In re Brittany J.

Full title: IN RE BRITTANY J. IN RE RAYANTO S., JR. IN RE TIANNA S. IN RE BRIANNA S.¹

Court: Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Middlesex Child Protection Session at Middletown

Date published: Jan 20, 2006

2006 Ct. Sup. 1777 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)

2006 Ct. Sup. 1777

Opinion

Nos. K09-CP02-008710-A, K09-CP02-008711-A, K09-CP02-008712-A, K09-CP02-008713-A

January 20, 2006

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

CARL E. TAYLOR, JUDGE.

This memorandum of decision addresses termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions brought to terminate the parental rights of Judith J. (Judith), the biological mother of Brittany J. (Brittany), born 8/4/94, Rayanto S., Jr. (Jordan), born 11/11/97, Tianna S. (Tianna), born 10/23/99 and Brianna S. (Brianna), born 10/23/99; Rayanto S., Sr. (Rayanto), the biological father of Jordan, Tianna and Brianna; and Lesmore W. (Lesmore) and John Doe, the putative biological fathers of Brittany.

The court finds the following by clear and convicting evidence:

The history of the file reflects that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has been involved with this family since 5/02 for issues including physical neglect. Additionally, Judith has prior involvement with the New York Child Protective Services (NYCPS) as a child and as a parent.

NYCPS reported that Judith was a victim of sexual and physical abuse by her stepfather. As a parent, Judith has a NYCPS history involving domestic violence and substance abuse issues.

On 9/10/02, Judith was operating a motor vehicle with Jordan, Tianna and Brianna in it in the town of Salem. At approximately 0845 hours, Judith was involved in a motor vehicle accident when she drove off the road. Judith, who was transported to W.W. Backus Hospital (WWB) for treatment, admitted to Tpr. Seery of the Connecticut State Police that she was involved in the accident as the result of a seizure. Tpr. Seery, who testified at the TPR trial, indicated that Judith admitted that she was unable to get a Ct. operator's license due to her epilepsy. Tpr. Seery's report, which was entered into evidence as a full exhibit, also indicates that Judith admitted that she had not taken her seizure medication that morning, and that she knew she should not be operating a motor vehicle, especially with children in it, due to her epileptic seizures.

Tpr. Seery referred this matter to the Norwich office of DCF.

On 9/10/02, DCF substantiated physical neglect by Judith with regards to all four children, as a result of the accident, and the matter was referred for in-home treatment services.

On 12/10/02, Judith and her children went to Madonna Place, a social services provider frequently used by DCF. Judith spoke to Christine Johnson, a program manager at the facility. Johnson testified that Judith indicated that she "couldn't deal with it anymore" and that she thought of killing herself and her children. Johnson further testified that the Mobile Crisis Team was called, along with the Norwich Police Department. Judith was eventually taken by ambulance to WWB and admitted there, while DCF personnel took custody of the children.

On the same day, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on the children.

On 12/13/02, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 9th District, located in Waterford (SCJM) (Jongbloed, J.), DCF sought and obtained Orders of Temporary Custody (OTC) for the children. The court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna from the home.

On the same date, in SCJM, DCF filed Neglect Petitions on behalf of the children.

On 12/20/02, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), the court sustained the OTCs without prejudice to Judith. The record indicates that none of the respondent parents were present in court. Counsel was appointed for Judith.

On 01/6/03, the Probate Court, (Salafia, J.) committed Judith for involuntary hospitalization.

On 01/9/03, Judith was discharged from WWB and transferred to Natchaug Hospital (NH). She was discharged from NH on 2/4/03.

On 01/23/03, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), pro forma denials were entered on Judith's behalf, and the court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for Judith. The record indicates that none of the respondent parents were present in court.

On 4/24/03, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), Judith and Rayanto appeared with counsel. Judith entered written nolo contendre pleas as to the neglect allegations, while Rayanto stood silent as to the allegations concerning his children. After canvassing the respondent parents, the court accepted the pleas, and adjudicated the children as neglected. The court returned Brittany and Jordan to Judith under 6 months protective supervision (PS) and vacated the OTCs as to them, while Tianna and Brianna were committed to the care and custody of DCF. The court ordered final specific steps for Judith.

On 4/28/03, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Tianna and Brianna from the home.

On 5/28/03, Judith caused a disturbance at the Norwich office of DCF during a visitation with the twins, in response to a DCF request that she be on time for visitation. This disturbance included Judith's use of profanity in front of the twins and making threats against the life and well-being of DCF personnel. DCF ended the visits.

On 5/30/03, Judith returned to DCF for visitation. DCF had a Mobile Crisis Mental Health worker and Off. Todd Maikshilo of the Norwich Police Department present, but out of sight. During the initial phase of the visit, as a DCF supervisor talked to Judith and explained that her visits at DCF would be supervised as a result of her previous conduct. Judith became profane and verbally abusive. Judith began yelling loudly that she was going to take the children out of the DCF office, saying she would take them anywhere she wanted to, no matter what DCF said. She stated, "No one can stop me, they're my kids and I'm taking them." Judith yelled, "I swear to God if I don't get my kids back today, I'm going to kick your ass."

After DCF personnel were unable to calm Judith, the Mobile Crisis Mental Health worker attempted to calm her, without success. Judith continued to threaten DCF personnel, stated that she would "kill the social worker" and that the social worker "is protected at this time by everybody, but would be alone sometime" and that she "would get her then."

Jordan was in the room for part of Judith's outburst.

Officer Maikshilo then attempted to calm Judith, and instructed her to stop her behavior and threats. Meeting with failure, he then placed her under arrest. Judith attempted to push him, but was physically restrained and handcuffed.

While being processed at the police station, Judith made several statements to Off. Maikshilo. She stated that she hated the DCF social worker, whom she described as "that bitch Roberta,"¹ that there was a conspiracy to keep her away from her children and that she did not want to live.

1 DCF social worker Renee Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that Judith's previous DCF social worker was Jan Roberta.

Norwich Police sent Judith to WWB for a psychiatric assessment.

On the same day, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on Brittany and Jordan.

On 6/3/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), DCF sought and obtained OTCs for Brittany and Jordan. DCF also filed a Motion To Open And Modify Disposition, seeking to modify Brittany and Jordan's PS to a commitment to the care and custody of DCF. The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from the home, and to make it possible for the children to return home.

On 6/13/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the respondent mother and her counsel appeared. The respondent fathers did not appear. Subsequently, the OTCs were transferred to Superior Court for Juvenile Matters-Child Protection Session, located in Middletown (CPS), for trial.

On 6/18/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the OTC hearing commenced. The respondent fathers did not appear.

Prior to the commencement of evidence, DCF filed a Motion To Quash Subpoenas that had been issued by Judith's counsel. The court granted the motion.

On the same date, the court sustained the OTC and ordered that the specific steps issued on 4/24/03 remain in effect. The court also strongly recommended to DCF that a new social worker be assigned to the case, and returned the matter to SCJM.

On 7/16/03, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion For Psychological Evaluation. On the same date, the court, (Jongbloed, J.), granted the motion by agreement.

On 8/4/03, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Transcripts.

On 8/6/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion For Transcripts.

On 8/7/03, in CPS, counsel for Judith filed an Information Motion: Re Petitioner's Motion For Transcripts. On the same date, the court, (Trombley, J.), granted this motion.

On 10/31/03, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Maintain Commitment (MMC) and its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Tianna and Brianna. The permanency plan (PP) called for reunification with Judith. The PP also called for findings that further reunification efforts with Judith were appropriate and that further reunification efforts with Rayanto were not appropriate.

On 12/2/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J3, the court granted the MMC as to Tianna and Brianna. The court approved of the PP as to Tianna and Brianna calling for reunification with Judith and indicated that further reunification efforts with both parents were appropriate. The court indicated that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.

On 12/16/03, in SCJM, counsel for Judith filed a Motion To Modify Disposition, seeking to modify Tianna and Brianna's commitment to the care and custody of DCF to PS in the custody of Judith.

On 01/6/04, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion For Neurological Evaluation of Judith.

On 01/16/04, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), DCF's Motion For Neurological Evaluation of Judith was granted by agreement.

On 4/15/04, in SCJM, (Burke, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion To Open And Modify Disposition, and committed Brittany and Jordan to the custody of DCF. The OTC was vacated as to Brittany and Jordan.

On 4/29/04, in SCJM, DCF filed its MMC and its MRP as to Brittany and Jordan. The permanency plan (PP) called for reunification with Judith. The PP also called for findings that further reunification efforts with Judith were appropriate and that further reunification efforts with the respondent fathers were not appropriate.

On 5/20/04, in CPS, DCF filed a Second Motion For Expedited Transcript.

On 5/21/04, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the court granted DCF's Second Motion For Expedited Transcript.

On 6/1/04, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court granted the MMC as to Brittany and Jordan. The court approved of the PP as to Brittany and Jordan calling for reunification with Judith and indicated that further reunification efforts with Judith were appropriate and that further reunification efforts with the respondent fathers were not appropriate. The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from the home, and to achieve the PP. The court also indicated that there would be a concurrent PP of TPR and adoption.

On 10/18/04, in SCJM, counsel for Judith filed a Motion To Withdraw As Counsel, citing an irretrievable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.

On 11/1/04, in SCJM, (Bear, J.) Judith's Motion To Modify Disposition, seeking to modify Tianna and Brianna's commitment to the care and custody of DCF to PS in the custody of Judith, was marked off by agreement.

On 11/2/04, in SCJM, (Cosgrove, J.), the court granted Judith's counsel's Motion To Withdraw As Counsel. The court vacated the appointment of Attorney Hammond as Judith's GAL, and appointed her as Judith's counsel. The court denied, without prejudice, Judith's Motion To Modify Visitation.

On 11/8/04, in SCJM, DCF filed its MMC and its MRP as to Tianna and Brianna. The PP called for TPR as to both parents and adoption, as well as a finding of no further efforts towards reunification with either biological parent.

On 11/22/04, in SCJM, counsel for Judith filed a Motion To Consolidate and a Motion to Revoke Commitment.

On 12/9/04, in SCJM, (Cosgrove, J.), the court granted the MMC as to Tianna and Brianna. The court deferred action on the PP as to Brittany and Jordan, which called for TPR and adoption, and indicated that further reunification efforts with Judith were appropriate until the TPR trial date and that further reunification efforts as to Rayanto were not appropriate. The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP. Finally, the court ordered that the MRP, and the Motion to Revoke Commitment be consolidated with the TPR trial.

On 2/3/05, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion To Suspend Visitation.

On 2/8/05, in SCJM, counsel for Judith filed an Objection to Motion To Suspend Visitation.

On 3/4/05, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records and an Order For Disclosure.

On 3/14/05, in SCJM (Cosgrove, J.), the court granted DCF's Order For Disclosure.

On 4/12/05, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion For Assignment To The Child Protection Session.

On 4/15/05, in SCJM, (Cosgrove, J.), DCF filed TPR petitions concerning the children, alleging abandonment and no ongoing relationship as to Lesmore and John Doe, and failure to rehabilitate as to Rayanto and Judith. The court appointed counsel for Judith as to the TPR, and granted, over Judith's counsel's objection, DCF's Motion For Assignment To The Child Protection Session. The court also indicated that the Motion to Revoke Commitment would be heard at CPS.

On 5/2/05, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion For Order For No Unauthorized Contact.

On 5/6/05, in SCJM, (Cosgrove, J.), Judith appeared with counsel and entered denials as to the TPR petitions. The respondent fathers did not appear. The court ordered that the TPR, the Motion to Revoke Commitment and the MRP be consolidated for trial at CPS. Finally, the court granted DCF's Motion For Order For No Unauthorized Contact.

On 5/18/05, in SCJM, DCF filed its MMC and its MRP as to Brittany and Jordan. The PP called for TPR as to all parents and for a finding of no further efforts towards reunification with either biological parent.

On 5/25/05, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 6/3/05, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion To Amend the TPR petition as to Rayanto Sr. and his children. DCF sought to add allegations of a lack of ongoing parent-child relationships as to each child.

On 6/15/05, in CPS, (Crawford, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion To Amend the TPR petition. The court ordered that the TPR, the Motion to Revoke Commitment and the MRP be consolidated for trial at CPS. The court also granted an oral motion by Judith's counsel to release Dr. Connelly's evaluations. Finally, the court deferred action on the Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 6/30/05, in CPS, (Crawford, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 10/17/05, in CPS, trial commenced before this court. The court defaulted Lesmore and John Doe. The parties agreed that all PPs and the Motion to Revoke Commitment would be heard with the TPR. The parties also entered into a written stipulation, which was filed with the clerk.

On 10/18/05, and 10/19/05, in CPS, this court continued the trial in this case.

On 10/20/05, in CPS, this court concluded trial in this case.

On 11/7/05, in SCJM, DCF filed its MMC and its MRP as to Tianna and Brianna. The PP called for TPR as to both parents and for a finding of no further efforts towards reunification with either biological parent.

For the reasons stated below, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the TPR issues against the respondent parents and in favor of the petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF.

This court has jurisdiction over the pending case. Notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book. No action is pending in any other court affecting custody of these children.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

The court has reviewed the neglect and TPR petitions and the exhibits, which included the TPR social study. The court has also reviewed the various motions and objections to same which are the subject of this trial and has taken judicial notice of the record.² The court has utilized the applicable legal standards³ in considering the evidence and the testimony of trial witnesses. Upon deliberation, the court finds that the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence at trial.

2 In addition to the items that the court took judicial notice of in response to the granting of the State's motion, the court also took judicial notice of the pleadings, petitions, motions, summaries of facts, specific steps, transcripts and court memorandum not related to any judicial pretrials or case status conferences. The court did not review any status reports, social studies or evaluations not otherwise entered into evidence as full exhibits.

3 "It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony." In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000); see also In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 366, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). "The probative force of conflicting evidence is for the trier to determine . . ." In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528, 777 A.2d 695 (2001).

On 10/17/05, in CPS, this court found Lesmore and John Doe in default for failing to appear and enter a plea as to the TPR petition on 5/6/05 in SCJM. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that service had been made concerning both respondent fathers. Pursuant to Practice Book § 32a-2, establishing that juvenile hearings are essentially civil proceedings, the defaults against Lesmore and John Doe effectively admit the truth of the petitioner's material allegations. Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723, 732-33, 830 A.2d 228 (2003) (respondent in child support proceeding who fails to respond to pleadings "is deemed to have judicially admitted the underlying facts of the support petition"); see also Bank of America, FSB v. Franco, 57 Conn.App. 688, 693, 751 A.2d 394 (2000). This admission satisfies the petitioner's obligations; however, the court will review the evidence submitted by the petitioner concerning Lesmore and John Doe.

JUDITH (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

Judith was born on 9/16/74, in Kingston, Jamaica, the only child of Vivian F. (MGM) and Robert J. (MGF). Judith reported that she has several half-sisters and one half-brother from her father's side. On 6/11/03, reports she is one of 15 children with the same father, but different mothers and indicated that her half-siblings by MGF live in England, Jamaica and Florida. Judith told a DCF Social Work Supervisor that she has two half-brothers by MGM and her stepfather (MSGF), one adult brother and a brother a little older than Brittany.

Judith reported that she is not close to any of half-siblings. She reports she was close to one brother, but became estranged due to his drug trafficking. She also indicated that she was close to an aunt who died approximately 7 years ago.

Judith reported that she had a very happy childhood while in Jamaica.

