H12CP1315274A (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2016)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Constance W.

Superior Court of Connecticut

Aug 23, 2016

H12CP1315274A (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2016)

Opinion

H12CP1315274A H12CP1315275A

08-23-2016

In re Constance W. [1] In re Jahage W

Marcia J. Gleeson, J.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Marcia J. Gleeson, J.

This case presents petitions by the Department of Children and Families (DCF, or the department) asking that the parental rights of the respondent Mother, Jasmine W., (Mother) and the respondent Father, John H., (Father John), the biological parents of Constance W. (Constance or " the child") be terminated, and that the parental rights of the respondent Mother, Jasmine W., (Mother) and the respondent Father Stephen B., (Father Stephen), the biological parents of Jahage W. (Jahage or " the child") be terminated.

The respondent parents opposed the petitions. The statutory grounds alleged in the petition against the respondent Mother as to Constance are that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the child's age and needs, she could assume a responsible position in her life, and acts of commission and/or omission. The statutory grounds alleged in the petition against the respondent Father John are that Constance has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Father has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering her age and needs, he could assume a responsible position in her life. The statutory ground alleged in the petition against the respondent Mother as to Jahage is that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Mother has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the child's age and needs, she could assume a responsible position in his life. The remaining statutory grounds alleged in the petition against the respondent Father Stephen are that Jahage has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and Father has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering his age and needs, he could assume a responsible position in his life, and abandonment. A third ground, no parent child relationship, was not pursued at trial as stated on the record by the department on April 18, 2016, and accordingly is dismissed.

The matter was tried to the court on January 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2016 and April 18 and 20, 2016. The respondent Mother was present and was represented at trial by counsel. Also present were attorneys for DCF and the children. Respondent Father John was not present but was represented at trial by counsel. Respondent Father Stephen was present and was represented at trial by counsel. The petitioner called nine witnesses and introduced thirty-one exhibits. Mother called two witnesses, and introduced eleven exhibits. Father John called no witnesses and introduced no exhibits. Father Stephen testified on his own behalf, called one additional witness and introduced three exhibits. The child's attorney called no witnesses and introduced no exhibits.

The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction of the matter and that there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor children. There are no claims of Indian tribal affiliation. The court has carefully considered the petition, all of the evidence and testimony presented, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, according to the standards required by law. On the basis of the evidence presented and for the reasons stated below, the court terminates the parental rights of all parents as to both children.

" It is well established that [i]n a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony . . . It is the quintessential function of the fact finder to reject or accept certain evidence, and to believe or disbelieve any . . . testimony . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Rafael S., 125 Conn.App. 605, 611-12, 9 A.3d 417 (2010); see also In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 663, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010). " The fact finding function is vested in the trial court with its unique opportunity to view the evidence presented in a totality of circumstances, i.e., including its observations of the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and parties . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Musolino v. Musolino, 121 Conn.App. 469, 476, 997 A.2d 599 (2010). Moreover, " [i]t is the right and the duty of the [trier of fact] to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence . . . In considering the evidence introduced in a case, [triers of fact] are not required to leave common sense at the courtroom door . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Welsch v. Groat, 95 Conn.App. 658, 666, 897 A.2d 710 (2006).

FACTS

Having weighed all of the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the following relevant facts to have been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

On January 25, 2016, the court granted by agreement the department's revised motion for judicial notice dated January 22, 2016. Accordingly, the court has taken judicial notice of court records including court memoranda, orders, and transcripts made in these cases for their existence, content, and legal effect. See C. Tait & E. Prescott, Tait's Handbook of Connecticut Evidence (4th Ed. 2008) § § 2.3.4(d), 2.4.1, 2.4.2.

Procedural History and Preliminary Facts

On October 18, 2013, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on behalf of Constance and Jahage.

On October 22, 2013, DCF filed neglect petitions, and an order of temporary custody (OTC) was granted on behalf of both children. On November 1, 2013, the OTC was sustained by agreement. On June 12, 2014, both children were adjudicated as neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF by the court, Burgdorff, J., after a trial, and the court ordered final specific steps for the respondent parents.

On September 4, 2014, the court, Dannehy, J, approved the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption as to both fathers. On September 23, 2014 the court, Lobo, J., approved the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption as to the mother after a contested hearing. On November 24, 2014, DCF filed petitions to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of both parents as to each child. The respondent parents were properly served. Mother and Father Stephen appeared in court and were appointed counsel; Father John failed to appear and was thereafter defaulted by the court, Lobo, J., on March 9, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the court, Dannehy, J., approved the permanency plan of TPR and adoption. On July 16, 2015, Father John filed a motion to open default. Father John did not attend the hearing on the motion to open default on August 27, 2015, and on that date the motion was denied by the court, Rubinow, J. On October 9, 2015, Father John did attend a hearing during which his Motion to Reconsider Reopening the Default was granted by the court, Gleeson, J., and thereafter the matter proceeded to trial as above.

John H., the Father of Constance

Father John was born in New Haven, Connecticut on December 20, 1977. He resided in Connecticut with his mother and two older sisters, and visited with his father on Sundays. He has a history with the department as a child participant. After graduating from high school in 1998, John was arrested and charged with criminal trespass in the first degree, pled to a substituted charge of interfering/resisting arrest, and was sentenced to one year in jail, execution suspended, and eighteen months probation. Thereafter, he moved to North Carolina, where he lived with his sister's family for several years until moving to Maryland to live with an aunt. While in Maryland he moved in with Aneisha H., who became pregnant with his child. During the pregnancy, when Father was fired from his job as a warehouse worker and the couple lost their apartment, Aneisha moved in with her mother, and John lived in his car. After his daughter Kayla was born in 2004, he returned to Connecticut to move in with his mother and lost contact with Aneisha.

Father John met Mother during the winter of 2005-2006 and moved in with her almost immediately. Mother became pregnant with Constance shortly thereafter, but Father decided to move to North Carolina to live with his sister again, and Jasmine moved in with her mother. About a month after Constance was born, Father John visited for a short time and then returned to North Carolina. After about a year, John returned to Connecticut and again moved in with his mother. When Jasmine contacted him again and told him she was moving into a Section 8 apartment in Waterbury, Father moved in with Jasmine and Constance. Father moved out after several months, reportedly after Jasmine assaulted him without provocation. Father had concerns about Mother's mental health, and although Father felt that Constance would not be safe with Jasmine, it did not occur to him to do anything to protect his daughter. Thereafter, he occasionally communicated with Mother electronically or by telephone, but had only limited contact with Constance and was not really involved in Constance's life. Father John also has a third daughter, Kiana, who is two years younger than Constance, and at last report, resided with her mother in New Haven.

In addition to the conviction discussed above, Father John's criminal record prior to Constance's removal included an arrest for operating under suspension in 2006, for which his bond was forfeited; an arrest for possession of narcotics, in August 2009, to which he pled to a substituted charge of possession of drugs and was sentenced to one year in jail, execution suspended, and two years probation; and possession of drugs in September 2009, for which his sentence was an unconditional discharge.

In 2010, Father successfully completed a substance abuse program required by the criminal court to address his alcohol abuse.

At the time of the OTC in October 2013, Father John had not seen Constance in nine months.

After Constance's removal, Father completed a seven-week parenting program at New Haven Family Alliance in December 2013, but as it was unclear as to whether Father had benefitted from the program, his program case manager recommended that Father attend an aftercare fatherhood support group. Father failed to consistently attend the support group.

After testing positive for marijuana on multiple occasions, Father John completed a twelve-week early intervention substance abuse program at The Connection in New Haven and was successfully discharged from the program in May 2014. Because of Father's long history of use, the department recommended that Father engage in random urine screens, but he did not make himself available for such screening.

The department also arranged for Father John to have weekly supervised visitation with Constance in the community, alternating between New Haven and Hartford. Under this arrangement, Constance would be transported by a social worker to New Haven to father's residence to pick him up, and all would go to a McDonald's or a local park for the visit. The next week, Father John was supposed to visit Constance in Hartford using a bus or train pass provided by the department; however, as Father John did not like to use public transportation, he failed to attend multiple scheduled visits in Hartford, which resulted in their suspension. Initially, the New Haven visits seemed to progress well, but these too deteriorated over time. On multiple occasions, John was not at home or would not come out of his apartment for the visits, and Constance would have to be driven back to the foster home, upset and wondering why her father didn't want to visit her. Finally in September 2014, Father John was informed that because of the emotional impact his failures to visit had on Constance, no visits would take place until he contacted social worker John Cory to reset the visitation. Father never contacted Cory to restart the visits, and after September 2014, did not visit his daughter. Father had no further contact with the department until May 2015, when Father met Cory in court and mentioned that he would like to have visits. Cory told Father John to contact him at DCF to arrange to schedule visits with Constance in Hartford but Father never did so, and at the time of trial he had not visited Constance since September 2014.

On December 5, 2013, Father John underwent a psychological evaluation by Dr. Bruce Freedman. Dr. Freedman has testified in court on child protection matters between 250 and 300 times, and by agreement of the parties is qualified as an expert in clinical psychology, family psychology, child abuse, child sexual abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, and children's permanency.

