Opinion
Nos. M08-CP08-010704-A, M08-CP09-010930-A
June 9, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITIONS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
STATEMENT OF CASE
In this child protection proceeding, under petitions filed on August 13, 2010, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) seeks to terminate the parental rights of Kelly D. (mother) and Justin J. (father), as to both of the named minor children. The children are presently two and three years of age.
Service on the mother and father has been confirmed. This court has jurisdiction in this matter. There are no other known pending proceedings affecting the custody of the children. There are no claims of Indian tribal affiliation.
On March 21, 2011, the first day of trial, Justin J. was found by the court to be the biological and legal father of each of the children. On that same day, Justin J. filed a written consent to the termination of his parental rights to each of the children and was thoroughly canvassed as to his rights in these proceedings and his consent to termination of parental rights. The consent was accepted by the court; DCF was permitted to amend its petition to reflect consent as the basis for father's termination; and, at father's request, father and his counsel were excused from the trial on the issue of whether termination of father's parental rights is in the best interests of each of the children and on DCF's petitions to terminate mother's parental rights to Jaida and Marissa.
Mother was married to another man at the time of the birth of each of the subject children. Paternity tests were conducted at the request of the superior court for juvenile matters at Middletown and the tests revealed biological paternity of Justin J., and not of the husband, as to both Jaida and Marissa. Mother's marriage was dissolved in November 2009, and based on the representation of the parties, confirmed by the paternity test results, the dissolution judgment also recognizes that mother's prior husband is not the biological or legal father of Jaida and Marissa.
Trial proceeded on March 21 and 24, 2011. Present at trial were mother and her attorney, counsel for the children, a DCF representative and counsel for DCF. DCF presented the testimony of the three DCF social caseworkers: a Cromwell police officer, and the court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Logan Green. Mother presented the testimony of three individuals: a substance abuse counselor, a service worker who had supervised mother's visits with the children, and a housing case manager. In addition, mother testified on her own behalf. Mother and DCF also introduced documentary evidence. Counsel for the children examined witnesses and fully participated in the trial, but did not call any witnesses or introduce any documentary evidence.
After the conclusion of the presentation of evidence in this matter, DCF advised the court, through counsel, that the only basis for termination that DCF is pursuing against mother is failure to rehabilitate, as set forth in the August 13, 2010, petition, and not the additionally asserted basis of abandonment.
Upon stipulation of all of the parties, mother's motion to open the evidence was granted on April 13, 2011, and a Social Security Administration decision on mother's application for disability benefits was entered as a full exhibit for the court's review and consideration, again, on stipulation of the parties.
FACTUAL EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Father
Father is 26 years of age. Father's criminal record reveals several larceny convictions, on felony and misdemeanor levels, starting when father was twenty years of age. He has also been convicted of violation of protective and restraining orders and violation of probation. Father's current incarceration commenced in June 2009, and, although he was released for a period of transitional supervision in August 2010, father's violation of his release conditions two months later caused him to be returned to the Department of Corrections' facilities. At present father's release from prison is expected to occur in the summer of 2011.
This is an early release from incarceration that requires, inter alia, an approved residence, weekly reporting to a probation officer, participation in recommended substance abuse services, drug testing, obedience of all laws, and no possession of weapons or illegal drugs. The expectation is that supervision will remain in place until the end of a party's sentence.
Father has been incarcerated during most of the children's lives. While at liberty, father spent minimal time with his children, sometimes living in their home and sometimes not. During his incarceration, father has had monthly visits with the children as arranged by DCF. The visits are amicable, but the children have not exhibited a bond to father.
Father's childhood was traumatic in many ways — he lived with many different family members and he was exposed to domestic violence and child abuse. Father admitted to DCF that he has serious relationship issues including domestic violence. DCF reported that mother attributes the premature birth of Jaida to an incident of domestic violence in which father pushed mother out of a first-floor window. DCF also reported that father shares that opinion regarding the birth complications.
