Opinion
H12CP15016218A H12CP16016663A
08-27-2018
IN RE KEAIR W.[1] In re Kaiden W.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
C. Taylor, J.
This memorandum of decision addresses issues raised by the petition filed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF or the Department) for Keair W. (Keair), (DOB: 10/15/15), and Kaiden W. (Kaiden), (DOB: 9/9/16), seeking to terminate parental rights (TPR) of the children’s mother, Essence D., (Essence), (DOB: 5/2/97), and the children’s father, Clinton W., (Clinton), (DOB: 10/1/93).
In accordance with the spirit and intent of § 46b-124 (b) and Practice Book § 32a-7, the full names of the parties are not disclosed. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the court.
The court has jurisdiction over the proceedings; notice of all hearings were provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book; and no evidence or pleadings indicate the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), as contemplated by Practice Book § 32a-3(c), is applicable in this litigation.
DCF alone bears the burden of proving each essential allegation of the TPR petition by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to the applicable provisions of General Statutes § 17a-112(j).
See § 17a-112(j); In re Dylan C., 126 Conn.App. 71, 87-88, 10 A.3d 100 (2011); Practice Book § 32a-3(b).
After considering the verified petitions, the parties’ motions, the facts as found by clear and convincing evidence, and applying the relevant standards and law to those facts, the court resolves all issues in favor of DCF. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the court orders termination of parental rights.
In deciding the TPR issues, the court had adhered to § 17a-112(q), providing that related legislative "provisions ... shall be liberally construed [by the court] in the best interests of any child for whom a petition under this section has been filed."
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND INITIAL FACTUAL FINDINGS
The parties’ procedural interaction is relevant to the TPR issues. See in re Paul O., 141 Conn.App. 477, 480, 62 A.3d 637, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 933, 64 A.3d 332 (2013).
The court has used appropriate standards for assessing the weight of the evidence as a whole.
Upon consideration of the verified pleadings and the evidence in its entirety, the court finds the facts set forth in this memorandum of decision to have been proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The history of the file and the evidence produced at trial reflects that DCF has been involved with this extended family since both parents were youths, and were involved with DCF themselves, due to issues of substance abuse, mental health, parenting issues, physical neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse and inadequate housing.
DCF records indicate that Essence had an extensive DCF history as a youth, including multiple placements. There were reports concerning substance abuse and physical abuse by the adults in the home. Essence also had a history as a runaway, out of control behaviors, substance abuse, pregnancy, engaging in risky and unsafe sexualized behaviors and being thrown out of her home. The family received DCF services from 2009 to May 2015.
Essence came into DCF care on October 28, 2009, and was sent to several placements including Gary Farms Group Home, a Level 2 therapeutic group home. She abused substances while being AWOL from the Gary Farms Group Home. Essence also had a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Cannabis Abuse in remission and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) rule out. Essence was reunified with maternal grandmother (MGM) in July 2015. After reunification, Essence failed to comply with DCF’s services.
DCF records indicate that Clinton had an extensive DCF history as a youth. Their records also indicate that as a minor, Clinton was the victim of sexual abuse and also an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse.
DCF records show that Clinton has history of Bi-Polar Disorder, Depression and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Clinton also had a history of visual and auditory hallucinations. Clinton was hospitalized three times at Natchaug Hospital between 2004-2006. Clinton was placed at the Eagle House Subacute Program and Uno House as a result of verbal and physical aggression as well as his mental health.
Clinton has been prescribed psychotropic medications in the past.
DCF re-entered this family’s lives in connection to the present litigation when, on October 18, 2015, the DCF Careline received a referral from St. Francis Hospital alleging physical neglect of Keair by Essence and Clinton.
DCF investigated and ascertained that Keair had been hospitalized due to severe jaundice. Hospital personnel noted concerning and aberrant behaviors by Clinton.
After a Considered Removal meeting on October 20, 2015, DCF enacted a 96-hour-hold on Keair, and placed him into foster care.
On October 23, 2015, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 12th District, Hartford, (SCJM), DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Keair. The petition alleged that Keair was being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally; and, was being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being.
On the same day, in SCJM, (Gilligan, J.T.R.), DCF sought and obtained an Order of Temporary Custody, (OTC), for Keair. DCF claimed that Keair was in immediate physical danger from his surroundings, and, as a result of said conditions, the child’s safety was endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings was necessary to ensure his safety, and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Keair from his home were made.
