. Denise and David were married in September 2000.

Denise answered questions from Dr. Mantell regarding her health and habits:

[Mother] says she is 5'3” and weighs 198 pounds.   She takes medication for blood pressure, acid reflux, vitamin C, iron pills and Lexapro ․ She made a suicide attempt in 1996–97 ․ and a second one when married to [father] 6 or 7 years ago because she was overwhelmed and anxious.   The second time [father] had been yelling at her for the whole week and putting her down.   She has been hospitalized 3 times for depression and anxiety, in her early 20s and 30s ․ due to [father's] criticism and his putting her down.   She walked on eggshells in the marriage because his moods were always changing.   She says this was a cry for help ․ She remembered that her mother yelled all the time ․ her father used to say that she would never amount to anything ․ Asked if she had been physically or sexually assaulted as a teenager or as an adult, she said that Ryan's biological father date-raped her when she was 25 years of age.   She said she has also been assaulted by David who grabbed her wrists and cornered her into the fridge.   She said his moods change.   During sex he was nice but distant and cold afterwards.

It is rare for the court to get an intimate internal analysis into the inner-workings and dysfunction of a family.   In this case, DCF has been involved with Denise and her family for decades.   Prior to the removal of the children, based upon alarming school reports, DCF began more aggressive treatment of the family.  “The mother reported that DCF first became involved with the family in 2002 or 2003 ․ that the children were dirty and messy.   Within 8 to 12 months, DCF opened an extended case ․ Providers said he (Matthew) would show up with black-and-blue marks and bruises ․ Rachael had marks on 1 or 2 occasions ․ Camp Horizons was caring for Ryan, “a total-care child,” who was in a wheelchair and totally disabled ․ He (father) reported that he left home at 3:15 a.m. and was not home until 10:30 p.m.”

The family had already been in various counseling modalities.   DCF engaged perhaps their premier, in-home service provider, United Services, Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) services to aid this family.   DCF hoped to provide the service in order to prevent a disruption to the family.   These IFP services began in April 2010, and were terminated in October 2010.  (Petitioner's Exhibit K.) The IFP termination summary provides that glimpse into the family and the level of dysfunction.

The purpose of this termination summary is to provide an overview of the work undertaken by the [H.] family with the Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) Program during the time frame specified above.

The [H.] family consists of mother Denise, father David, son Ryan, son Matthew, and daughter Rachael.   Ryan's biological father is unknown.   The family currently resides in a three bedroom home in Storrs, Connecticut.   The condition of their home has been a primary concern of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for some time now.   There is also concern regarding the lack of communication between parents, and lack of consistency with children.   Father is currently employed part-time.   Mother receives SSDI income.

The [H.] family has been involved with DCF since 1994 with numerous investigations and two substantiations due to lack of supervision of the younger children.   Since 1994 numerous referrals have been made to the department, many coming from the in home service provider that provides care for Ryan. His issues and the ongoing conflictual relationship between the family and those responsible for his finances and physical care will not be addressed in this report.

This family presents with some strengths and many challenges.   Their strengths include their love for their children.   Father is employed.   They own their own car and are able to pay the rent for their housing.   They want to learn better ways to communicate and have met consistently with this IFP counselor on a weekly basis.   They have also both continued with their own individual therapists during this time.   Despite these efforts, mother struggles with decision making and finds it difficult to focus on one topic at a time.   Father's anger and resentment is palpable.   One can see him beginning to escalate, in which case he will leave the room or house, to recompose himself.

The goals identified by the family and IFP during this time together were the following:

Goal # 1 Better communication among family members.

Goal # 2 Increase positive family interactions.

Goal # 3 Develop household management plan.

Goal # 4 Mother to obtain driver's license.

Both parents agreed to participate in IFP services, as both agreed that they needed help to better their communication within the family.   DCF had great concern about the lack of communication, and lack of cleanliness in the home.   Mother stated that she needed help with her household chores.   Father stated that he was helping out as much as he could around his work schedule.   This IFP counselor used daily goals as a way to begin to address this.   Daily chores were discussed and a list was made for mother, in order that she have a visible prompt to assist her.   Nothing appeared to change.   When asked where the daily list was, she wasn't sure what had happened to it.   Thinking that daily chores were too much, weekly goals were set.   Two goals for each adult were agreed upon, to be accomplished in a week's time.   Again, goals were not accomplished by either parent.  (Emphasis added.)

