Opinion
No. T11 CP05-12293, T11 CP05-12294, T11 CP05-12295, T11 CP05-12296, T11 CP05-12297, T11 CP07-012949, T11 CP07-012950
March 24, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is a contested action brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to terminate the parental rights of 30-year-old Tanya B. and 38-year-old Garrett J. to their seven children Garrett B. (b. 4/21/98), Gabrielle J. (b. 6/20/00), Galyssa J. (b. 8/2/01), Giovanni B. (b. 1/1/03), Donnie J. (b. 6/14/04), Devontae J. (b. 6/15/06), and Jordan J. (b. 8/11/07). The parents have appeared and are represented by counsel. The children are represented by counsel and a guardian ad litem. Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation. The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children. This court has jurisdiction.
The children all have the same two parents. Some have the surname of the father and some have the surname of the mother. The parents never married.
The petition, filed on November 2, 2009 alleges that as to both respondents, that the children were found in a prior proceeding on November 17, 2005 (Graziani, J.) as to the five oldest children, and on July 31, 2008 (Santos, J.) as to the two youngest children, to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, either of them could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).
The court heard the testimony of two social workers, a visitation specialist from Today's Youth, LLC and Dr. David Mantell, who performed parent child psychological and relationship evaluations. Twenty-nine (29) documents were entered into evidence including social studies, psychologist's reports, and clinical evaluations. Since neither the father nor the mother testified, nor offered any witnesses on their own behalf, except the visitation supervisor; the representations in the social studies were virtually uncontested. The social history has been read. The factual representations in the social studies are accepted by the court. The parents principally dispute the legal conclusions reached by the department that their parental rights should be terminated. Their principal defense being that the children love them, see them as the psychological parents, and that the children value their contact and visitation with the parents. With respect to all findings regarding the termination of parental rights, these findings are made by clear and convincing evidence.
The petitioner filed a motion for judicial notice dated March 15, 2010. This was granted by agreement. The chronology of proceedings, submissions, court orders and findings are incorporated by reference and adopted by the court.
The court also accepts the defense of the parents, as a preliminary matter, that the children do have a love and loyalty to the parents, view them as their parents and that continuing contact with the parents, as may be therapeutically indicated, appears at this time to be desirable, at least for some of the children.
The court specifically rejects the defense, made by oral argument only, that the department has initiated the petition due exclusively to the poverty of the parents. The court finds, as will be further explained, that while the parents and children lived under exiguous circumstances, they were more impoverished by parental insufficiency, substance abuse, domestic violence and mental and organizational disorder, chronic and unabated. This case is sad and tragic for the parents and the children, but reinforces the conclusion of Chief Justice Peters that "[T]he sad fact is that there is a difference between parental love and parental competence." In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575 (2005). The court is mindful that there are great disparities between the wealthy and the poor and between racial groups in our society. The court does not terminate parental rights on the basis of financial or social status, but on parental conduct; the inability to maintain sobriety, avoiding the pernicious illegal drug culture, avoiding domestic violence, the inability to obtain and benefit from offered and available mental health treatment, and similar conduct that impairs parental competence. The evidence in this case is clear that these parents have profoundly dysfunctional behaviors as a result of alcohol abuse, mental disorder and denial and that they have historically been wholly unable to manage their own affairs let alone to raise these children to even minimally acceptable standards.
The Mother, Tanya B. (b. 12/11/79)
Tanya was born in North Carolina. The children's father, Garrett J. was born in Alabama. Mother was an only child and lived with both parents until aged 14 when her unmarried parents separated. She then lived between her mother and father's house depending upon the lowest level of discipline and supervision. If the father became too strict she would run away and live with friends. Tanya, herself, was the victim of physical and emotional neglect by her mother. Connecticut DCF was involved with her mother in the early 1990s. Tanya completed the eleventh grade in school. She reports starting smoking cigarettes at age thirteen and the use of alcohol at age sixteen. She admits to experiencing blackouts and withdrawal symptoms from alcohol. She left school and home at aged seventeen after she met Garrett while visiting in Woonsocket, R.I.
She reports employment at age fifteen at Dunkin Donuts and McDonald's but no outside employment since that date. At age 17 1/2 Tanya was pregnant and gave birth to Garrett at age 18 years four months old. In a period of nine years she had seven children. In court she appeared slight, extremely depressed and older than her thirty years.