Judith and MGM came to the United States from Jamaica in 1985 and resided with MGM and MSGF. She indicated that MSGF continually sexually assaulted her throughout her childhood, with the knowledge of MGM. Judith told DCF that she was abused from age 8 through age 14. She further stated that, when she reported this to MGM, MGM chose to believe MSGF's denial of any problem. Judith was placed in a group home in New York at age 14 as a result of acting out behaviors in the home related to her sexual abuse.

Judith admitted to Dr. Connolly, that while residing in the group home, she would return to her old neighborhood to stalk and harass MGM and MSGF, and felt justified in doing so.

Judith indicated that she left the group home at 17 years old, and moved into an apartment with a friend that she referred to as her sister.

Judith reported her estrangement from MGM. She also indicated that she has called MGM's home and was told by MSGF not to call there, but she periodically calls MGM at work.

Judith stated to DCF that shortly after moving into the apartment, she met Lesmore and began a dating relationship with him. She became pregnant at age 18, and gave birth to Brittany on 8/4/94 in the Bronx. The relationship lasted for approximately 2 years.

Brittany was born on 8/4/94 in the Bronx to Judith.⁴ Judith first indicated to DCF that Brittany's father was Lesmore. Subsequently, Judith claimed that Brittany's father was an unnamed New York gang member who is now deceased. Judith claimed that she and Lesmore created the fiction that Brittany was his child so Lesmore could present Brittany as his child to his dying mother, who had wanted a grandchild.

4 There is no name listed for father on Brittany's birth certificate.

Despite the efforts of DCF, Judith has refused to admit the name of the purported gang member. However, Dr. Connolly reported in his 10/6/03 evaluation that Brittany disclosed that she had been in contact with her birth father, whose nickname was "Skinny," until the previous year.

Judith reported to DCF that she met Rayanto in 1997 when she was 23 years old, and commenced a relationship with him. Shortly thereafter, she became pregnant with Jordan. Judith and Rayanto began cohabiting shortly after she became pregnant. Jordan was born on 11/11/97 in the Bronx. The twins were born on 10/23/99, again in the Bronx.

Judith indicated that, in 2001, she fell in a store and had a serious head injury, which resulted in her developing a seizure disorder. Her relationship with Rayanto deteriorated and they separated. Judith maintained that her friend recommended that she relocate to Connecticut for a better life for her children, and she did so, in late 8/01.

Rayanto also relocated to Connecticut. He and Judith have had an off/on again relationship while residing in Connecticut.

Judith has been involved in several other relationships over the past year but has not given DCF details concerning these relationships, indicating that "it doesn't effect the children." DCF has expressed concern regarding the safety of some of these relationships, due to their genesis over the Internet and Judith's lack of knowledge about these individuals.

On 4/15/04, Judith reported to DCF that she and Rayanto were married on 4/10/04, and that he had moved back into her home the previous month. However, on 5/2/04, she indicated that, on 5/2/04, Rayanto had assaulted her in the midst of an argument, and that she was tired of Rayanto using "weed" constantly. She further explained that she had left the home and had gone to New York for the weekend to avoid further injury.

Rayanto denied that he had committed any domestic violence towards Judith or the children.

Both Judith and Rayanto later reported that he left the home in early May 2004, and Judith indicated, on several different occasions, that she was going to pursue a divorce.

DCF social worker Renee Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that both Judith and Rayanto reported domestic violence in the relationship.

Judith received a settlement in reference to her lawsuit concerning her fall and resultant seizure disorder. At trial, she testified that she could not remember the exact amount that she received, but estimated it to have been between $10,000.00 and $20,000.00. She indicated that she spent the money frivolously, including the purchase of a "fully loaded" Kia Sedona van.

Judith reported that she is a practicing Christian and attends church on a weekly basis. Judith related to DCF that she had to change churches after receiving her lawsuit settlement, because the church had asked her for a sizeable donation, and when she refused, she was made to feel unwelcome there.

Judith testified that she received her GED through Norwich Adult Education. She also told DCF that she had taken some college courses, and was taking courses at a community college in Hartford 2 days per week.

Judith testified that she was receiving Section 8 benefits when she moved to Connecticut, but lost them during her psychiatric hospitalization.

Judith indicated to the court appointed evaluator, Dr. James J. Connolly, Ph.D, that she was a marijuana trafficker by age 17.

Judith testified that she obtained employment at a physician's office in 10/01.

Judith reported to DCF that she was discontinued from Department of Social Services (DSS) cash and food stamp benefits in 2003. She was unemployed for 5 months in late 2003, as a result of having received her lawsuit settlement. She admitted that she had exhausted most of the funds from the settlement within 5 months.

DCF referred Judith to the Department of Labor (DOL) for job training. Judith completed a certified nurse's aide training program in 2/04, and worked on a per diem basis off/on for several months during the spring and summer of 2004.

Judith has since reported having held 9 other jobs during the year prior to the TPR social study. The longest period of employment was 3 months, while some jobs lasted for as little as 3 days. She was employed in telemarketing, housekeeping, assembly work and home healthcare.

As of 4/13/05, Judith reported to DCF that she is seeking employment.

At the trial, Judith indicated that she was employed in a nursing home, but would be leaving for a better job at another nursing home, the Bay View.

Baraka Thomas, a permanency social worker employed by Community Residences, Inc. (CRI), indicated that Judith was presently employed at the Fontainebleau nursing home, and that she had previously been employed by Comfort Suites Inn.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has an extensive history of substance abuse and mental health issues.

During the 10/03 evaluation, Judith admitted to Dr. Connolly that she used marijuana on a regular basis by age 17, and that her use had continued when she moved to Connecticut. She denied using it at the time of the evaluation.

Judith reported to Dr. Brian Benton, the Medical Director for the Department of Psychiatric Services at WWB, that she had a history of marijuana and cocaine use. Judith also commented on her chronic marijuana use to DCF on 11/6/03.

DCF referred Judith to Southeastern Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence, Inc. (SCADD) on multiple dates: 9/26/03, 11/21/03, 12/11/03, 02/25/04, 5/3/04 and 6/04. The clear and convincing evidence shows that she failed to submit herself for an evaluation until 3/24/04.

Judith appeared at SCADD on 3/24/04, but refused to submit to a hair test. She tested positive for cannabinoids through a random urine test conducted that day. Judith admitted to SCADD that she smoked marijuana on 12/31/03.

Judith submitted a hair test sample on 5/11/04 that tested positive for marijuana. Judith's tests on 6/23/04, 7/7/04 and 7/27/04 proved negative.

Judith did attend individual sessions at SCADD following the 5/04 positive test. She refused to attend group sessions. SCADD issued a report, dated 7/19/04, which indicated that Judith had completed all requirements of the recommended treatment program.

The clear and convincing evidence, which includes Judith's own testimony, shows that, on 12/29/04, she canceled her visit with her children at DCF. However, she visited the DCF office several times that day in an extremely agitated, emotional and hysterical state. During one of her visits, she left a letter there which DCF personnel found quite concerning. Believing that the letter expressed suicidal or homicidal intentions, DCF contacted the Norwich Police Department, which issued an all points bulletin (APB) for Judith.

Judith drove her van to Norwalk, entered a liquor store, purchased alcohol and drank to intoxication while standing in front of the liquor store. Subsequently, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Norwalk, while a stranger that she had just met was operating her Kia van. The Norwalk Police Department ascertained the existence of the APB for Judith, and she was subsequently hospitalized at Norwalk Hospital, where she indicated that she was very severely depressed, and told hospital personnel, "I want to die."

Judith was released from the hospital on 12/30/04.

The Norwalk Police Department ascertained that Judith's van was uninsured and that her privilege to operate a motor vehicle in the state of Connecticut was suspended.

After discovering that Rayanto had returned to live with Judith in 02/05, DCF asked Judith to submit to a hair test. However, when DCF asked her to sign an updated release of information, Judith refused to sign the release.

Judith has an extensive mental health history in Connecticut.

Dr. Benton testified that Judith had been evaluated in the WWB emergency room in 1/18/02, and had been subsequently referred to him. He testified that Judith had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression. She was referred to the outpatient clinic and started psychotropic medications; however, she continued to mentally decompensate. Dr. Benton further testified that, in the fall of the 2002, the diagnosis was modified to major depression with psychotic features, and was further modified following the 12/10/02 hospitalization to include schizoaffective disorder and borderline personality traits.

Dr. Benton testified that Judith had difficulty at WWB while she was inpatient. She suffered multiple crises, required emergency medications and had to be restrained.

Judith remained inpatient at WWB until 01/9/03, when she was discharged and transferred to NH. The records of that facility, which were admitted as a full exhibit, indicate that Judith was admitted to Natchaug in a highly unstable psychiatric state and on 8 different psychiatric medications. Judith herself reported to personnel at Natchaug that she had been homicidal while at WWB. Upon admission, Natchaug personnel indicated that her judgment, impulse control and insight were poor and diagnosed her with schizoaffective disorder and personality disorder.

While at Natchaug, Judith was placed on numerous medications, including Paxil and Ativan with Protonix, Zyprexa Zydis, Neurontin, Geodon, Depakote, Topamax, Seroquel, and Dilantin. She had to be secluded and restrained at times. On occasion, the hospital gave her Haldol in order to contain her violence. The records indicate that Judith was slowly able to modify her behavior throughout her stay at Natchaug.

Judith was discharged from Natchaug on 2/4/03, with the diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, cannabis abuse, and personality disorder. She was on numerous psychotropic medications, as well as Dilantin. She was referred to aftercare therapy and a dual diagnosis program.

Dr. Benton noted that Judith failed to appear for her appointment with him on 2/28/03, but he saw her on 4/23/03. He testified that Judith's attendance with him was sporadic, and that he last saw her on 10/17/03. He further indicated that Judith was discharged unsuccessfully by the dual diagnosis program for non-attendance.

Judith testified that she saw a Dr. Traboulsi for a short period of time.

In 10/03, Judith admitted to DCF that she was not taking her medication because she believed that she did not need it.

On 12/29/04, following the motor vehicle accident in Norwalk, Judith was hospitalized overnight at Norwalk Hospital.

At trial, Edward Bednar, a licenced psychiatric social worker and clinician from Integrative Behavioral Health, testified that Judith had been under his care since 7/04. He indicated that he had diagnosed her with PTSD and borderline personality disorder.

Bednar testified that Judith had been on Risperdal since 7/05 and he had noted a gradual improvement. He testified that he believed that Judith would cooperate with medication. He indicated that, in 3/05, Judith indicated that she was not on medication and that she refused to take them.

Judith's relationship with DCF and service providers has been rocky, confrontational and, at times, explosive.

On 5/28/03, the clear and convincing evidence showed that Judith caused a disturbance at DCF during a visit. Judith was profane and verbally abusive to DCF personnel in front of her children after being told that she had to be on time for visits with her children. She also threatened the life and well-being of the social worker assigned to her case.

On 5/30/03, Judith returned to DCF for another visit. When told that her visits would be supervised, Judith cursed and threatened DCF personnel and became hostile. A Mobile Crisis Worker was unable to calm Judith, who then threatened to kill her social worker. Off. Maikshilo of the Norwich Police Department eventually arrested her.

From 6/03 through 10/03, Judith purposely misled DCF personnel concerning her compliance with her psychiatric treatment providers.

In the first part of 2004, Judith attended anger management classes at OIC. While there, her behavior was, at times, characterized as inappropriate, threatening and combative. Judith was ultimately terminated from OIC Anger Management Program on 2/25/04, and subsequently banned from the premises due to her abusive behaviors.

On 4/14/04, an investigation by the Groton Police Department revealed that Judith had threatened to blow up the DCF office if her children were not returned to her care. The police interviewed Judith on this date. She didn't deny making the statement, but claimed she was just venting. Judith was not arrested, but a police report was created.

On 8/12/05, Judith created another disturbance during visitation. Law enforcement was called to remove her from the room.

In 2003, Judith was convicted of Larceny in the 6th Degree.

RAYANTO (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

Rayanto was born on 9/20/76, in the Bronx, the son of Stanley S. (PGF) and Lilly S. (PGM) and was raised in the Bronx. He is a high school graduate.

Rayanto indicated that he has never engaged in any mental health counseling, support groups, anger management groups, parenting groups or any other groups. He did relate to DCF that he was referred for school counseling in junior high school, but doesn't remember participating.

Rayanto reported that his parents still live in the Bronx, as does his brother Warren, the sibling with whom he has the closest relationship. He is estranged from his brother Gary, who resides in Tennessee, and his sister Carlotte, who Rayanto believes last lived in Florida. Rayanto provided few details as to the cause of the estrangement except to indicate that the siblings disrespected his mother years before.

Rayanto stated that he gets along fine with PGM. However, he declined to give any information about PGF, except to describe him as "a grouchy old man".

Rayanto has a sporadic work history; he has been employed as a mover, a temporary service worker, a driver and a pipe insulator. He has never been employed on a long-term basis, only for weeks or months. When not employed, he collects unemployment benefits.

Rayanto has a NY driver's license, but has no motor vehicle.

At the time of the TPR social study, Rayanto was employed at a construction job at Middlesex Memorial Hospital, where he did work involving pipes.

Rayanto told DCF that he had been with Judith on an intermittent basis since 1996. They met though a friend in New York. They were together until the summer of 2002, when Rayanto decided he needed "a change", and left Judith for an 18-year-old woman.

Rayanto indicated to DCF that Judith and the children moved to Norwich, where she had friends, in 7/01. Rayanto followed 2 months later and rejoined the family.

When questioned as to why he was not a placement resource when the children came into DCF care as a result of Judith's mental health issues, Rayanto first claimed that he had not been informed that he could get custody of the children, but then admitted that he had insufficient accommodations for the children, as he was residing in a 1-room apartment, and lacked the financial resources to obtain appropriate lodgings. He also admitted to actively abusing marijuana, both at the time of the initial removal and at the time of the TPR social study.

In 10/03, Rayanto admitted to DCF that he was unable to be a placement resource for the children, despite his wish to be so. He further indicated that he knew of no relative resources for the children.

Rayanto admitted that he had been convicted of Breach of Peace.

As of 10/03, Rayanto admitted past daily use of marijuana, but claimed that he had reduced his use for the previous 4 months to 2-4 times per week.

Rayanto agreed to cooperate with a referral to SCADD for a hair test/evaluation and was referred on 11/21/03. He finally agreed to an appointment on 1/15/04; but then failed to appear for the appointment. He was re-referred to SCADD on 2/25/04 and appeared for his appointment on 3/24/04, but failed to cooperate with a hair test, due to the shortness of the hair on his head and the fact that he shaved his underarms.

The SCADD evaluator was not able to make appropriate referrals for treatment due to the fact that the information that Rayanto supplied at the evaluation conflicted with information that he previously supplied.

Rayanto was again referred to SCADD. On 6/7/04, SCADD informed DCF that his hair test, rendered on 5/24/04, had tested positive.

SCADD was unable to perform another hair test on Rayanto on 6/2/04, due to the length and style of Rayanto's hair sample. Rayanto failed to complete any further substance abuse treatment or evaluations.

At the time of the DCF interview in 10/03, Rayanto indicated that he had severed his relationship with his girlfriend and had reconciled with Judith, and was living in her home. However, in 12/03, Rayanto moved out of Judith's home and returned to his girlfriend.

There was another reconciliation between the respondent parents, which resulted in their marriage on 4/10/04. Rayanto provided proof of the marriage to DCF.

In 5/04, Judith reported to DCF that she had to leave the family home approximately 10 days after the marriage due to domestic violence by Rayanto. Judith indicated that Rayanto struck her several times and had smashed and broken things in the home. She also reported that he was constantly using marijuana again. Fearing further domestic violence. Judith left and went to New York for a few days.

Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that both Judith and Rayanto reported domestic violence in the relationship.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Rayanto has failed to maintain consistent contact with DCF, has failed to comply with most of the specific steps and has failed to visit the children. He has occasionally seen the children as a result of driving Judith to some of her community visits, and her unauthorized actions.

LESMORE (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

DCF has little information concerning Lesmore.

Lesmore was last known to be residing in Revere Beach, Florida.

Judith reported to DCF that she met Lesmore and began dating him shortly after she left the group home at age 17. She became pregnant with Brittany at age 17. Judith reported that her relationship with Lesmore lasted for approximately 2 years; yet, she was unable to provide DCF with any other information concerning him.

Judith reported that Lesmore had sent money for Brittany's support when Judith lived in New York.

In 3/04, DCF received several telephone calls from Lesmore's wife, who related that Lesmore is a Jamaican national who was having immigration problems. She indicated that Lesmore could not provide care or financial support for Brittany and that he had a court case that was upcoming in the middle of 3/04 in Florida. She also indicated that Lesmore wanted a paternity test concerning Brittany.

Judith had suggested that Brittany be sent to Florida to live with Lesmore. When DCF asked Judith to sign a release to allow paternity testing, Judith refused to sign the release, refused to give permission for paternity testing and stated that she would never give permission for paternity testing. DCF informed Lesmore of this development by mail.

DCF has had no contact with Lesmore since late 3/04.

JOHN DOE (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

Judith also reported to DCF that Lesmore was not Brittany's father. She indicated that Brittany's father was a New York gang member who was killed in a shooting.

Judith claimed that she and Lesmore created the fiction that Brittany was his child so Lesmore could present Brittany as his child to his dying mother, who had wanted a grandchild.

Despite the efforts of DCF, Judith has refused to admit the name of the purported gang member.

However, Dr. Connolly reported in his 10/6/03 evaluation that Brittany disclosed that she had been in contact with her birth father, whose nickname was "Skinny", until the previous year.

BRITTANY (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

Brittany was born on 8/4/94 in the Bronx to Judith.⁵ Judith first indicated to DCF that Brittany's father was Lesmore. Subsequently, Judith claimed that Brittany's father was an unnamed New York gang member who is now deceased. Judith claimed that she and Lesmore created the fiction that Brittany was his child so Lesmore could present Brittany as his child to his dying mother, who had wanted a grandchild.

5 There is no name listed for father on Brittany's birth certificate.

Despite the efforts of DCF, Judith has refused to admit the name of the purported gang member. However, in his 10/6/03 evaluation, Dr. Connolly reported that Brittany disclosed that she had been in contact with her birth father, whose nickname was "Skinny," until the previous year.

Judith reported that Brittany was born normal and healthy, that she was developmentally on target and had no serious illnesses or operations. Judith indicated that Brittany helped her care for the younger children when they lived in New York.

DCF indicated that they did not have much information about Brittany's life prior to the family's relocation to Connecticut in 8/01. However, both Judith and Brittany reported that the family's life in New York was not good, and indicated that Judith and Rayanto argued.

During Brittany's 2 stays in the custody of DCF, she has been in a variety of placements, some of which have disrupted. DCF social worker Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that Brittany had been in her current placement since 6/05. She also testified as to Brittany's history in foster care subsequent to the last OTC, and as to the nature of some of the disruptions.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Brittany and Jordan were placed in a foster home from 1/9/03 through 1/30/03. This placement disrupted due to behavioral issues.

Brittany and Rayanto were returned to the Safe Home on 5/30/03, and remained there until 7/18/03. While there, they were placed in separate buildings within the facility.

Brittany had another foster home placement, from 7/18/03 through 3/15/04 that disrupted due to her behaviors.

Brittany's next foster home placement, from 3/15/04 through 11/30/04, also disrupted due to Brittany's behaviors. The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Brittany's behavior in the foster home became problematic after she began supervised visits in Judith's home in 10/04. Brittany began stealing from her school and the foster home, eventually causing law enforcement to intervene.

While in this home, Brittany reported that, during a visit with Judith and Jordan in Judith's home, Judith instructed her to pack her belongings and that Judith would pick her up from school and that they would go to Canada. Brittany did pack her belongings and fled from the foster home and from school, necessitating the intervention of local law enforcement. Brittany also admitted to forging a permission note for an overnight visit with a friend and signing her foster mother's name on it.

Eventually, the foster mother then requested Brittany's immediate removal from the home. Brittany then ran away from the foster home after stealing the foster mother's house and car keys. Local law enforcement was again required to intervene and retrieve her.

Brittany alleged that this foster mother had struck her.

Brittany also disrupted from the 2 placements immediately prior to her present placement, due to her behaviors.

Presently, Brittany is placed in a foster home with another female foster child, who is 15 years old, and with whom Brittany shares a room. The foster mother also has an adult daughter who lives on the premises. Brittany has indicated that she likes this foster home and has indicated that she wishes to be adopted by the foster mother or her daughter.

Brittany is presently in the 6th grade. She has received average to above average grades, but has manifested behavioral issues in school. Her 3rd-grade teacher reported that Brittany was very disruptive in class, could be very aggressive towards other children and enjoyed having her own way.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Brittany, though an intelligent child, struggles with negative attitude and anger issues. In the past, she had issues concerning enuresis.

Brittany visits with Jordan weekly. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that they are very bonded to each other, though neither one is as bonded to the twins. Brittany displays parentified behavior towards her siblings during visitation. Monique Mooney, a social worker at Lighthouse Family Services and a former DCF social worker, testified that she discussed this issue with Brittany, but that the issue had not improved. Brittany also saw herself as a caretaker for Judith. She has been observed to look out for Judith's well-being and mood during visits, as well as to correct her mother.

Brittany visits her sisters monthly.

Brittany has been observed to be violent with Jordan. There have been times when visitation specialists had found it necessary to stop the motor vehicle in which they were traveling in order to address the mutual combat between Brittany and Jordan.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that all of the children have a strong bond with Judith. Brittany has vacillated as to whether she wishes to live with Judith or remain in foster care. However, she has made clear that she does not wish to live with Judith if Rayanto is in the home. Brittany has indicated that she is afraid of him and of what he will do, and that she does not want to be in the same house with him.

Brittany reported that she had been the victim of sexual abuse dating back to 1998 in New York. She disclosed that when she was 8 years old and residing in New York, she was left in the care of the boyfriend of one of Judith's friends, who sexually abused her. Brittany stated that Judith and her friend walked in while "Keith" (an adult male, no last name known), was having sex with her. Brittany reports that her mother hit this man with her shoe, but Keith then bit her. Brittany indicated that the family moved to Connecticut shortly after this incident and that Judith instructed Brittany not to talk about the incident. When interviewed by DCF personnel, Judith denied that Brittany had ever been the victim of sexual abuse.

Additionally, while at the Safe House, Brittany wrote and expressed some sexually provocative statements/comments. At the recommendation of her therapist, Brittany was not evaluated for sexual abuse.

At the time of the TPR trial, Brittany was in weekly individual therapy at Child and Family Services (CFS) in New London. Previously, she had received counseling at United Community and Family Services (UCFS) in Norwich.

The children had regular visitation with Judith until 8/12/05. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, as a result of Judith's misconduct during the visit, DCF suspended visitation with Brittany and Jordan.

At the TPR trial, Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that DCF indicated to Judith that her visits with Brittany and Jordan would not be resumed until she discussed the 8/12/05 incident with DCF. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith has steadfastly refused to do so.

In his 10/6/03 report, Dr. Connolly wrote the following concerning his evaluation of Brittany:

Brittany appears to be a rather bright and precocious young person. She has a ready sense of honor, and she appears to be very extroverted in her interests and attitudes. She actively explored all the major aspects of my office. She appeared to be somewhat more observant than the average child of her age, and she was able to converse in a more adult fashion that would be expected from most nine-year old children. Her DCF records indicate that there is a general feeling that Brittany is a "parentified" child, and I can certainly attest to the fact that she has a very strong identification with her mother. This presentation may be attributed to the fact that, particularly when her mother was depressed and spent a lot of time in bed during the day, Brittany would have to take care of her brother and sisters. This interpretation seems to be a fairly reasonable one. Brittany has a history of being disruptive in school, and in particular of being aggressive toward other children.

Brittany told me that she has been in counseling for the last two months with a woman named Jennifer who is a counselor at United Community and Family Services in Norwich, Connecticut. She appeared to have some understanding of what counseling involves, and she was responsive and cooperative during my interview with her . . . She told me that she believes that [Rayanto] is a very "mean" man who cruelly left her mother and who was sexually unfaithful to her mother. She explained to me that she believes there is a cycle in the relationships between men and women whereby at the beginning men appear to be very sweet to women but the men gradually begin to act abusively. She told me that she had memories of several violent incidents between [Rayanto] and her mother. I believe that counseling is likely to be beneficial for Brittany because of her general problems of social maladjustment and the likely trauma she has experienced from being raised in an atmosphere with a high level of domestic violence. I would defer on a formal psychiatric diagnosis for Brittany at this time. Brittany's projective test results indicated a strong tendency toward emotional and social precocity. She demonstrated a meticulousness and self-assurance that was unusual in a child of her age. These findings would tend to reinforce the idea that Brittany is parentified. I note that her precociousness may be a long-term advantage for her if she is able to gain some self-control and is exposed to a variety of healthy role models.

JORDAN (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

Jordan was born in the Bronx on 11/11/97, to Judith and Rayanto. Other than indicating that he was a normal, healthy baby, Judith has provided no other development information about Jordan to DCF.

DCF has no history of hospitalizations or serious illnesses for Jordan.

Jordan has been in DCF care on 2 occasions; from 12/2/02 though 4/24/03, and from 5/30/03 to date.

The clear and convincing evidence indicate that Jordan was present for at least part of Judith's misconduct at DCF on 5/30/03.

Like his sister, Jordan has had various placements with varying success.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Brittany and Jordan were placed in a foster home from 1/9/03 through 1/30/03. This placement disrupted due to behavioral issues.

Brittany and Jordan were returned to the Safe Home on 5/30/03, and remained there until 7/18/03. While there, they were placed in separate buildings. During this time, Jordan had verbal outbursts and disruptive behaviors.

Jordan had a foster home placement from 7/18/03 through 4/27/05 that disrupted due to his behaviors. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Jordan lied and stole while in the foster home. He also set fire to posters that he received from his mother. Consequentially, the foster parents requested his removal. After an emergency therapy session, he was returned to the Safe Home, where he remained for 45 days.

At the time of the trial, Jordan had been placed in a therapeutic foster home.

Jordan is in the 3rd grade. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that he has had substantial emotional difficulty in school and often seeks the teacher's attention. He likes to be the center of attention, and if he is not chosen for a task or does not see himself receiving equal treatment, he has been known to have verbal outbursts, including yelling and screaming at the teacher. Jordan has also gotten into physical altercations with peers. Although Jordan is in regular education, he follows a SO4-D Individualized Educational Plan at school with modifications to address his behaviors. Jordan was moved into the self-contained behavioral classroom in 2/05, based on his inability to focus, an increase in outbursts and unsafe behaviors.

During the 3/22/05 school Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meeting, the team discussed Jordan's behavior and the escalation of the intensity of his significant outbursts, including sobbing and making unsafe threats. The school staff expressed concern that he may harm himself and recommended that he be referred back to the Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP) and that perhaps a therapeutic foster home environment would best meet his needs. Jordan's behavioral decompensation appeared to occur during the time when Judith was telling him that he was coming home to live with her, and that the judge was going to let him come home on 2/15/05, following her court date. Judith also let Jordan know that she had court on 3/14/05, and that she was going to be picking him up that evening. Judith had called the foster home on several occasions and spoke directly to Jordan before DCF was aware of the phone calls. Judith called Jordan shortly after the 3/14/05 court date, apologized for having not picked him up and told him that DCF and the courts wouldn't let him come home. Jordan immediately reacted to this phone call, and the foster parent notified DCF that Judith had once again spoken to her son, about adult issues, and he was extremely upset. Jordan's behaviors at school, in the foster home, in the community and during visits were noticeably different.

Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that, on 10/20/05, Jordan's school would be holding another PPT concerning him.

Jordan was referred to Child Guidance Clinic (CGC) in New London for weekly individual therapy sessions that began in 2/04.

In 6/04, Jordan was referred to the PHP program at Thames Valley to address attention, behaviors, safety and boundary difficulties. He completed the PHP on 9/27/04, after successfully transitioning into the new school year. His behaviors remained stable for a few months, then decompensated, as indicated above. Consequently, he was re-referred to the PHP program.

Jordan has made suicidal comments in the past.

At the time of the trial, Jordan was prescribed Adderall and Lexapro. He had a psychiatrist and was attending therapy weekly.

Jordan is up to date on all his medical and dental needs.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith has attempted to have unauthorized contact with Jordan since he has been in the care and custody of DCF. Judith has attempted to visit him at his school without authorization by DCF.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that, on 1/4/05, 1/6/05, and 1/10/05, Judith picked up Jordan and transported him to school. She also picked up one of his friends and transported this child as well. Jordan further revealed that Judith had told him not to tell anyone that she had transported him to school. Upon inquiry by DCF, Judith admitted that she had transported Jordan and his friend despite knowing that she was not to have any unauthorized contact with her children, and despite knowing that she was not licensed to operate a motor vehicle in the State of Connecticut.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith continues to make inappropriate comments and statements to Jordan, despite being told not to do so.

Jordan has an ambivalent relationship with his mother. At times, he shows affection towards Judith and tells service providers that he would like to move back home with his mother. On other occasions, he has been observed yelling at her and telling her what to do. On 3/30/05, during a supervised visit, Judith became embroiled in an altercation with the children. During the course of the altercation, Jordan yelled at his mother, that he was "going to kill her."

Jordan has had no officially sanctioned contact with Rayanto Sr. since prior to 6/03. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that as a result of Judith's misconduct during visits, the children have had some intermittent contact with Rayanto Sr. during past visits in the community.

Jordan does not bring his father up in conversation, but if someone asks him about his father, then Jordan says that he misses him and loves him.

The children had regular visitation with Judith until 8/12/05. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, as a result of Judith's misconduct during the visit, her visitation with Brittany and Jordan was suspended.

Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that DCF indicated to Judith that her visits with Brittany and Jordan would not be resumed until she discussed the 8/12/05 incident with DCF. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith has steadfastly refused to do so.

In his 10/6/03 evaluation, Dr. Connolly indicated the following:

During my observations of Jordan he appeared to be an active and rather normal child. His free play behavior in my office was exuberant but not destructive. He seemed appropriately oriented to an office situation, and he easily established reasonable rapport with the interviewer. At least on the surface, Jordan did not appear to be a socially apprehensive child. His projective test results were relatively unremarkable. The protocol evidenced the trends that would be expected from a normal child of his age, except that his TAT responses had an unusually high level of negative social expectations . . .

