IN RE: Adriana C.1 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law by clear and convincing evidence.

Adriana C. was born on April 3, 2007 and her sister Abigale C. was born on March 30, 2009 to Nazli C. and Todd C. The respondent parents married September 14, 2006 but after the birth of Abigale the parties began fighting;  according to respondent mother the more the couple fought the more she used drugs.   While attending one of many substance abuse programs, respondent mother met Jeffrey R. in April of 2012 and she commenced living with Mr. R. in March of 2013.   Respondent mother and Jeffrey R. became parents of mother's fourth child,² Ava,³ on May 13, 2013;  mother and Jeffrey R. separated in late 2013.   To date, the respondent parents remain married but live separately.

Adriana and Abigale were first adjudicated neglected in July of 2011 ⁴ and remained in their parents' care under an order of protective supervision.   In October of 2011 the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) obtained an order of temporary custody (OTC) and the girls were removed from their parents' care and initially placed with family members.   By agreement of the parties, on October 21, 2011, the prior neglect judgment was opened, the order of protective supervision was modified, and the girls were committed to the petitioner's care and custody.   The children have remained in DCF care continuously since October of 2011.

The present termination of parental rights (tpr) petitions were filed by the petitioner on or about May 22, 2013.   The respondents were properly served with the tpr petitions and have been represented by competent and effective counsel throughout the proceedings.   The tpr trial commenced on February 21, 2014 and continued to conclusion on March 6, 2014.   Respondent father failed to appear for trial and a default judgment entered.⁵  The petitioner alleges that both parents have failed to rehabilitate and the petitioner further alleges that it is in the girls' best interests to terminate respondents' parental rights and that the girls be adopted by their foster family.

Reasonable Efforts to Locate

At the time of the 2011 neglect adjudication, both parents were abusing substances, neglecting their mental health and engaging in domestic violence.   Petitioner's exhibits A and B chronicles each respondent's substance abuse treatment attempts.   The current DCF social worker on the case received the case in January of 2012.   Initially he could not locate respondents but by late January of 2012 or early February of 2012, the social worker learned that both parents were inpatient at substance abuse programs.   A review of the exhibits and trial testimony clearly reflect that the parents' whereabouts were routinely known to the petitioner since 2011.

Reasonable efforts to reunify

As indicated previously, initially the parents struggled with substance abuse, untreated mental health issues, and domestic violence.   Inevitably, maintaining stable housing and employment also was problematic for the respondent parents.   Commencing from the July 2011 neglect adjudication, mother was admitted nine times to various in patient substance abuse treatment programs.   During respondent mother's eighth in patient program at Trinity Glen, mother was too much of a distraction to male patients and transferred to Crossroads.   In April of 2012 mother was admitted to Crossroads where she stayed for seven months;  since her November 2012 discharge she has remained sober.⁶

In the fall of 2012, the petitioner assisted respondent mother in applying for supportive housing.   Given mother's newly obtained sobriety, supportive housing, in addition to providing subsidized housing for mother and eventually her children, would have also provided ‘wrap around services' to assist mother in living an independent and sober lifestyle.   Through supportive housing an apartment in Cromwell was identified.   Ultimately, respondent mother, then pregnant with Ava and involved with Jeffrey R., declined the identified supportive housing Cromwell apartment and opted to relocate to Danbury.   Although the supportive housing program followed respondent mother to Danbury, mother declined Danbury supportive housing services ⁷ and opted to reside with Jeffrey R. in an residence then leased by Jeffrey R.'s father.   Adriana and Abigale were forbidden by Jeffrey R.'s father and/or Jeffrey R. to reside in the residence.

Post discharge from Crossroads, mother was required to attend MCCA for ongoing monitoring of her substance abuse issue and to address her mental health issues.   Mother was not compliant in early 2013 (see Petitioner's exhibit H) and was discharged from the program in May of 2013.   Mother subsequently became compliant with MCCA. Mother first began seeing a therapist with Newtown Youth and Family Services in September of 2013.   After a September 26th intake, she had a September 27th appointment, an October 3rd and a November 7th appointment but missed any and all subsequent appointments.  (Petitioner's exhibit K.) Just within the past several months ⁸ mother resumed attending weekly therapy in Newtown and presently she adheres to a medication regime of prosac (for depression), clonipin (for anxiety) and ambien (for sleep).