Test results showed Father John's intellectual functioning to be in the middle of borderline range, and he responded to testing with a significant level of defensiveness and impression management and showed indications of social avoidance and extreme introversion. At the time of his evaluation, Father reportedly had been unemployed for at least three years. Father was diagnosed with Cannabis Disorder, mild, Personality Disorder, Cluster 3, avoidant and dependent features, chronic unemployment and inadequate housing. Dr. Freedman reported that " father showed very limited abstract concepts; his judgment was fair and he has very little insight into his functioning and problems, such as that he would have been able to learn from his mistakes, create and implement a plan to improve his life." Dr. Freedman did not regard it likely that Father John would have the initiative or problem solving ability to establish a home or financial stability for himself or Constance.

At the time of trial, Father John had pending criminal charges of assault third, sexual assault third, unlawful restraint second, and breach of peace second, all in connection with an offense occurrence date of September 26, 2015.

Mother of Constance and Jahage

Jasmine W. was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut on October 24, 1983. She resided there with her married parents and her older brother until age twelve, when she was sent to live with her grandmother (MGGM) after her father (MGF) had beaten her mother (MGM) so severely that her mother was hospitalized. This assault resulted in her father's incarceration for five years. MGM reported that she and MGF had regularly abused alcohol and drugs and became addicted to crack cocaine when Mother was in the third grade. The parents' relationship was filled with substance abuse and severe domestic violence, including extreme physical violence, coercive control, degradation, and verbal aggression, to which Mother was repetitively exposed. As a result, Mother has a history with the department as a child participant.

During her adolescence Mother resided between MGM's home, MGGM's home, and her maternal aunt's home, while MGM continued to abuse alcohol and lived with a boyfriend. Mother attended local schools and dropped out after failing to complete the ninth grade. She enrolled in Job Corps in 2000 and graduated in 2001 with her GED, then returned to MGM's house and began to take classes at Housatonic Community College.

When MGF was released from prison in 2001, Mother went to live with him. In 2002, Mother obtained a Certified Nursing Assistant license and decided to take a break from school to work as a CNA but never returned to her classes. She reportedly hurt her back and stopped working as a CNA but was unsuccessful in her attempt to obtain social security disability benefits. Mother continued to reside with her father until moving to Brooklyn to spend the summer of 2004 with her aunt. At the end of the summer, MGF was stabbed and killed during a fight. After MGF's death, Mother disclosed that MGF had repeatedly sexually abused her. Mother returned to live in MGF's apartment but was soon evicted because she could not pay the rent. Mother moved in with MGM and her boyfriend, and, a few months later, still emotionally upset by her father's death, Mother traveled to Africa with a religious group and remained there for about eight months, during which she became ill with malaria. MGM reportedly became so concerned that she sought the assistance of the United States Embassy in getting Mother to return home in 2005.

That winter Mother met and began a relationship with Father John. He quickly moved in with her and she quickly became pregnant, but John moved to North Carolina before Constance's birth and the parents' relationship ended. About a month after Constance was born, John visited for a short time and then returned to North Carolina. About a year later, John returned to Connecticut and lived with Mother and Constance for several months before leaving and severing the relationship.

In April 2010, Mother began dating a neighbor, Earl R. Although their relationship involved domestic violence, Mother remained in the relationship for about sixteen months until moving to Hartford in August 2011. On at least two occasions, Mother engaged in physical fights with other women, resulting in protective orders.

During the summer of 2012, Mother met Stephen B. through a mutual friend, and thereafter would see and talk to him often in her neighborhood.

In September 2012, Stephen needed a place to stay, and Mother agreed to let him sleep on her couch. On September 8, 2012, she allowed him into her home, and he sexually assaulted her during the night. Mother allowed him to continue to stay despite the assault, reportedly because they had talked it over and agreed to put it behind them, but additional sexual assaults and physical violence occurred.

The family's involvement with the department dates back to October 2012, when the department received a report from Officer Vendetto of the Hartford Police Department with concerns about a call from Mother regarding a sexual abuse report. Mother reported that she wanted her boyfriend Stephen out of the house, although he had already left. Mother had stated that Constance had reported that Stephen had entered her bedroom and touched her " bum." Mother also claimed that Stephen had raped Mother but later recanted and requested that police not investigate her relationship with him. Constance reported that Stephen stayed at the home and slept in her mother's room and that she was scared of him.

DCF made an appointment for Constance to have a forensic evaluation at the Children's Advocacy Center at St. Francis Hospital (CAC) on October 23, 2012, but Mother failed to keep the appointment. The allegations against Father Stephen were unsubstantiated by the department. After these events, Mother resumed a volatile and violent relationship with Stephen, letting him stay at her home, where Constance was forced to endure the companionship of the man who she reported had molested her, and was exposed to domestic violence and inappropriate and abusive behaviors. When Constance questioned why Mother continued the relationship, Mother told Constance that " she needed a daddy, and he'll be the daddy."

On January 21, 2013, Mother called the police to report that Stephen had punched her in the face and side, choked her, thrown her down onto a sofa, and threatened her. When police responded, they observed visible marks on Mother's neck and face. On January 21, 2013, DCF received a report about the assault, and during that investigation Mother reported that Stephen had been physically, verbally and sexually abusing her. Constance also repeated her prior disclosure that Stephen had touched her on her private area, but Mother refused to allow DCF to schedule a forensic evaluation at CAC for Constance. Stephen was arrested and charged with assault third. He was incarcerated, pled to breach of peace in the second and was sentenced to and served five months in jail.

After Stephen was released from prison in July 2013, Mother and Stephen resumed contact with each other. Mother was pregnant, her protective order against Stephen had expired, and she thought she might be able to forgive him and so allowed him back into her and Constance's lives.

On October 1, 2013, the department resumed an investigation after receiving a report that on September 30, 2013, at about 3:00 p.m., Mother had attempted to run Stephen down with her car. Constance was in the back seat of the car, and Mother was nine months pregnant at the time. Mother and Stephen had argued, Stephen struck Mother, and then he left the vehicle. Mother told Stephen that she was going to run him over. Constance, crying, begged her to return home, but Mother refused. She drove down a one-way street in pursuit of Stephen, at one point the vehicle went over a curb and hit a fence, damaging a lawn as well as the fence and the front of the vehicle. Constance was terrified but escaped physical injury. Mother denied that she had attempted to run Stephen down, but an independent eyewitness spoke with the police.

As discussed in detail below, Jahage was born on October 7, 2013. Thereafter, a warrant was issued for Mother's arrest on a charge of attempted assault in the first degree. The department was present when the warrant was served on October 18, 2013, and instituted a 96-hour hold on both children. The OTC followed as above.

DCF then promptly arranged for parenting education and supervised visitation for Mother through AMPS, Inc. The parenting education by AMPS was designed to occur during the supervised visitations, and generally consisted of suggestions, redirection, modeling of behavior, and feedback for Mother. Mother's case was supervised by Joan Whitten, who has a master's degree in education as well as undergraduate degrees in psychology and child development. Mother's visits with both children began in October 2013, and were supervised by Whitten or other AMPS staff. The visits occurred on the average of two times a week until they were discontinued for Constance in December 2013, because of Mother's inappropriate behavior toward Constance and toward supervising staff.

Mother had been hostile to both DCF and AMPS staff and was not often accepting of the parenting education component of the visits. Mother would become angry and argue with staff when she was redirected, often cursing and swearing. Constance would react to her mother's angry displays of temper by repetitively flapping her hands and twisting her fingers. This was accompanied by repetitive involuntary facial tics. Staff explained to Mother that she needed to be calm and stable during visits, but Mother was unable to understand that the hand flapping was Constance's anxiety reaction to stress. Rather, Mother minimized the hand flapping and claimed that Constance was practicing magic when she did this.

Mother displayed many other concerning behaviors during visits. Mother often focused entirely on Jahage during the visits, causing Constance to repeatedly call out to her mother or repeatedly tug at her sleeve in order to get her attention. Mother was also resistant to ending the visits on time and would ignore reminders for her to begin to get ready to do so, resulting in staff overtime. On several occasions Mother insisted on keeping a diaper containing Jahage's bowel movement and taking it home in her bag. Mother also recorded videos on a child's IPad containing statements like " the children are coming home soon, " and would hide it in Constance's bag for her to find at the foster home. Mother persisted in this behavior despite being given repeated instructions not to send anything home without preapproval. Once visits with Constance were suspended, Mother continued to show up at grandmother's visitation, and persisted in passing notes to Constance through her grandmother.

On October 28, 2013, Mother underwent a substance abuse evaluation and urine screen at ADRC. She tested negative for all substances and there were no treatment recommendations.

On November 22, 2013, the department referred Mother for mental health services with a clinical psychologist, Dr. Regina Wilson of Voices, LLC. Although Mother made an intake appointment with Dr. Wilson, Mother cancelled and then failed to return Dr. Wilson's call about rescheduling the appointment. Mother told the department that she did not want to see Dr. Wilson, and on December 31, 2013, informed the department that she was attending therapy at the Hispanic Council for Families, and identified a therapist. When contacted by the social worker, that organization reported that no such therapist worked there and that their records indicated that mother had never received mental health services there. Thereafter, Mother informed the department that she was engaged in therapy with a Jenny Alvarez but refused to provide the name of the agency or to sign a release of information form for the department.