This counselor soon realized that it wasn't household clutter that was the problem;  it was lack of communication that had the greatest impact upon this family.   Holding a family meeting on a weekly basis was tried.   Everyone was involved.   The family learned to take turns while speaking, to hear everyone's thoughts and begin to discuss family topics, such as household rules, chores, and weekend activities.   When parents began to complain and blame one another during this time, the children would lose interest and leave the table.   IFP counselor suggested they begin meeting once a week to discuss relationship issues without the children present.   During our adult sessions both parents had to be reminded to let the other speak so they both could have the opportunity to present their feelings.   Father would persistently discuss his concern regarding his wife's inability to supervise their children.   He also complained about her inability to keep up with the laundry and described how he would try and help out prior to and after his work day.   Mother blamed her inability to keep up with the house on her lack of time at home.   She frequently, stated she, had so many appointments to attend to, she was never home.

When mother met with this counselor alone, quite often on the way to appointments, she would describe her husband's volatile temper.   She described his verbal assaults, which appeared to leave her immobilized and emotionally fragile.   When this counselor asked if he spoke this way with the children present she stated that he does, despite her attempts to let him know it is unacceptable.   Mother described her home as being one in which she walks on egg shells, always on alert for her husband's mood.   When this counselor continued to address why she couldn't work on household chores she described not being comfortable in her own home and feeling anxious while at home.   Despite not having a driver's license, she managed to use all resources available to get away from home as much as possible.

She spoke of his undermining her demands of the children, and belittling her efforts in front of them.   The lack of respect shown between these parents has been the learned lesson of their children.  (Emphasis added.)

Mother's ability to supervise her children and have them respond to her demands is directly tied to the demeaning way in which she is treated by the adults around her.   Mother also has a passive personality and dislikes confrontation.   When her children back talk or turn away upon hearing her directives she doesn't follow through.   She often, lets them go, and then complains about them to whomever will listen.   Despite repeatedly discussing the importance of consistency and the needed effort and energy to see positive changes in their behavior, her willingness to give in overtakes her.

During this intervention the impact that their communication style, or lack thereof, has had on their children has been addressed.   The physical, emotional and psychological symptoms that have occurred in these two children are obvious.   Both of these children began counseling recently (Sept 2010).   There is current concern about the ongoing admissions by Rachel that her brother is exposing himself to her during the night.   When this was discussed with both parents, they each had ideas as to who in the past might have molested their son Matthew.   The fact that these ideas existed without having been shared with professionals shows the lack of insight these parents have regarding insuring their children's well-being and safety.   Both of the children have been crying out, through their actions, for intervention.   Just prior to our service both children left home, with mother unaware, and were returned by local police.

The family has lived in this chaotic, emotionally destructive environment for years now and it has become their “normal”.   At the close of this intervention mother had asked her husband to move out so she could focus on her own needs and reassess their marriage.   The choice to remain a couple or not is their own.   The decision to allow these children to continue to grow in this toxic environment has become a decision to be considered by the state.   IFP cannot recommend that it remain unchanged and knows of no service able to effectively mitigate the safety concerns present in this family.

This alarming report was written in October 2010.   It was six more months, on March 31, 2011, when the children were removed.   Matthew's providers said he would show up with unexplained black and blue bruises.   Rachael had marks on one or two occasions.   The children were particularly terrified about one of the female employees of Camp Horizons who looked after Matthew and Rachael and Ryan. Denise reported that David did not get along with anyone and was particularly hostile to all the aides who were caring for her “total care” child, Ryan.

The children, who were in counseling, were not attending basic medical appointments, Matthew was not getting re-fills on his prescribed medications, the children were not adequately supervised, their home-life was toxic, the children had poor school attendance and the household did not meet basic standards of cleanliness and, despite years of individual and family therapy, there was little to show for the efforts.   DCF learned that Matthew had been continuously exposing his genitals to his sister and the two were allowed to continue to sleep in the same bedroom.   In February 2010, DCF filed a neglect petition.

At some point the extent of the children's sexually precocious knowledge and inappropriate sexual behavior between the children came to include the parents.   Both children suffered from enuresis.   When Rachael would wet her bed, she would remove her nightgown or pajamas and crawl into bed with Matthew.