Father and mother have been involved in other domestic violence disputes with one another requiring police intervention and resulting in arrests. In November 2008, father called the police alleging that mother had thrown a cup of hot coffee at him, striking him in the back. Upon their arrival, the police were told by mother that father had ripped the phone cord from the wall and attempted to choke mother. Neither mother nor father pressed criminal charges, and each of them was arrested for disorderly conduct. In June 2009, an anonymous complaint resulted in police finding mother attempting to clear remnants of broken glasses and/or plates from the floor of her residence. Father related that mother had smashed this kitchenware and threatened to harm him, alleging that he was responsible for DCF involvement in her life because he had asked a friend to contact DCF about the well-being of the children. Mother's then 13-year-old son (from another relationship) had attempted to intervene in the adults' dispute and was struck in the face by a broom that father was attempting to take from mother. Also present in the household at this time was mother's then 7-year-old daughter (from another relationship) and the parties' daughter, Marissa, who was then three months old. At the time, a protective order was in place, prohibiting father from being within 100 yards of mother or the children and prohibiting his entry into the home. Mother had allowed father to move back in with her despite the protective order. This incident is the basis of the conviction resulting in father's current incarceration.
Mother
Mother is 35 years of age. In addition to the two children addressed in DCF's petition, mother has two older children. In 2008, DCF filed neglect petitions as to the two older children, but they are not the subject of these proceedings. Mother's 15-year-old son presently lives with, and is under the legal guardianship of, a maternal aunt. A daughter who is ten years of age lives with, and is in the legal custody of, her father (an individual different from the father of Jaida and Marissa). Mother testified that she visits with her son on a daily basis and she also testified that her 10-year-old daughter visits with her every weekend.
Mother left school after completion of the tenth grade, but she subsequently completed courses allowing her to procure a first-aid medical certificate from the Connecticut agency which is now known as the Department of Developmental Services. She has also procured training in, and a certificate for, CPR, as well as a "public service" license. She served as a volunteer for three years in a Head Start program. Her most recent employment was at an assisted living facility, but in 2006 she suffered a work-related injury to her back. Although she tried to return to work, she could not continue and she has not been employed since. She has undergone surgery for removal of a disc in her lumbar spine. Despite the surgical intervention, mother contends that she continued to experience a great deal of pain and she relied more and more heavily on prescription drugs, to the point of addiction to those narcotics. Mother also continued to use marijuana.
Mother's involvement with DCF began in 1996, and from that year through 2008, DCF received referrals alleging physical neglect of the children, substance abuse, mental health deficiencies, domestic violence in the presence of the children, inadequate and unstable housing, and educational neglect of the children.
Mother's criminal record reveals misdemeanor convictions for larceny, harassment, and reckless endangerment and a felony conviction for risk of injury to a minor. The latter resulted from mother's shoplifting of goods from a Dollar Store in October 2009. Mother engaged her then eight-year-old daughter to assist her in the theft. Mother also had nineteen-month-old Jaida with her in the store and mother had left two other minor children alone in a parked car (children of a friend whose car mother had borrowed on that day). Mother was held in custody on charges for this incident from the date of the incident, October 25, 2009, until November 5, 2009. In light of her anticipated sentence of incarceration, mother made arrangements for other caretakers for her children, and the probate court appointed guardians. None of mother's four children has lived with her since October 25, 2009.
Mother's subsequent conviction resulted in a term of incarceration that commenced on January 13, 2010. During her incarceration mother completed programs offered at the York Correctional facility such as a course in motivation and self-mastery, a coping skills group, a parenting education session, and a pre-employment training workshop. On April 6, 2010, mother was released on transitional supervision, but six weeks later, because of the "technical" violation of operating a vehicle while her license was suspended, she was again incarcerated from May 17, 2010 through July 1, 2010. At present mother has unresolved pending criminal cases for alleged thefts from other stores in December 2010, and January 2011.
After her release from prison in July 2010, mother returned to her home in Portland, but was forced to leave because of eviction. Mother then went to Faith Sober House in September or October 2010. That stay lasted only a couple of months and the reason for the brevity of that residence is not clear. Mother then moved into the home of her grandparents. According to mother, her grandmother is seventy-nine years of age and has a lot of "physical issues" which require a great deal of care. Mother testified that she provides this care.