On March 13, 2014, Mother attended an intake for outpatient therapy at InterCommunity, Inc., and attended nine therapy sessions and two treatment review sessions with Melissa Elek, between March 27 and May 28, 2014, until she was discharged for missing visits.

Mother was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree on a substituted information, and sentenced to five years in jail, execution suspended after five months, two years probation. Mother was incarcerated between June 3, and October 10, 2014 and thereafter attended several walk-in group sessions at InterCommunity as well as one individual session on November 5, 2014. There, Mother described her main stressor as being separated from her children. Elek testified at trial and felt that Mother had made progress by sharing her insights into how she had gotten into the situation and what she could have done differently. Elek recalled that Mother had been in a " vulnerable position" due to Stephen's attentions: " I think it was nice in the beginning that he was giving her so much attention, coming around, and wanting to, you know, connect with her, but then it got to the point where it was no longer nice."

During Mother's incarceration the department continued to provide her with visitation with Jahage. Mother also requested that her visits with Constance be reinstated, and on August 28, 2014 the court, Burgdorff, J., ordered that visitation with Constance would be at the discretion of Constance's therapist after Mother's release, and that upon her release Mother should notify DCF and her attorney to arrange a therapeutic visit. The department resumed visits for Mother after her release; however, as AMPS was no longer under contract and thus unavailable to the department to provide the therapeutic parenting component of the visitation, John Cory, an experienced social worker, supervised most of the visits himself, with supervision by a case aid if Cory was unavailable. Cory was aware of the techniques used by AMPS to point out issues and redirect behavior. Cory testified that for the majority of the time the visits seemed to go well, but there were serious concerns he brought to Mother's attention based upon his own observations and also on concerns raised by Constance's therapist, foster parents, case aid, and by the child's attorney. Although on the surface many visits appeared to go well, often Mother would secretly whisper inappropriate things to Constance during hugs, or speak with her surreptitiously in bathrooms and changing rooms where Mr. Corey would not be able to go. Mother would criticize the care given to Constance and Jahage by the foster parents, ask her if she wanted to come home or tell her she would be coming home soon, promised her a puppy and that she would not have to attend school if she came home, and told her Mother would marry Constance's biological Father if she came home. During one visit, when Constance told her mother that she would be traveling to Jamaica for a vacation with her foster family, her mother told her that planes crash. As a result, Constance became so apprehensive that she had to be taken to the airport by her foster mother (FM) to observe planes taking off and landing safely in order to reassure her. When during another visit Constance shared her anxiety about having lockdown drills at school, mother did not try to reassure her, instead, observing that she herself didn't have to have such drills. On another occasion, Mother told Constance that her foster parents " have other children but if I don't have you and Jahage back I won't have anybody." These occurrences would greatly upset Constance. Eventually, Cory had a female case aid supervise the visits so that Mother would no longer have occasion to be alone with Constance.

Finally, around Thanksgiving 2015, Constance refused to attend two visits with her mother. Constance told her FM that she wanted to stop visits and wrote a letter to her Mother but was afraid to deliver it. The letter stated " Dear Mom, The reson why I did't go to the last two visits was because you yell, you wisper in my ear come home and I actually don't want to come home, but I still love you and I feel happy with my foster parents but maybe I could call you sometime." (Sic.)

In December 2015, during a therapy session, Constance told Ms. Abric that she was afraid to tell her mother that she did not want to visit with her anymore because her mother gets angry and has a bad temper. Abric testified that during this part of the session, Constance raised her voice, which Abric had never heard her do before, saying " I WANT TO STOP VISITS WITH MOM! STOP! STOP! STOP!" This was reported to DCF and Constance's attorney. A resulting motion seeking to suspend the visits was granted until further order of the court on December 21, 2015. Constance did subsequently request to attend one of Mother's visits with Jahage in order to increase her younger brother's comfort; thereafter, Constance made no additional requests.

Mother attended Women Share, a support group for battered women Interval House on four occasions between November 12, 2013 and April 15, 2014.

Beginning on December 3, 2013, Mother underwent a court ordered Psychological evaluation by Dr. Bruce Freedman. Mother was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder with dissociative symptoms, intermittent explosive disorder, rule out personality disorder, borderline and personality types, domestic violence, repeated incidents, child neglect, repeated incidents, and legal problems, pending charges. Dr. Freedman's report states that Jasmine showed significantly elevated test scores in the areas of impression management and self-deception enhancement, " adding up to a strongly significant level of overall deception. She is strongly inclined to overestimate her own good qualities and virtues, and significantly inclined to present things to deliberately make a good impression on others. When put together, [these] test scores depict an individual who lacks an honest, genuine manner with others and even in terms of her self-evaluation." Although other test results showed Mother to be of average mental ability, she showed significant problems in short- and long-term memory, as well as significant problems in thinking clearly and logically in the three general categories of cognitive, emotional and behavioral functioning. She also showed a significantly elevated level of suspicion and mistrust of others in a range indicating active paranoia as well as a disorganized thought process. Dr. Freedman noted that although Mother had basic parenting skills, she had failed to protect Constance from exposure to domestic violence and sexual abuse, and had failed to cooperate with important medical interventions for Jahage. Mother also minimized the trauma that Constance had experienced, expressing the belief that the source of Constance's trauma was due to her removal from Mother's home. Dr. Freedman stated that Mother's emotional, mental and interpersonal problems directly interfered with her ability to care for and protect her children, and concluded that the only safe option for the children was for them to remain in foster care.

After her release from prison on October 10, 2014, Mother was again referred for outpatient therapy with Dr. Regina Wilson, and attended an intake on October 21, 2014. The focus of the weekly visits was on domestic violence and choices in judgment. Dr. Wilson testified that for quite some time Mother continued to feel that Stephen was responsible for everything that had happened to her, but she has progressed and now she also understands that she made " poor choices" by letting Stephen into her home. Mother, however, always persisted in denying to Dr. Wilson that she tried to run Stephen down, saying she was just trying to turn the car around. Dr. Wilson testified that " she didn't perceive herself" as " trying to run over Mr. B." Dr. Wilson hopes that she has given Mother the tools to avoid violent relationships in the future.

Mother would talk about her excitement over visitation, but did not candidly share with Dr. Wilson DCF's various concerns about her interactions with Constance during visitation. Rather, Mother explained away DCF's concerns about inappropriate conversations with Constance, as having been about " court dates" and as having been initiated by Constance. Mother did not share with Dr. Wilson that admonitions by DCF had occurred over a period of months, and although Mother did acknowledge that DCF said she was saying negative things about the foster family, she denied that she had done so. Mother claimed that she did not understand why the visits with Constance had been stopped.

Dr. Wilson testified that throughout the course of her treatment Mother maintained that she was not romantically involved with Stephen, and had opened her home to him only because she felt sorry for him. During her testimony, Dr. Wilson acknowledged that if Mother had minimized the extent of their relationship during her therapy " it would call into question her credibility" and also call into question the amount of progress she has actually made in gaining insight into that relationship. Dr. Wilson also stated her opinion that in areas a client is not being open about " there will not be significant growth." During cross examination, it became apparent that Mother had not been candid with Dr. Wilson, who was unaware of Mother's disparaging comments about the foster parents, her comments about planes crashing, her yelling, her whispering to Constance during visits, telling her to come home, and making promises about what would happen when Constance came home. Dr. Wilson agreed that those behaviors and comments were concerning as they show a lack of sensitivity to and empathy for the feelings of the child, as well as a lack of insight and sensitivity about how those behaviors and comments will affect the child.

Dr. Freedman reevaluated Mother on October 20, 2015. Although in his report he noted significant improvement in Mother's presentation and mental status at the time of the second evaluation, his opinion regarding her ability to care for Constance and Jahage did not change. " She shows indications of having learned to present herself in a more coherent, acceptable fashion. However, when pressed a little, she shows the same denial of problems, lack of responsibility for the danger she exposed herself and her children to, while at the same time demanding loyalty from her daughter during the two year foster placement."

Dr. Wilson had been contacted as a collateral source in connection with the reevaluation and submitted written answers in response to Dr. Freedman's questions. Dr. Freedman was familiar with Dr. Wilson and spoke highly of her as a therapist during his testimony, but did not agree that Mother had made any significant progress in her rehabilitation during her therapy with Dr. Wilson. Dr. Freedman testified that the first step in the rehabilitation of a parent who has harmed a child by omission or commission is to acknowledge the things they had done wrong, and their own mistakes and flaws, which Mother failed to do: " So, when I read Dr. Regina Wilson's responses to my questions, I read very clearly that Jasmine has not acknowledged some of the basic things that she did to this child--did and didn't do to--with this child. So I think that though she's benefitted in other--other ways from her meetings with Dr. Wilson, that their therapy has not really been a rehabilitation of her parenting flaws and character and personality flaws as related to parenting." Dr. Freedman also testified that if Mother still believes that Constance's removal from her care was the only real trauma that she had suffered, it told him that " the most essential elements that would have been necessary for her rehabilitation are totally absent. She doesn't under--she hasn't learned a thing about why this child went into placement and why her child is no longer interested in living with her." After his second evaluation, Dr. Freedman did not alter his opinion that Mother's emotional, mental and interpersonal problems directly interfered with her ability to care for and protect her children.