Respondent mother was offered supervised visitation with her daughters.   Mother became consistent in her weekly visitation with the girls commensurate with her progress at Crossroads in 2012.   From October to December of 2013, mother did not visit with the girls;  ostensibly because of newly obtained employment but since December 20, 2013 mother has maintained her weekly visitation schedule, commuting from Danbury to Middletown.

From March to September of 2013 father resided in a sober house.   Respondent father declined any assistance from the petitioner regarding housing upon his discharge from a sober house in September of 2013.⁹  Subsequently father reported he was living in a undisclosed address in Berlin or New Britain but ultimately the DCF social worker learned father was and remains living with his parents in a fifty-five-year-old and over community in Berlin.¹⁰

Respondent father continues to address his substance abuse issues.   He requires daily methadone but on or about December 18, 2013, father became emotionally upset and paternal relatives telephoned the police out of concern for his safety and wellbeing.   Upon interaction with the police, the father was tasered and transported to the emergency room.   Father was diagnosed with alcohol intoxication.¹¹  (See petitioner's exhibits R and S.)

Independent of each parent's individual struggle with achieving sobriety, mental health treatment and appropriate housing, the respondents needed to work on coparenting issues.   The respondent parents' relationship has been at times tumultuous, at times all consuming and both respondents have been identified by counselors and/or therapists as acting as a ‘trigger’ for the other's relapses into substance abuse.   Apparently by late 2013, the respondents had each decided reconciliation was not plausible;  co-parenting counseling never occurred, although respondent mother did complete one and possibly two parenting education programs.

In sum, the obstacles hindering reunification were timely and accurately identified and articulated by the petitioner.   Both respondents have, to varying degrees addressed the issues of substance abuse and mental health but neither respondent parent has obtained stable and appropriate housing required for reunification nor have either of them substantively addressed the dysfunctional aspects of their on again off again co-dependent relationship.   The court concludes that the petitioner has made reasonable efforts at reunification.

Adjudication

The petitioner alleges both respondents have failed to rehabilitate as a parent.   Statutory grounds exists to terminate parental rights when:  “the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court ․ to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding and [the parent] 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 ․” C.G.S. § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).

Personal rehabilitation “ ‘refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [and] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ [a parent] [need not] prove precisely when he will be able to assume a responsible position in [his] child's life.   Nor does it require [him] to prove that [he] will be able to assume full responsibility for [his] child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [he] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he] can assume a responsible position in [his] child's life.’  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Melody L., [290 Conn. 131], 149 (2009).”  In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485, 507 (2013).

Respondent mother's failure to rehabilitate

Respondent mother has made remarkable strides in achieving and sustaining sobriety.   After nine in patient treatment programs, she is closing in on two years of sobriety, (albeit the first seven months of her sobriety accrued while in patient at Crossroads).   Mother has within the past several months become compliant in her weekly attendance in therapy and with a medication regime.   She is employed and since December of 2013 has been consistent in her supervised visits with Adrianna and Abigale.¹²  Stable and appropriate housing still eludes respondent mother.   Jeffrey R.'s father's residence continues to be mother's residence;  Jeffrey R. no longer resides there with respondent mother.¹³  However, as a result of Jeffrey R.'s father's death ¹⁴ the residence has been sold and mother has to vacate the property by April 1, 2014.   At the tpr trial mother testified she had a possible but no definitive living arrangement after April 1st.

Putting aside mother's lack of appropriate housing, it may be mother is mentally and behaviorally posed to begin parenting a child, but that is not the issue which this court must address in the present failure to rehabilitate analysis.  “ ․ [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child [or children] at issue.  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 206–07 (2011).”  In re Kasamaesha, 148 Conn.App. 666, 689 (2014).”   Clearly mother has come a long way in addressing the reasons why the girls were removed from her and father's care in 2011.   However, when framed in terms of the girls' needs mother's progress does not go far enough.