The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents.
On October 30, 2015, in SCJM, (Dannehy, J.), Essence and Clinton appeared in court and were advised of their rights. They entered pro forma denials as to the neglect allegations.
Essence and Clinton agreed to sustain the OTC for Keair. The court issued specific steps for each respondent parent.
On December 2, 2015, in SCJM, paternal grandmother Mary C. (PGM) filed a Motion to Intervene.
On January 5, 2016, in SCJM, the court, (Dannehy, J.), denied PGM’s Motion to Intervene. However, the court ordered that DCF provide PGM with supervised visitation.
On January 22, 2016, in SCJM, counsel for respondent father filed a Motion to Compel DCF to Comply With Court-Ordered Steps.
On January 27, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion for Evaluations.
On February 3, 2016, in SCJM, counsel for Essence filed an Objection to Motion for Evaluations.
On February 4, 2016, in SCJM, the court, (Dannehy, J.), denied the Motion to Compel DCF to Comply With Court-Ordered Steps. The court granted DCF’s Motion for Evaluations and overruled respondent mother’s Objection to Motion for Evaluations.
On March 21, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed a Request for Immediate In Court Review.
On July 7, 2016, in SCJM, Essence entered a written plea of nolo contendre as to the conditions injurious section of the neglect petition concerning Keair. She was canvassed by the court (Dannehy, J.). The court then committed Keair to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to all respondent parents.
Clinton failed to appear in court and was defaulted.
On July 26, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Keair. The permanency plan (PP) called for reunification with the respondent parents, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On September 6, 2016, in SCJM, the court (Dennehy, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for reunification with the respondent parents. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.
On September 19, 2016, Essence gave birth to Kaiden.
On September 29, 2016, PGM informed DCF of Kaiden’s birth.
On October 3, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Kaiden. The petition alleged that Kaiden was being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally; and, was being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well-being.
On the same day, in SCJM, (Gilligan, J.T.R.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Kaiden. DCF claimed that Kaiden was in immediate physical danger from his surroundings, and, as a result of said conditions, the child’s safety was endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings was necessary to ensure his safety, and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Kaiden from his home were made.
The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents.
On October 6, 2016, counsel for Essence filed the following motions:
Motion to Revoke Commitment as to Keair
Motion for No Contact Order;
Motion to Consolidate the Hearing on the OTC with the Motion to Revoke Commitment; and,
Motion for Visitation.
On October 7, 2016, in SCJM, (Gilligan, J.T.R.), Essence appeared in court and was advised of her rights. She agreed to waive the ten day statutory deadline in reference to the OTC.
The court also granted DCF’s oral motion to consolidate the OTC and the neglect petition. The court denied Essence’s Motion for No Contact.
Clinton did not appear and the court sustained the OTC as to him.
On November 15, 2016, in SCJM, (Burgdorff, J.), Clinton failed to appear on the neglect petition as to Kaiden. The court defaulted him for failing to appear.
On November 21, 2016, in SCJM, (Gilligan, J.T.R.), Essence appeared in court and entered a written plea of nolo contendre to the conditions injurious section of the neglect petition concerning Kaiden. She was canvassed by the court. The court then committed Kaiden to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to all respondent parents, and found that reasonable efforts were not possible.
Clinton failed to appear.
Essence also agreed to sustain the OTC.
On May 24, 2017, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Keair. The permanency plan (PP) called for termination of parental rights and adoption, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On June 29, 2017, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Kaiden. The permanency plan (PP) called for termination of parental rights and adoption, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On August 3, 2017, counsel for Essence filed an Objection to State’s Permanency Plan as to Kaiden.
On August 10, 2017, in SCJM, the court (Burgdorff, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for termination of parental rights (TPR) and adoption of each child. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP. The court overruled Essence’s objection to the TPR/adoption aspect of the PP.
On September 1, 2017, in SCJM, DCF filed TPR petitions concerning Keair and Kaiden.
DCF alleged abandonment and failure to rehabilitate as to both Essence and Clinton.
On September 27, 2017, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Amend.
On September 27, 2017, counsel for Essence filed an Objection to the State’s Motion to Amend and a Request for the Court to Reconsider.
On September 28, 2017, in SCJM, Clinton appeared in court. The court (Dennehy, J.) confirmed service, and advised him of his rights. Clinton entered pro forma denials as to the TPR.