According to mother, an extra bedroom remains available in her grandparents' home for Jaida and Marissa if and when the children are returned to mother's care. DCF reports that mother previously had advised that the great-grandparents' home does not present a healthy living situation for the Jaida and Marissa because there is a "contentious environment" in the home due to the mental illness suffered by mother's grandmother and also because of grandfather's sexual abuse of mother when she was a child. Mother testified at trial in this matter, however, that she has never so stated and that, instead, the home is a good environment for Jaida and Marissa. Since her release from prison, mother has also attempted to procure independent housing for herself and her family and mother has worked with a specialist at Community Health Center. Mother is presently on a waiting list for a two-bedroom apartment with Shelter-Plus Care, but the caseworker presently anticipates a two to four-year wait.
Mother acknowledges that in September 2010, she told DCF that she intended to become re-involved again with Justin J. upon his release from prison. Mother did become involved with Justin J. in the early fall of 2010 during his transitional supervision release. Mother testified at trial that at present she has no plans to continue a relationship with Justin J. when he is released from prison again in 2011.
Mother has applied for Social Security disability benefits and, on March 18, 2011, mother was adjudicated disabled and qualified for benefits as of April 1, 2006 (the date of her work-related injury). The decision of the Social Security Administrative Law Judge, submitted by mother in these termination proceedings as a result of her motion to open the evidence in this case, reflects that mother's Social Security disability application was premised on mother's assertion of a combination of mental and physical limitations, completely precluding her from gainful employment. The Social Security decision indicates that mother related to Social Security that, because of her chronic pain, she has started psychological treatment for depression, memory problems and fatigue. The decision as to Social Security benefits also reveals that mother has advised the federal agency that she goes to group therapy every morning, presumably for her pain-related mental health problems. The decision also notes that mother lives with her grandparents and that the grandfather does most of the household chores. Finally, the Social Security decision anticipates an eventual medical improvement by mother and recommends a review in two years.
While the Social Security decision may be viewed as positive in that it reveals that mother presently has a source of some income, its other revelations cause concern to this court and place mother's credibility significantly into question. This directly affects the important consideration of present and future risks for the safety and well-being of Jaida and Marissa. While the court recognizes that mother has experienced residual pain from her work-related injury, the evidence before this court reveals that mother's present treatment is for long-standing substance abuse, not for depression and mental health problems resulting from pain from the work-related accident. In addition, mother testified to this court that she takes care of her physically impaired grandmother, which is not consistent with mother's representation to Social Security that she lives in a home in which her grandfather does most of the chores. This disparate testimony, combined with mother's previously allowing Justin J. to move in with her and her children despite prior domestic violence and a court order that Justin J. not be within 100 yards of mother or the children, negatively affects the court's ability to find credible mother's representations that she will avoid Justin J. when he is released from prison later this year. The court has a similar reaction to mother's contradiction at trial of DCF's recitation of the dangers in the great grandparents' home. Both of these issues reveal mother's woeful lack of understanding as to how to protect the security, safety, and wellbeing of Jaida and Marissa. These issues also underscore the opinion rendered by Dr. Green., discussed below, that without further progress, mother cannot be entrusted with overnight visits with the girls.
Mother has a close relationship with Jaida and Marissa. After the October 2009, transfer of guardianship of her children to other caregivers and after mother's release from pre-trial incarceration in early November 2009, until mother commenced her conviction incarceration in January 2010, mother visited with Jaida and Marissa daily. While she was incarcerated after conviction, mother visited with the girls once a month as arranged by DCF. During the six weeks that she was released on transitional supervision in the spring of 2010, mother visited with Jaida every day (Jaida was still with her maternal aunt at that time), and mother visited with Marissa, who was then in foster care, twice a week. Jaida joined her sister in foster care in early May 2010. After mother's release from prison in July 2010, there was some difficulty in arranging for regularly scheduled visitation, however, since November or December 2010, there have been regularly scheduled and attended three-hour visits twice a week at the YMCA. The supervisor of those visits testified that during the visitations: there have never been any parenting concerns with regard to mother; mother demonstrates good parenting skills; and, mother and the children are bonded and interact well together.