The girls have been out of their parents' care continuously since October of 2011.   During that time period the girls have endured five different placements:  initially the girls were placed with mother's half brother's aunt but the care giver asked to have the girls removed from her care;  subsequently the girls were split up, one of the girls was placed with paternal grandparents and the other was placed with a paternal aunt but by August of 2012 paternal aunt could no longer continue to care for Abigale and paternal grandparents were confronting zoning issues regarding their fifty-five and older community regulations;  the girls were reunified with each other in a legal risk pre-adoptive foster home, but after three weeks that foster mother requested the girls be removed;  the girls were next placed together in a second legal risk pre-adoptive foster home but after ten months the foster mother reported she was not bonding with the girls, particularly with Adriana, and adoption was not wanted by the foster family;  the girls were removed and then placed together in June of 2013 in their present pre-adoptive foster family.   The girls' therapist, Sally Miller, who has been treating the girls on a weekly or biweekly basis since July of 2013 report that both girls are presently adjusting well to school, both socially and with school tasks, and both girls presently sleep and eat well.   Specifically as to Abigale, Ms. Miller opined in February of 2014:

Concerns for Abigale regarding anxiety were noted early on in the therapy process and these symptom have significantly reduced or resolved.   These anxious symptoms were typical of a child of her age and in her circumstance of transitioning.   Her foster parents sought parenting support in the therapy process and reported good outcomes after implementing a relational and behavioral plan discussed in therapy.   Through expressive play and verbal processing Abigale has engaged in the therapeutic process and made improvements in her mood and interactions with others.   Abigale continue to transition well into her pre-adoptive home, forming attachments to her foster parents and her sibling.   Her in-therapy processing of visits or phone calls with biological parents indicates she marginalizes these interactions and they are increasingly on the periphery of her emotional internal world.   Additionally, the contact are experience as mild to moderately negative, or as a neutral interruption of her normal life.

Petitioner's exhibit C.

As to Adriana, Ms. Miller opined in February of 2014:

Concerns for Adriana regarding grief and adjustment concerns were noted early on in her therapy process.   These concerns have significantly reduced or resolved, and are typical of a child her age and in her circumstance of transition into a new home ․ Adrianna is at times very direct and verbal in her expression of thoughts and feelings related to her intermittent contact/visits with her biological parents.   Her in-therapy processing of her visits or phone calls with her biological parents indicate this active stage of grief at times.   At other times, she compartmentalizes and minimizes her grief feelings, as a way of mediating these emotions.   Each process is a healthy response to her emotions ․ Though expected minimal loyalties to the biological parents remain (for Adriana more so than Abigale), each child has shown a reduction in clinically significant symptoms related to grief and adjustment disorder, each child has made emotional attachment to their pre-adoptive parents, and are enjoying the benefits of a stable, caring, supportive, and appropriately structured home and family life ․

Petitioner's exhibit C.

Psychologist, Dr. Nancy Randall, evaluated respondents and/or the girls several times from December of 2012 to December of 2013.  (Petitioner's exhibits I, J, K, L.) In her evaluations Dr. Randall notes that mother has made progress in her substance abuse recovery and mental health treatment.   However, Dr. Randall in December of 2013 opined:

․ [mother] is someone who will take longer than most adults to learn new information and skills.   Her avoidant style exacerbates this, as she tries to pull back from times when people are putting demands on her.   She does best in situation in which things are clearly defined for her and there is a certain degree of structure for her.   She has trouble when expectations are not clear.   She is at risk for making poor choices at times when she feels stressed or unsure of herself.   She is defensive when people try to change her mind or get her to consider alternate perspectives.

[Mother] reported that she plans to continue to fight for her older daughters, and she is not willing to give up on this.   She clearly wants to have a relationship with them, and she seems to genuinely believe that if they came home to her, she would be able to raise them adequately.   She does not show good understanding into their emotional needs and how they might react to a reunification, particularly given her long-standing lack of stability.   It is more likely the she would minimize their experiences that do not fit her own beliefs or preferences.  [Mother] is someone who is able to form attachments and who cares about her relationships, but she has little understanding of how to resolve differences or how to deal with others' needs that conflict with her own.

Petitioner's exhibit J, p. 15.