Matthew had signs of excessive motor activity and decreased attention at a young age.   The school had neurological testing performed.   Matthew was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, nonverbal learning disability and mood disorder with anxiety and depression.   He began special educational services.   Matthew was age eight.   His sister, a year younger and smarter than Matthew, hates him at this time.   Dr. Mantell found that there was no sibling bond.   Both of these children compete with each other for parental attention and affection.   Matthew caresses his mother and strokes her breasts.   Rachael in anticipation of visits from her father, dresses provocatively, does not wear underpants and sits with her legs open straddling her father's lap.   She strokes him and caresses him and he does the same.   Rachael would caress, stroke and kiss her mother's breasts.   Neither parent shows appropriate boundaries.

Dr. Mantell commented on the origins of sexual maladjustment in this family.   It is noted that David had to provide bodily care for his younger retarded sister including bathing her.   It is noted that similar whole bodily care was required for Ryan, especially by Denise, who by her own admission provided greater attention to Ryan than to Matthew and Denise.   So David was gone on his bus virtually the whole day, Denise was caring for Ryan, and the two children were fighting each other for whatever morsels of affection they could get.

Dr. Mantell testified that it cannot be emphasized enough the effect of having a profoundly disabled child in your midst and the other children see that the handicapped child is getting all the attention.   Consequently, the other two children have enormous rivalry for the parents' attention.

Petitioner's Exhibit H—Psychological Evaluation—Dr.  Mantell

Evaluation date:  08/15/2013 Report date: 09/27/20 13

“It was thought important to understand the roles of the children vis-a-vis their chronically handicapped oldest brother as well as their exposures to his physical care.   Also considered important was the children's history of nocturnal enuresis and then sharing beds with one another when one or both of them had been nude.   Exposures of that kind can be highly stimulating for children and arouse sexual interest and excitation.   Repeated exposure to the naked body when older and physically more mature male or females are being bathed, cleaned and diapered can also cause unusual sexual excitations, including idiosyncratic bodily preoccupation.

Father (David) was seen by Dr. (Ronald) Anderson for a psycho-sexual evaluation on referral from the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.   Dr. Anderson diagnosed father in April of 2012 as follows:

Axis I:  Dysthymic Disorder

Axis II:  Personality Disorder NOS with histrionic and obsessive-compulsive features

Axis III:  Impaired immune system, migraine headaches

Axis IV:  Recent divorce, separation from children, social isolation

Axis V:  GAF 60

Dr. Anderson wrote that the results of his evaluation offered support for the concerns raised by DCF and providers who had supervised the father with his children.   He noted that incestuous sexual abuse can begin with affectionate interactions between a child and the parent.   Also in cases where the parent fails to recognize when nurturant contact can be overly stimulating leading to sexual arousal.”   Dr. Anderson noted that visitation supervisors had documented that the father had not been very careful about how he touches his daughter, sometimes brushed his hand against her breasts, and that he had not consistently discouraged her from making potentially arousing physical contact with him.   Dr. Anderson clarified that he was not suggesting that [father] is sexually interested in children or grooming Rachael.   He did note that [father] tended to minimize and rationalize concerns raised about his interactions with the children, including concerns about his sexualized contact with Rachael.

Dr. Mantell testified that he had rarely encountered children with the clinical presentation of these two.   Their history of problems and large number of precocious sexual behaviors which persisted over a long period of time despite treatments aimed at the children and the parents was extraordinary.   Matthew's conduct was especially troubling.   The parents could not re-direct him or effectively discourage it.   The complexity of his exhibitionist behavior:  taking out his penis and strumming it for his sister and other children.³  Making very explicit double entendres about sexually observed behavior.   As he got older Matthew would insert objects into his anus, such as a stick and Lincoln Logs. Even his father reported that Matthew was simulating anal sex and making comments to Rachael and imitating sexual acts to her.

The social study describes Matthew's odd mannerisms and concerning behaviors, in addition to those previously mentioned, playing with his nasal mucous, speaking in baby talk or “alien” talk, assaulting his sister, urinating on public and personal property, engaging in sexually reactive behaviors with animals, defecating on public floors, engaging in public frotteurism while bystanders watched.   The report says that Matthew steals his peer's items and lies about his behaviors.   The developmental insults that led to this behavior are not identified but exposure to sexual activity and/or pornography seems likely.

The maturity of the content for both Matthew and Rachel who would dress up provocatively and engage her father in a sexually stimulating way and caress her mother's breasts and kiss her mother's breasts seems beyond comprehension even to Dr. Mantell.   He said these are very unusual behaviors;  the children were bathed together and together with the mother.   Even when these behaviors were brought to the parents' attention they weren't able to sufficiently address them, according to Dr. Mantell.  “The parents did not have sufficient awareness.”   Yet they did.