Mother's lack of genuine progress and inability to acknowledge her role in her children's removal was also apparent during a subsequent contact with the department. After Constance had disclosed to her therapist the incident of sexual abuse by Stephen and had completed a forensic interview, a DCF social worker interviewed Mother at the DCF office on November 18, 2015. When asked about details that Constance had disclosed, Mother insisted that Constance could not have heard her and Stephen having sex as she had only one sexual encounter with him and that is when he raped her, and that she became pregnant with Jahage as a result of being raped by his father, statements directly at odds with previous statements she had made to the department and others, and also at odds with the chronology of her pregnancy. Mother also insisted that she never watched pornographic movies and had never watched any movies with Stephen. Mother also denied even being in a relationship with Stephen and stated he had slept at her home only one time when Constance was six years old because Mother had felt sorry for him.

An incident which occurred several weeks before trial also serves to illustrate Mother's continued lack of progress. On December 23, 2015, Mother's visit with Jahage had to be cancelled but apparently Mother was not timely informed. When the visit did not take place, Mother left the following message on social worker Lisa Butler's voicemail in a loud and angry tone: " Lisa, this is ridiculous. You knew I was gonna show up to my visit and I thought you were better than that. I thought you were more professional. You should have called me to at least leave a message to let me know that the fucking visit was cancelled so I come the fuck up--all the way the fuck out here and you mother fuckers not having a visit? That's some irresponsible shit and I don't appreciate it so we gonna get to the bottom of this shit. Stupid black ass bitch."

On March 30, 2016, Mother's probation officer Angela Denicola contacted DCF to report that Mother had tested positive for marijuana on March 22, 2016. Officer Denicola also reported that Mother was no longer engaged in mental health services with Dr. Wilson despite Dr. Wilson's opinion that Mother would benefit from additional therapy.

Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.

Stephen B., Father of Jahage

Father Stephen B. was born in Jamaica on September 17, 1979 and lived there with his parents, an older brother, and a younger sister, until the age of fourteen, when his parents separated and his mother moved to the Bronx, New York. A paternal aunt cared for Stephen and his siblings for about two years, until they moved to the Bronx to live with their mother. Stephen dropped out of high school and moved to Long Island where he rented a room, and worked in a number of different jobs at big-box stores. He reported living with a girlfriend for several years, but not sharing her expectation for a permanent relationship. He eventually returned alone to Connecticut, where he sold marijuana until he was arrested and charged with possession with intent to sell, almost forty pounds of marijuana, with a bond set at one million dollars. This resulted in a felony conviction and one year of incarceration, which he served during 2003-2004.

After his release from prison, Stephen engaged in turbulent relationships with several women, and he was accused of sexual assault on several occasions. In 2009, Stephen was accused of robbing and sexually assaulting his roommate, concerning which he served eight or nine months in jail. Stephen was also the subject of four protective orders involving three different women in the space of about two years. In 2009, in connection with a charge of criminal trespass first against Father, Andreen B. was the protected party of a full no-contact protective order was extended to her minor children; between 2009-2011, in connection with charges of assault third, and disorderly conduct against Father, Elizabeth M. was the protected party of two separate full no contact protective orders; and between 2011-2012, in connection with charges of breach of peace second, unlawful restraint second, risk of injury, and assault third, against Father, Rashaunna D. was the protected party of a full no contact protective order, extended to her minor children.

Stephen met Jasmine in 2012, and their interactions unfolded as detailed above until the children were taken into care.

When Stephen was initially interviewed by the department he reported to the social worker that he had a lot of children and a lot of " baby-mammas, " but was unable or unwilling to name his children or their ages. He indicated that he does not know all of his children or maintain a relationship with them because his " baby-mammas" don't let him and they " act funny because of the next baby-mamma." He seemed proud of his reputation as a " Don Juan" and insisted that Jasmine, like so many other women, pursued him.

DCF assigned the case to social worker Deirtra Neals on October 29, 2013. Stephen's behavior toward Neals was extremely inappropriate over time. He made inappropriate comments, complimenting her on her clothes and appearance. He bragged about his popularity with women, asked if she would date a client, and whether she would consider dating him. Neals told him that his behavior was inappropriate and asked him to stop. Finally, after he sent her a gift box of chocolate covered strawberries through Edible Arrangements, Neals reported the situation to her supervisors and her request that Father's case be reassigned was granted the following June.

In the interim, Father Stephen was uncooperative with the department in other ways. DCF scheduled Stephen for a paternity test on December 2, 2013, which Stephen failed to attend. After a rescheduled test result confirmed Father's paternity on January 13, 2014, he was referred for a mental health evaluation and a substance abuse evaluation with urine screen at CRT on January 14, 2014, but refused to attend, blaming his work schedule. He was also ordered by the court to attend a psychosexual evaluation but refused to do so. He continued to decline to attend until after the department filed a permanency plan of TPR and adoption.

Father was referred to a parenting program through Radiance Innovative Services but he declined to attend. He preferred to attend the Fatherhood Initiative Program at CRT, at which fathers exchange experiences in a group setting, but failed to attend his intake appointment on February 24, 2014. He began the Fatherhood Initiative Program group at CRT on March 6, 2014 and completed the program on May 29, 2014. His program supervisor Mr. Tomczak reported that although Father was actively engaged in the group, he questioned Father's bond or attachment to his child, as during sessions Father had never once spoken of or about any of his children, never discussed visitation, how the visits were going or his overall goal as a father. Tomczak voiced some of his concerns to Father at the time he presented Father with his certificate of completion.

From March 2014 to October 2014, Father attended a 24-week Batterers Intervention Program at Radiance Innovative Services. This consisted of group sessions during which the participants are encouraged to acknowledge their past abusive behaviors and demonstrate insight on how their controlling and abusive behaviors adversely affected their partner and their child. Father's attendance was reportedly " good" although he arrived late on a number of occasions. Father's group co-facilitator testified that Father admitted to controlling, rather than violent behavior, and, when asked to describe father's insight at the completion of the program, testified that " Mr. B. talked about how his controlling behavior at times impacted his son because he was not with his son and that had a huge impact for both he and his son by not being together." Upon his successful completion of this program, it was reported that " his risk level is low of reoffending."

In December 2014, Father completed the 24/7 Dads program through Catholic Family Charities. Father described this at trial as a " networking" program introducing fathers to other neighborhood fathers for discussions in a group setting on " how to grow the kid up." He has also begun problem sexual behavior therapy at Radiance, although he has not consistently attended and, according to his therapist, still has a lot of work to do.

After the TPR petition was filed, Father attended a psychosexual evaluation with Daniel Pilachowski on September 24, 2014. Pilachowski reported that " Mr. B. presents as an aggressive man who, if given the opportunity will manipulate women for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity . . . Mr. B.'s attitude regarding rape of women is narcissistic . . . He denied sexually assaulting Ms. W., but admits to engaging in 'heavy/rough sex' with Ms. W. especially after experiencing domestic violence with her . . . his attitude with regards to sex with women is regarded as dangerous. Mr. B. does not understand his sexual development rather his understanding of sex is how much physical pleasure he can demand to experience from women." Mr. Pilachowski also reported that Mr. B. may have an unrealistic image of himself, reporting that women find him attractive and will provide him with sexual activity any time he wants. It appeared that Mr. B. has inadequate social adjustment, unhealthy relationships with family members and friends and overall has no understanding of his life's goals. Mr. Pilachowski did not find that Stephen was sexually aroused by children, but reported that in his clinical opinion " Mr. B. has the potential to hurt adult women for the purpose of seeking sexual pleasure. Mr. B. presents as being overly confident and demanding of women with regards to his sexual encounters with them, " concluding that " Mr. B. presents a moderate risk of engaging in nonconsensual sexual activity with peer age women with no risk of sexual behavior toward his children."

Stephen underwent a psychological examination with Dr. Bruce Freedman on December 10, 2015. Dr. Freedman did not agree with Mr. Pilachowski's opinion that Stephen does not present a danger to young children. During his testimony, Dr. Freedman explained that Pilachowski had arrived at that conclusion based upon a test called the Able test, from which Pilachowski found that Stephen was not specifically aroused by young children: " I'm not impressed by that statement because I think that people molest children for different reasons. It can be related to substance abuse. It can be related to anger. It can be related to a lot of things, as can rape. It can be related to things that have very little to do with sexual arousal. So the fact that he opines that, because he didn't show arousal to young children, and therefore he's not a danger to young children, I think it's a weak argument myself."

Dr. Freedman reported that test measures of Stephen's general mental, emotional and behavioral functioning are all in the average to low average range. He showed a high but not clinically significant level of ideas about being persecuted and mistreated by others, and a significant elevation of the activation score, suggesting that he can be extremely excitable or irritable and may have episodes of uncontrolled emotions or behavior. Although Stephen's impression management score was above average, it was not clinically significant. " However, his self-deceptive enhancement, representing his view of his own good points is extremely significant. This creates a total deception score which is also at the top of the measurable scale."