The Father Garrett J. (b. 7/18/71)
Garrett reports to DCF, that he and his father left Troy, Alabama when Garrett was thirteen years old. They moved to Rhode Island and Garrett began, according to his recollection, to care for himself and not attend school beyond the eighth grade. He is presently 38 years of age. He reports to working in the scrap metal removal business fairly continuously since age fifteen. He reports to having another child, now an adult; his parental rights to that child having been terminated by consent.
Garrett's mental health history is known only since about 2001, from records at the Northern Rhode Island Community Health Center. He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with psychotic features; panic disorder without agoraphobia; cannabis dependence in partial remission; cocaine abuse, in questionable remission and two cardiac related disorders. He has no military history. He reports to the use of alcohol (beer) and "since it is not illegal, he can drink when and as much as he wants." (Exhibit A p. 9.) He reported to the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center during an intake evaluation, (report dated November 13, 2009, Exhibit G), that he typically drinks 5 beers and one shot a day and that he drinks to the point of feeling the effects of the alcohol, 16 out of the preceding 30 days. He says he spent $160 on alcohol in the past 30 days (p. 5 of 10). He says he smokes one pack of cigarettes a day. In court he appeared to be a man of good size and proportion, withdrawn and without emotion or reaction to the evidence.
On January 14, 2009 at a Project Safe Evaluation for substance abuse Garrett admitted to using a 12-pack of beer a week, having used marijuana daily until he couldn't afford it and the use of crack cocaine since age 18 until 7 or 8 months ago. He completed a course of treatment at the direction of DCF in the spring of 2009, and thereafter, immediately resumed the use of alcohol. He says he does not see any need to quit and has no intention of stopping.
The Family
The family has a child protection history in Rhode Island dating back to 2003, due to issues of unsanitary living conditions, inadequate supervision, lack of parenting skills, eviction and substance abuse. Mother reports that she and Garrett first lived together in a motel for a month, then an apartment, both in Woonsocket. At the birth of their first child they were on state assistance in Rhode Island. She reports their apartment had roaches; it was unsafe from illegal drug activity so they moved to a shelter. They later obtained another apartment in 2003. By this time they had four children. The family was evicted for deplorable unsanitary conditions and the family moved to a Holiday Inn for two months.
The social study does not address the difficulty of a poor Afro-American family with four children attempting to find adequate, reasonable and available housing.
The family then drove to Florida to visit the maternal grandmother. While there, the two girls Gabrielle and Galyssa stayed with the grandmother while the rest of the family lived from August 2003, until January 2004, in one hotel room. The family left Florida and moved to a shelter in Southbridge, MA. They stayed there until they were asked to leave in March 2004. They were asked to leave because the shelter authorities wanted Garrett to attend Gamblers Anonymous for what they believed to be a gambling addiction. He refused to obtain treatment. At a drug evaluation on April 2, 2007, (Exhibit H), Garrett admitted to the intake worker that he "didn't use his money the right way" and that he has a problem when it comes to taking care of money because he has "a little bit of a gambling problem." They left the Massachusetts shelter and moved to Connecticut in March of 2004.
The family resided with different relatives in Connecticut. DCF became involved on the birth of Donnie in June 2004. The department assisted the family with obtaining adequate housing. The family was offered Intensive Family Preservation services and mental health evaluation and treatment. The mother was found to be suffering from depression and she failed to attend scheduled mental health treatment.
In April 2004, the department substantiated that the children were living under conditions and circumstances injurious to their welfare. Later, neglect was substantiated and educational neglect of Garrett due to excessive absenteeism from school. Both parents were found to have unresolved mental health and substance abuse issues.
It is noted that poverty did not prevent the parents from attending the scheduled appointments at Genesis Center and Community Prevention and Addiction Services for substance abuse evaluations and treatment. The agency scheduled numerous appointments on multiple occasions none of which were attended by either parent. Both parents were discharged for non-compliance. The children did not go to dental care nor for medical visits. Garrett did not attend school regularly. The parents would make appointments for immunization shots for the children and then fail to keep the appointments with the pediatrician. While it is an unnecessary finding, the evidence suggests that failure to attend these services was more a function of impairment than a lack of financial wherewithall.
On July 18, 2005, DCF filed an affidavit with a neglect petition stating, inter alia, that they had offered Intensive Family Preservation services, Parenting Piece by Piece for parenting education, in-home services, KidSafe CT, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, supportive housing referrals including the first and last month's rent for the apartment that the family then occupied. DCF had made reasonable efforts to assist the family as found by the court at the time. The family then had five children. The oldest five children were found to have been neglected or uncared for on November 17, 2005. The children remained at home under an order of Protective Supervision. That order was later continued through January 17, 2007 (Santos, J.), and later extended again.