The court recognizes respondent mother loves Adriana and Abigale.   However, that reality, intertwined with mother's sustained sobriety and her recently sustained compliance with weekly mental health therapy is insufficient to outweigh the detrimental impact another removal and contemplated sixth placement were to have on the girls.   Assuming that mother were to obtain independent ¹⁵ and appropriate housing within the next few months, (something mother has never achieved to date), Adriana and Abigale should not have to be subjected to another removal, particularly a removal from a foster family who they have bonded with and with whom they can attain permanency through adoption.¹⁶  Reunification with a mother who, in the last eight months, has moved toward the periphery of both of the girls' emotional bond radius is unknown and uncharted territory;  any reunification attempt of mother with Adriana and Abigale constitutes too big a risk for failure, the potential incursion of irreparable harm to the children, with little to no potential net gain for the girls.¹⁷

For all of the foregoing, the petitioner has proven the alleged statutory ground as to respondent mother.

Respondent father's failure to rehabilitate

Father appears to have remained heroin free for a significant period of time.¹⁸  From the evidence presented at trial, he too continues to lack appropriate housing for reunification purposes.   Clearly the December 18th episode referenced earlier was a significant relapse.   Again, the parents never engaged in substantive, effective co-parenting counseling.   It is telling that Dr. Randall last saw respondent father on December 12, 2013, (days prior to the ER admission) and she opined:

At this time, it is impossible to fully predict whether [father] will be able to maintain his current stability over time.   He seems to be on the cusp of stability and independence, and yet it is still untested whether he will maintain these gains in an independent apartment, faced with all of the stresses of maintaining a household and full-time job, and also taking on care of two young children who come with a history of disruptions in their lives.   There is still some significant level of risk that [father] will be unable to handle this level of pressure, and he may resort to substance abuse or becoming involved in another negative relationship with someone offering to take on much of the responsibility for the girls.   Without treatment for domestic violence, which could provide a better understanding of these issues and how to address the conflicts differently, [father] continues to be at risk for further incidents during time of high stress and conflict.

Petitioner's exhibit L, p. 17.

Sadly, Dr. Randall's concerns bore fruit days after her last interview with respondent father.   Regardless of why the very alarming and dangerous December 18th episode ¹⁹ occurred, the risk to a child or children in father's care, if such out of control behavior were to repeat itself, cannot be sanctioned.   The court credits Dr. Randall's trial testimony in which she opined father has not made sufficient progress regarding his substance abuse to properly parent the girls.   Consequently the petitioner has proven the alleged statutory ground as to respondent father.

Disposition

In determining what is in the children's best interest, the court must consider the factors outlined in C.G.S. § 17a–112(k):

(1) The petitioner timely and accurately identified the respondents' issues of drug abuse, untreated mental health issues, domestic violence, unstable housing and the need for co-parenting counseling.   The parents each required multiple in patient and after care programs before gaining sobriety and mother's sobriety is of a longer standing duration than respondent father.   If mother had taken advantage of the supportive housing and its wraparound services, after achieving sobriety in 2012, perhaps reunification could have been achieved.   Instead she elected to forego the Connective, Inc. services, both in Cromwell and then in Danbury to live with Mr. R. in a home in which Adriana and Abigale were not welcomed.   The consequences of that decision proved life altering:  mother has since separated from Mr. R. and is seeking to have Ava returned to her care but mother continues to lack stable, appropriate housing and Adriana and Abigale have spent the last few years of their life in foster care.

Since respondent father's release from inpatient treatment, he has yet to establish approved housing for reunification purposes.   His purported desire to reunify with Adriana and Abigale, independent of mother, as expressed to Dr. Randall in December of 2013, apparently derailed after the December 18th incident and remains derailed to date.

(2) For reasons set forth previously, the court concludes the petitioner has made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent parents with Adriana and Abigale.

(3) Court ordered specific steps were admitted as petitioner's exhibits F and G. The court has previously detailed each parent's compliance or lack of compliance regarding substance abuse, mental health treatment and counseling, visitation, housing, parenting/co-parenting counseling.   Again, although mother has achieved sustained sobriety, relatively recent consistency with mental health treatment and medication, parenting counseling, consistency in visitation, and employment, she lacks housing.   Respondent father was on the cusp of independent sober living in December of 2013 but relapsed and based on the evidence and testimony at trial, a trial he elected not to attend, father has not progressed forward.