The court ordered DCF to perform a diligent search for Essence.
The court granted DCF’s Motion to Amend. The court overruled Essence’s Objection to the State’s Motion to Amend and Request for the Court to Reconsider.
On November 9, 2017, in SCJM, (Dannehy, J.), Essence failed to appear in court and was defaulted. The court confirmed service on Essence.
On April 2, 2018, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion for Technical Correction.
On April 18, 2018, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion for Judicial Notice.
On April 23, 2018, in SCJM, Essence appeared in court. This court reopened and vacated the default that had been entered on November 9, 2017. This court advised her of her rights. Essence entered pro forma denials as to the TPR.
DCF indicated that it was not pursuing the abandonment grounds against Essence.
This court granted DCF’s Motion for Technical Correction and DCF’s Motion for Judicial Notice.
On May 14, 2018, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Keair and Kaiden. The permanency plan (PP) called for termination of parental rights and adoption, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On May 29, 2018, the TPR trial commenced before this court.
On June 21, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for termination of parental rights (TPR) and adoption of each child. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.
On June 27, 2018, the TPR trial concluded. Essence was present, but Clinton appeared late, arriving during final arguments.
For the reasons stated below, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the TPR issues against the respondent parents and in favor of the petitioner DCF.
This court has jurisdiction over the pending case. Notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book. No action is pending in any other court affecting custody of the children.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
The court has reviewed the Neglect and TPR petitions and the exhibits, which include the TPR social study and the addendum to same. The court has also reviewed the various motions and objections to same, which are the subject of this trial, and has taken judicial notice of the record.
The court also took judicial notice of the pleadings, petitions, motions, summaries of facts, specific steps, transcripts and court memorandum not related to any judicial pre-trials or case status conferences. The court did not review any status reports, social studies or evaluations not otherwise entered into evidence as full exhibits in this case. See In re Stacy G., 94 Conn.App. 348, 354-55, 892 A.2d 1034 (2006).
The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering the evidence and the testimony of trial witnesses. Upon deliberation, the court finds that the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence at trial.
"It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony." In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000); see also In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 366, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). "The probative force of conflicting evidence is for the trier to determine ..." In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528-29, 777 A.2d 695 (2001).
Respondent Parents Essence (includes physical, mental, social and financial condition) (DOB: May 2, 1997)
Essence was born in New Haven, CT on May 2, 1997, to Michael N. (MGF) and Qiana J. (MGM). She stated that she was not of Native American Heritage.
Essence reported that she grew up in New Haven and had been raised by MGM and MGM’s high school boyfriend, Tony D., and Troy J., another of MGM’s boyfriends. She stated that Tony and Troy supported her since she was little and are still involved in her life. Essence stated that she grew up believing that Tony was her biological father until DNA results proved that her biological father was MGM’s friend Michael N.
Essence reported that Tony and Troy are the two men that she identifies as her "dads." She reported that they are both incarcerated due to criminal activity. She stated that she stays in touch with them by mail. Essence mentioned that Troy and Tony have been very supportive and also gave her money through their wives.
Essence indicated that she was the oldest of eight children.
Essence reported that her relationship with MGM was good until she turned twelve. Essence described MGM as emotionally abusive and neglectful. MGM’s home had many unknown persons entering and leaving the residence.
In 2010, MGM refused to take Essence back into her home.
Essence indicated that MGM was a substance abuser and a partier, forcing Essence to care for her younger siblings. Essence indicated that MGM was not supportive, and that, due to her having to care for her siblings, she ran away.
Essence told DCF that that her relationship with MGF was, initially, not good. It eventually improved, but has had tumultuous episodes.
Essence reported that she attended Dwight Elementary and Middle School in New Haven. She stated that she attended Hillhouse High School, Ledyard High School and Windsor High School. She dropped out of Windsor High School as a senior in 2014, and has failed to complete her high school education.
Essence reported that she did well in school and never had any learning issues or behavioral problems. She claimed that she was popular and well liked by her peers.
DCF records indicated that Essence received special education services while in high school.
Essence told DCF that she is planning to go back to school for nursing.
Essence denied that she suffered any physical or sexual abuse during her childhood. She also denied that she had been emotionally abused. She also denied having behavioral problems, but did acknowledge that she was hospitalized on multiple occasions due to her running away from group homes. Essence reported that she started smoking "weed" when she was twelve years old, but minimized her mental health concerns when growing up.