Dr. Mantell specifically asked Denise about David's relationship with Rachael:

Asked whether he [Matthew] has ever showed his penis to Rachael, she said yes ․ has he ever touched it or stroke it in front of her, she said yes.

Asked whether, in her opinion, [father] had been too affectionate with Rachael, she said yes.   She said this encompasses hand holding, having her straddle him on his lap, picking her up and holding her close, and that Rachael is only 10–1/2 years of age but is developing and looks physically older.   She said they sit and hold hands, walk and hold hands.   She will put her legs around him and sit on him and was doing this until last summer ․ “boundaries are not there.”   She said that David treated her more like a date than a father-and-daughter relationship and was told that she (Rachael) would groom herself for his visits ․ (Dr. Mantell asked Denise if father) had been overly affectionate with Rachael, she said yes ․ [Father's] conversation with Rachael and that he treated her as a confidant.   He would tell her about the situation with Court, DCF, Matthew, and the marriage that he told Rachael that he cannot go grocery shopping or eat because he has to give mom child support.

Fortunately for the children they are both in intensive individual and family therapy with a clinician from Northeast Clinical Specialists (LCS), Jennifer Chokas.   This clinician has been working with the children individually and with the mother on a regular and consistent basis.   While David has been urged to participate in family therapy he has only attended a few sessions.   Ms. Chokas speaks with authority and affection about Matthew.   When Matthew first started in therapy he was non-communicative, very disregulated and very behaviorally challenging.   She said when he is disrupted he increases his hyperactivity levels, urinates on the walls, defecates on the floor, stands on his head, makes high-pitched squeals, and engages in sexual behavior with a chair or other furniture.   He lacks age appropriate language skills.   He lacks the ability to express himself.   He misreads social cues but is very quick to pick up on hostility, such as that which he observed in his home of origin.   The clinician diagnosed him with an autism spectrum disorder.   Matthew has subsequently been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome.

All psychologists and clinicians agree that a person such as Matthew needs a calm, reassuring, constant, structured and nurturing environment.   His needs go beyond normal structure and care.   He receives special education instruction in school.   He attends weekly counseling with Jennifer Chokas.   He receives cranio-sacral therapy twice monthly at Crossroads.   Matthew likes the therapy as it helps calm him and he relaxes for the physical therapy involved.   He attends supervised visits with his sister, mother and father.   He has regular visits with his pediatrician.   He lives in a constellation of external supports.   None of the therapists think that either parent can provide this degree of time and attention to Matthew at this time.   The foster mother provides such a supportive environment and Matthew has responded well to the foster home.   He is the only child in the home and gets the foster mother's undivided attention every day.   Matthew is safe from his mother's anxieties and his father's anger.

It is likely that DCF has delayed in acting swiftly to provide Matthew with permanency due to the fact that Matthew would like to be reunified with his parents and enjoys visitation with both parents.   In a very aspirational exercise of social work, DCF decided, based on Dr. Mantell's early findings, to place the children separately;  Rachael with the mother and Matthew with the father.   The mother appeared to be working with her therapists and showing early signs of modest improvement.   So the department worked with Rachael first for reunification since Rachael's emotional, educational and social skills were far greater than Matthew's.   Dr. Mantell stated:

Overall, [mother] is credited (by DCF) with being compliant with treatment, attending sessions, and making a sincere effort to work on treatment tasks and to fulfill treatment goals.   She reported to have earned unsupervised visits with both of her children from January of 2012 until September of 2012 during which time it was documented that she appeared overwhelmed often by meeting the immediate demands of both her children.   For example, Matthew was seen to walk far ahead of her on streets, dart into roads, chase buses, and have physical altercations with Rachael.   Sometimes [mother] would ask Rachael's advice on how to handle these events.   Consequently, in September of 2012, her reunification with both of her children was not recommended.   She resumed supervised visitation with both children in October of 2012 and was found to be able to meet the parenting needs of Rachael, including setting limits on her behavior.   For 2 weeks in November of 2012, Rachael lived with her mother.   During this time, Rachael attended school, did her homework, attended professional appointments, had a birthday party, and was re-unified with her mother in December of 2012.   While she had made some progress in managing Matthew during their visits, the mother was found to be more successful parentally when only 1 child was present, in part because of the “intense animosity the 2 children can have toward one another.