(4) Adriana and Abigale love their parents.   And the respondents love Adriana and Abigale.   The girls have endured much upheaval and transition in their young lives—both before and after their 2011 removal and although the time in foster care was rocky and disruptive they have achieved stability and have bonded with their foster family.   The foster parents seek to adopt the girls.²⁰  Given the testimony of the girls' therapist and Dr. Nancy Randall's testimony, the court concludes the parent-child bond that presently exists between the girls and respondents is overshadowed by the emotional bond and stability the girls' now enjoy with their foster family.

The foster parents have facilitated the girls' ongoing contact with their half brother and reportedly the girls enjoy visiting with him.   Adriana and Abigale remain ignorant regarding Ava's existence and therefore have no emotional bond or tie to her.

(5) Adriana is almost seven years old and Abigale is almost five years old.

(6) Respondent mother has made significant and substantial strides in her personal rehabilitation.   She is sober, compliant with her mental health treatment, employed, consistent with her supervised visitation with the girls and she is seeking stable housing.   If she had accomplished in 2012 what she finally accomplished in late 2013 and early 2014, a different outcome may have been warranted.   The reality however, is that mother's accomplishments, while laudable, still do not include housing and in terms of the girls' needs and best interests, her accomplishments are too little too late.

Father also made remarkable progress but continues to lack appropriate housing and given his December 2013 relapse and nonattendance at trial, this court concludes that his efforts to date, again while laudable, are of insufficient duration and depth to warrant a denial of the tpr petitions.

(7) The court is not aware of any person, agency, parent, or economic circumstance which has precluded either respondent from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Adriana and Abigale.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds it is in the girls' best interests to terminate the respondents' parental rights.   Nazli C.'s and Todd C.'s parental rights as to Adriana and Abigale are hereby terminated.   The petitioner is appointed statutory parent and shall file a status report with the court within thirty days and comply with all other statutory mandates.

The court approves the permanency plan of adoption with the current adoptive family, finds it is a reasonable plan and in the girls' best interests and that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan.

When appropriate, the petitioner may file for adoption in the superior court for juvenile matters in Middletown.

Bernadette Conway, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Respondent mother gave birth to her first child, Romeo B., in July of 2003.   On or about November 8, 2010, Romeo's father, Mr. Jimmie B., was awarded sole custody of Romeo..  FN2. Respondent mother gave birth to her first child, Romeo B., in July of 2003.   On or about November 8, 2010, Romeo's father, Mr. Jimmie B., was awarded sole custody of Romeo.

FN3. The petitioner first obtained custody of Ava in July of 2013.   A paternal relative is presently Ava's foster parent..  FN3. The petitioner first obtained custody of Ava in July of 2013.   A paternal relative is presently Ava's foster parent.

FN4. Respondents' substance abuse and mental health issues first came to the petitioner's attention in 2010..  FN4. Respondents' substance abuse and mental health issues first came to the petitioner's attention in 2010.

FN5. Nonetheless, father's counsel participated in the two-day tpr trial.   Respondent father's failure to appear for the tpr trial permits the court to take the facts contained in the pleadings and the social study to be true and to rely on those facts in arriving at a decision as to his parental rights.  In re Natalie J., 148 Conn.App. 193, 207–08 (2014)..  FN5. Nonetheless, father's counsel participated in the two-day tpr trial.   Respondent father's failure to appear for the tpr trial permits the court to take the facts contained in the pleadings and the social study to be true and to rely on those facts in arriving at a decision as to his parental rights.  In re Natalie J., 148 Conn.App. 193, 207–08 (2014).

FN6. Heroin, marijuana and alcohol were mother's primary drugs of choice..  FN6. Heroin, marijuana and alcohol were mother's primary drugs of choice.