Mother testified that she has been "clean" since January 13, 2010, the date on which she commenced incarceration for her conviction of risk of injury to a minor. Mother is on a methadone maintenance program for which she must take a daily morning trip from Portland to Hartford, and she must also meet once a month with a counselor. Random urine screens are performed and, if they are positive, no methadone is administered. Mother has been successful in this program. Mother also has successfully completed a three-day-per-week substance abuse program at Rushford, and she is now attending sessions there twice a week. Mother attends Narcotics Anonymous meetings three nights a week, with involvement in the 12-step program meetings and group therapy.
The court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Green, met with mother on October 14, 2009, September 23, 2010 and November 3, 2010. He relied on: background information provided by DCF, his interviews with mother, his observance of mother's interactions with her children, the results of a battery of tests, and also upon information procured by him from "collateral sources" (other program providers and visitation supervisors). Dr. Green assessed mother's mental abilities to be in the borderline range of measured intellectual functioning, with test results revealing a full scale IQ of 81 in 2009 and 83 in 2010 testing. As mother has demonstrated with regard to the programs offered by DCF, mother was not able to keep her appointments with Dr. Green or remain on track during her visits with the psychologist. This necessitated rescheduling and/or cutting sessions short. In her meetings with the psychologist, mother appeared outwardly cooperative, but she did not demonstrate that she was motivated to gain meaningful insight or make improvement. Mother would tire easily and was unable to focus or maintain a necessary level of concentration.
Dr. Green reported a very positive assessment of the interactions he observed between mother and her children. Dr. Green made the following comments. Mother and her children enjoyed each other's company. Mother directed activities appropriately. There was warmth and intimacy, and it was clear that mother loves the children and the children love her. Mother also demonstrated a reasonably good understanding of the children's needs. The difficulty, however, according to Dr. Green, is that mother demonstrates a lack of capacity to meet the children's needs.
In evaluating mother under the Child Abuse Potential inventory. Dr. Green noted an elevated score reflecting a significant rigidity that prevents mother from appropriately reacting to her children's behavior and needs. Dr. Green also opined that mother maintains a tremendous control over herself which prevents her from experiencing emotions and also prevents her from understanding others' verbal and nonverbal communications. Although Dr. Green does not specifically identify the source, Dr. Green believes that mother suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Green describes one of mother's deficits as a "learned helplessness."
According to Dr. Green, mother's lack of insight places mother's two young daughters at risk if they were to be in mother's care on an overnight basis. Dr. Green opined that, while mother has the capacity for developing minimally adequate parenting skills, mother's psychopathology and cognitive difficulties present hurdles that are not easily surmounted. Dr. Green also concluded that, as of his completion of the evaluation in November 2010, mother needed therapy for at least ten to fifteen months to increase her adaptive skills in order to attain a minimally adequate parenting capacity. Dr. Green's summary diagnosis is that mother suffers from cognitive limitations, psychological impairments, executive functioning problems, strong anxiety problems, and a post-traumatic stress disorder from childhood. Dr. Green further opined that mother needs therapy to address her persistent and chronic feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, both of which lead to lack of motivation. According to Dr. Green, there is a "strong link" between a parent's independent functioning and her competence to provide safe and adequate care to a child. Dr. Green also offered that a permanent living situation of the children with their mother theoretically could be a reasonable goal upon mother's achievement of sobriety, successful treatment for her post-traumatic stress, and demonstration of motivational changes. In Dr. Green's opinion, not only does mother need continued methadone maintenance, but she also needs psychotherapeutic services and relapse prevention services which could take as long as two years, if all went as hoped, for mother to develop "minimally adequate parenting skills."
Dr. Green indicated that the prognosis for mother is "poor" in that she is insufficiently motivated. In addition, according to Dr. Green, the rehabilitation timeframe does not meet the needs of the young girls who presently are more mobile, more independent, more capable of thinking on increasingly complex levels and are patterning their behavior after that of their caregivers. The girls presently need, and in the future will need, rules and consistent role modeling and discipline. Dr. Green has opined that that it is "too late," as far as the children are concerned, for mother to now begin her development of minimally adequate parenting skills.