Dr. Freedman diagnosed Stephen with " Impulse control problems, Relationship problems with multiple partners, Suspected sexual abuse of a child, Domestic violence history with partner, and History of incarcerations, felony conviction."

Dr. Freedman stated that " Jahage's father is a sexually predatory man who uses and discards women, uses violence to procure sex, and who has shown dangerous, criminal behavior toward Jasmine and Constance." Dr. Freedman testified: " It's my opinion that he has serious psychological problems. Some of these problems lead him to--to antisocial behavior, to violence, to preying on women both sexually and in other ways, and so I think he--any child in his care he would expose to all kinds of risks."

Dr. Freedman reported that " Stephen B. has participated in some sexual behavior counseling, although [after] a couple of months of weekly sessions he does not know his counselor's name. Mr. B. takes no responsibility for any of his misbehavior, which means that any services he participates in will be extremely unlikely to be productive. If he were to try to live in a family setting he would need long-term domestic violence education and counseling." Dr. Freedman was initially unsuccessful in reaching the sexual behavior counselor as a collateral contact, but received a call after he had completed his written report. Father's counselor told Dr. Freedman that Father had never mentioned any of the sexual assaults he had been accused of in the past and the counselor was very surprised to hear about them.

Dr. Freedman opined that " based on what I know about him, my conversation with his counselor, my interview with him, I do not support him as a custodian for his son and I don't think additional services would particularly make much of a difference."

At the time of trial, father was employed as a taxi driver, leasing his cab. He rents a two-bedroom apartment, indicating that the second bedroom is intended for Jahage. It is unfurnished but Stephen testified that he has discussed with his younger sister the kind of bedroom furniture that he should buy for Jahage. Father claims to have a plan for parenting Jahage, but during his testimony was vague about the specifics.

On January 13, 2014, the same day that paternity test results confirmed Father Stephen B. to be Jahage's father, he was offered weekly two-hour supervised visits with his son. Father Stephen B. began visiting on January 30, 2014; however, he would only commit to attending one-hour visits. For about a year, the visits did not go particularly well. Father missed a number of visits, later reporting that he had forgotten, was working, or just had other things to do. He often arrived late, spent time on the phone instead of being attentive to Jahage and frequently ended visits early without explanation. During the visits he did attend, Father did not appear to understand the developmental capabilities of an infant or how to interact with his son appropriately. He struggled with keeping Jahage calm and happy. Father did not react well to suggestions or redirection by Ms. Neals during visits, resented her interventions, and appeared to regard her attempts at redirection as personal attacks. Father blamed the social worker for his visitation issues, testifying at trial that " she was really hovering over me . . . she was over my shoulder criticizing . . . everything . . . her pure presence was making me uncomfortable . . . She said I'm changing the kid's diaper wrong, and she was just overly aggressive, oh, blah, blah, . . . She'd be, basically, yelling orders . . . orders, orders . . . orders at me in the visit making me very, very, uncomfortable with everything that she doing--her manner and demeanor, everything." Father's visitation issues continued for some time. Between June 2014 and December 2014, Father B. missed nine visits, was late for eight, and left early during three others. On October 2, 2014, he spent the entire visit on the phone, apparently arguing with his girlfriend. At Father's request, the department moved the location of the visits to Catholic Charities on Main Street rather than the DCF office to make them more convenient for him to attend. The department also instituted a protocol requiring Father to call in the morning of visits to confirm that he was attending, but this did not improve things as Father would call to confirm and then not show up. To eliminate fruitless transports of the child, the department then required Father to arrive at the visit site prior to Jahage's pickup. This worked for a little while until a visit scheduled in February 26, 2015 went awry. Father arrived at the Catholic Charities office at 9:45 a.m., but when the case aid brought Jahage there, Father had disappeared and the visit did not take place. Father later explained that he had returned home and fallen asleep. Father was then informed that the location of the visits was being returned to the DCF office and that he would have to be present at the office before Jahage would be picked up. Father then requested that the visits be moved from Thursdays to Saturdays for his convenience, but when he was told that the department was unable to schedule overtime for staff to supervise weekend visits because of his inconsistent visitation, he indicated that he would not be able to visit. On March 26, 2015, he did not show up for his scheduled visit, and on April 30, 2015, he cancelled his visit. Over time, Father's attendance at visits improved. More recently, he has regularly brought toys, food and juice for Jahage and has interacted with him appropriately and with affection during their one-hour visits.

Father Stephen testified at trial, but his testimony was not particularly helpful to him. The court did not credit father's testimony in many respects. He could only guess at how many protective orders had previously been issued against him, and dismissed those in a cavalier fashion: " Every time you break up with a girl, the girl catch feeling--any time there's a case, they don't go to family court, and say they want a protective order. Anytime there's a case between you and somebody, you have a disagreement, whatever be the case, or where the cops are involved, automatically there's an order of protection issued." It became clear during his testimony that Stephen views himself as having had been the victim during his many relationships with women, rather than as an aggressor. He took no responsibility for his actions toward Jasmine, and was adamant that all of his sexual relations with her were consensual and that Jasmine had put Constance up to making false accusations of sexual abuse. It was apparent to the court that any progress he has made in the area of domestic violence was shallow and inadequate.

Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.

Constance

Constance was born in New Haven, Connecticut, on November 2, 2006. She resided in Connecticut with her mother, most recently in Hartford.

When Constance arrived at the foster home her initial transition was difficult. Constance had no real knowledge of hygiene, her FM had to teach her how to bathe herself, and how to brush her teeth and use dental floss. Constance had never had a dental cleaning, and at her first dental care visit x-rays revealed several cavities. She had never been vaccinated.

Constance had nightmares, would wake up screaming, and experienced nocturnal enuresis and encopresis. She defecated in corners, and sometimes used sports bottles to hide the feces. This tended to occur in conjunction with Constance's return from visits with her mother. FM bought Constance overnight pullups for big girls, letting Constance pick out the print she wanted. Foster parents also left lights on in the hallway and in the bathroom in case Constance woke up and needed to use the bathroom, and told Constance to wake them if she was scared, so they could walk her there. They also set a timer to wake Constance in the middle of the night, so they could take her to the bathroom. It took approximately six to seven months of using pullups before the nocturnal behaviors subsided.

There were also multiple instances of sexualized behavior. For example, on one occasion, FM observed Constance playing with dolls with FM's nieces. She saw Constance place the dolls on top of each other and heard her say " let's watch them have sex." On several occasions, Constance also drew pictures depicting sex acts which FM then gave to Constance's therapist. Constance also drew hypersexualized pictures at school, and as well as pictures depicting violence.

Constance had never been to school, and there is no evidence that her mother made any attempt to home school her as Mother had claimed. Constance had language delays and did not speak very much. Her behavior mimicked selective mutism in that when she did choose to speak it was in complete sentences, but developmental and physiological disorders were ruled out, and her symptoms lined up with anxiety and PTSD. Constance's anxiety would also manifest itself on occasion by her repetitively flapping her hands and twisting her fingers. This was accompanied by repetitive involuntary facial tics and sometimes by rocking her body. Although these tics most often occurred during visits with her Mother, FM also observed the tic to occur in the foster home when Constance heard FM speak sternly to her sons.

Educationally deficient at age seven, Constance did not know her letters or her numbers, her left from her right, how to tie her shoes or how to put her shoes on the correct feet, or how to dress herself without assistance. FM made charts for Constance to use and taught her some letters. That fall, Constance was enrolled in second grade, and was very excited to be attending school. After testing she was moved to first grade, but initially performed at a kindergarten level.

Constance was referred to the Village for Families and Children (Village) for trauma-focused therapy and attended an intake in December 2013. She attended several therapy sessions with the intake clinician until she was referred to another clinician at the Village, Lauren Abric, for art therapy, play therapy and EMDR, rapid eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy which she began in April 2014. Now Constance laughs a lot more, goes outside to play more, travels well, showers herself, does her homework, and has friends. She has progressed educationally, she reads, and knows her multiplication tables. Constance has been named a student of the month on two occasions.

Therapy which uses bilateral stimulation, such as tapping or eye movements, to re-experience and reprocess traumatic events in a safe environment.

Dr. Bruce Freedman testified that when he initially evaluated Constance in 2013, he saw " a child who was overwhelmed, traumatized, functioning poorly and not prepared for life in the outside word." Constance had described her observations of violent, life-threatening domestic violence between her Mother and Stephen, as well as other inappropriate behavior. After his second evaluation, he stated: " I saw her transformed by 2015 into a poised, articulate child who had very strong opinions, who could explain her opinions in a very reasonable way, and what I found in 2015 is that the loyalty to her mother, it wasn't completely gone but it was eroded to the--based on her living in a--what appeared to me to be a good foster home and getting good care and seeing what family life is supposed to be like, she had come to the point where she made statements to me like, I can't trust my mother. If I went back to her, she'd probably just pick another bad guy. She told me I--that she wanted Stephen there in the home because I needed a daddy but I told her I didn't want him as a daddy. And, no, I don't want to go back to my mother. I would never be able to trust her."