Jordan appeared to deal with the chaos of his family in general by disattending to much of what was going on around him. When I observed the three younger children with [Judith] and [Rayanto, Sr.], Jordan appeared to be quite emotionally detached. There was quite a bit of emotionality and disruptive behavior coming from the twins, and [Judith] became very loud and emotionally upset at times as she attempted to rein in the behavior of the twins, but Jordan seemed to simply observe the entire process. I noted that at a certain level he reminded me of a bystander to an accident. There appear to be circumstances which have insulated Jordan from some of the potentially damaging effects of being raised in a family where there has been domestic violence and general chaos. It is my very strong impression that his older sister has a pattern of acting as his protector, and I also believe that he has received some preference in his family because of his status as the only male child. As I note below, Jordan appeared to have a very definite bond to his father, [Rayanto]. [Rayanto] appears to favor Jordan because he is the only boy in the family, and Jordan responds as one might expect a child would to such favorable treatment, he clearly enjoys it, and he has by now come to expect it as a matter of course.

TIANNA (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).) BRIANNA (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).) Tianna and Brianna were born on 10/23/99, in the Bronx to Judith and Rayanto. Judith reported that both children were born healthy and reached their developmental milestones within normal limits.

Tianna is the older of the twins and the usual leader.

Tianna has displayed parentified behavior towards her twin in the past, although DCF reported that as of the TPR social study, Brianna has been giving instructions to Tianna, instead of behaving as the follower.

Tianna has been known to curse when she feels like it, and she is prone to instant temper tantrums if she doesn't get her own way. She is quick to cry or to pout or withdraw. Tianna is demonstrative and likes to be held, give hugs, and get close to caretakers. She is bright, and verbally articulate. She enjoys engaging in conversations and talks at a level older than her age.

Brianna does not like confrontation, but she will resort to physical violence if provoked. She can also be very loving and affectionate. She is very articulate for her age. Brianna is very protective of her twin sister.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that there is a bond between Judith and the twins.

When initially taken into custody by DCF on 12/10/02, the twins were placed in the safe home with Brittany and Jordan until they were discharged to a foster home on 1/24/03. While at the foster home, the twins exhibited challenging behavior, which included destroying furniture, failing to respect personal property or limits, cursing and throwing temper tantrums.

DCF put FAST support services into the foster home in an attempt to maintain the place; however, the twins' behavior continued unabated. The foster mother insisted upon their removal following an unsubstantiated referral for physical abuse.

The twins were removed from this foster home at the end of the school year, and placed in their present foster home on 7/2/04. They are the youngest in a placement which includes 4 other female children, both biological and foster, and who range in age from 18 years old to 11 years old. Tianna and Brianna share a room in the foster home.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the twins have done well in this foster home. The foster mother can manage their difficult behaviors and can redirect them. Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that their tantrums are less dramatic and that they follow instructions. The twins have developed a good relationship with the foster mother and are very attached to her. They have expressed a wish to remain in this placement. They refer to the foster mother as "mom."

The twins are presently in 1st grade, where they receive regular educational service. They have no special educational needs at this time.

When the twins were placed in kindergarten, the school decided to place them in separate classes, due to Tianna and Brianna's tendencies to copy or "feed off" the other's misbehavior. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Tianna had behavioral problems in school towards the end of the school year, in that she would fail to follow directions and would walk out of class.

Prior to kindergarten, the twins attended the TVCCA Head Start preschool program daily. They completed that program on 6/25/04.

DCF has no information concerning any hospitalizations or severe injuries or illnesses for either Brianna or Tianna. They are up to date on all their medical and dental needs and immunizations, and are healthy.

Both Tianna and Brianna attend individual therapy sessions at the Child Guidance Clinic (CGC) in New London. They were originally referred for intake services at Child and Family Services of Groton in 4/04, but their intake was postponed due to their move to a new foster placement. They completed their intake in 6/04 and commenced in 8/04. Brianna's therapist is Julie Danis, and Tianna's therapist is Maureen Townsend.

DCF has little information concerning the twins' lives prior to coming to Connecticut from New York.

In a Parent Aide Contact Report dated 12/11/02, DCF documented that one of the twins disclosed "Chris" made her vagina feel better. Upon further investigation it was noted Brianna disclosed that an adult male babysitter touched her vagina and her buttock; however, she was unable to provide specific information to substantiate this incident. In the same Parent Aide Report it was noted that Rayanto had "bashed in the perps car with a hammer and he was arrested." A referral for play therapy and possible sexual abuse evaluations were made for both Tianna and Brianna after the disclosure, but they were deemed "too young" for the sex abuse evaluation at that time.

The twins had visited with Judith weekly through the CRI program. As of the time of the trial, she had not visited in the past month. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith did expose the twins to inappropriate behavior and comments during visits.

The twins had also visited with Judith through LFS program. However, there was an incident on 3/30/05 with Judith that resulted in inappropriate behavior by Judith.

Rayanto has not officially visited the twins since 6/03. There may have been situations were he saw the children as a result of Judith allowing him to do so while she was visiting them in the community.

In his 10/6/03 evaluation, Dr. Connolly wrote the following concerning the twins:

[Judith] told me that the two four-year-olds, Tianna and Brianna, are fraternal rather than identical twins. The verbal abilities of both of these twin girls appear to be at least at age level. During my observations of the twins, I noticed that both of them appeared to be highly emotional and rather uncontrollable behaviorally. Tianna was openly defiant toward all of the adults that were present during the observation sessions. Her behavior had a somewhat explosive quality to it. Her twin sister, Brianna, appeared to be waiting for Tianna's lead, and on the basis of the signals that she received from Tianna, she would react with her own emotional behavior. When the twins began to get noisy and emotionally unstrung, I noticed that both Brittany and her mother began to intervene with them. Both of these interventions tended to be ineffective, however. To some extent, [Judith] appeared to defer to [Brittany] to make some initial interventions with the twins and to only intervene fully after the twins had very clearly gone beyond the point where Brittany could influence them in any way.

The twins were simply too young for me to proceed to do regular psychological testing of them, but I believe that their behavior will require some sort of professional intervention. Counseling interventions may be only of limited effectiveness, but a behavior programming approach might help to reduce some of the behavior problems of these two little girls. The combined effect of their behavior has very likely in the past frequently overmastered the wills of adult caregivers, so that their outrageous behavior has effectively been reinforced time and time again. In my observations of the twins with their mother, I noted that [Judith] tended to succumb to their peremptory demands, especially to Tianna's demands. [Judith] is not a socially passive individual by any means, so the fact that the twins' behavior can overmaster her intentions is a matter of some note. To some extent, it appears that [Judith]'s established tendency to simply give in when facing the twins' resistance is simply a kind of hypomanic whim on her part, but in another way [Judith]'s giving in to the twins is a natural response to a very trying social situation. It is likely that the extremely demanding and disruptive behavior of the twins is the outgrowth of their having been raised in deteriorating circumstances, particularly the circumstances during the last two years when their father, [Rayanto], was absent from the home and their mother's depression sometimes reached a point where she was unable to function effectively as a parent. Under such circumstances, producing very large amounts of noise and making it impossible to ignore their demands would have been a functional form of behavior. Unfortunately, this behavior will meet with unfortunate consequences under more normal circumstances. The records that were made available to me indicated that both twins have engaged in highly disruptive and destructive behavior, including the destruction of furniture, and that special support services have been put into their foster home in order to maintain the placement. It is obviously quite important that the two girls begin to engage separately in constructive behavior, and it may be useful to partially de-couple their activity schedules both inside and outside the foster home, so they have opportunities to separately learn positive behaviors . . .

The twins, Tianna and Brianna, exhibit an interesting and unhealthy distribution of roles. Tianna is by far the more socially dominant of the twins, and she appears to be somewhat hyperactive and oppositional. Brianna seems to be overawed by her twin sister and to follow her lead in most matters. Tianna's behavior is sometimes extremely disruptive, and she has a tendency to try to override the feelings and desires of all around her. The situation with the four-year-old twins requires some behavioral intervention, perhaps by way of behavior programming, perhaps by way of counseling, perhaps both.

In his 4/11/05 evaluation, Dr. Connolly made the following assessments and observations concerning the twins:

In terms of the parent-child observations, my strongest impression was the fact that the psychological stability and general behavior of both of the twins, Tianna and Brianna, has improved dramatically since I observed them in 2003. Judith was able to supervise the activities of the twins in a rather effective fashion. As she had been before, [Judith] was a rather noisy and officious parent, but the twins were markedly calmer and more attentive, and she was able to manage their behavior much more effectively than she had during the original evaluation. Judith had brought snacks and lunch and activities for the children. Under [Judith]'s supervision, the two girls became involved in a number of arts and crafts activities. Judith told me that she believed that the twins' foster mother, a woman named Betty, was raising the twins well. When I observed Judith in interaction with her two older children and with all four of the children together, I noted that the level of confusion, noise, and general disorder was less than the comparable observations undertaken in 2003. I attributed this primarily to the much greater manageability of the twins. I must conclude that the residence of the twins in their foster home is the primary factor leading to their much greater emotional and behavioral stability. I note that the twins are currently interested in their classes in school and they showed an engagement in the learning process which is quite commendable.

RELATIVE RESOURCES

The clear and convincing evidence shows that there are no relative resources for placement of the children. None of the respondent parents have brought forth any viable placement options for their children.

SIBLINGS

DCF has not supplied any other information concerning any other siblings.

ADJUDICATION

On 4/24/03, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), the court adjudicated the children neglected. Brittany and Jordan were returned to Judith under 6 months protective supervision, while the twins were committed to the custody of DCF until further order of the court.

On 4/15/04, in SCJM, (Burke, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion To Open And Modify Disposition, and committed Brittany and Jordan to the custody of DCF.

The court is next called upon to determine whether the petitioner has met its burden of proving the allegations presented by the pending TPR petitions. Practice Book § 35a-3.

"A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [under § 17a-112(j)] exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 827, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005).

In the adjudicatory phase of these proceedings,⁶ the court has considered the evidence related to circumstances and events prior to 6/15/05, the date upon which the court granted a motion to amend the TPR petitions, as to Jordan, Tianna and Brianna, and 4/15/05, the date on which the TPR petition was filed in SCJM as to Brittany.⁷ With regard to the allegations of failure to achieve rehabilitation and no ongoing relationship brought against the respondent parents, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances occurring through the close of trial.⁸ Upon review, the court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist as to all respondent parents.

6 "Under § 17a-112, a hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases: the adjudicatory phase and the dispositional phase. During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must determine whether one or more of the four grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in [§ 17a-112(j)] exists by clear and convincing evidence. The commissioner . . . in petitioning to terminate those rights, must allege and prove one or more of the statutory grounds." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 102, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000).

7 Practice Book § 35a-7(a) generally provides that "[i]n the adjudicatory phase, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events preceding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment . . ."

8 "Despite Practice Book § 35a-7(a) and case law regarding termination proceedings generally, we have determined that with regard to termination petitions brought under § 17a-112(c)(3)(B), the trial court may, in the adjudicatory phase, properly consider facts and events that occur after the filing date of the petition in determining whether a respondent has achieved a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of that statute. See In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000)." In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002). Events occurring after the date of the filing of the TPR petition are particularly relevant to the issue of, "whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time." (Emphasis in original.) In re Stanley D., supra, 61 Conn.App. 230.
"Although [n]either the word reasonable nor the word efforts is . . . defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn . . . [r]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 255, 763 A.2d 71 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934, 767 A.2d 105 (2001). "[R]easonableness is an objective standard . . . and whether reasonable efforts have been proven depends on the careful consideration of the circumstances of each individual case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 372, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). Only "reasonable" efforts are required as "[i]t is axiomatic that the law does not require a useless and futile act." In re Antony B., 54 Conn.App. 463, 476, 735 A.2d 893 (1999).

LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION EFFORTS

In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts provided such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing that such efforts are not appropriate."^{9 0} C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). In this context, "[r]easonableness is an objective standard . . . and whether reasonable efforts have been proven depends on the careful consideration of the circumstances of each individual case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 547, 744 A.2d 915 (2000); see also In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 362, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).

9 Thus entitled in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 46b-124, § 46b-715(b) and Practice Book 32a-7. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.

In this case, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the respondent parents and to maintain contact with them.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that both Lesmore and John Doe have failed to actively participate in this case since Brittany was taken into DCF care and custody. They have failed to visit Brittany during the pendency of this case. Neither father has made direct contact with DCF, or undertaken any services or referrals. Although Lesmore's wife spoke to DCF, he has not continued any contact with DCF. Neither Lesmore nor John Doe has shown any sustained interest in Brittany.

The State proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Judith, or that the following services were provided to her:

Catholic Charities: anger management program Child and Family Agency (CFA): visitation and parenting education Connecticut Behavioral Health Associate: psychiatric care

CRI: visitation and parenting education

DCF: Case management services, including visitation, transportation, bus passes, use of DCF's WATTS line to call her children, referrals to housing programs and assistance in completing housing forms including obtaining the children's birth certificates and social security numbers, referrals for financial planning, relational counseling, assistance with children's birthday and holiday celebrations, food baskets, holiday baskets, intervention with religious authorities, landlord, eviction lawyers and Department of Social Security

Groton Women's Services: individual counseling and domestic violence issues

Integrated Behavioral Health Services [IBH]: individual therapy and psychotropic medication

DOL: referral for vocational training and job fair

New London County Parent Aide Services

New London Housing Authority: supportive housing

LFS: visitation and parenting education

Madonna Place

Mobile Crisis Intervention: emergency psychiatric intervention and services

Department of Motor Vehicles: application for operator's license

NH: inpatient psychiatric hospitalization

Neurological Associates of Norwich

Neurological Group, P.C.

Norwalk Hospital: emergency room services and inpatient psychiatric hospitalization

Norwich Housing Authority: supportive housing

Opportunities Industrialization Center of New London County, Inc. (OIC): anger management program

Psychological evaluations with the court appointed evaluator, Dr. Connolly

Sexual Assault Crisis Services

DSS

SouthEastern Mental Health Associates: mental health services

SCADD: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment

Toys For Tots

WWB: inpatient psychiatric hospitalization

WWB Mental Health Clinic: anger management, outpatient services and Dual Diagnosis Program

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith failed to fully comply with most of the services to which she was referred.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent mother Judith with her children. In re Antonio M., supra, CT Page 1718 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Brendan C., 89 Conn.App. 511, 524, 874 A.2d 826, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 917, 879 A.2d 893, and 275 Conn. 910, 882 A.2d 669 (2005).

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Rayanto, or that the following services were provided to him:

DCF: Case management services, including visitation, referrals to anger management counseling, couples counseling, domestic violence counseling, individual counseling, self-help support groups and employment assistance, as well as telephone numbers of various service providers.

Fathers Initiative Program: parenting counseling

Madonna Place: visitation

Psychological evaluations with the court appointed evaluator, Dr. Connolly

SCADD: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto failed to comply with most of the services that he was referred to.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent father Rayanto with his children. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Brendan C., supra, 89 Conn.App. 524.

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF was unable to provide services to either Lesmore or John Doe due to each father's failure to make contact with DCF, their failure to make themselves available for services and their failure to engage in the services.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to reunite either Lesmore or John Doe with Brittany. In re Antonio M., supra. 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 478-79, 771 A.2d 244 (2001).

Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that none of the respondent parents are able and/or willing to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Amelia W., 62 Conn.App. 500, 504-05, 772 A.2d 619 (2001); see In re Ebony H., 68 Conn.App. 342, 350, 789 A.2d 1158 (2002).

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that both Judith and Rayanto were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that despite this notification, both parents remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.

On 12/13/02, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna from the home.

On 4/28/03, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Tianna and Brianna from the home.

On 6/3/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from the home, and to make it possible for the children to return home.

On 12/2/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court approved of the PP as to Tianna and Brianna calling for reunification with Judith and indicated that further reunification efforts with both parents were appropriate. The court indicated that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.