Despite the repeated incidents of domestic violence with the girls' father, mother admits that in the fall of 2010 she told the DCF worker and the domestic violence consultant that she entertained a desire to resume a relationship with Justin J. upon his release from prison. Although mother testified at trial that presently she does not plan to re-engage with Justin J., the previously expressed plan underscores the concern that mother has not gleaned from the domestic violence counseling the insight or skills necessary to protect herself or her children.
The Children
Jaida is three years of age. At the time of her birth, March 9, 2008, Jaida tested positive for the presence of morphine and marijuana in her system. On June 11, 2008, DCF filed a petition alleging that Jaida was neglected, and on December 9, 2008, Jaida was adjudicated neglected. The court permitted Jaida to remain with her mother under a six-month period of protective supervision. Prior to the expiration of that term of supervision, Jaida's sister, Marissa, was born on March 12, 2009. Marissa also had opiates and marijuana in her system at the time of her birth. DCF filed a neglect petition as to Marissa on April 9, 2009. On May 7, 2009, protective supervision of Jaida was extended another three months. In June 2009, the above-referenced broken-dishes-broom incident occurred. On September 9, 2009, protective supervision of Jaida was extended another three months and was set to expire on December 9, 2009, but that was prematurely ended because of the October 25, 2009, shoplifting incident at the Dollar Store, for which mother was arrested and placed in pre-trial incarceration until November 5, 2009.
At the time of mother's arrest on October 25, 2009, father was not available due to his incarceration, and Jaida and Marissa were "turned over" by the police to the maternal grandmother. In light of her upcoming incarceration upon conviction, mother set in place arrangements for probate court transfers of guardianship and on October 28, 2009, the probate court made temporary guardianship appointments: Jaida and her older brother to maternal aunt, Meghan D., and Marissa to a close family friend, Angella C. Custody of mother's ten-year-old daughter was vested in the father of that child. In late January 2010, Angella C. asked the court to remove her as Marissa's guardian and Marissa was placed in a foster home on January 29, 2010. On March 4, 2010, Marissa was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care and custody of DCF. Subsequently, Jaida's aunt also asked to be removed as that child's guardian and Jaida joined her sister Marissa in the foster home in late April 2010. The aunt's protective supervision of Jaida was changed to commitment to DCF on May 5, 2010. Jaida and Marissa continue to reside with foster mother and foster father and the foster parents' two children.
Three-year-old Jaida suffers from a mild case of asthma. She is being tested for allergies that the foster mother has identified and is also being evaluated for potential hearing issues. Jaida is medically up to date. The development of Jaida's fine motor, social, and emotional skills is significantly delayed. She experiences moderate delays in adaptive and cognitive functioning. Jaida has received Birth-to-Three services and is now in a local pre-school special education program. Jaida has not lived with her mother since she was nineteen months old. Jaida has bonded with her foster parents, but she also has a strong bond with her mother. The visitation supervisor relates that Jaida cries upon leaving the visits with her mother and Jaida has asked why her mother cannot come with her. The child is fine, however, upon return to her foster parents' home. Jaida makes no mention of her father.
Marissa, who reached her second birthday on March 12, 2011, has not lived with her mother since Marissa was seven months old. At the age of ten months, Marissa began residence with her foster family. Marissa is an active two-year-old, who is medically up to date. She receives Birth-to-Three services weekly for significant delays in adaptive skills and moderate delays in gross motor and communication skills. Concerns with regard to a neurological disorder have led to the scheduling of an appointment with a specialist.
Both children continue to live with their foster family. Both children are adjusted, comfortable and happy in their foster home; they engage well with their foster family; and they are bonded to their foster parents and foster siblings, ages twelve and fifteen. Jaida and Marissa share a bedroom in this home and the stay-at-home foster mother works with the Birth-to-Three program and takes the children to all of their appointments. Both Jaida and Marissa have special needs that require competent and diligent caretakers who are able and willing to consistently and collaboratively work with providers. The foster family would like to adopt the children.