In April 2007, Tanya called the Vernon police to report being raped by Garrett. She was six months pregnant at the time. She told police he had been drinking, she suspected his infidelity, she was on the toilet when he forcibly disrobed her, had non-consensual intercourse, and then he told her to order a pizza while he went out for a drink. Later, Tanya recanted her statements and refused to participate in a rape examination at the Rockville Hospital. She believed she and the children would be worse off if he was in jail.
In December 2007, neglect petitions were filed on behalf of the youngest two children, Devontae and Jordan. They were adjudicated neglected on July 31, 2008. Protective Supervision was extended until January 31, 2009. During this period of supervision DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on the children on October 22, 2008, after the father called DCF to report that they could no longer care for the children properly. Two days later the court (Simon, J.) found that the children had been in immediate physical danger from their surroundings and as a result of those conditions, the children's safety was endangered and immediate removal was necessary to ensure the children's safety. Custody of the children was vested in DCF. A hearing was held within ten days on the temporary order. On October 31, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the order of protective supervision was modified to a full commitment of the children to DCF. The children have been in DCF custody since that date.
The social studies are replete with services offered to the parents. (See the prodigious list of services set forth in Exhibit A, pp. 23-24.) The parents did not contest the level or appropriateness of DCF offered services. It is fair to say that neither parent has been able to stop drinking and neither parent has obtained needed mental health treatment. Neither has attended a domestic violence program. Neither parent apparently viewed the forcible sexual assault as a form of domestic violence. These of course are major items if parental rehabilitation is to occur. It did not.
Of the many services offered there has been substantial compliance only with attendance at a Hockanum Valley program by the father and a parenting program at Kidsafe which is a component of the visitation program. The father has not stopped drinking and has no intention to cease. He has expressed a level of comfort with the children being in foster care. He thinks they are doing well in their present environment, he does not see his drinking as being a problem, and that he has only recently engaged in therapy because he is being "blackmailed" by his probation officer who has made attendance a condition of probation. Neither does he see a need for domestic violence counseling. He continues to be marginally self-employed, under-employed or unemployed. The parents have not obtained secure housing and remain largely transient even without the burden of seven children.
Tanya has enormous emotional and physical issues. She appears old beyond her stated 30 years of age. Her eyes appeared hollow and melancholy. She often looked at her hands folded in front of her at the counsel table, occasionally shaking her head at evidence with which she disagreed. Most recently, on November 6, 2009, Tanya was interviewed at the Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center (ADRC). She told the intake worker that she smokes one to two packs of cigarettes a day and one to two cigars daily. She admits to drinking one pint of vodka and a forty ounce bottle of beer a day. She admits to withdrawal symptoms and blackouts. She admits to having attempted to harm herself while under the influence and that her children have seen her shaking in withdrawal. The ADRC staff made a diagnosis of alcohol and nicotine dependence and recommended a detoxification program, however, Tanya left against medical advice and was discharged from the program one day after being admitted.
DCF has been offering services and providing case management for more than five years. If life with seven children was a burden, the children have been provided alternate care for the past year and a half, and the parents have still failed to improve their living situation, personally and parentally. They have made no substantive improvement in their mental health, substance abuse or domestic violence treatment. There is nothing to suggest that more time will help.
Dr. Mantell's findings.
This family has been evaluated by Dr. David Mantell on November 8, 2007, November 28, 2007, July 21, 2008, August 6, 2009, October 7, 2009 and a final report on November 9, 2009 (Petitioner's Exhibit E). Dr. Mantell is well known to this court and to counsel of record. His reports are usually measured, thorough, articulate and professional. In this case, the court places great weight upon his analysis, findings and conclusions. A reading of his last report provides an in-depth sociological review of the severity of the abuse and neglect within the household. The children's mother has an untreated major depressive disorder and is chronically impaired by alcoholic consumption, drinking prodigious quantities of alcohol a day. Over time she has admitted to her situation when interviewed alone. In the presence of her husband she does not admit to the extent of her problems although her husband provides the alcohol and most often drinks with her. Garrett does not admit to the severity of Tanya's problem and believes he himself has no problem with alcohol at all. The children, especially the older children, make reference to the drinking and fighting within the home and to the drunken behavior of the parents. The children, in their interviews with Dr. Mantell describe physical abuse by the father and physical abuse of the mother. (p. 32.) As with his abuse of alcohol, the father denies any domestic violence. Given that the mother does admit to her active alcohol abuse, the court finds that the father has his own debilitating issues of which he is in almost total denial. Dr. Mantell noted in his testimony that the father's approach to the problems was to ignore the problems, he was never responsive nor acknowledging of any of the issues pointed out to him by Dr. Mantell.