Denise has had her daughter with her for the past year, since December 2012.   Rachael is the least challenging of the two children, and yet, Denise is not doing well with Rachael.   Her “strong history of ineffectuality, submissiveness, and dependency” has continued.   Since residing with her mother Rachael has become more withdrawn, less active, depressed, her hygiene is poor, she has gained too much weight and spends her free time in front of a television.   She is oppositional and defiant of her mother.   Denise was only marginally able to care for herself.   She was not in a position to parent a challenging child like Rachael.   And Denise struggles even as she continues to have a huge support network that presently assists her:

The mother reports she is receiving mental-health care now.   She sees Joann Averal (sic), LCSW, once a week in Chaplin.   She sees her case manager, Tina Duval, who helps her to budget financially and advocates for her.   She sees Jacqueline Shapiro (sic) from United Services as a parenting aide.   She also has a case manager, Jennifer [Green] for her housing subsidy, and she gets to see Jennifer [Green] once a week for how the housing is going.   Jennifer also takes her on errands.   Then, there is a DCF social worker, Susan Frantz, who stops by to talk to her.  (Ex E.P. 14.)

It is noted that she also gets bi-weekly family therapy with Jennifer Chokas.   It is surprising to the court that Rachael was allowed to re-unify with Denise, especially in light of the findings of Behavioral Health Consulting Services, recommendations against reunification in June 2012.

Petitioner's Exhibit Q

Mother participates in mental health counseling to learn and use coping strategies for anxiety and to self-esteem without which mother makes poor choices.

Denise has engaged in mental health treatment for over 15 years with the same provider, Dr. Cynthia Wickless in addition to supports intermittently put into place by the Department of Children and Families.   Since Dr. Wickless' retirement Denise has attended an in-take with Joann Avril, but has not set up a follow-up appointment at the time of this review.   It is imperative that Denise follow through with this recommendation as she has a historical Axis II Diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder ⁴ per Dr. Wickless.   Dr. Wickless identifies Denise as having personality issues in addition to anxiety and depression.   Dr. Wickless further identifies Denise as having a long history of rebelling against authority and splitting individuals whether it is providers, her parents, etc.   The BHCS team has requested from DCF, Susan Frantz that Denise's most recent psychiatric evaluation be released as it is pertinent in determining the most appropriate treatment modalities.   Susan Frantz informed the team on 5/17/2012 that this request was made to the court.

Summary of Reiterated Concerns in Support of Deterring Reunification

This clinician has observed on several occasions Denise's presentation as that portraying traits of Axis II Borderline Personality Disorder as evidences by the clients behaviors and affect including helplessness (the children's routine & mother's need to gain support from foster parents, transportation issues, financial issues), anger and anxiety (intense, which leads to impulsive lashing out and subsequent restitution).   Denise presents cognitively with odd and inconsistent thinking as evident by stating that she is not comfortable with her father teaching her how to drive due to his recent deterioration of mind, forgetting to take his medication, or lack of concentration yet she rationalized why it is appropriate for him to drive the children in his vehicle.   Denise consistently presents with impulsive action patterns as evident in her monetary spending and inability to maintain an effective budget and savings plan as reunification draws nearer.   This impulsivity in spending leads her to be late in paying bills including rent and as reported by her father, she often asks to borrow money.   Other impulsive behaviors that exist for Denise are reactive to her anxiety and anger and present as repetitive texts and phone calls to providers (up to as many as 8 in an hour period), lashing out towards others followed by excessive apologies, accusing and/or splitting providers and members of the support team of withholding information from her.   The culmination of these presentations with Denise's complicated interpersonal relationships as described by her long time therapist Dr. Cynthia Wickless as well as witnessed by this writer are consistent with Borderline Personality Disorder traits.

As mentioned, Denise continues to demonstrate poor judgment as a reactor to her anxiety and this is often felt by the children through Denise's impulsive behaviors and lashing out.   This provider has worked with Denise since February 2012 utilizing CBT, role play, DBY+T, and Mindfulness treatment modalities in addressing these issues with Denise.   At the time of interaction, Denise presents as able to comprehend each of the concepts.   However, in times of applicability, Denise continues to use poor judgment and reasoning when engaging with the children, providers, and her parents and peer group.   Denise presents as easily overwhelmed and frantic with the daily routine.   She becomes upset and creates this blaming factor toward providers and becomes reactive to meet the needs of her overwhelming anxiety.   Again, this is evident by the client texting and leaving voice mail messages to this provider with the same repetitive comments.   Denise continues to be resistant to treatment modalities introduced to address this anxiety.   Denise continues to be resistant to accountability when she does not follow through on expectations and often projects her frustrations and attempts to split providers in order to take the focus off of her poor choices.   Denise receives consistent feedback and support regarding appropriate conversations with and around the children.   There have been several occasions in which Denise will speak to the children about topics including her eldest son's probate issues, the reunification process, and most recently the reasons and individuals who reported the reasons for removal of the children from the home.   Denise presents as confused each time this provider identifies these age-inappropriate conversations.   Denise has proven incapable of comprehending the stress these adult content conversations could potentially have on her children.