On 6/1/04, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court approved of the PP as to Brittany and Jordan, which called for reunification with Judith, and indicated that further reunification efforts with Judith were appropriate and that further reunification efforts with the respondent fathers were not appropriate. The court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from the home, and to achieve the PP.

On 12/9/04, in SCJM, (Cosgrove, J.), the court deferred action on the PP as to Brittany and Jordan, which called for TPR and adoption, and indicated that further reunification efforts as to Judith were appropriate until the TPR trial date and that further reunification efforts as to Rayanto were not appropriate.

This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for any of the respondent parents with regard to their child and/or children.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO JUDITH PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATECGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Judith's parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).¹⁰ As the children have been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether this respondent has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render her able to care for them. Applying the requisite legal standards¹¹ and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q),¹² the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.

10 C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) provides that parental rights may be terminated by the Superior Court as to the parent of a child who "(i) has been found by the . . . Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . ."

11 "Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [The statute] requires the trial court . . . to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [she] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child's life. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999) . . . [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 at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001); In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).

12 CGS § 17a-112(q) establishes that the provisions of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) "shall be liberally construed in the best interests of any child for whom a petition under this section has been filed."

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion Judith has yet to achieve a sufficient" level of rehabilitation . . . which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her children's lives]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005); In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001). First the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and witnesses' testimony, including Judith's own testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that Judith has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which show that Judith has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith's issues are those of anger management, domestic violence, impulsivity, mental health, oppositionality, parenting deficits, transience and residential instability and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling. Her parenting deficits include issues of emotional abuse, and physical neglect of her child. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Judith has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 4/24/03, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), the court ordered specific steps for Judith.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the children's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to comply with this step.

Judith has scheduled appointments with or through DCF, but often has failed to appear or is not at home.

Judith has become verbally aggressive, assaultive and threatening during DCF visits. On 5/28/03, Judith caused a disturbance at the Norwich office of DCF during a visitation, in response to a DCF request that she be on time for visitation. This disturbance included Judith's use of profanity in front of the twins and making threats against the life and well-being of DCF personnel.

On 5/30/03, Judith again caused a disturbance at DCF during a visitation. During the initial phase of the visit, as a DCF supervisor talked to her explaining that her visits would be supervised at DCF as a result of her conduct, Judith became profane and verbally abusive. Judith began stating loudly that she was going to take the children out of the DCF office, saying she would take them anywhere she wanted to, no matter what DCF said, stating, "No one can stop me, they're my kids and I'm taking them." Judith began yelling loudly, while cursing both DCF workers. Judith yelled, "I swear to God if I don't get my kids back today, I'm going to kick your ass."

After DCF personnel were unable to calm Judith, the Mobile Crisis Mental Health Worker attempted to calm her, without success. She continued to threaten DCF personnel, stated that she would "kill the social worker" and that the social worker "is protected at this time by everybody, but would be alone sometime" and that she "would get her then".

As a result of her conduct Judith was arrested by police.

On 1/7/04, DCF personnel took Judith to SCADD to make an appointment for substance abuse evaluation and a hair test for 1/16/04. Judith failed to appear for that appointment.

Keep your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the children.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to fully comply with this step.

Judith has left town for various periods of time without notifying DCF until she returns. Judith has failed to keep DCF informed as to her working telephone number.

Participate in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to fully comply with this step.

Catholic Charities: Judith completed the anger management program there.

Child and Family Agency (CFA): Judith completed the visitation program and was successfully discharged in 8/04. She attended parent education sessions from 8/13/03 until 8/4/04 in conjunction with her weekly supervised visitation. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith was inconsistent in engaging in parenting education sessions, and engaged in inappropriate conversation with the twins, although Karen Cushing, the Community Worker for the CFA Visitation Program who worked with the family, testified that Judith stopped the inappropriate conversation with the twins.

Connecticut Behavioral Health Associate: psychiatric care

CRI: Judith visits with the twins through CRI. CRI permanency social worker Thomas testified that Judith yelled at the children and made inappropriate comments and remarks to them during visitation, even after being told not to do so.

Groton Women's Services: DCF referred Judith to the Groton Women's Center for services to address her individual issues, and domestic violence issues, following her reports in 4/04 that her husband, Rayanto, had hit her again. There is no evidence that Judith did not comply with this specific step.

IBH: Edward Bednar, Judith's therapist, indicated that he had been treating Judith for 15 months. He indicated that Judith resisted psychotropic medication until 7/05. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith has admitted, on at least 3 occasions, (10/04, 11/1/04 and 3/30/05), that she was not compliant with her prescribed psychotropic medication.¹³

13 (Central Office Ombudsman 10/04); at the Department Administrative Case Review 11/1/04, and during a court ordered psychological reevaluation, (Dr. Connolly, 3/30/05).

DOL: Judith received CNA training through the referral to DOL. She also found employment at Foxwoods Resort and Casino on the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation through a DOL job fair.

New London County Parent Aide Services: There is no evidence that Judith did not comply with this specific step.

New London Housing Authority: supportive housing. There is no evidence that Judith did not comply with this specific step.

LFS: Judith did not comply with the requirement of LFS and did not conduct herself appropriately while visiting there. LFS Social Worker Mooney testified that, although Judith was appropriate during visits for the most part, her behaviors were unpredictable and traumatizing to the children. Both Mooney and CRI permanency social worker Thomas testified to a visit on 3/30/05 that they supervised where Judith yelled at Tianna, threw Tianna's ice cream in the bushes, and escalated the upset to the point where Brittany and Jordan confronted her concerning her behavior, and Jordan threatened Judith's life.

Mooney testified that Judith refused redirection and continued to make inappropriate remarks and comments to the children.

Mooney further testified about a visit on 8/12/05 at DCF where Judith made inappropriate comments to the children and upset them. Judith refused to be redirected and, by her behavior, continued to increase the children's upset. Police had to be called to end the visit and remove Judith.

Madonna Place: supervised visitation, clothing donations.

Mobile Crisis Intervention: emergency psychiatric intervention and services.

Department of Motor Vehicles: application for operator's license.

NH: inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith was successfully discharged from NH.

Neurological Associates of Norwich: Judith failed to comply with treatment there and was discharged.

Neurological Group, P.C.: Judith was referred for a neurological evaluation by DCF, which was performed on 2/6/04.

Norwalk Hospital: emergency room services and inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.

Norwich Housing Authority: supportive housing.

OIC: anger management program. In the first part of 2004, Judith attended anger management classes at OIC. While there, her behavior was, at times, characterized as inappropriate, combative, threatening and combative. Judith was ultimately terminated from OIC Anger Management Program on 2/25/04 and subsequently banned from the premises due to her abusive behaviors.

Psychological evaluations with the court appointed evaluator, Dr. Connolly.

Sexual Assault Crisis Services

DSS

SouthEastern Mental Health Associates: mental health services. Judith discharged herself from services there in 6/03.

SCADD: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment. Judith was referred to SCADD on 6 different occasions: 9/26/03, 11/21/03, 12/11/03, 02/25/04, 5/3/04 and 6/04. On 1/7/04, Judith, accompanied by a DCF worker, went to SCADD and made an appointment for a hair test, and substance abuse evaluation for 1/16/04. However, she failed to keep the appointment. Subsequently, she did keep an appointment with SCADD on 3/24/04, but refused to submit to a hair test. She did submit to a urine test, which proved positive for cannabinoids. Judith submitted to the hair test on 5/11/04, and tested positive for marijuana.

On 6/23/04, 7/7/04, and 7/27/04, Judith's urine tests at SCADD were negative.

In 2/05, DCF requested that Judith participate in an updated substance abuse hair test. However, when asked to sign an updated substance abuse referral form, Judith refused to sign the release and stated "let the courts order me to take the tests."

Judith's records from SCADD were entered into evidence as a full exhibit. Those records indicated that Judith successfully completed substance abuse treatment on 7/19/04.

Toys For Tots

WWB: inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.

WWB Mental Health Clinic: anger management, outpatient services and Dual Diagnosis Program.

Judith was discharged from WWB Mental Health Clinic in 11/03, due to her failure to attend the program and her failure to comply with her prescribed psychotropic medication regimen.

Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to fully comply with this step.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that DCF contracted with 2 private agencies, CRI, in 9/04, and LFS in 3/05, to provide in-home reunification services to assist Judith with Tianna and Brianna (CRI) and Brittany and Rayanto Jr. (LFS). They were to supervise visits, as well as to evaluate, assess and to improve Judith's parenting skills. Judith canceled the in-home services visits with her children in mid-12/04 and did not return phone calls, or make alternative arrangements to reschedule or to see the twins for over 8 weeks. Judith also failed to keep in contact with the CRI permanency social worker. She also did not attend, or missed several weeks of her visits in early 10/04. Judith scheduled several home visits with LFS to discuss her case, only to cancel the appointments, or not be home after confirming the date and time with the provider.

LFS Social Worker Mooney testified that, although Judith was appropriate during visits for the most part, her behaviors were unpredictable and traumatizing to the children. Both Mooney and Thomas testified to a visit on 3/30/05 that they supervised where Judith yelled at Tianna, threw Tianna's ice cream in the bushes, and escalated the upset to the point where Brittany and Jordan confronted her concerning her behavior, and Jordan threatened Judith's life.

Mooney testified that Judith refused redirection and continued to make inappropriate remarks and comments to the children.

Mooney further testified about an 8/12/05 visit at DCF where Judith made inappropriate comments to the children and upset them. Judith refused to be redirected and, by her behavior, continued to increase the children's upset. Police had to be called to end the visit and remove Judith.

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to fully comply with this step.

SCADD: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment. Judith was referred to SCADD on 6 different occasions: 9/26/03, 11/21/03, 12/11/03, 2/25/04, 5/3/04 and 6/04. On 1/7/04, Judith, accompanied by a DCF worker, went to SCADD and made an appointment for a hair test, and substance abuse evaluation for 1/16/04. However, she failed to keep the appointment. Subsequently, she did keep an appointment with SCADD on 3/24/04, but refused to submit to a hair test. She did submit to a urine test, which proved positive for cannabinoids. Judith submitted to the hair test on 5/11/04, and tested positive for marijuana.

On 6/23/04, 7/7/04, and 7/27/04, Judith's urine tests at SCADD were negative.

In 2/05, DCF requested that Judith participate in an updated substance abuse hair test. However, when asked to sign an updated substance abuse referral form, Judith refused to sign the release and stated "let the courts order me to take the tests."

Judith's records from SCADD were entered into evidence as a full exhibit. Those records indicated that Judith successfully completed substance abuse treatment on 7/19/04.

Submit to random drug testing: time and method of the testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith did not fully comply with this step.

On 1/7/04, Judith, accompanied by a DCF worker, went to SCADD and made an appointment for a hair test, and substance abuse evaluation for 1/16/04. However, she failed to keep the appointment. Subsequently, she did keep an appointment with SCADD on 3/24/04, but refused to submit to a hair test. She did submit to a urine test, which proved positive for cannabinoids. Judith submitted to the hair test on 5/11/04, and tested positive for marijuana.

On 6/23/04, 7/7/04, and 7/27/04, Judith's urine tests at SCADD were negative.

In 2/05, DCF requested that Judith participate in an updated substance abuse hair test. However, when asked to sign an updated substance abuse referral form, Judith refused to sign the release and stated "let the courts order me to take the tests."

Submit to recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith did not fully comply with this step.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Judith successfully completed the anger management program at Catholic Charities.

Judith completed the visitation program at CFA and was discharged in 8/04. She attended parent education sessions from 8/13/03 until 8/4/04 in conjunction with her weekly supervised visitation. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith was inconsistent in engaging in parenting education sessions.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that DCF contracted with 2 private agencies, CRI, in 9/04, and LFS in 3/05, to provide in-home reunification services to assist Judith with Tianna and Brianna (CRI) and Brittany and Rayanto Jr. (LFS). They were to supervise visits, as well as to evaluate, assess and to improve Judith's parenting skills. Judith canceled the in-home services visits with her children in mid-12/04 and did not return phone calls, or make alternative arrangements to reschedule or to see the twins for over 8 weeks. Judith also failed to keep in contact with the CRI permanency social worker. She also did not attend, or missed several weeks of her visits in early 10/04. Judith had scheduled several home visits with LFS to discuss her case, only to cancel the appointments, or not be home after confirming the date and time with the provider.

LFS Social Worker Mooney testified that, although Judith was appropriate during visits for the most part, her behaviors were unpredictable and traumatizing to the children. Both Mooney and Thomas testified to a visit on 3/30/05 that they supervised where Judith yelled at Tianna, threw Tianna's ice cream in the bushes, and escalated the upset to the point where Brittany and Jordan confronted her concerning her behavior, and Jordan threatened Judith's life.

Mooney testified that Judith refused redirection and continued to make inappropriate remarks and comments to the children.

Mooney further testified about a 8/12/05 visit at DCF where Judith made inappropriate comments to the children and upset them. Judith refused to be redirected and, by her behavior, continued to increase the children's upset. Police had to be called to end the visit and remove Judith.

DCF referred Judith to the Groton Women's Center for services to address her individual issues, and domestic violence issues, following her reports in 4/04 that her husband, Rayanto, had bit her again. There is no evidence that Judith did not comply with this specific step.

Judith was discharged by Neurological Associates of Norwich for non-attendance or noncompliance.

In the first part of 2004, Judith attended anger management classes at OIC. While there, her behavior was, at times, characterized as inappropriate, combative, threatening and combative. Judith was ultimately terminated from OIC Anger Management Program on 2/25/04 and subsequently banned from the premises due to her abusive behaviors.

The-clear and convincing evidence indicated that Judith successfully completed substance abuse treatment at SCADD on 7/19/04.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Judith failed to successfully complete any psychiatric or psychological counseling program or individual therapy program.

Judith discharged herself from mental health services at SouthEastern Mental Health Associates in 6/03.

Judith was discharged from WWB Mental-Health Clinic in 11/03, due to her failure to attend the program and her failure to comply with her prescribed psychotropic medication regimen.

Edward Bednar, Judith's therapist at IBH, indicated that he had been treating Judith for 15 months. He indicated that Judith resisted psychotropic medication until 7/05. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith has admitted, on at least 3 occasions, (10/04, 11/1/04 and 3/30/05), that she was not compliant with her prescribed psychotropic medication.

Cooperate with court ordered evaluations or testing.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has complied with this step.

Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this court.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to fully comply with this step.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has a history of refusing to sign releases. She refused to sign a release of information for Norwalk Hospital on 1/27/05, and she refused to sign a new SCADD referral/release on 3/22/05.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to fully comply with this step.

Judith did not have stable housing in early 2003. She lived with friends, church members and/or acquaintances until she located a three-bedroom home in Groton, CT, in 9/03. She resided at this location until she moved into her present apartment.

During the fall of 2004, Judith's residence was deemed to be inappropriate for home visits by the children as a result of her utilities being shut off. Her landlord eventually instituted eviction proceedings against her.

Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that Judith did not have stable housing until 2/05.

During her testimony at the TPR trial, Judith admitted that she had fallen behind in the rent to her present residence.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to maintain stable employment.

Judith reported to DCF that she was discontinued from DSS cash and food stamp benefits in 2003.

Judith received a financial settlement as a result of her lawsuit concerning her fall and resultant seizure disorder. She did not work for 5 months following the settlement. At trial, she testified that she could not remember the exact amount that she received, but estimated it to have been between $10,000.00 and $20,000.00. She indicated that she spent the money frivolously, including the purchase of a "fully loaded" Kia Sedona van.