On September 16, 2015, Constance disclosed to her therapist (as she had previously disclosed to her mother in October 2012 and again in January 2013) that when she was still living with her mother, Mother's boyfriend Stephen came into Constance's bedroom one morning and touched her vaginal area. This was reported to the department by the therapist, which in turn disclosed the report to the Hartford Police Department. Social worker Corey contacted St. Francis CAC and scheduled a forensic interview for Constance, which she attended on September 18, 2015. During the forensic interview, Constance described being touched by Stephen on her vaginal area over her night clothes. She also described, inter alia, witnessing domestic violence between her mother and Stephen, described hearing her mother and Stephen having sex, and seeing Mother and Stephen watching pornography on a number of occasions. Thereafter, sexual abuse of Constance by Stephen was substantiated by the department, and Stephen was placed on the central registry.

Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.

Jahage

Jahage was born at Hartford Hospital on October 7, 2013. On October 9, 2013, Mother brought Jahage to Connecticut Children's Medical Center (CCMC) for his initial newborn examination. Dr. Haile examined him and reported concerns that Jahage had lost 210 grams of weight overnight, which represented 7.5% of his birth weight. He also expressed concerns over Mother's behaviors during the exam. Mother refused to allow Jahage to be re-weighed, and Dr. Haile directed Mother to return the next day for Jahage to be re-weighed. After Mother left, Dr. Haile noted a concern about Jahage's bilirubin level. Mother was called to advise her to bring Jahage to the emergency department for a blood draw, but Mother refused to do so. Jahage was next examined on October 16, 2013, at CCMC by Dr. Senn-McNally, who reported that Jahage had lost another ounce and that Mother continued to engage in erratic behaviors and presented as paranoid and belligerent. CCMC referred Jahage to VNA services to assist in monitoring his weight loss but Mother refused the services. Mother presented as unconcerned about Jahage's weight loss, and refused to give him a prescribed vitamin, stating that she was being forced to give him " poison." Mother told Dr. Senn-McNally that Jahage was not being treated as a white baby would be, and that they were not being treated like a family with private insurance. She told the doctor that she intended to take Jahage to a private pediatrician but would not disclose the physician's name. On October 17, 2013, DCF conducted an unannounced visit. Mother refused to allow DCF into her home or to show them Jahage. DCF returned to the home several hours later. Mother answered the door with her pants unzipped and her underwear exposed and declined to adjust this when asked. Mother refused to allow a second social worker into her home, saying she did not allow bad spirits into her home. Mother reported that she had been sleeping on the couch with Jahage, and was cautioned by DCF about the dangers of co-sleeping.

The next day, Mother failed to take Jahage to a follow-up appointment scheduled for October 18, 2013. Later that same day, DCF conducted an unannounced visit to Mother's home together with a Hartford police officer. Mother was arrested and taken into custody due to her outstanding arrest warrant, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold, and Jahage was placed in foster care. Jahage was again examined by Dr. Senn-McNally, who reported that Jahage had lost an additional ounce of weight. On November 4, 2013, Jahage's pediatrician reported a concern with Jahage's suck ability and an assessment of " tongue tie, " a condition which could cause speech issues and problems with cavities, tooth and jaw development. Mother was informed about these potential problems and Dr. Joscelyn explained that the condition can be remedied by a quick and easy procedure and referred Jahage for a follow-up with a specialist, but Mother declined the referral. On November 5, 2013, the FM brought Jahage to the emergency room at Manchester Hospital due to his inability to hold down formula and his lack of a bowel movement during the day. At his arrival, Jahage was noted to be in distress, and was considered to be critical and in need of immediate medical attention. Mother met with DCF at the hospital, but presented as so irate, erratic and unstable that the hospital was required to call security. Jahage was stabilized and transported to CCMC. Mother arrived there still in an erratic and unstable condition, requiring a call to security there as well. At CCMC, it was determined that Jahage required surgery due to a hernia. Mother was resistant but eventually signed a consent and was allowed to stay overnight at the hospital. Jahage was discharged from the CCMC on November 8, 2013. Earlier, Mother had become so irate and abusive and profane when told she could not be present when his foster parents picked him up, that the social worker had to terminate their telephone call.

Jahage returned to the foster home and generally progressed well. On April 8, 2015, it was noted that Jahage had developed a small bump on his bottom area. The next day both children visited their pediatrician for immunizations, and Dr. Jocelyn examined the bump, ruling out a cleanliness issue and referring Jahage to CCMC for a consult. The bumps reoccurred and testing came back positive for MRSA, a staph infection, and the foster family was instructed on how to care for Jahage's condition. He recovered and has had one reoccurrence. Jahage is an otherwise healthy and easy going child.

Additional facts will be set forth below as warranted.

Specific Steps

On June 17, 2014, specific steps for Mother were ordered by the court. The court finds the following with respect to the specific steps and as to Mother's compliance therewith:

Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and your children are at all times . Mother has complied with this step.

Take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals and cooperate with service providers recommended . Mother's steps required parenting, individual and family counseling as recommended to address a goal of providing an environment free of physical, abusive behaviors and sexual abuse. Although Mother participated in individual counseling with several providers, her participation was inconsistent, she was not candid with providers and she has not adequately acknowledged her part in and responsibility for the children's removal. Accordingly, she was unable to make any significant progress in those areas. Similarly, although she participated in parenting education through AMPS, Inc., Mother was often not receptive to guidance and was unable or unwilling to acknowledge how her parenting deficits and mental health needs impacted her parenting, her relationship with Constance and Constance's emotional well-being. As a result and despite some cooperation through attendance, Mother has not complied with this step.

Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine . Mother has complied with this step.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing Mother complied with this step by participating in a court-ordered psychological evaluation.

Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check on your attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings in this court . Mother has complied with this step.

Sign releases allowing your child's attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child's medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records . After some initial lack of cooperation, Mother has complied with this step.

Get and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income . Mother has complied in part with this step by maintaining employment.

Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the children . Mother has complied with this step.

Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents . Mother continued to allow Stephen into her home following incidents of domestic violence and Constance's report of sexual abuse.

Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program . As set forth above, Mother attended programs by various service providers.

Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole . Mother's probation officer initially reported that Mother had been following the conditions of her probation; however, on March 30, 2016, Mother's probation officer reported that Mother tested positive for marijuana on March 22, 2016. The probation officer also reported that Mother was no longer engaged in mental health services with Dr. Wilson despite Dr. Wilson's opinion that Mother would benefit from additional therapy. Two of the special conditions of her probation are to participate in mental health treatment as deemed necessary by probation, and a prohibition against the use or possession of illegal drugs.

Cooperate with the child/ren's therapy . Mother's involvement in Constance's therapy has not been requested by Constance's therapist.

Within thirty (30) days of this order, and at any time after that, tell DCF in writing the name, address, family relationship and birth date of any person(s) who you would like the department to investigate and consider as a placement resource for the child(ren) . Mother complied with this step.

Visit the child/ren as often as DCF permits . Mother missed eight visits between September 28, 2014 and March 25, 2015. She attended more consistently since April 2015, although some visits were cancelled after she did not confirm the visits on time.

Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren) . Mother complied with this step.

On October 18, 2013 and again on June 12, 2014, specific steps for Father John H. were ordered by the court. The court finds the following with respect to the specific steps and as to Father's compliance therewith:

Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and your children are at all times . Father initially complied but failed to communicate with the department from September 2014 until May 4, 2015, when he provided the department with a new address and phone number.

Take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals and cooperate with service providers recommended . Father's steps required parenting, family and individual counseling. Father completed a seven-week parenting program at New Haven Family Alliance in December 2013, but as it was unclear as to whether Father had benefitted. His program case manager recommended that Father attend an aftercare fatherhood support group. Father failed to consistently attend the support group. He also completed a twelve-week substance abuse program, but did not make himself available for the random drug screens recommended by the department.

Submit to random drug testing . Father did not make himself available for the random drug screens recommended by the department.

Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine . Father tested positive for marijuana on several occasions but thereafter tested negative and was successfully discharged from a substance abuse program.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing . Father complied with this step by participating in a court-ordered psychological evaluation.

Sign releases allowing your child's attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child's medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records . Father had no contact with the department from September 2014 until May 2015.

Get and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income . Father has never lived independently of extended family members or girlfriends and has never maintained steady full-time employment.

Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the children . Father declined home visits.

Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole . Father did not comply with this step, at the time of trial, Father had pending criminal charges of assault in the third degree, sexual assault in the third degree, unlawful restraint in the second degree, and breach of peace in the second degree, in connection with an offense occurrence date of September 26, 2015.

Cooperate with the child/ren's therapy . Constance's therapist did not request Father's participation in her therapy.

Within thirty (30) days of this order, and at any time after that, tell DCF in writing the name, address, family relationship and birth date of any person(s) who you would like the department to investigate and consider as a placement resource for the child(ren) . Father did not provide any placement resources for Constance.

Visit the child/ren as often as DCF permits . Although initially Father visited, he was inconsistent and would not attend if he had to take public transportation. After missing a number of visits, he was told he would need to contact the department if he wanted to continue with visitation. Father did not do so and has not visited Constance since September 2014.

Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren) . Father complied with this step.

On June 12, 2014, specific steps for Father Stephen were ordered by the court. The court finds the following with respect to the specific steps and as to Father's compliance therewith:

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child(ren)'s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem . Initially, Father was transient and did not provide household information to the department until June 2014. Thereafter, he reported an address and generally made himself available to the department, but failed to attend an ACR on January 15, 2015.

Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and your children are at all times . As noted above, initially Father did not comply but more recently Father has complied with this step.

Take part in counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals and cooperate with service providers recommended . Father's steps required parenting and individual counseling to address goals of learning to provide an environment free of threatening, intimidating and physically abusive behavior. As set forth in detail above, Father was initially uncooperative but eventually did attend and complete several parenting and domestic violence groups, but did not make any significant progress in acknowledging his past violent behavior. Similarly, although he participated in supervised visitation, Father was often resistant and hostile to parenting guidance.

Not use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine . Father has complied with this step.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing . Father initially failed to attend a paternity test but subsequently complied. Father initially failed to attend a psychological evaluation and a psychosexual evaluation in 2013, but subsequently participated in a court-ordered psychosexual evaluation in September 2014, and a psychological evaluation in December 2015.

Sign releases allowing your child's attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child's medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records . Father has complied with this step.

Get and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income . Father reported self-employed work as a taxi driver, but did not provide verification of his employment. He currently rents a two-bedroom apartment in Hartford.

Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the children . Father has complied with this step.

Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents . As set forth above, Father persisted in his relationship with Mother after incidents of domestic violence. On another occasion Father was the protected person in an order against Mother.

Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program . As set forth in detail above, Father attended a domestic violence program and a batterer's intervention program.

Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole . Father has complied with this step.

Visit the child/ren as often as DCF permits . Initially, Father missed a number of visits, and was late for or left a number of visits early, and the department had to initiate protocols for visits so that Jahage was not needlessly picked up for visits which Father failed to attend. More recently Father has visited more consistently.

Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren) . Father complied with this step.

DISCUSSION

" In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under [General Statutes] § 17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); (2) termination is in the best interest of the child; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2); and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a-112(j)(3)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 148-49, 962 A.2d 81 (2009), overruled on other grounds by State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726, 91 A.3d 862 (2014).

" The legal framework for deciding termination petitions is well established. [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 . . . grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in § 17a-112[(j)(3)] exists by clear and convincing evidence . . . If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, then it proceeds to the dispositional phase. During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child . . . The best interest determination also must be supported by clear and convincing evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 163. " Except in the case where termination is based on consent, in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall consider and shall make written findings regarding" the seven statutorily enumerated criteria. General Statutes § 17a-112(k).

Adjudicatory Phase

Reasonable Efforts

In order to terminate parental rights, the department must show by clear and convincing evidence that " [it] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and 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 . . . except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing . . . that such efforts are not required." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1).

As detailed elsewhere in this decision and as evidenced by the testimony and exhibits presented, the department offered multiple services to Mother to facilitate a reunification with both children, including, without limitation, mental health services through several providers, parenting education and ongoing assessment of parenting, supervised visitation, case management services, and a psychological examination. The court finds, from the clear and convincing evidence, that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify both children with Mother but that Mother has been unable or unwilling to benefit and is not sufficiently rehabilitated to be able to care for them in the foreseeable future, given their ages and needs.

As detailed elsewhere in this decision and as evidenced by the testimony and exhibits presented, the department likewise offered multiple services to Father Stephen to facilitate a reunification with Jahage, including, without limitation, multiple referrals for mental health and domestic violence services through several providers, parenting education and ongoing assessment of parenting, supervised visitation, case management services, a psychosexual evaluation and a psychological examination. The court finds, from the clear and convincing evidence, that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify Jahage with Father Stephen but that he has been unable or unwilling to benefit and is not sufficiently rehabilitated to be able to care for him in the foreseeable future, given his age and needs.

As detailed elsewhere in this decision and as evidenced by the testimony and exhibits presented, the department likewise offered multiple services to Father John to facilitate a reunification with Constance, including, without limitation, parenting education and an aftercare fatherhood support group, supervised visitation and ongoing assessment of parenting, substance abuse treatment, case management services, bus and/or train passes, and a psychological examination. The court finds, from the clear and convincing evidence, that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify Constance with Father John but that he has been unable or unwilling to benefit and is not sufficiently rehabilitated to be able to care for her in the foreseeable future, given her age and needs.

Ground for Termination: General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)

The department alleges that Mother and Father John's parental rights to Constance should be terminated because each has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B), and that Mother and Father Stephen's parental rights to Jahage should be terminated because each parent has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

On June 12, 2014, both children were adjudicated neglected and committed to the department. If the parent of a child who has been found by the court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding fails 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, he or she could assume a reasonable position in the life of the child, grounds for termination exist. General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

" Personal rehabilitation as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . In conducting this inquiry, the trial court must analyze the respondent's rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child . . . The trial court must also determine whether the prospects for rehabilitation can be realized within a reasonable time given the age and needs of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Destiny R., 134 Conn.App. 625, 647, 39 A.3d 727, cert. denied, 304 Conn. 932, 43 A.3d 660 (2012). " The statute does not require [a parent] to prove precisely when she will be able to assume a responsible position in her child's life. Nor does it require her to prove that she will be able to assume full responsibility for her child, unaided by available support systems. It requires the 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." In re Juvenile Appeal (84-3), 1 Conn.App. 463, 477, 473 A.2d 795, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 802, 474 A.2d 1259 (1984). " Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than 'any' rehabilitation . . . Successful completion of the petitioner's expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Destiny R., supra, 647.

" [A] finding of rehabilitation is not based on a mechanistic tabulation of whether a parent has undertaken specific steps ordered. The ultimate issue the court must evaluate is whether the parent has gained the insight and ability to care for his or her child given the age and needs of the child within a reasonable time." In re Destiny R., supra, 134 Conn.App. 627. A " respondent's failure to acknowledge the underlying personal issues that form the basis for the department's concerns indicates a failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation." In re Shane M., 148 Conn.App. 308, 322, 84 A.3d 1265 (2014), aff'd, 318 Conn. 569, 122 A.3d 1247 (2015).

In making this determination the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering 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. In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000).

Mother

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the level of rehabilitation Mother has achieved has been minimal and falls far short of that which would encourage a belief that within a reasonable time she could resume her role as either Constance or Jahage's parent. At the time of the neglect adjudication, Mother's presenting problems were her unaddressed mental health issues, domestic violence and exposing her child to domestic violence and sexual abuse and her inability to provide a safe, healthy, and nurturing environment for the children.

As set forth above, Mother participated in therapy and other services with several providers, most notably with Dr. Wilson, but was not candid in her treatment and was unable to acknowledge her role in the removal of her children beyond admitting that she made a mistake in admitting Stephen into her home because she felt sorry for him. Accordingly, she is likely to repeat her past mistakes in judgment and parenting. She has continued to minimize her own behaviors and most recently has resumed her denial that she had a relationship with Stephen or any consensual physical contact with him, and that Constance was ever exposed to pornographic videos, or adult sexual behavior. Dr. Freedman did not view Mother as rehabilitated and also opined that it would not be in either Constance or Jahage's best interests to delay permanency for either of them. Dr. Freedman also noted that although Jahage was removed as an infant and so did not experience the same violence and chaos as did Constance in her mother's household, Mother's lack of rehabilitation means that she is not ready to resume the care of either child. The court may, in its discretion, give great weight to the opinions of a professional in a TPR proceeding; see In re Emerald C., 108 Conn.App. 839, 860, 949 A.2d 1266, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 923, 958 A.2d 150 (2008); In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 167, 176, 743 A.2d 165 (1999); In re Christina V., 38 Conn.App. 214, 221, 660 A.2d 863 (1995); and the court finds Dr. Freedman's report and testimony to be credibly persuasive.

Moreover, although Mother participated in supervised visitation and parenting education through AMPS, Mother was unable or unwilling to acknowledge how her own behaviors impacted her parenting, her relationship with Constance, and Constance's emotional well-being. Initially, Mother was unable to prioritize Constance's physical and emotional well-being over her relationship with Stephen, and over time, Mother was unable to prioritize Constance's emotional well-being over her own emotional needs. Over time, Mother continued to fail to take an adequate and genuine responsibility for her children's removal, instead placing blame on others, and accordingly continues to be at significant risk of repeating her choices of violent partners and failures in judgment regarding the provision of medical care for both children, and educational care for Constance. The court also notes that although Mother seems to suggest that DCF is at fault because she was not provided with " therapeutic" visitations after her release from prison rather than visits supervised by an experienced social worker, the court views things differently. It is Mother's ongoing minimization of her failures to protect Constance from incidents of sexual abuse and domestic violence and exposure to inappropriate sexual behavior and materials, Mother's inability to understand or even acknowledge her daughter's trauma, and Mother's lack of acknowledgment of and acceptance of responsibility for her role in her children's removal, as well as her failures to be candid during therapy, that have resulted in her inability to resume parenting her children.