Given this report, coming as it did after fifteen years of therapy, it is hard to understand why DCF did not move for termination of her parental rights at that time.

At the same time DCF was returning Rachael to the dysfunctional mother, the agency offered a proposed permanency plan of reunification of Matthew with his father.  (See Respondent's Exhibit 1.) As with the mother, that social study exalted hope over experience.

Both of these parents are extremely damaged and limited people only marginally able to meet their own needs.   David's anger is, as earlier expressed, “palpable.”   These children are not going to flourish with merely adequate parenting, these children need heroic parenting.   Neither parent has the wherewithal to provide the nearly constant attention, care, supervision, structure and stability that is needed.   Neither one of them has demonstrated good parental judgment and competence, indeed, the opposite is true.   The parents are both wrestling with their own demons.   The children need superb parenting.   Just getting the children to appointments is problematic for both parents as Denise does not drive and David works long unpredictable days.   Denise is absolutely surrounded by services and still she cannot effectively control Rachael.   While Denise does work well with her many service providers, David is the antithesis of cooperation;  he is openly hostile to the service providers.   These problems were obvious in 2012.

All providers agree that Matthew is living where he should be.   Not only does he need a well disciplined, compassionate, available caretaker, Jennifer Chokas outlined what else is necessary to keep Matthew on track.

1. Continued individual counseling.

2. The current foster home.

3. Cranio-sacral therapy.

4. Consistent follow through on all current support services

5.  The current educational plan at school.

6. Medication management.

David could not possibly orchestrate this plan of care.   He has been unable to manage even his own very limited portion of the plan through consistent and regular visitation and participation in family therapy.   Further, of enormous importance, David has demonstrated that he cannot work cooperatively and in harmony with the service providers.   Yet due to his obsessive-compulsive personality he is fixated on antagonism with the foster mother, who at all times had previously expressed a willingness to allow post adoption visitation.   The most clear avenue for David to enjoy continued contact with his son whatever the outcome of this case, has been through visitation.   Dr. Mantell and others think continued visitation is desirable, if possible.

But David's conduct continuously undermines that opportunity.   His hostility to service providers is obvious.   DCF, Jennifer Chokas, his former wife (Matthew's mother) and to the foster mother are all the objects of David's wrath.   He has recently expressed distrust of his own therapist.   David views the children's mother as incompetent.   All these people are people that Matthew trusts and looks to for support.   These are the people who would be necessary support systems for David if he were ever to reunify with Matthew.   But David cannot see that.   So he alienates these people who are supporting his son and then views himself as a misunderstood victim.

David is wholly impractical to the point of absurdity.   It is not clear from the permanency plan of December 2012, what David told the social worker about how he would exactly care for the child.   When asked what his plan for care of Matthew would be were he to be reunified today, he testified to two plans.   Plan A:  he would take Matthew with him each day at 4:30 a.m. on the school bus, drop him off at school at 8:30 a.m., and pick him up after school and they would remain together on the bus until David finished his routes, at 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. A very long day for a child who needs structure, appointments to his support services, regular meals, time to do his homework, play time and his sleep.

Seeing that this plan of keeping Matthew with him on the school bus has gained no traction, he then offers Plan B. That is he will have people in his church take care of Matthew before and after school.   When asked by the social worker for the names of the people willing to assist, David pronounces that these people do not want to be investigated by DCF. David has no concept that various well-intentioned people from his church have the skill and competence to care for Matthew.   David really has no plan.   Neither of these plans reflects any understanding of the great child-care needs of Matthew.   Even a child with no special needs could endure the plans that David suggests.

David does not have any idea what is age appropriate for Matthew.   Here is a child that is enormously fragile.   While he may have difficulty expressing himself, he recognizes his father's hostility.   His father talks to him about the termination of parental rights proceedings, about child support for Rachael, about problems with the caseworkers, problems with Denise and problems with the foster mother.   When asked by the psychologist why he does those things David replies that as a Christian he must tell the truth.