Subsequently, she approached DCF and admitted that she had dissipated most of the funds within that 5-month period and needed employment. DCF referred her to DOL for job training, and Judith completed a certified nurse's aide training program in 2/04 and had worked on a per diem basis off/on for four months during the spring and summer of 2004.

As of 4/13/05, Judith reported to DCF that she was seeking employment.

Judith has since reported having had 9 other jobs during the year prior to the TPR social study. The longest period of employment was 3 months, while some jobs lasted less than a day. She was employed in telemarketing, housekeeping, assembly work and home healthcare.

At the trial, Judith indicated that she was employed in a nursing home, but would be leaving for a better job at another nursing home, the Bay View.

CRI permanency social worker Thomas indicated that Judith was presently employed at the Fontainebleau nursing home, and that she had previously been employed by Comfort Suites Inn.

No substance abuse.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith did not comply with this specific step.

On 12/10/03, Judith admitted to DCF that she and Rayanto had both smoked marijuana together.

Judith appeared at SCADD on 3/24/04 for an evaluation, but refused to submit to a hair test. She did submit to a urine test, which proved positive for cannabinoids. Judith submitted to the hair test on 5/11/04, and tested positive for marijuana.

On 6/23/04, 7/7/04, and 7/27/04, Judith's urine tests at SCADD were negative.

In 2/05, DCF requested that Judith participate in an updated substance abuse hair test. However, when asked to sign an updated substance abuse referral form, Judith refused to sign the release and stated "let the courts order me to take the tests."

On 12/29/04, Judith drove her van to Norwalk, entered a liquor store, purchased alcohol and drank to intoxication while standing in front of the liquor store. Subsequently, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Norwalk, while a stranger that she had just met was operating her Kia van.

No further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has not complied with this step.

On 12/29/04, Judith received a summons from the Norwalk Police Department for Operating A Motor Vehicle without Insurance.

As indicated above, the clear and convincing evidence indicated that, on 3/24/04 and on 5/11/04, Judith tested positive for marijuana. Additionally, Judith has admitted to DCF personnel that she abused marijuana. The possession of this substance violated Connecticut law.

Consistently and timely meet and address the children's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs including but not limited to, keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric or educational providers.

This step is not applicable as the children have remained in DCF care since 12/10/02 (Tianna and Brianna) and 5/30/03 (Brittany and Jordan).

Make all necessary child-care arrangements insuring that the children are adequately supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers.

This step is not applicable as the children have remained in DCF care since 12/10/02 (Tianna and Brianna) and 5/30/03 (Brittany and Jordan).

Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the children.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has not complied with this step. Judith failed to keep DCF informed as to the composition of the home. Additionally, Judith failed to report that Rayanto was periodically living in her home with her.

Maintain the children within the State of Connecticut during the duration of this case except for temporary travel out of state with the authorization of DCF or the Court in advance.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith did not fully comply with this step.

During 2004, Brittany reported that, during a visit with Judith and Jordan in Judith's home, Judith instructed her to pack her belongings and that Judith would pick her up from school and that they would go to Canada. Brittany did pack her belongings and flee from the foster home and from school, necessitating the intervention of local law enforcement. Brittany also admitted to forging a permission note for an overnight visit with a friend and signing her foster mother's name on it, as part of this attempt.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

There is no evidence that Judith was asked to cooperate with the children's therapy.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith did not fully comply with this step.

In 11/04, Judith's visits at her home were suspended due to her failure to have heat in the home, as well as the fact that her utilities had been shut off.

As a result of Judith's misbehavior during a visit on 8/12/05, visits with Brittany and Jordan were suspended until Judith discussed the incident with DCF. As of the date of trial, Judith had failed to do so, and, consequently, had not visited with Brittany and Jordan.

Follow all recommendations of mental health providers.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith did not comply with this step.

Judith has failed to comply with her mental health providers, and has been discharged by most of them. Judith discharged herself from services at SouthEastern Mental Health Associates in 6/03. She was discharged from WWB Mental Health Clinic in 11/03, due to her failure to attend the program and her failure to comply with her prescribed psychotropic medication regimen. While at IBH, she resisted psychotropic medication until 7/05. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Judith has admitted, on at least 3 occasions, (10/04, 11/1/04 and 3/30/05), that she was not compliant with her prescribed psychotropic medication.

Judith also failed to comply with the Anger Management program at OIC.

This court concludes that Judith has not corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment of her children. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from the date of the adjudication of neglect, through the date of commitment, the date of the filing of the TPR petition as to Brittany and the date of the amendments to the TPR petitions as to the other children, and continuing through the time of trial, Judith has not been effectively available to take part in her children's lives, and, based on her mental health issues, gross parenting deficits and her refusal to participate in mental health treatment and her failure to benefit from it, she will never be consistently available for them.

Although Judith has attended various referrals and programs for counseling, she has failed to complete the ones relating to her mental health problems, and has failed to show any consistent benefit from any of these referrals. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has failed to improve her parenting ability to acceptable standards. The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that, despite DCF's efforts on her behalf and her own efforts, Judith remains incapable of providing a safe and nurturing environment for her children. When one considers the level of care, patience and discipline that children require from their caregivers, it is patently clear that Judith is not in a better position to parent Brittany, Jordan, Tianna or Brianna now than she was at any other time during these proceedings, and that she remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, she was no better able "to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than [she] had been at the time of the [children]'s commitment." In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 367, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). See In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658, 670, 783 A.2d 534 (2001) ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by the department,"); see also In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 125, 614 A.2d 832 (1992); In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 206, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith was referred to various programs for services during the pendency of this case. She has failed to complete mental health treatment at either SouthEastern Mental Health Associates or at WWB Mental Health Clinic. Although she remains a patient with IBH, she failed to comply with psychotropic mediation recommendations prior to the filing date of Brittany's TPR, or the date that the other children's TPR petitions were amended. Her troubling behavior with her children, with DCF and with service providers clearly show the effects of her mental illness.

The court has taken note of the fact that Judith did complete some of the programs that she was referred to, such as CFA, anger management at Catholic Charities and SCADD.

However, the welter of the clear and convincing evidence indicates that these services did not improve Judith's ability to parent her children.

Another factor indicative of Judith's failure to rehabilitate is her extreme oppositionality and her refusal to cooperate with DCF, and service providers.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has had extreme difficulty in dealing with DCF and service providers. Even in the services that she completed, Judith demonstrated resistance to the programs.

In his testimony, Dr. Connolly indicated that he diagnosed Judith as suffering from bipolar disorder. He opined that Judith's failure to take her psychotropic medication kept her from taking advantage of medical advice. He also testified that bipolar disorder requires long-term medication and therapy, as well as a commitment to therapy. Dr. Connelly further indicated that, without treatment, Judith's bipolar condition will worsen and her outbursts will worsen.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Dr. Connolly's observations concerning Judith's worsening outbursts are correct.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that by the time of the filing of the TPR petitions, Judith had still failed to completely cooperate with her therapy, and that she had resisted taking psychotropic medication.

The credible evidence establishes that Judith has continually exhibited poor judgment in the upbringing of her children.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has not benefitted from the referrals and counseling that she has attended and still remains unable and/or unwilling to provide a safe, responsive and nurturing environment for her children. She still lacks the ability to exercise sound and responsible judgment on behalf of her children, and she has not shown that she has acquired the ability to implement decisions based in reasoned judgments learned from the techniques demonstrated and recommended to her in her various referrals. Her refusal to commit to her regimen of psychotropic medication has, unfortunately, condemned her to failure in terms of being a safe, nurturing and responsible parent.

Despite the services that were made available to Judith and the services that she utilized, the clear and convincing evidence shows that she has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering her children's age, needs and special needs, she could assume a responsible position in their lives.

Judith's chaotic lifestyle has proved detrimental to her children's development and well-being. Their emotional and behavioral problems bear this out in a clear and convincing manner.

Continued foster care is detrimental to these children's development; they require a permanent home that is safe and nurturing.

Sadly, the clear and convincing evidence shows that there is no amount of time that Judith could be given that would allow her to realize and correct her problems, much less that she could accomplish this in a reasonable period of time. The reports and the testimony of Dr. Connelly, which the court found creditable, in view of his experience in evaluating the family, indicated that Judith's prospects of reunification with her children are bleak, in view of her refusal to consistently take her psychotropic medication and comply with therapeutic recommendations.

Dr. Connelly testified that Judith presented as wanting to change, but was unable to do so.

Dr. Connelly opined that even with taking into account Judith's recent therapy and her even more recent submission to a psychotropic medication regimen with IBH, that her recent compliance only improved her parenting prospects slightly.

Based upon the above, it would be exceedingly rash to expect Judith to be able to parent her children at any time in the near future, if at all. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that the children's need for permanence and stability would not allow for them to spend more time in foster care on the slim hope that Judith might overcome her issues and to be able to be a safe, responsive and nurturing parent.

Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the children involved, and given Judith's failure and/or inabilities to correct her deviancies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that she will be able to achieve rehabilitation from her various issues and her failure to engage in and benefit from counseling so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent within a reasonable time.

Despite the services that were offered to her, Judith has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering her children's age, needs and special needs, she could assume a responsible position in the child's life so as to make reunification in any of the children's best interests.

Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna need parents who are able to effectively care for them now. None of these children can wait for the exceedingly remote possibility that Judith might address her mental health issues, her substance abuse issues, her domestic violence issues, eliminate her parenting deficits, rectify her failure to consistently attend and benefit from counseling and referrals, realize that she cannot function effectively and safely without psychotropic medication and consistent, long-term psychotherapy, and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day. They cannot wait for their mother to show that she has rehabilitated herself and is ready to assume her parental role. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the [children] at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384, 784 A.2d 457 (2000).

In making this assessment, the court must review the past and present status of the children at issue and assess the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective. In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 361, 664 A.2d (1995).

In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Brittany, Jordan, Tianna, Brianna and Judith.

For dispositional purposes, the historical perspective of Judith's parenting, unfortunately, shows the same outbursts and refusals to comply with DCF and service providers throughout the history of this matter.

The court would note that the clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to improve her ability to manage her own life, much less that of any child.

Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has proved that Judith has failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Judith is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed Judith's past failures at personal rehabilitation and her parenting deficits and deviancies as they relate to her children's need for a safe, responsible and nurturing parent who can meet his requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency. The court has also considered the testimony and evidence of Dr. Connelly concerning Judith's diagnosis and her poor prospects for improvement of both her mental health condition, and her ability to parent her children.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow Judith further time to rehabilitate herself if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of the children would not be in the best interests of Brittany, Jordan, Tianna, or Brianna.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO RAYANTO PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHALBILITATE-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Rayanto's parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Jordan, Tianna, and Brianna have been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent father has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for any of his children. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Rayanto has yet to achieve a sufficient "level of rehabilitation . . . 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 Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448. See In re Alejandro L., supra, 91 Conn.App. 259; In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 668. First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses' testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent father has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony, which showed that Rayanto has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto's issues are those of domestic violence, substance abuse, gross parenting deficits, a failure to engage in and benefit from counseling, and a failure to involve himself in his children's lives.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 12/2/03, in SCJM (Jongbloed, J.), the court ordered specific steps for Rayanto.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the children's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has failed to fully comply with this step.

Rayanto was not in contact with DCF from 6/03 through 9/8/03, although he did provide an address and phone number. He scheduled a meeting with DCF personnel for 10/27/03, but then canceled it. On 10/28/03, Rayanto made an unscheduled visit to DCF and met with the social worker.

Rayanto was next seen at SCJM on 12/2/03, where the court, (Jongbloed, J.), ordered specific steps for him. He signed the steps that day.

On 12/11/03, Rayanto made an unscheduled visit to DCF and met with the social worker.

Rayanto next contacted the social worker by telephone in 01/04. He had no further contact with DCF from that time until 3/18/04.

On 3/1 8/04, the assigned DCF social worker found Rayanto sitting in a van outside DCF offices while Judith was inside having a visit with the children.

Rayanto made several more appointments to meet with the assigned DCF social worker during 5/04 through 8/04, but failed to either attend the visits or cancel them.

On 9/27/04, Rayanto came to the DCF office without an appointment and asked to speak to the social worker. However, when the social worker went out to speak to him approximately 2 minutes later, he had already left the building.

Keep your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney, and the attorney for the children.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has failed to fully comply with this step.

Rayanto was not in contact with DCF from 6/03 through 9/8/03, although he did provide an address and phone number.

Rayanto failed to notify DCF when he moved in with Judith in late 11/03. He did notify DCF when he moved out on 12/2/03 and gave them a new address and phone number.

Rayanto informed DCF that he had moved in with Judith in late 3/04 and that they had been married on 4/10/04. He also notified DCF that he had left Judith's home at the end of 4/04, 2 weeks after the marriage.

Rayanto left a mailing address weeks after leaving Judith's home in 4/04, yet items mailed to him were returned to DCF as undeliverable, or marked "no mail receptacle."

DCF attempted to contact Rayanto by telephone numerous times during the summer of 2004 without success, due to his cell phone being out of service, or his failure to return the phone calls. DCF last heard from him on 9/27/04.

Rayanto admitted that he has not remained in contact with his attorney or kept the attorney aware of his whereabouts and/or phone numbers.

Participate in parenting and family counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has failed to fully comply with this step.

Rayanto completed the Fathers' Initiative program at Madonna Place and provided DCF with verification in 6/04.

Rayanto failed to participate in any family counseling.

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto did not comply with this step.

Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that, in 10/03, Rayanto admitted to her that he was presently using marijuana 2-4 times per week, and that he had previously used it daily.

DCF referred Rayanto to SCADD for a drug screening/evaluation on 11/21/03. He scheduled an appointment on 1/15/04, but failed to attend it. He was re-referred to SCADD again on 2/25/04. Rayanto attended the appointment at SCADD on 3/24/04; but refused to cooperate with a hair test. SCADD indicated that the hair on his head was too short and Rayanto indicated that he shaved his underarms, thus, the hair test could not be done. Rayanto was again referred to SCADD on 5/9/04 and attended the evaluation there on 5/24/04. At that evaluation, he submitted a urine sample that tested positive for the presence of marijuana.

SCADD was unable to conduct an additional hair test on 6/2/04 due to an issue with the length and style of Rayanto's hair sample.

Rayanto has failed to provide proof of any other substance abuse counseling.

Submit to random drag testing: time and method of the testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto did not comply fully with this step. He failed to attend his 1/16/04 appointment at SCADD. Additionally, he failed to maintain contact with DCF and submit himself for substance testing, referrals and counseling.

Submit to recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has failed to fully comply with this step.

DCF referred Rayanto to SCADD for a drug screening/evaluation on 11/21/03. He scheduled an appointment on 1/15/04, but failed to attend it. He was re-referred to SCADD again on 2/25/04. Rayanto attended the appointment at SCADD on 3/24/04; but refused to cooperate with a hair test. SCADD indicated that the hair on his head was too short and Rayanto indicated that he shaved his underarms, thus, the hair test could not be done. Rayanto was again referred to SCADD on 5/9/04 and attended the evaluation there on 5/24/04. At that evaluation, he submitted a urine sample that tested positive for the presence of marijuana.

SCADD was unable to conduct an additional hair test on 6/2/04 due to an issue with the length and style of Rayanto's hair sample.

Rayanto has failed to provide proof of any other substance abuse counseling.

Rayanto completed the Fathers' Initiative program at Madonna Place and provided DCF with verification in 6/04.

Rayanto failed to participate in any family counseling.