FN7. The Danbury supportive housing provider, The Connection, Inc.'s caseworker, Ms. Sandra Lopes, credibly testified that she took over the mother's supportive housing case from the Middletown office in April of 2013.   The identified goals for mother were for mother to engage in services, work on specific steps as outlined by DCF, engage in individual treatment, domestic violence counseling, and co-parenting counseling with respondent father.   It was Ms. Lopes' job to assist mother in complying with the programs and service providers.   Ms. Lopes was able and willing to offer mother intensive case management services and she would have assisted mother in creating a budget, applying for financial assistance and assisting with transportation issues.   Mother did not achieve the identified goals, she was noncompliant with services and therefore unsuccessfully discharged from Connection, Inc. in June of 2013.  (See petitioner's exhibit E.).  FN7. The Danbury supportive housing provider, The Connection, Inc.'s caseworker, Ms. Sandra Lopes, credibly testified that she took over the mother's supportive housing case from the Middletown office in April of 2013.   The identified goals for mother were for mother to engage in services, work on specific steps as outlined by DCF, engage in individual treatment, domestic violence counseling, and co-parenting counseling with respondent father.   It was Ms. Lopes' job to assist mother in complying with the programs and service providers.   Ms. Lopes was able and willing to offer mother intensive case management services and she would have assisted mother in creating a budget, applying for financial assistance and assisting with transportation issues.   Mother did not achieve the identified goals, she was noncompliant with services and therefore unsuccessfully discharged from Connection, Inc. in June of 2013.  (See petitioner's exhibit E.)

FN8. Mother may have commenced consistency with her weekly therapy in December of 2013..  FN8. Mother may have commenced consistency with her weekly therapy in December of 2013.

FN9. See petitioner's exhibit B..  FN9. See petitioner's exhibit B.

FN10. Petitioner's exhibit L indicates father, as of December 2013, had plans to obtain his own apartment effective January 1, 2014.   Father's last known residence at the time of the tpr trial was his parents' residence in a fifty-five-year-old and older housing community..  FN10. Petitioner's exhibit L indicates father, as of December 2013, had plans to obtain his own apartment effective January 1, 2014.   Father's last known residence at the time of the tpr trial was his parents' residence in a fifty-five-year-old and older housing community.

FN11. The petitioner's detailed efforts at reunification regarding father are outlined on pp. 11–12 of petitioner's exhibit M..  FN11. The petitioner's detailed efforts at reunification regarding father are outlined on pp. 11–12 of petitioner's exhibit M.

FN12. The present foster parents initiate telephonic contact between the girls and mother twice a week.   Respondent mother does not always pick up when the calls are made..  FN12. The present foster parents initiate telephonic contact between the girls and mother twice a week.   Respondent mother does not always pick up when the calls are made.

FN13. Domestic violence occurred between respondent mother and Jeffrey R. The couple's difficulties resulted in their baby's removal from their care in July of 2013.   The couple separated by the end of 2013..  FN13. Domestic violence occurred between respondent mother and Jeffrey R. The couple's difficulties resulted in their baby's removal from their care in July of 2013.   The couple separated by the end of 2013.

FN14. Jeffrey R.'s father committed suicide..  FN14. Jeffrey R.'s father committed suicide.

FN15. Moving forward, if mother were to cohabitate with either respondent father or Mr. R., given the problematic nature of her prior relationships with both men, such a living arrangement would not be in any child's best interest..  FN15. Moving forward, if mother were to cohabitate with either respondent father or Mr. R., given the problematic nature of her prior relationships with both men, such a living arrangement would not be in any child's best interest.

FN16. Another complicating, albeit not insurmountable, facet regarding the reunification analysis is mother's fourth child, Ava. Per mother's directive, which has been respected, Adriana and Abigale do not know they have a baby half-sister.   Respondent mother is working toward reunification with Ava and mother claims housing is the only remaining obstacle.   Assuming without deciding that mother is correct in her optimism regarding her reunification with Ava, Adriana and Abigale's reunification with mother would have to incorporate Ava's presence.   It is unrealistic to conclude that a mother who has given birth to four children in the past ten years, who lost custody of her oldest child in 2010, who had Adriana and Abigale removed from her care in 2011, and who within two months of Ava's birth lost custody of that child, could or should reunify simultaneously or in short order with children who do not know each other..  FN16. Another complicating, albeit not insurmountable, facet regarding the reunification analysis is mother's fourth child, Ava. Per mother's directive, which has been respected, Adriana and Abigale do not know they have a baby half-sister.   Respondent mother is working toward reunification with Ava and mother claims housing is the only remaining obstacle.   Assuming without deciding that mother is correct in her optimism regarding her reunification with Ava, Adriana and Abigale's reunification with mother would have to incorporate Ava's presence.   It is unrealistic to conclude that a mother who has given birth to four children in the past ten years, who lost custody of her oldest child in 2010, who had Adriana and Abigale removed from her care in 2011, and who within two months of Ava's birth lost custody of that child, could or should reunify simultaneously or in short order with children who do not know each other.