As he was with the children's mother, David's anger gets in the way.   Dr. Mantell noted that when David speaks of family matters his emotion is strong.   The appearance is that David is still reliving these conflicts of his youth, which inform his internal dialogue, his attitudes his expectations and his opinions.   The manner in which he presents some of his information raises questions about the level of his anger as well as what motivated him to become drawn to a person who was as needy and ineffectual as he describes Denise to be during the many years of their marriage.

“The childhood family narrative that he provides about becoming a parentified child himself who cared for his own disabled younger sister, his mother's absence from the home because of work, and the manner in which he helped to run the home, suggests that perhaps on an unconscious level he felt drawn to a person whose own family situations and personal and relationship characteristics would be comfortable and familiar to him, though they would in turn bring him conflict and unhappiness.”  (Ex. H p. 19.)

The most recent social study captures and summarizes the present situation after many years of individual and family therapy.   David's hostility and anger have not abated.   Denise is virtually unchanged, she has failed to meet her goals in therapy, she remains anxious and ineffectual as a parent.   The wisdom of returning Rachael to her mother's care is problematic.   What is clear is that she could not possibly meet the needs of Matthew and neither could David.

Father has weekly supervised visitation with Matthew.   Visits are supervised by Behavioral Health Consulting Services.   Father attends regularly.   Visits reportedly are “okay” but father tends to discuss court related matters in the children's presence, Matthew's behaviors escalate after visits (he becomes aggressive on the car ride from father's home) and father is often distracted during visits.   Father sometimes “snaps” at Matthew with an over-exaggerated response to odd noise making or non-compliance.

Father does not meet with the Department and openly reports that he does not trust the Department, the foster mother, several prior supervisors, Ms. Chokas and recently, his own therapist.   Father villainizes providers who do not agree with him.

Father reported that he believes the foster mother is setting him up for failure with Matthew and the foster mother reported that father is aggressive, manipulative and self-absorbed.

The psychological evaluation report further indicated that all family members have emotional or mental health needs, neither parent is in a position to reunify with Matthew and that Matthew wishes to remain in his foster home.

Matthew has significant special needs that would tax even the most competent parent.   He requires constant supervision, intervention and explanation to help him make sense of his world, particularly in areas of socialization, sensory integration and impulsivity.   He engages in odd and disturbing behavior and his caregiver must be able to control his environment to lessen potential negative impact.   Matthew requires consistent, clear expectations with few changes.   His foster mother is able to provide him with loving structure and clear boundaries.   She has verbalized a willingness to adopt Matthew and he has verbalized a willingness to be adopted by her.   The foster mother has also verbalized multiple times that she would ensure Matthew continues to have regular contact with his parents, sister, brother and grandparents so long as it was in his best interest.   Adoption by his foster mother would greatly lessen the potential for future moves and uncertainty while affording Matthew stability and permanency with a caregiver who is committed to meeting his special needs.”  (Ex. AA.)

Findings

The court finds that notwithstanding years of therapy and services, neither the mother nor the father have been able to benefit from reunification services to the point of effective parenting for Matthew.

The petition alleges that the parents have failed to rehabilitate.  “[T]he parent of a child who has been found by the superior court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding 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 ․” (Emphasis added.)   General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 17a–112(b)(2).  “Our Supreme Court has held that § [17a–112](b)(2) requires the trial court to analyze the respondent'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 ․ In Re Roshawn R., 51, 54–55 Conn.App. 44 (1998).

Based upon the previously expressed factual findings, made by clear and convincing evidence, this court concludes that neither parent is presently able nor is likely to be in a position to meet the needs of Matthew within a reasonable period of time.   Indeed, that reasonable period of time has passed.   Matthew needs the kind of structure and support previously indicated, now.   He needs a permanent placement at this time.  “Uncertainty creates anxiety and confusion.   Roles need to be defined.”  (Ex. H p. 135.)   Matthew, wisely, does not have confidence in his parents and wishes to remain with his present caretaker.   Dr. Mantell's summary is that “this is a chronically dysfunctional family system in which all 4 family members have shown significant, chronic, personal and family relationship impairments as well as mental illness issues.”  (Clinical Summary p. 136.)

The court finds that the petitioner has met her burden, the grounds alleged have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the parents have failed to rehabilitate.

IV. Statutory Findings

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

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

Multiple timely and appropriate services were provided for Denise off and on for twenty years.   Services began for David off and on for ten years.   Those services included, but are not limited to:  treatment and permanency plans;  case management services;  and administrative case reviews;  transportation services for visitation supervised by DCF personnel, parental education by therapeutic visitation programs;  sexual evaluations, in-home services, Intensive Family Reunification services, and most urgently, repeated referrals so that Denise and David could participate in community-based individual mental health counseling and/or evaluations.  (See discussion infra.)