He failed to remain in contact with DCF and submit himself for referrals and counseling.

There is no evidence that DCF referred Rayanto to a parent aide program.

Cooperate with court ordered evaluations or testing. CT Page 1746

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has complied with this step.

Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this court.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has complied with this step.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has failed to comply with this step.

Rayanto has lived a transient existence, having moved from various residences during the pendency of this matter.

Rayanto has worked for various employers during the pendency of this matter. He has remained with an employer for only a few months.

There was evidence during the TPR trial that Rayanto was presently employed on a construction site at Middlesex Memorial Hospital.

No substance abuse.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has not complied with this step.

Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that, in 10/03, Rayanto admitted to her that he was presently using marijuana 2-4 times per week, and that he had previously used it daily.

On 12/10/03, Judith admitted to DCF that she and Rayanto had both smoked marijuana together.

Rayanto was referred to SCADD on 5/9/04 and attended the evaluation there on 5/24/04. At that evaluation, he submitted a urine sample that tested positive for the presence of marijuana.

DCF was unable to determine Rayanto's further compliance with this step due to his failure to become involved with DCF and communicate with them.

No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has complied with this step.

Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the children.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has failed to comply with this step. He has failed to promptly contact DCF and give information concerning his housing situation.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

There is no evidence that Rayanto was asked to cooperate with his children's therapy.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto has failed to comply with this step.

He has failed to have any official visits with his children since 6/03. He has seen or talked with his children without the approval of DCF through the unauthorized actions of Judith.

Although Rayanto has contacted DCF to request visits, the clear and convincing evidence shows that he has failed to submit to the referrals necessary so that he could begin visiting his children.

He failed to contact DCF and set up a visitation schedule.

This court concludes that Rayanto failed to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of his children, in as far as he is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, from the date of the adjudication of neglect, through the date of commitment, and the date of the amendment of the TPR petition as to his children, and continuing through the time of trial, Rayanto has not been available to take part in his children's lives, and, based on his history of non-involvement, substance abuse and domestic violence issues, he will never be consistently available to them. The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Rayanto has refused to be a resource for his children since they came into DCF custody. He has not had any official visits with his children since 6/03. Although he has requested visitation, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that he has failed to undertake the referrals that DCF required of him prior to allowing visitation. Rayanto has failed to express much interest in his children to DCF. There is no evidence that he has undertaken any counseling programs in order to rehabilitate himself and assume the responsibilities of safe, responsible and nurturing fatherhood. When one also considers the high level of care, patience and discipline that Jordan, Tianna and Brianna's needs and special needs will require from their caregiver, it is patently clear that Rayanto is not in a better position to parent his children than he was at the time of their commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, Rayanto is no better able "to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than [he] had been at the time of the child[ren]'s commitment." In re Hector L., supra, 53 Conn.App. 367. See In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. 670 ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by the department,"); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 125; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.

Although there is evidence that Rayanto periodically saw and talked to his children through the chicanery of Judith, he has failed to participate in visitation through DCF. He has failed to express much interest in his children to DCF, or inquire about their well-being on a regular basis.

Even if Rayanto was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his children at any time in the near future, if ever.

Dr. Connelly testified that he diagnosed Rayanto as suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder and opined that he was not interested in caring for his children without Judith in the household, based upon his 2003 evaluation. A review of his report for that evaluation shows that Rayanto did indicate to Dr. Connelly that he did not wish to serve as the primary parent for his children:

[Rayanto] told me that he and [Judith] had been separated for well over a year. He said that he and [Judith] gradually ceased to be able to relate well to each other . . . He commented in particular that it was well known that after a few years a couple no longer has a powerful sexual connection. [Rayanto] indicated that this powerful sexual connection had passed between him and [Judith], and he felt that it was reasonable for him to develop another relationship. [Rayanto] is currently living with a woman named Stacey who is 19 years old. He told me that they have an ideal relationship, and that he has absolutely no plans to live with [Judith] at any time in the future. He explained that he does wish to visit the children, but he appeared to defer the responsibility for setting up the details of visitations with the children onto [Judith]. He made it very clear that he does not feel responsible for the overall problem between [Judith] and DCF and that he has no interest in serving as a primary parent for any of the children involved in this case. He spoke with a certain amount of bitterness about the fact that DCF would not allow him to visit the children at the same time that [Judith] visits them, but he did not appear to have an interest in setting up a separate visitation schedule. His general approach toward the matter of his responsibilities as the father seemed quite passive. He appears to view his role as the father to these children as purely adjunctive to [Judith]'s role as their mother.

Clearly, even if Rayanto expressed any desire to be a reunification resource for his children, he would have to successfully complete various referrals and programs designed to aid in his rehabilitation. He would need to establish himself in the community and show, over a substantial period of time, that he has conquered the demons which have plagued him and resolved his outstanding issues. He would have to obtain appropriate housing and income, as well as an appreciation of safe, responsible and nurturing parenting skills before reunification could be contemplated. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that the children's need for permanence and stability would not allow for the time necessary for Rayanto to attempt rehabilitation, even if he wished to do so.

Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the children involved, and given Rayanto's failure and/or inability to correct his deviancies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he would be able to achieve rehabilitation from his various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent within a reasonable time.

Jordan, Tianna and Brianna need parents who are able to effectively care for them now. They cannot wait for the remote possibility that their biological father might overcome his substance abuse, parenting deficits, domestic violence and other issues and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day. These children are unable to wait for Rayanto to show that he has rehabilitated himself and is ready to assume his parental role. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent improved [his] ability to manage [his] own life, but rather whether [he] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the [children] at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384. Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has proved that Rayanto failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the children at issue and assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, in reaching its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361.

In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Rayanto and his children.

Continued foster care is detrimental to the children's development; they require permanent homes which are safe and nurturing.

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Rayanto is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent father's parenting deficits as they relate to his children's need for a safe, responsible and nurturing parent who can meet their requirements and needs for emotional stability, security and consistency.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Rayanto further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of his son and daughters would not be in the best interests of Jordan, Tianna and Brianna.

LACK OF ONGOING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)

The State has alleged that there is no on-going parent/child relationship between Rayanto and his children. This means that, based on the evidence produced, the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met, on a day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the children has not been established and to allow further time for the establishment of such parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D).¹⁴ Applying the requisite legal standards,¹⁵ and complying with § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of Rayanto as to his children.

14 CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) provides for the termination of parental rights "where there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day to day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child . . ."

15 GGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) "requires the trial court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. First there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists, and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop . . . In considering whether an on-going parent-child relationship exists, the feelings of the child are of paramount importance . . . The ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent . . . Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 470, 816 A.2d 707 (2003).

The clear and convincing evidence presented indicates the following:

Rayanto has been unable and/or unwilling to adjust his circumstances to allow for his children to be returned to his care in that he failed to undertake the necessary referrals and complete them. DCF. Rayanto has been personally unavailable for his children.

Rayanto last officially visited with his children in 6/03. He has had contact with them periodically during Judith's visits.

However, there was testimony elicited during the trial from DCF social worker Boutin-Tsanjoures. Boutin-Tsanjoures testified that Jordan, Tianna and Brianna do ask about Rayanto.

In re Megan M., 24 Conn.App. 338, 341-42, 588 A.2d 239 (1991), the Appellate Court set forth the test for no ongoing relationship:

The statutory criteria set forth in [CGS] § 17-43a [now § 17a-112] must be satisfied before a termination of parental rights can be accomplished. In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 163, 554 A.2d 722 (1989). [CGS] § 17-43a(b)(4) [now § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)] provided for the termination of parental rights if, upon clear and convincing evidence, it is proven that no ongoing parent-child relationship has existed in excess of one year, and requires the court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. "First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists; and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interests to allow time for such a relationship to develop." In re Juvenile Appeal (84-3), 1 Conn.App. 463, 479, 473 A.2d 795, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 802, 474 A.2d 1259 (1984).

The statutory term "no ongoing parent-child relationship" has been interpreted "to contemplate a situation in which, regardless of fault, a child either has never known his or her parents, so that no relationship has ever developed between them, or has definitely lost that relationship, so that despite its former existence it has now been completely displaced." In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), [ 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979)]. In addition, the mere fact that there has been some minimal contact between the parent and the child does not require a determination that an ongoing parent-child relationship has existed in excess of one year. In re Juvenile Appeal, [ 181 Conn. 646, 436 A.2d 290 (1980)]. In determining whether there is an ongoing parent-child relationship, the court should consider the feelings of the child toward the parent, especially if those feelings are positive rather than negative. See In re Juvenile Appeal (84-6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101 (1984), cert. denied, 175 Conn. 801, 487 A.2d 564 (1985).

The court finds that DCF has failed to prove that Rayanto's children have no present and positive memories of their father.

Because the State has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no parent-child relationship exists between Rayanto and his children, the court need not address the 2nd prong of the required analysis.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO LESMORE AND JOHN DOE ABANDONMENT — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)

The petitioner alleges that both Lesmore and John Doe abandoned Brittany within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).¹⁶ In the absence of evidence to the contrary, applying the requisite legal standards¹⁷ and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the petitioner.

16 CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) provides for the termination of parental rights where "[t]he child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . ."

17 "Abandonment focuses on the parents conduct . . . General Statutes [§ 17a-112(j)(3)(A)] defines abandonment as the fail[ure] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . . Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child . . . Abandonment occurs where a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare . . . Sec. 17a-112(b)(1) does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child . . . The commonly understood obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes; (1) express love and affection for the child; (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child; (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care; (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance." (Internal quotation marks omitted.] In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 839-40.

The clear and convincing evidence related to both Lesmore and John Doe's conduct reveals that, from the date of the adjudication of neglect, through the date of commitment, and to the date of the filing of the TPR petition as to Brittany, the respondent fathers failed "to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 839.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, between the aforementioned dates, neither Lesmore nor John Doe maintained any contact with his child. Aside from 1 contact by Lesmore's wife, neither maintained any contact with DCF. Neither Lesmore nor John Doe ever contacted DCF in order to set up a visitation schedule or to seek services to aid in reunification with Brittany.

Between the aforementioned dates, neither Lesmore nor John Doe ever sent any cards or gifts or other communications to Brittany, nor did they maintain regular contact with DCF to inquire about the well being of the child.

Neither Lesmore nor John Doe ever attended administrative case reviews (ACR), treatment planning conferences (TPO) or court appearances concerning Brittany.

Lesmore has not provided financial support to Brittany, nor has he been in contact with Brittany since she resided in the State of New York.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that neither Lesmore nor John Doe has maintained a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of Brittany as evidenced by each respondent father's total lack of involvement in visitation and by their individual failures to inquire and follow up on Brittany's situation.

When the adjudicatory date is applied, the evidence in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes that Lesmore and John Doe have each failed the test of meeting "[t]he commonly understood obligations of parenthood" identified by In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 840. Accordingly, based on clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that both Lesmore and John Doe have abandoned Brittany, within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).

LACK OF ONGOING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D))

The State has alleged that there is no on-going parent/child relationship between either Lesmore or John Doe and Brittany. This means that, based on the evidence produced, the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met, on a day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child has not been established and to allow further time for the establishment of such parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D).¹⁸ Applying the requisite legal standards,¹⁹ and complying with § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the petitioner.

18 CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) provides for the termination of parental rights "where there is no on-going parent-child relationship, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day to day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child."

19 CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) "requires the trial court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists, and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop . . . In considering whether an ongoing parent-child relationship exists, the feelings of the child are of paramount importance . . . The ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent . . . Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 470 816 A.2d 707 (2003).

The clear and convincing evidence presented indicates the following:

The court incorporates, by reference, the abandonment findings concerning Lesmore and John Doe, as set forth in previous parts of this decision.

Neither respondent father has ever provided care for Brittany.

Neither respondent father has ever provided any support for Brittany since she has resided in the State of Connecticut.

Neither Lesmore nor John Doe has been able and/or willing to adjust his circumstances to allow for his child to be returned to his care.

Brittany has not seen Lesmore since she resided in the State of New York. She has never seen John Doe. She has no present or positive memories of either man.

Brittany has been in foster care twice since her mother became involved with DCF. She needs safe, committed, responsible and firm caretakers. The respondent fathers' issues, such as lack of visitation or interest, and their obvious parenting deficits demonstrate their lack of capacity to develop an appropriate parental relationship with Brittany.

To allow further time for either respondent father to establish a parent/child relationship would be detrimental to Brittany's best interests. Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this matter and applying the appropriate legal standards,²⁰ the court finds that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship between either Lesmore or John Doe and Brittany.

20 With regard to the allegations of no on-going parent/child relationship, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances occurring through the close of trial for adjudicatory purposes. See Practice Book § 35a-7 (commentary).

DISPOSITION

As the court has concluded that statutory grounds for termination exist, it next "must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 827; see also In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511 and n. 15, 613 A.2d 478 (1992). In this dispositional phase the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events through the close of evidence. Practice Book § 35a-9.

SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS

The court has made each of the seven written factual findings required by CGS § 17a-112(k) based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented at trial, and has considered the evidence relevant to each of these findings in deciding whether to terminate parental rights. See In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 835.

TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES-CGS § 17a-112(k)(1)

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has provided reasonable efforts in the past to reunify the children with Judith and with Rayanto. Those services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

In this case, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the respondent parents and to maintain contact with them.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that both Lesmore and John Doe have failed to actively participate in this case since Brittany was taken into DCF care and custody. They have failed to visit Brittany during the pendency of this case. Neither father has made direct contact with DCF, or undertaken any services or referrals. Although Lesmore's wife spoke to DCF, he has not continued any contact with DCF since 3/04. Neither Lesmore nor John Doe has shown any sustained interest in Brittany.

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Judith, or that the following services were provided to her:

Catholic Charities: anger management program

CPA: visitation and parenting education

Connecticut Behavioral Health Associate: psychiatric care

CRI: visitation and parenting education

DCF: Case management services, including visitation, transportation, bus passes, use of DCF's WATTS line to call her children, referrals to housing programs and assistance in completing housing forms including obtaining the children's birth certificates and social security numbers, referrals for financial planning, relational counseling, assistance with children's birthday and holiday celebrations, food baskets, holiday baskets, intervention with religious authorities, landlords, eviction lawyers and Department of Social Security

Groton Women's Services: individual counseling and domestic violence issues

IBH: individual therapy and psychotropic medication

DCL: referral for vocational training and job fair

New London County Parent Aide Services

New London Housing Authority: supportive housing

LFS: visitation and parenting education

Madonna Place

Mobile Crisis Intervention: emergency psychiatric intervention and services

Department of Motor Vehicles: application for operator's license

NH: inpatient psychiatric hospitalization

Neurological Associates of Norwich

Neurological Group, P.C.

Norwalk Hospital: emergency room services and inpatient psychiatric hospitalization

Norwich Housing Authority: supportive housing

OIC: anger management program

Psychological evaluations with the court appointed evaluator, Dr. Connolly

Sexual Assault Crisis Services

DSS

SouthEastern Mental Health Associates: mental health services

SCADD: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment

Toys For Tots

WWB: inpatient psychiatric hospitalization

WWB Mental Health Clinic: anger management, outpatient services and Dual Diagnosis Program

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith failed to fully comply with most of the services to which she was referred.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent mother Judith to facilitate her reunification with her children and made reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children. In re Victoria B., supra, 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Rayanto, or that the following services were provided to him:

DCF: Case management services, including visitation, referrals to anger management counseling, couples counseling, domestic violence counseling, individual counseling, self-help support groups and employment assistance, as well as telephone numbers of various service providers.