ADJUDICATORY FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION as to PETITIONS TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS
Termination of parental rights is the complete severance of the legal relationship, with all of its rights and responsibilities, between a child and his or her parent, rendering the child free for adoption. General Statutes § 17a-93(e). Because of the natural rights of parents in their children, recognized in the law on a constitutional level, interference with the parent-child relationship cannot be legitimately invoked or acted upon under the law "absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44 (1990), citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); See also In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 43 (2006).
In General Statutes § 17a-112a, the Connecticut General Assembly has codified the limited circumstances in which there may be consideration by the superior court of a petition by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families to terminate a parent's rights to a child, and the statute also sets forth strict guidelines for decision-making as to the serious and sensitive matter of terminating parental rights. The statute requires DCF to prove by the very highest civil standard, clear and convincing evidence, that, first of all, DCF has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent, where necessary, and to reunify the parent with the child. Secondly, DCF must establish, by that same high standard, at least one of the bases of termination set forth in the statute. Finally, DCF must prove, again by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of a parent's rights is in the best interests of the child.
Reasonable Efforts
DCF has provided the following for mother:
In 2008, DCF made a referral to the Connection, a substance abuse treatment facility. Mother agreed to participate in this program, however, she did not attend.
The DCF social worker reminded mother, during DCF at-home visits, about her appointments with the Connection. DCF sent letters reminding mother of the necessity of attending the program at the Connection. DCF offered to transport mother and complied with that offer, only to experience mother canceling for one reason or another. DCF rescheduled appointments for mother when she missed them, but again, mother continued to provide excuses to avoid attendance.
Another referral to the Connection was made in 2009, but the same pattern of excuses and non-attendance followed, despite DCF efforts to assure attendance.
DCF made a referral for a "recovery case manager." This individual would help mother to maintain her appointments at the Connection, help with mother's transportation to appointments, and assist mother in following through on any substance abuse recommendations. Mother would not accept a recovery case manager.
DCF made a referral to Intensive Family Preservation and mother and father completed the program which ran from July 2008, through November 2008. The participation was reported to be "minimal," and the program made a recommendation for a parent aide to come to the home.
In light of that recommendation, DCF made a request to Middlesex Hospital for an in-home parent aide, however, mother never attended the necessary intake appointments.
Because of mother's non-compliance with various programs that have been offered and made available to mother, DCF has encountered difficulties in assessing mother's needs.
During mother's transitional supervision release from prison in the spring of 2010, before she was re-incarcerated, DCF arranged for mother to participate in the Rushford Methadone Maintenance program, and mother did so.
During that same time, DCF arranged for support in the methadone-maintenance program through the Hartford Dispensary and mother complied.
Individual and group counseling, as well as psychiatry services, were also made available to mother through Rushford. Mother took advantage of the individual counseling, but only minimally. Mother did not take advantage of the group counseling.
DCF referred mother to a domestic violence support group at the New Horizons center. Mother attended three of the eight group sessions.
After mother's release from prison in July 2010, mother's attendance at Rushford substance abuse intensive outpatient therapy was inconsistent until approximately late November or early December 2010, at which time, upon the potential of discharge for non-compliance, mother became compliant. Mother has continued since that time with the therapy.
DCF arranged for Access to Recovery to assist mother at the Faith Sober House. This program, run by the Advanced Behavioral Health Agency, provides assistance with basic needs, case management and rent subsidy. As to the latter, DCF related that Access to Recovery stopped paying rent because of mother's lack of compliance with the program. Mother testified that this was not true and that there was some mix-up as to who was responsible for the rent.
DCF has consistently provided visitation for mother and mother has taken advantage her visitation opportunities.
The efforts made by DCF to reunify mother with her children were comprehensive and timely arranged so as to achieve that goal. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify mother with her children.
Termination Basis
The termination-of-parental-rights statute has been construed to require that consideration of termination be separated into two phases. In the initial adjudicatory phase the court must assess whether one or more grounds for termination exist, and, if that is decided in the affirmative, the court engages in the dispositional phase in which it determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child. In re Lukas K., 120 Conn.App. 465, 486, confirmed on other grounds, 300 Conn. 463 (2011).