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

DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, through the provision of timely reunification services.   Reunification was not a feasible plan unless and until Denise could conquer her life-long mental health issues.   She is presently engaged in therapy but has not made sufficient progress to stay these proceedings.  (See discussion infra.)   Her psychiatric disorders are profound.   David's mental health problems are very troubling.   His conduct with his daughter is manifestly unhealthy and likely extremely harmful.   It should be self-evident that sexually provocative behavior between a father and a daughter is intolerable.   But fifty year old David allowed, indeed encouraged the behavior.   His son has sexual precocious knowledge and deeply troubling sexualized behaviors.   David is in open conflict with the foster mother and his former wife.   He has unabated anger.   He has failed to manifest an understanding of the impact of Asperger's Syndrome on Matthew and the kind of environment that Matthew requires.   Neither parent is competent to care for a child without specialized needs, let alone a child with Matthew's needs.   Matthew's needs only amplifies the parental disabilities.

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

Specific Steps were ordered in a timely fashion.   All of the specific steps are subservient to the goal of mental health improvement of each parent.   This alone is paramount in the hierarchy of the parents' goal of reunification.   It is unnecessary to address housing, transportation, lawful income, relational problems with others, and parenting skills.   The child's mother Denise is only marginally functioning with enormous supports.   David's anger/hostility to those that could help him and help his son disqualifies him from participation.   The court finds that David is in denial of the extent of his long-standing mental health issues and how his childhood has contributed to his anger.   Denise has no appreciation of the impact of her domestic incompetence, her depression and her anxieties on her children.   She can't even mobilize her limited resources for long enough to get a driver's license which might signal a sign of independence and competence to her children.

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

This issue has probably prevented an earlier resolution of this case.   Matthew enjoys time with his parents.   He maintains a bond with them.   DCF has been reluctant to act because of this bond.   But the case cannot be permitted to drift.   Matthew needs permanency.   He senses parental inadequacies and wishes to remain where he is with his foster mother.   He would like to continue to visit his parents.   The foster mother, Matthew's mother and the family therapist all work in harmony and will likely be able to continue post-termination visitation.   David is self-defeating at every turn.   His hostility toward others subverts his visitation with his son, not to mention his inappropriate boundaries.   It may be that his visitation will have to end so that Matthew is not exposed to David's abiding anger.   David has absolutely no understanding of the mechanics of this issue.   He must engage in continued therapy to come to terms with this.

5. AGE OF THE CHILD— § 17a–112(k)(5)

Matthew is 12 years old.   He is just prepubescent.   How those hormonal changes will effect his sexualized behaviors is concerning.   But for certain, hostility displayed by his father, and anxiety displayed by his mother are not helpful to Matthew as he transitions into adolescence.

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

The parents may have done everything within their personal limitations to bring about change.   The parents both love Matthew.   That does not equate to parental competence.   It appears to the court that they are simply unable to bring about sufficient change in their old toxic dynamics to create a healthful and safe environment for Matthew.

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

No unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties prevented Denise and David from maintaining, at least a visiting relationship with Matthew.   David has expressed over and over that the foster mother has been an obstacle to his relationship with Matthew.   The court specifically finds that this is untrue for reasons previously stated.   David's conduct and behavior has been the biggest obstacle to reunification and to continued visitation.

V. Orders

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

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

The parental rights of Denise and David are hereby terminated as to the minor child, Matthew.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent.   A status report shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.   The primary consideration for placement and adoption of Matthew shall be the current foster parent.

The permanency plan calling for termination of parental rights and adoption that has been consolidated with this hearing is approved, the objections to the permanency plan are over-ruled.   The court finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan.

The Clerk of the 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, CT 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 27th day of February 2014

Foley, Judge Trial Referee # 484

FOOTNOTES

FN2. While there have been custody proceedings in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Windham in Putnam, the actions of this court may obviate any further proceedings in that court with respect to this child..  FN2. While there have been custody proceedings in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Windham in Putnam, the actions of this court may obviate any further proceedings in that court with respect to this child.

FN3. The social study refers to his public sexual displays as “Frotteurism.”.  FN3. The social study refers to his public sexual displays as “Frotteurism.”

FN4. Formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder..  FN4. Formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder.

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