FN17. There continues to be a great unknown regarding mother's ability to ever have a healthy and safe intimate relationship with a man.   Although mother professes she is done with both respondent father and Mr. R. and she claims she is not presently in any relationship, the court notes that in early 2013, the respondent parents traveled together to their scheduled evaluation with Dr. Randall, spent the day together, including going out together for an hour and a half lunch.   Father reported during that evaluation the couple had up to that point maintained consensual contact with each other.   Exhibit I, p. 31.While both parents subsequently reported contact had ceased between the two of them, father's December 18, 2013 alarming, self-threatening statements and behaviors, which necessitated police using extreme measures and culminating in father's emergency room admission and alcohol intoxication, was, according to father's sister, precipitated by father's having contact with mother.  (Petitioner's exhibit S.)Mother's relationship with Mr. R. in many ways mirrors the instability and self-centeredness that existed in her relationship with her husband.   Mr. R. was unwilling or unable to allow Adriana and Abigale to reside in his father's Danbury residence.   Regardless of that reality, respondent mother remained in a conflicted relationship with Mr. R. for most of 2013.   Until mother can exhibit sustained independence and/or involve herself in a healthy and safe relationship with a significant other, her ability to effectively and safely parent cannot be adequately anticipated..  FN17. There continues to be a great unknown regarding mother's ability to ever have a healthy and safe intimate relationship with a man.   Although mother professes she is done with both respondent father and Mr. R. and she claims she is not presently in any relationship, the court notes that in early 2013, the respondent parents traveled together to their scheduled evaluation with Dr. Randall, spent the day together, including going out together for an hour and a half lunch.   Father reported during that evaluation the couple had up to that point maintained consensual contact with each other.   Exhibit I, p. 31.While both parents subsequently reported contact had ceased between the two of them, father's December 18, 2013 alarming, self-threatening statements and behaviors, which necessitated police using extreme measures and culminating in father's emergency room admission and alcohol intoxication, was, according to father's sister, precipitated by father's having contact with mother.  (Petitioner's exhibit S.)Mother's relationship with Mr. R. in many ways mirrors the instability and self-centeredness that existed in her relationship with her husband.   Mr. R. was unwilling or unable to allow Adriana and Abigale to reside in his father's Danbury residence.   Regardless of that reality, respondent mother remained in a conflicted relationship with Mr. R. for most of 2013.   Until mother can exhibit sustained independence and/or involve herself in a healthy and safe relationship with a significant other, her ability to effectively and safely parent cannot be adequately anticipated.

FN18. Initially upon his latest release from in patient treatment father was prescribed several medications.   He was subsequently weaned from all prescription medication and in mid December of 2013 he was taking a reduced dosage of daily methadone..  FN18. Initially upon his latest release from in patient treatment father was prescribed several medications.   He was subsequently weaned from all prescription medication and in mid December of 2013 he was taking a reduced dosage of daily methadone.

FN19. Police were summoned by father's sister and/or brother in law to father's parents' residence in Berlin.   Father's parents were out of town and father had called family members threatening to harm himself.   Petitioner's exhibit S details what transpired, that father appeared ‘deranged’ and why father was tasered by police and then taken to the hospital..  FN19. Police were summoned by father's sister and/or brother in law to father's parents' residence in Berlin.   Father's parents were out of town and father had called family members threatening to harm himself.   Petitioner's exhibit S details what transpired, that father appeared ‘deranged’ and why father was tasered by police and then taken to the hospital.

FN20. The foster parents attended the tpr trial..  FN20. The foster parents attended the tpr trial.

Conway, Bernadette, J.