There is direct evidence of an out of control household. Tanya reports (Exhibit E, p. 11), that the children destroyed the furniture and beds in the house. She said her children vandalized the furniture. Giovanni jumped through the mattresses and the girls removed the headboards. The girls spilled dye on the mattresses. "This was brand new furniture from Bob's. She said that Kidsafe got them a couch, dressers, chairs, a washer and a dryer and clothing for the children and the kids threw the toys down a hill in back. Garrett painted and the children wrote all over the walls. She said the children were good about chores and the girls did the dishes, but they were destructive in other ways."
The police report (Exhibit P.) describes the conditions of the house just before the parents called to surrender their children to DCF. "The couple allowed me to walk through the common area of their home. In the kitchen and family room I observed the remnents (sp) of food, bread crusts, and chicken bones. The kitchen floor was covered with a film of water. It appeared that every surface in the home was covered with grime. The only thing of substance in the refrigerator appeared to be fruit drink. The refrigerator was grimey and it's interior bottom was covered in detritus. I ran the tap water in the kitchen and found there was no hot water. I asked (Garrett) about this and he told me the gas had been turned off. The family was in the process of cooking chicked (sp) on an outdoor grill . . . The (children) were also dirty. Their hands faces and arms were covered with dirt. I tried to speak to them but they were mostly unresponsive. I contacted the DCF Hotline and made a notification of the squalor that the children were living in." Officer Chipman, Vernon Police Department 8/30/08.
Dr. Mantell testified he had made two visits to the family apartments over the course of his involvement. On the second visit the very sturdy chairs he had seen on the first visit were gone except for one. He noted that in addition to the problems of inadequate housing, psychological problems, substance abuse, inadequate income, lack of adequate child care, behavioral excesses, including drunkenness, domestic violence and lack of supervision, there were serious behavioral excess on the part of the children who were destructive. They broke the sturdy chairs, Dr. Mantell had seen at the prior visit. New furniture had been obtained, which was also broken including dressers and beds, there was writing on the walls and the floors. The children would intentionally plug up the toilets to upset the father. The situation was pathological in that the father would then severely discipline the boys.
The conclusion of Dr. Mantell is "It is considered unlikely that the parents will be able to achieve a degree of rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that they can assume a responsible position in the life of their children within a reasonable period of time. The parental problems are chronic. The child neglect is chronic as well. There are also concerns about emotional and physical abuse of the children, as well as a variety of inappropriate exposures including domestic violence, adult sexuality, and exposure to substance abuse." (Exhibit E page 35.)
The court finds that the parents have not been rehabilitated. The mother presently has a severe form of depression coupled with alcoholism which Dr. Mantel thought endangered her life. He believed that she required immediate hospitalization in a dual diagnosis facility. After discussing this with the two parents there was no acknowledgment to have the care nor did the father think that Tanya needed the treatment. Dr. Mantell described it this way. "A mental health emergency was occurring exactly at the time of the evaluation, the course of action and resources were available with an opportunity to talk to an adult family member who could assist moving the person to treatment, those circumstances rarely occur, and I could not get affirmative action or acknowledgment by [Garrett]."
Adjudication
Based upon this evidence that the children were found in prior proceedings on November 17, 2005 (Graziani, J.) as to the five oldest children, and on July 31, 2008, (Santos, J.), as to the two youngest children, to have been neglected or uncared for, the court finds that the parents have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the ages and the needs of the children, either of them could assume a responsible position in the lives of these children. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).
DISPOSITION
During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child." In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000). "In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a-112(k)]." In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)). The seven factors "serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered." In re Quanitra M., supra, at 104. "There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009). The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section. The court makes the following seven written findings:
(1) As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with respondents, the court finds that DCF offered very extensive services including parenting education, individual mental health counseling, visitation and substance abuse testing and counseling. A complete listing of the very many services offered to this family is set forth on pages 23-25 of Exhibit A. The court relies upon the findings above regarding the parent's cooperation with these offered services. Toward the end of the case the mother at least recognized a need for the services but could not commit to enter a detoxification and dual diagnosis program. The father sees no need to change a thing despite his dysfunctional life-style, loss of his children, mismanagement of his finances and inability to maintain adequate housing.
(2) As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court finds that DCF made such efforts. The agency was providing services over a period of more than five years to no apparent benefit. The court finds the parents were unable or unwilling to benefit by the offered services.