DCF records indicate that Essence had an extensive history with DCF as a youth, including multiple placements. There were reports indicating that MGM and the maternal great-grandmother smoked marijuana in the home and physical abuse by the adults in the home.
Essence admitted to Dr. Stephen Humphey, the court-appointed evaluator, that she had been sexually assaulted and sexually trafficked.
Essence denied having mental health issues. However, DCF records reported that Essence had a long history of mental illness while growing up. In 2011, NAFI had indicated that Essence was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, RIO Conduct Disorder, RIO PTSD, and RIO Alcohol Abuse. She has also been diagnosed with Cannabis Abuse in remission in the past.
Essence did not comply with DCF services to address her mental health.
Essence reported that since she was twelve years old, she smoked marijuana daily until she learned that she was pregnant. However, on July 27, 2015, Essence tested positive for marijuana.
As a minor, Essence displayed concerning behavior, including running away, becoming pregnant and engaging in risky sexual activity.
The family received services from the Department from 2009 until May 2015. In May 2015, Essence was 18 years old and declined DCF adolescent services.
Essence and Clinton reported that they met three years ago when Essence was a high school cheerleader and Clinton was a high school football player.
Essence reported that she had been employed at Forever 21 at Westfarms Mall in Farmington, and as a CNA in New Haven from June 2014 until February 2015. As of May 2018, Essence indicated that she was employed at Walmart.
Essence has also received benefits and food stamps from the Department of Social Services.
Essence reported to DCF that she had never married. Essence stated that she is involved in a committed relationship with Clinton and that they had planned upon matrimony.
In September 2015, Essence and Clinton moved from New Haven to Hartford.
On September 23, 2017, Essence reported that she had returned to New Haven.
Clinton (includes physical, mental, social and financial condition) (DOB: October 1, 1993)
Clinton was born in Hartford on October 1, 1993, to Clinton W. (also known as Newton E.) (PGF) and Mary C. (PGM).
It should be noted that the information provided by Clinton tends to be at variance with information provided by DCF and other sources, as well as information provided by Clinton himself.
Clinton has a long history of DCF placements, including Eagle House, Grace Webb School, Bennington School in Vermont, and UNO House in New Haven.
As a minor, Clinton had a history of sexual abuse, both as a victim and a perpetrator. DCF records indicate that PGM admitted that Clinton sexually assaulted his sister.
DCF records indicate that Clinton has a history of Bi-Polar disorder, depression and Oppositional Defiant disorder. He also had a history of visual and auditory hallucinations. His mental health issues resulted in three hospitalizations at Natchaug Hospital from 2004-2006. Clinton was placed at the Eagle House Subacute Program and Uno House as a result of verbal and physical aggression, as well as his mental health issues. He was also receiving services in New Haven for his mental health. Upon moving to Hartford, he was referred to Wheeler Clinic.
Clinton has been prescribed various psychotropic medications, including Trazadone, Risperdal, Depakote and Abilify.
Clinton also has a history of head injuries and seizures.
Clinton has admitted to using marijuana.
It appears that Clinton was raised by PGM and a stepfather, Tommy B. Apparently, PGF was involved in drug and firearms trafficking and was not a consistent figure in Clinton’s life due to incarceration.
Clinton also had a tumultuous relationship with some members of his stepfather’s family, resulting in conflict.
Clinton indicated that he attended Louisiana State University on a football scholarship, but was dismissed following a bar fight.
Clinton is a convicted felon, with the following record of convictions in Connecticut:
5/30/13 Assault 2nd Degree
10/30/13 Violation of Probation
10/29/14 Violation of Probation
10/29/14 Assault 3rd Degree (domestic violence)
12/8/17 Larceny 4th Degree
1/12/18 Assault 3rd Degree (domestic violence)
1/16/18 Engaging Officer in Pursuit
Evading Responsibility
Clinton has been employed at Burlington Coat Factory, McDonald’s and Chipotle.
Children for Whom Petition was Filed Keair (DOB: October 15, 2015)
Keair is the oldest son of Essence and Clinton.
Keair is currently thirty-four months old and is classified as medically complex. He has been diagnosed with G6PD deficiency, which puts him at risk for anemia. As of the time of the TPR trial, his diagnosis did not require any additional medical treatment. He must be monitored by his primary care physician.