As to any statutory basis it has invoked for termination, DCF must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the grounds for same existed at the time of the filing of the termination petition. Practice Book § 35a-7(a); In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 357 (2001). In its petition dated August 13, 2010, DCF invoked General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), which provides in pertinent part:
[T]he child has been found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . (and the parent) has failed to achieve such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . .
Parental rehabilitation refers to restoration or development of a parent's ability to serve a constructive, responsible and useful role in the child's life as dictated by the needs of the child. In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706 (1999). The concept encompasses not only whether a parent has developed the ability to manage her own life, but also whether the parent has developed, in a timely manner, the ability to adequately address the needs of the child. In re Gianni C., 129 Conn.App. 227, 234 (2011). While the court generally is limited to consideration of events preceding the date of the filing of the termination petition or the latest amendment thereof in deciding whether a statutory basis for termination exists, the court may rely upon post-petition events in evaluating whether a parent's degree of rehabilitation supports a finding that restoration is foreseeable within a reasonable time. In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748 (2002); In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 357 (2001); In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230 (2000); Practice Book § 35a-7.
As the factual findings reveal, mother has made progress as to her substance abuse. She has come a long way, and she deserves recognition for her accomplishments in this last year. However, the guiding principle for the court is not whether progress has been made, but whether there has been sufficient and reasonably timely rehabilitation, or the possibility thereof, to facilitate parenting that is appropriate for the child, considering that child's age and needs. In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 338-39 (2011); In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 206-07 (2011); In re Emerald C., 108 Conn.App. 839, 853, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 923 (2008). While the present progress made by mother as to her substance abuse is laudable and continued progress is encouraged, the court cannot and does not find that this accomplishment was made within a reasonable period of time to meet the needs of these two young children, considering their tender ages and special needs. Mother failed to follow any of the rehabilitative paths that DCF had made available to and for her in 2008 and 2009. Furthermore, the threat of continued domestic violence to which these young children previously had been subjected had not been addressed at the time of the petition. Indeed, after August 2010, when the petition was filed, mother went back into a relationship with Justin J. until he was re-incarcerated, and she also advised DCF, after the petition was filed, that she planned to re-unite with Justin J. after his release from prison.
Jaida was adjudicated neglected on December 9, 2008, and Marissa was adjudicated neglected on March 4, 2010. This termination decision is difficult to make, not because of lack of clear and convincing evidence as to the necessary findings, but because of mother's relatively recent substance abuse progress in this past year. "Rehabilitation, however, cannot be viewed in a vacuum." In re Gianni C., supra, 129 Conn.App. 237. Mother did not begin to address her substance abuse until she commenced incarceration for the conviction on the charge of risk of injury to a minor in January 2010. Mother's substance abuse and domestic violence problems had existed long before DCF's most recent intervention with mother's family, and, upon that intervention, in 2008, mother was presented with options for a great deal of assistance in order to address her problems but mother did not take advantage of these options. This lack of attention to her problems extended through 2008, after Jaida was adjudicated neglected, through Marissa's birth in March 2009, and thereafter. Mother began to address her substance abuse only after her incarceration in January 2010, and she has not as yet begun to adequately address the serious domestic violence issues.
The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, as of August 13, 2010, mother had not rehabilitated. The evidence further establishes that, while mother has now made progress with regard to substance abuse, she has not come to understand the effects of domestic violence on her children, especially considering their ages and needs, and thus the children are at significant risk with her. DCF has met its burden of establishing the failure-to-rehabilitate basis of termination under General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
Best Interests of the Children
The best interests of a child encompass a complex mixture of considerations including the child's sustained growth and development, as well as her well-being and the continuity and stability of her environment. In re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 733-34 (2010), appeal dismissed, 300 Conn. 294 (2011); In re Anthony H., 104 Conn.App. 744, 763-64 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 920 (2008).
Jaida and Marissa do not have a bond with their father.