Fathers Initiative Program: parenting counseling

Madonna Place: visitation

Psychological evaluations with the court appointed evaluator, Dr. Connolly

SCADD: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rayanto failed to fully comply with most of the services that he was referred to, completing only the Fathers Initiative Program and the psychological evaluations.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent father Rayanto to facilitate his reunification with his children and made reasonable efforts to reunite him with his children. In re Victoria B., supra, 79 Conn.App. 258-60.

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF was unable to provide services to either Lesmore or John Doe due to each father's failure to make contact with DCF, their failure to make themselves available for services and their failure to engage in the services.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to reunite either Lesmore or John Doe with Brittany. In re Antonio M., supra. 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., supra, 62 Conn.App. 478-79.

Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that none of the respondent parents are able and/or willing to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004).

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that both Judith and Rayanto were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite this notification, both parents remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.

The court will incorporate, by reference, all reasonable efforts findings previously made that are listed above in this decision.

This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for, any of the respondent parents with regard to their child and/or children.

REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW — CGS § 17a-112(k)(2)

This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that the respondent parents are each presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as are contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Judith and Jordan, Tianna and Brianna with Rayanto. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to reunite either Lesmore or John Doe with Brittany. In re Antonio M., supra. 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., supra, 62 Conn.App. 478-79 (2002).

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that both Judith and Rayanto were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite this notification, both parents remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.

The court will incorporate, by reference, all reasonable efforts findings previously made that are listed above in this decision.

This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for any of the respondent parents with regard to their child and/or children.

Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that none of the respondent parents are able and/or willing to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App 535-36. See In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App 367-68.

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS — CGS § 17a-112(k)(3)

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 12/2/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court ordered specific steps for both Judith and Rayanto.

The court incorporates, by reference, its previous findings made in this decision concerning the respondent parents' compliance with the specific steps.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that neither Judith nor Rayanto have failed to fully comply with most of the steps ordered by the court.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that specific steps were not ordered for either Lesmore or John Doe.

THE CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES-CGS § 17a-112(k)(4)

The clear and convincing evidence shows that the children recognize Judith as their biological mother and have a substantial attachment and bond with her. Dr. Connelly testified that the children are bonded to their mother.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Jordan, Tianna and Brianna recognize Rayanto as their biological father. The evidence is unclear as to their level of attachment to him, and their bond with him.

Brittany has indicated that she loves Judith, but has been ambivalent about reunification with her. She has made it clear that she will not return to Judith's home if Rayanto is there.

The clear and convincing evidence indicate that the twins have a substantial bond with their foster mother and foster family, with whom they have been placed since 7/04. Both Dr. Connelly and Boutin-Tsanjoures noted an improvement in the twins' behavior since they were placed in this home.

AGE OF THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(k)(5) CT Page 1762

The children's ages are as follows:

Brittany was born on 8/4/94, and is 11 years old.

Jordan was born on 11/11/97, and is 8 years old.

Tianna and Brianna were born on 10/23/99, and are 6 years old.

PARENTS' EFFORTS TO ADJUST THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES-CGS § 17a-112(k)(6)

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Judith has been unable and/or unwilling to make realistic and sustained efforts to conform her conduct to acceptable parental standards. Although DCF has referred her to rehabilitative services throughout the pendency of this case, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has essentially failed to complete many of the referrals, and has, until 7/05, utterly refused to comply with her psychotropic medication regimen.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith's long-standing oppositionality has caused her to actively refuse to cooperate with her own therapy. The clear and convincing evidence shows that her refusal to comply with her psychotropic medication regimen results in outbursts, inappropriate behavior, and extremely poor judgments. Her children have been exposed to her inappropriate behavior, and extremely poor judgments, to their detriment.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite DCF's best efforts including referrals and services in the past, Judith has been unable and/or unwilling to apply what she has been taught in order to become a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for her children. The evidence at the TPR trial clearly and convincingly shows that she fails to understand the effects that her parental shortcomings and deficiencies and her mental health issues have had on her children throughout the years. She is obviously unable to care for her children appropriately and to provide them with the safety, care, permanence and stability that they need and deserve.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent father, Rayanto has not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform his conduct to acceptable parental standards. Since his children were taken into DCF care and custody on 5/30/03, Rayanto has refused to play any significant role in their lives. He has not engaged in any substance abuse treatment, nor complied with any other referrals that would allow him to visit with his children and continue a relationship with them. He has made few inquiries with DCF as to his children's well-being and welfare. He has failed to maintain consistent contact with DCF despite its best efforts. He has indicated to the evaluator, Dr. Connelly, that he will not be a placement resource for his children.

With the exception of the Fathers' Initiative course and the psychological evaluations, Rayanto has not completed any referrals. He has failed to come forward and involve himself in his children's lives. He has refused to come forward and be a resource for his children. He has failed to come forward and embark upon a program of rehabilitation so as to be a safe, nurturing and responsible parent.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent fathers Lesmore and John Doe have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to acceptable parental standards. Brittany was last taken into DCF care and custody on 5/30/03. Since that date, neither Lesmore nor John Doe has played any significant role in her life. Neither has not visited her since her last removal. Neither has initiated or maintained contact with DCF despite its best efforts. They have failed to send any cards or gifts or other communications to the child, and have failed to inquire with DCF concerning the well-being of Brittany.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Lesmore and John Doe have failed to attend ACRs, TPCs, or court appearances. Neither attended the TPR trial.

Lesmore and John Doe have failed to undertake any evaluative or rehabilitative referrals. Neither has come forward and involved himself in Brittany's life. Neither has come forward to be a resource for Brittany in her time of need. Neither has come forward and embarked upon a program of rehabilitation so as to be a safe, nurturing and responsible parent.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that none of the respondent parents have made the changes necessary in his or her lifestyle that would indicate that he or she would be a safe, responsible and nurturing parent for his or her child/children.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow any of the respondent parents further time to rehabilitate themselves, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the lives of any of the children would not be in the best interests of their child/children.

EXTENT TO WHICH THE PARENTS WERE PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(k)(7)

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, foster parents or third parties prevented any of the respondent parents from maintaining a relationship with their child/children, nor did the economic circumstances of any of the respondent parents prevent such relationships, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN-CGS § 17a-112(j)(2)

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of the parental rights of Judith, Rayanto, Lesmore or John Doe would be in any of the children's best interests.²¹ Applying the appropriate legal standards²² to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of the State of Connecticut and DCF.

21 The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, § 17a-112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court must find, "by clear and convincing evidence . . . (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.

22 "Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents . . . Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action. In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990)." (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000). "[T]he question . . . to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship. That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child. See Practice Book 33-5." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999). "In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).

In determining whether termination of Judith, Rayanto, Lesmore or John Doe's parental rights would be in any of the children's best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environments; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of their relationship with their foster parents and their biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents.²³ In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance each child's intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with his/her biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).

23 "[T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).

Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that it is not in Brittany, Jordan, Tianna or Brianna's best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with any of their respondent parents.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith has failed to comply with her individual therapy and her psychotropic medication regimen throughout the pendency of this case. She has steadfastly refused to comply with her medication requirements despite medical advice and court orders. She has purposely deceived DCF and service providers as to her medication compliance in the past. Judith did not begin taking Risperdal, which was prescribed to her by IBH, until after 7/05, and only after she refused to do so for a substantial period of time.

Judith has continued to have outbursts and has behaved problematically throughout the pendency of this case. Although Judith and her therapist testified that she began taking Risperdal in 7/05, Judith had another outburst on 8/5/05 during a visitation.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Judith has failed to gain insight into the efforts that she needs to make in order to become a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for her children. The clear and convincing evidence shows that her judgment and conduct still remain questionable, and have not improved since Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna were taken into DCF care and custody. Her conduct during visitations has been inappropriate, and has disturbed her children greatly.

The court found the observations of Dr. Connelly to be more the creditable ones offered in this matter concerning Judith's mental health issues. Dr. Connelly found her to be suffering from clear symptoms of, and personality traits consistent with, bipolar disorder, a chronic condition requiring long-term psychotropic medication and lifelong therapy. He further testified that successful treatment for a bipolar disorder requires that the patient make a continued and sustained commitment to treatment. He indicated that, without treatment, Judith's outbursts will worsen. Dr. Connelly also testified that these intermittent outbursts were of a dangerous nature and constituted unacceptable behavior, especially in a caretaker of 4 children, and that Judith's untreated bipolar disorder will negatively affect the children. He opined that Judith's outbursts also endangered the children and that her outbursts with the children in 12/04 and in 2005 were dangerous and detrimental to the children and constituted ongoing emotional child abuse. Dr. Connelly indicated that Judith's current effect on her children was disruptive, that her role with her children was not constructive, and was sometimes horrific, and that continued contact with Judith was not in the best interests of the children.

Dr. Connelly testified that Judith could not care for the children on a long-term basis due to her mental illness. Although he hoped that the bond between Judith and her children would not be severed permanently, he indicated that if Judith's behavior undermines the children's stability and permanence, it was in the best interests of the children that they not visit with her in the foreseeable future.

Dr. Connelly grimly opined that Judith will not address her mental health issues in the near future, and indicated that her recent compliance with therapy and psychotropic medication only improves her parenting prospects slightly. He testified that Judith would need to be on medication for 1 year, as well as to cooperate with therapy and evaluations. He further testified that Judith must demonstrate that she has cooperated with her treatment and must not have any outbursts for 1 year.

Based on Judith's past history in terms of her refusal to cooperate with her psychotropic medication regimen and her use of deception with her service providers concerning her medication, this court shares Dr. Connelly's well-justified pessimism. Furthermore, the clear and convincing evidence shows that the children cannot afford to wait any longer for Judith to rehabilitate herself. She has been given more than ample time to demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with mental health treatment, and has not done so. Her recent cooperation with her psychotropic medication regimen on the eve of trial is "too little, too late," and, based upon her past history as well as her testimony at trial, was forced, reluctant at best, and subject to change at her whim.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Rayanto has abrogated all his parental responsibilities towards his children. He has essentially removed himself from their lives, maintaining little contact with them. He has not visited his children officially since 6/03, and has done so unofficially only a few times. He has failed to comply with minimal, reasonable requirements that he complete certain referrals prior to being allowed to visit with his children. He has failed to maintain contact with DCF and he has failed to make any arrangements to serve as a placement resource for his children. He continued to use illegal drugs.

Additionally, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Lesmore and John Doe have had nothing to do with Brittany since she came into DCF care and custody. Neither one has made the least effort to contact Brittany or to contact DCF on his own behalf. Lesmore's wife spoke to DCF, but Lesmore never followed up himself. They have utterly failed to show any concern or interest in Brittany. They have never contacted DCF concerning Brittany or appeared in court to show concern about Brittany's situation. There is no evidence indicating that either Lesmore or John Doe have recently tried to contact Brittany or DCF. There is no evidence indicating that either Lesmore or John Doe have recently tried to contact DCF to arrange visitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time any of the respondent parents need to attempt to rehabilitate herself or himself and to attempt to establish herself or himself in the community as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent, if that were possible, is time that none of the children can spare.

Judith, Rayanto, Lesmore and John Doe's individual parental performances clearly and convincingly show that each lacks the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill a valid parental role. Their individual inability to successfully address their issues in a timely manner and their individual failure to successfully address their individual parental deficits clearly and convincingly show that it is unlikely that any respondent parent will ever be able to conform his/her behaviors to appropriate norms or be able to serve as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for his or her child/children.

Based upon Judith, Rayanto, Lesmore and John Doe's individual behaviors and performances so far, this court cannot foresee any respondent parent in this case ever having the ability or the patience to follow the regimen necessary for the children to maximize their abilities and achievements.

The children's attorney indicated that the TPR of Judith and Rayanto would be in her clients' best interests.

Counsel for Judith argued that the TPR should not be granted, stating that the petitioner had failed to meet its burden of proof in terms of showing that Judith had failed to rehabilitate and that termination was in the best interests of the children. Counsel pointed out that Judith is employed, has housing, completed substance abuse treatment at SCADD and had generally positive reports concerning visitation. She also pointed out that there is a bond between Judith and the children, that Judith trusts her present therapist, and that DCF has not provided stability for the children.

Counsel for Rayanto generally supported Judith's position and pointed out that Dr. Connelly's evaluations of Rayanto were 2 years old.

Neither Lesmore nor John Doe have come forth to state their position concerning these proceedings.

As previously pointed out, it is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent improved [his/her] ability to manage [his/her] own life, but rather whether [he/she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384.

Counsel for Judith has certainly cited favorable accomplishments in Judith's life. However, the clear and convincing evidence shows that these accomplishments have not translated into an improvement in Judith's ability to care for her children, nor do they show, based upon Judith's history, any reasonable possibility that Judith will continue with her therapy, and, most importantly, her psychotropic medication regimen.

The issues that Judith presented with in 2002 remain virtually unchanged and little improved. The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that allowing Judith further time in which to rehabilitate herself will not result in Judith utilizing the time or the services to effect positive changes so she can serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent to her children. She has already been given that opportunity, and has little to show for it.

Brittany and Jordan have been in foster care for 35 months, while the twins have been in care for 3 years. Each child presents with challenging and problematic behaviors and special needs. Each child needs stability, nurturing and permanence in a home with caregivers who are not beset by overwhelming mental health issues, or remain untroubled by any sense of responsibility to the child/children that he has fathered.

What is certain is that any further delay in permanency and stability will only worsen an already parlous situation for the children, especially for Brittany and Jordan.

The court has considered the children's bond and attachment to Judith, in reaching its decision. The court does not doubt that there is a strong bond and attachment between Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna, and Judith. However, the Appellate Court has affirmed trial court decisions granting TPR in the face of a strong relationship between respondent parent and child, if TPR is in the best interests of the child. In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App 536; In re Quanitra M., supra, 60 Conn.App. 106.

There is no question that Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna have a strong bond and attachment to Judith. However, this bond is insufficient to stay a TPR if a ground is proven and it is in the best interest of the children to terminate the parent's rights. Like the mother in In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Judith individually "has exercised, continues to exercise and will in the future exercise poor judgment in regard to [the children]."

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna can wait no longer for permanency and stability.

Our courts have recognized that "long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development . . ." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). Furthermore, "[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence . . ." when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children. In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The court is obliged to agree with the child's attorney and DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna are entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of their biological parents as caretakers.

The State and DCF have recommended the TPR of Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna. There has been absolutely no evidence to establish the unreasonableness of this request.

Having balanced Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna's individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with Judith, Rayanto, Lesmore or John Doe, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the children's best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to any of the respondent parents. Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.

Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, including the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Judith and Ted as to Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna is in the best interests of the child in question.

ORDER OF TERMINATION

WHEREFORE, after due consideration of Brittany, Jordan, Tianna and Brianna's sense of time, their need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship they have with their foster parents, 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; and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the children's best interests, the court issues the following ORDERS:

That the parental rights of Judith J. are hereby terminated as to the children Brittany J., Rayanto S. Jr., (as known as Jordan), Tianna S. and Brianna S.

That the parental rights of Rayanto S. Sr., are hereby terminated as to the children Rayanto S. Jr., (as known as Jordan), Tianna S. and Brianna S.

That the parental rights of Lesmore W. are hereby terminated as to the child Brittany J.

That the parental rights of John Doe are hereby terminated as to the child Brittany J.

That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Brittany J., Rayanto S. Jr., (as known as Jordan), Tianna S. and Brianna S. for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or families, or other permanent placement for them.

That a permanency plan 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.