On February 11, 2018, Keair was seen at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC) Hematology by Dr. Natalie Bezler for a follow-up as requested by his pre-adoptive mother after learning that Keair was given foods by his previous daycare which were not approved. Dr. Natalie Bezler noted no concerns.
Keair is very active and likes to explore.
Keair is medically up-to-date. Keair was seen at Connecticut Valley Pediatrics. He was last seen on October 1, 2017 at Connecticut Valley Pediatrics by Natalie Komaiszko for his well child check. Keair is up-to-date with all of his immunizations.
Keair is diagnosed with Mild Intermittent Asthma without complication. Keair is scheduled to be seen again on October 17, 2018.
Keair utilizes a nebulizer as needed for wheezing, stuffiness, and coughing. Keair is prescribed Cetirizine 2.5 ml for allergies, Proventil for wheezing or shortness of breath, Albuterol via nebulizer for wheezing, and Albuterol 3 ml for asthma. Dr. Memmon reported that Keair cannot be diagnosed with asthma until his third birthday, but that it is a high possibility he will receive the diagnosis of asthma.
Keair is allergic to sulfa antibiotics, Primaquine, Aspirin, Alitraq, Nitrofurantoin, Methylene Blue and penicillin due to his G6PD deficiency.
Keair is seen at Great Expressions Dental. He is up-to-date and was scheduled to be seen in May 2018.
Keair was placed in his pre-adoptive home on November 28, 2017. He lives there with his brother, Kaiden. Since Keair began residing in his pre-adoptive home, he no longer wakes up in the middle of the night. Keair no longer heavily relies on his pacifier to assist him with self-soothing. Additionally, he no longer bites or sticks his tongue out when receiving redirection.
However, since March 2018, Keair has presented with some behavioral concerns. These behavior concerns coincide with Keair beginning to have visits with his father and the continued inconsistency in visits with his mother. The concerns consist of increased physical aggression which includes bumping heads with his teacher, biting and spitting. Keair is still working on learning to share and utilizing his educational supports for intervention on his behalf.
Keair began attending Educational Playcare in June 2016. On January 22, 2018, Keair began attending Educational Playcare in West Hartford after attending Educational Playcare in Windsor. His teacher, Amanda Mayone, reported that Keair is a very smart and active little boy who thrives on schedules and routines. Ms. Mayone reported that Keair had a good transition from the Windsor location. Ms. Mayone reports that Keair has struggled in April and May 2018. He has been angry, forceful, screaming, head butting, spitting, slapping, hitting teachers and biting. He has also begun to throw things and knock things over. Ms. Mayone reported that Educational Playcare has been providing interventions which include going to a quiet area or having him go with another teacher or to another place to deescalate him. Ms. Mayone reports that his emotional deficiencies are impacting his academics. She notes that there is a difference in his behaviors the day after a visit with his biological parent and that it takes a couple of days for him to display appropriate behaviors and reduce his anger. She has noticed that since he began seeing his father, he has become increasingly angry.
With respect to Keair’s cognitive development, Ms. Mayone reported that she was concerned, as he does not know many of his facts or his colors. If he is asked a question, he does not know how to respond. Keair has continued to make progress in his development despite his current behavioral concerns. Keair formulizes sentences and is able to communicate his needs.
Keair can identify and say "book, mommy, brother, eat, poopie, potty, home." He is also able to remember things said to him in timelines and his schedule. He is also able to verbalize when he remembers his schedule. He is able to ask people what they are doing. He is able to ask for help.
A provider meeting was held on April 25, 2018, in order to discuss intervention options and concerns with Educational Playcare and the pre-adoptive parents. As a result, Keair was referred to Birth to Three in order to help Keair express his feelings after visits and transition back into daycare. DCF made the referral on April 27, 2018.
Keair’s foster mother reported she continues to work with Keair on learning how to obtain positive attention instead of negative attention. The foster mother works with Keair to foster his relationship with Kaiden. Keair enjoys helping with taking care of his little brother. For example, he will assist in getting Kaiden’s shoes, say "bless you" when Kaiden sneezes and pats his back when Kaiden coughs. Keair does recognize that his brother is younger and is nurturing towards him.