(3) As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds specific steps were ordered as to both parents. As set forth above, there was compliance by father with some steps, but failure to comply with the vast majority of them. He clearly did not benefit by the services he attended. Both parents made efforts to attend visitation.
(4) As to the feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the children's parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of any child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties. It should be noted that the children are all troubled, according to Dr. Mantel. The children need a calm, well-structured, child-focused home with clear behavioral guidelines, high functioning parents, not impaired by mental health or substance abuse issues. The children need to be sheltered from domestic violence and corporal punishment. They need a strong degree of personal attention, strong inter-action by the caretakers with the children's schools because of their challenging and educational problems, according to Dr. Mantell. DCF is questing for therapeutic foster homes that are pre-adoptive for all the children. That will involve several homes.
Garrett B. is the oldest child. He is very protective of his family of origin. He is defensive in this regard. He has a diagnosed adjustment disorder and is therapy for this condition. Gabrielle J. is the most disturbed of all the children. She has had psychiatric hospitalizations. She is flagrantly oppositional. She will need extra-ordinary care. Galyssa J. has attention deficit disorder. She is moderately uncooperative and has a borderline intelligence. She is described as very needy. Giovanni B. also has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and adjustment disorder with disturbance conduct. He has been hospitalized due to his explosive behavior and use of vulgar language. He is stabilized and in a pre-adoptive foster home. Donnie J. is performing within normal limits and meeting developmental milestones. Donnie is in a pre-adoptive therapeutic foster home with Giovanni and Galyssa. He demonstrates negative behavior during visits with his parents. Devontae J. and Jordan J. are in the same pre-adoptive foster home. Devontae is attending early Head Start program. As the youngest of the children who have spent the least amount of time with the biological parents, they are the least damaged of the children.
(5) As to the ages of the children: Garrett B. was born on April 21, 1998. He will soon be twelve. Gabrielle J. was born on June 20, 2000, she is presently nine. Galyssa J. was born on August 2, 2001, she is eight. Giovanni B. was born on January 1, 2003, he just turned seven. Donnie J. was born on June 14, 2004. He is presently five. Devontae J. was born on June 15, 2006. He is presently three. Jordan J. was born on August 11, 2007. He is presently two.
(6) As to the efforts the parents have made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return such children home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child; the court finds as follows: It is undisputed in the evidence that the children do have bonds to their biological parents, especially the mother. The father tends to be punitive to the children and thus more distant. Dr. Mantel indicated that some children want continuing contact with their parents following a termination, especially in those cases where an adoptive home has not been located. In some cases, the release from contact could have a liberating effect on a child, according to Dr. Mantell. It would allow them to form new attachments. Some of the children are said to be very angry at their parents. In this case there is evidence that visitation for some of the children is not desirable. For those children visitation should be reduced or eliminated. For others, an abrupt termination of contact would have a harmful impact on the children. These are issues best decided by professionals in conjunction with the children's caretakers.
(7) As to the extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent, the court finds no unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parent or third parties. The parents were provided with three hours of a visitation each week and the visitation was facilitated and coordinated with parenting education.
Best Interest Finding
With respect to the best interests of the children contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Tanya B. and Garrett J. is in the best interest of the children. Permanency, consistency, affection and stability are crucial for these children. The biological parents are incapable of providing the quotidian warmth, affection, consistency, stability and mature care that these special needs children will need throughout their life. See In re Jorden R., AC28128 (March 23, 2010).
In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in the children's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and stability; their length of stay in foster care; their need for a structured, stable, abuse-free, child-focused setting, the nature of their relationship with foster parents and biological parents; the degree and quality of contact maintained with his biological parents; and their genetic bond to the respondents.
The court has also balanced the children's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with the 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). Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that termination of respondents' parental rights is in the children's best interest.
It is accordingly, ORDERED that the parental rights of Tanya B. and Garrett J. are hereby terminated as to Garret B., Gabrielle J., Galyssa J., Giovanni B., Donnie J., Devontae J. and Jordan J. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the seven children.
With regard to the permanency plans for the children, the court hereby approves the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption as being in the best interest of the children. Any outstanding objections to the plans are over-ruled.
To the extent not previously found, the court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plans and to reunify the parents with the children.
The Commissioner will file, within 30 days hereof, a report as to the status of these children as required by statute and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.
The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of these children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 25 School Street, Rockville, CT 06066 of the date when said adoption is finalized.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ordered this 24th day of March 2010