Mother loves her children, the children love her, and there is a bond. However, this finding is not sufficient to preclude termination if the court determines that termination is in the children's best interests. In re Rafael S., 125 Conn.App. 605, 612-13 (2010). Mother's attempt to conquer her substance abuse began too late for these young children. They had to wait too long. In addition, while the development of mother's methadone-assisted progress with her substance abuse problem may lead to hope that mother will overcome the difficulties which cause her to subject herself and her children to domestic violence, again, the best interests of the children are not served by making them wait to see if this hope materializes. The children should not be made to wait any longer. Children need permanency. Children need a consistent and stable environment. These young children have been in limbo for a very long time in their young lives — Jaida since 2008 and Marissa since 2009.
As of the date of the petition, mother could not provide the children with a consistent, stable, safe environment in which to live and that continues to be the situation. Jaida and Marissa have been moved to different homes, with different caretakers, through no fault of their own, and they are only two and three years of age. The girls are now together in a foster home in which they are safe, secure, happy, loved and well cared-for. The assurance of continuation thereof that adoption provides further underscores the court's best-interests findings. All of these relevant factors direct the court in its conclusion on this important issue. In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 340 (2011).
The clear and convincing evidence reveals that it is in the best interests of Jaida J. and Marissa J. that their mother's and father's parental rights be terminated.
Mandated Factual Findings
In accordance with the directives of General Statutes § 17a-112(k), the following factual findings are specifically set forth as to mother:
1. The services offered, provided and made available by DCF to mother and the children were timely, appropriate and comprehensive.
2. DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the mother and the children pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.
3. Mother is close to her young daughters and the girls, especially Jaida, share a bond with mother. The girls also share a bond with the foster family, and despite Jaida's inquiries as to her mother after visitation with mother ends, any indicia of Jaida's discontent at the end of a visit with her mother dissipates once Jaida returns to the foster family home. Jaida and Marissa have developed significant emotional ties with the foster parents and the two foster siblings. The foster family provides a stable, caring, and nurturing home for these two young children who require special attention because of their deficits.
4. Specific steps were ordered for mother at the time Jaida was adjudicated neglected, December 9, 2008. At a minimum, these directives included: participating in counseling about the effects of domestic violence and making progress toward avoidance of same; accepting and cooperating with in-home support, including a parent aide; participating in substance abuse assessment and treatment; and, avoiding involvement with the criminal justice system. The specific steps issued to mother on January 29, 2010, in regard to Marissa, were much more limited in light of the fact that mother was incarcerated at the time. Mother did not comply with these court orders: she failed to timely participate in substance abuse assessment and treatment; she became involved with the criminal justice system; she failed to come to a basic understanding of the threat of domestic violence to her children as a result of her continued relationship with Justin J. The court also finds that DCF's account of mother's original description of the great-grandparents' home as unfit is the credible testimony. Mother's willingness to place the girls in this environment reveals a significant deficit in mother's appreciation of her responsibility to keep Jaida and Marissa safe and comfortable. Mother does not demonstrate an ability to protect these children.
After the psychological examination was ordered by the court, mother failed to appear as scheduled, and when appointments were rescheduled, mother also encountered difficulty in appearing or appearing on time.
DCF has complied with its obligations under the court orders.
5. Jaida was born on March 9, 2008; she is three years old. Marissa was born on March 12, 2009; she is two years old.
6. Although mother has not made the adjustments necessary for the children to return to the home, she has done well in maintaining contact and communication with her children.
7. There has not been any conduct by anyone that has prevented the maintenance of a meaningful relationship between mother and the children. In addition, economic circumstances have not stood in the way of such a relationship.
Having accepted father's consent to termination of his parental rights and having found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of his rights is in the children's best interests, the court grants DCF's petitions to terminate the parental rights of father, Justin J. to Jaida J. and Marissa J.
Having found by clear and convincing evidence that: grounds exist to terminate the parental rights of mother in that she has failed to rehabilitate; that DCF has made reasonable reunification efforts; and that termination of mother's rights is in the children's best interests, the court grants DCF's petitions to terminate Kelly D.'s parental rights to Jaida J. and Marissa J.
The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent of these children. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall file, within thirty days hereof, a report as to the status of each of these children and shall also timely file any additional reports as are required by law.
The clerk of the Probate Court which has jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of each of these children shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Middletown of the date that each such adoption is finalized.
Judgment is entered accordingly.