Accordingly, taking into consideration the above findings together with Constance's age, and the length of time she has spent in the department's care, the court concludes that the department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mother has failed to achieve the necessary degree of rehabilitation that would allow the court to conclude that Constance could safely be returned to her care, and therefore the court finds for the department on this ground.

Because the statutory grounds necessary to grant a petition for termination of parental rights are expressed in the disjunctive, the court needs to find only one ground to grant a petition to terminate parental rights. In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 473, 816 A.2d 707 (2003). Accordingly, the court finds it unnecessary to reach the additional ground alleged as to Mother.

Father John

The court notes that Father John did not even appear for trial on any of the six trial days, but has drawn no specific adverse inference from his failure to testify, despite Practice Book § 35a-7A. As set forth in detail above, despite Father John's initial participation in some services, his progress was limited, and he has not visited with Constance since September 2014.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the level of rehabilitation Father John has achieved has been minimal and falls far short of that which would encourage a belief that within a reasonable time he could assume his role as Constance's parent, and therefore the court finds for the department on this ground.

Father Stephen

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the level of rehabilitation Father Stephen has achieved has been minimal and falls far short of that which would encourage a belief that within a reasonable time he could safely assume a role as Jahage's parent, and therefore the court finds for the department on this ground.

As set forth in detail above, Father Stephen has taken no responsibility for his misbehavior, has gained little insight into his issues, and has serious unresolved psychological and behavioral issues which would expose a child in his care to serious risk. The court acknowledges his affection for his son, but affection is not enough.

Dr. Freedman did not view Father as rehabilitated, did not support his reunification with Jahage and did not think that additional services for Father would make a difference. Dr. Freedman also opined that it would not be in Jahage's best interests to delay permanency for him. The court may, in its discretion, give great weight to the opinions of a professional in a TPR proceeding; see In re Emerald C., 108 Conn.App. 839, 860, 949 A.2d 1266, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 923, 958 A.2d 150 (2008); In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 167, 176, 743 A.2d 165 (1999); In re Christina V., 38 Conn.App. 214, 221, 660 A.2d 863 (1995); and the court finds Dr. Freedman's report and testimony to be credibly persuasive.

Because the statutory grounds necessary to grant a petition for termination of parental rights are expressed in the disjunctive, the court needs to find only one ground to grant a petition to terminate parental rights. In re Brea B., supra, 75 Conn.App. 473. Accordingly, the court finds it unnecessary to reach the additional ground alleged as to Father Stephen.

Having determined all of the above, the court must next consider whether it is in the best interest of Constance and Jahage that the parental rights of the respondents be terminated.

Dispositional Phase

General Statute § 17a-112(k) Criteria

The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by the department for the termination of the respondents' parental rights have been proven. Except in a case where termination is based on a parent's consent, before making a decision whether or not to terminate parental rights, " the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k)]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Devon W., 124 Conn.App. 631, 648, 6 A.3d 100 (2010); In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 835, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005); In re Vanna A., 83 Conn.App. 17, 26, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004). " [These factors] serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be determined before termination can be ordered . . . There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 47, 907 A.2d 126 (2006), aff'd 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (2008).

The seven statutory findings are as follows:

1) " The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(1). As set forth in detail above, the court finds that the department offered timely, appropriate, and reasonable services to Mother, Father John and Father Stephen to facilitate such reunions. All of the recommended services were reasonable and appropriate, and offered on a timely basis.

2) " [W]hether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(2). As detailed above, the department made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother, Father John and Father Stephen with their children.

3) " [T]he terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(3). As set forth more specifically above, the court finds that specific steps were ordered as to each parent through which the department offered him or her timely, appropriate, and reasonable services, and that although each parent was sometimes cooperative with certain steps, each was unwilling or unable to successfully rehabilitate.

4) " [T]he feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the parents, any guardian of the child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(4).

Constance was removed from her mother's care shortly before her seventh birthday, and with the exception of several months during her infancy, has not lived with Father John.

Jahage was removed from his mother's care as a newborn, and has never lived with Father Stephen. Jahage has been in foster care since he was ten days old. Both children have resided together with their present non-relative foster parents since their removal, a period of approximately two years and nine months. Both children have done extremely well there and each has very strong bonds with and emotional ties to these foster parents and also to their foster siblings. As noted above, Constance has undergone a remarkable transformation in her foster parents' care. She responds to them in a very positive way, has expressed love for them, and has repeatedly expressed her desire to remain with them. Constance also loves her mother, but does not feel safe with her and has repeatedly and clearly expressed her wish not to return to her mother's care despite any emotional bond that may remain. Father John has never been a significant presence in Constance's life. When asked about her Father by DCF in 2012, Constance stated that she has a father, " but he is not a dad." Constance has not seen her father since September 2014, and she does not have a significant bond with him. Jahage appears to have enjoyed his separate visits with each of his parents, and may experience a bond with each from their visits, but his primary bonds are with his foster parents, to whom he looks for comfort and affection and to have his needs met.

5) " [T]he age of the child . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(5). Constance is nine years and nine months old. She was born on November 2, 2006. Jahage is two years and ten months old. He was born on October 7, 2013.

6) " [T]he efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child 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 . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(6). As set forth in detail above, each parent has made some such efforts, including attending supervised visitation; however, their visitations were not always consistent and other serious issues have remained unaddressed.

7) " [T]he 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." General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(7). There is no credible evidence that any of the parents has been so prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with either child, nor have economic circumstances stood in the way of the development of a meaningful relationship.

Best Interests of the Child

The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of Constance and Jahage. This is part of the dispositional phase of a termination proceeding. See In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992) (" [o]ur statutes and case law make it crystal clear that the determination of the child's best interests comes into play only after statutory grounds for termination of parental rights have been established by clear and convincing evidence." [footnote omitted]). " The desire and right of a parent to maintain a familial relationship with a child cannot be separated from the desire and best interest of a child either to maintain or to abandon that relationship, or the interest of the state in safeguarding the welfare of children. These legitimate interests of parent, child and state require a balancing of the factors involved in those interests . . . In every case involving parental rights, a struggle exists between parents and the state to determine what is in the child's best interest, the child being the focus of the struggle." (Citation omitted.) In re Shaquanna M., 61 Conn.App. 592, 598-99, 767 A.2d 155 (2001). Former Chief Justice Peters has noted: " Cases involving the termination of parental rights are always difficult . . . Accordingly, the court [seeks] the proper balance between the parents' constitutionally protected interest in the care, custody and control of their children, and the interest of the state, acting as parens patriae, to protect the children's health and safety." In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 566-67, 877 A.2d 941 (2005), aff'd, 280 Conn. 474, 908 A.2d 1073 (2006).

The court finds that termination is in the best interest of Constance. Her father has never played a significant role in her life and he has not visited her since September 2014. Her mother has failed to rehabilitate and has unresolved significant issues that preclude the possibility of her reunification with Constance in the foreseeable future, if ever. Constance is nearly ten years old, and having been in care for almost three years, deserves to have the highest form of security, both physical and emotional, as can be provided by law.

The court finds that termination is in the best interest of Jahage. His mother and his father have each failed to rehabilitate and each has unresolved significant issues that preclude the possibility of their reunification with Jahage in the foreseeable future, if ever. Jahage is now almost three years old, and having been in care for virtually his entire life, deserves to have the highest form of security, both physical and emotional, as can be provided by law.

These children's need for permanence far outweighs any remote chance that their parents may rehabilitate in the future. Each of these parents has, either because of lack of ability or lack of desire, failed to successfully accomplish what was needed to consider reunification as an appropriate option. DCF has presented compelling evidence that these children need permanency and stability now. Both have thrived together in their current foster home, which has provided a structured, safe and loving environment where they are well cared for. Their foster parents love and wish to adopt them, and they need the permanency and stability their foster parents have continued to provide. The court also notes that Constance and Jahage also have a particularly strong bond with each other, and that it would be detrimental to both if they were to be separated.

In considering whether termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in each of these children's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including Constance and Jahage's interests in physical safety, sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environment; their length of stay in foster care; their close relationship with each other, the nature of their respective relationships with their biological parents; the degree and quality of contact maintained with their biological parents; and their genetic bond to the respondents.

The court has also balanced each child's crucial need for physical safety, emotional stability, validation, consistency, and permanency, against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with her or his biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 313-14, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity). The court has also considered that the attorney for the children advocated for the termination of the respondents' parental rights in each case. After such scrutiny, and after considering the children's respective ages and the totality of circumstances, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the respondents' parental rights is in the best interest of Constance and Jahage.

ORDERS

It is hereby ordered that the parental rights of the respondents Jasmine W. and John H. are TERMINATED as to Constance. It is further ordered that the parental rights of the respondents Jasmine W. and Stephen B. are TERMINATED as to Jahage.

The Commissioner of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent for Constance and Jahage. The department is to file with the court no later than thirty days following the date of judgment, a written 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.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

In re Constance W.

Opinion

In re Constance W.

In re Constance W.

Case Details

Citations

In re Constance W.

Opinion

In re Constance W.

In re Constance W.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citations