On February 24, 2017, Keair was re-referred to Birth to Three services by the undersigned worker due to concerns regarding his expressive language, and concerns regarding his socio-emotional interactions, more specifically biting, head banging and hitting himself. On March 30, 2017, Keair was assessed, but Birth to Three made no recommendations for additional services.
Kaiden (DOB: September 9, 2016)
Kaiden is the youngest son of Essence and Clinton and is twenty-three months old.
He was born at Hartford Hospital.
Kaiden is medically up-to-date with no concerns and is a patient at Connecticut Valley Pediatrics. On April 9, 2018, Kaiden was seen for his eighteen-month-old well child check.
Kaiden was referred to the CCMC Ear, Nose and Throat Department for a consultation due to concerns regarding his allergies. Kaiden was seen on November 20, 2017, for a hearing test and a consultation. CCMC recommended surgery. On January 19, 2018, Kaiden had surgery in order to have tympanostomy tubes put in his ears to decrease the fluid behind his ears and improve his hearing.
On February 12, 2018, Kaiden was seen for his post-operation follow-up appointment. Kaiden had a hearing evaluation completed. The results suggest that Kaiden’s hearing loss presents a risk for communication and learning. His right ear had no measurable eardrum mobility as the PE tube was blocked. His left ear canal suggests patent/functioning pressure in the equalization tube.
Dr. Lauren Schmidtberg, Kaiden’s Otolaryngologist at CCMC, reported that Kaiden was diagnosed with Chronic Mucoid Otitis Media of both ears. During his follow-up exam, Kaiden’s right ear was plugged, but the audiogram showed normal hearing. Dr. Schmidtberg recommended the use of Ciloxan drops twice daily to help unplug the tube. Kaiden will be seen again on August 20, 2018 for an audiology exam and follow-up with the CCMC Ear, Nose, and Throat Department. The Department has a copy of his after-visit summary as well as his audiology exam.
Kaiden was scheduled to be seen by his pediatrician on June 11, 2018 in order to receive his hepatitis shot so that he can travel to the Dominican Republic in July 2018, with his pre-adoptive parents.
Kaiden is seen at Great Expressions Dental. His dental appointment was on November 10, 2017, for a dental exam and cleaning. No concerns were noted at this appointment. Kaiden was next scheduled for a dental appointment and cleaning on May 18, 2018.
Kaiden’s development appears to be progressing within normal limits. At this time there are no concerns with Kaiden’s emotional and behavioral needs.
On January 22, 2018, Kaiden began attending Educational Playcare in West Hartford after attending Educational Playcare in Windsor. His teacher, Dymon Mallory, reports that she has no concerns for his development. Ms. Mallory reported that Kaiden is easy going and has good interactions. He is very affectionate, but does not know stranger danger. She reports that sometimes he may push another child or pull a child periodically. It usually happens when he wants something from another child. Ms. Mallory reports that Kaiden has made progress in speech. He talks more and can verbalize what he would like. He can ask for milk and water. He knows animal sounds and can ask to read a book. He is learning colors, shapes and sign language.
In terms of his vocabulary, Kaiden says "dada," and "mama." His vocabulary has grown since his surgery. There were concerns with his speech prior to his surgery. He is able to identify things. He can identify and say "book, mommy, brother, eat, poopie, potty, and home." He is also able to remember things said to him in timelines and his schedule. He is also able to verbalize when he remembers his schedule. He is able to ask people what they are doing. He is able to ask for help.
Kaiden is currently learning English and Spanish. He is able to say water in Spanish clearly. He repeats sounds or actions to get attention, makes sounds with changes in tone, explores things in different ways, and follows simple directions.
In terms of physical development, Kaiden is walking and running without any complications. Kaiden is able to throw a ball and knows how to take off his clothes. He can follow instructions. There are no concerns with his cognitive development. He is quickly catching up to his brother, Keair.
Kaiden is heavily bonded with his brother Keair and follows him closely.
On November 28, 2017, Kaiden was placed in his present foster home. Kaiden and Keair share a room.
Kaiden is bonded with his foster parents. He seeks his foster father out for assistance and relies on him when he is in distress. He identifies his pre-adoptive parents as his mother and father. They ensure he receives educational instruction at home and in school. He is provided with educational activities and religious activities, such as participating in the Christmas pageant and a trip to Mystic Aquarium.
RELATIVE RESOURCES
The clear and convincing evidence shows that there are no viable relative resources for Keair or Kaiden.
On July 17, 2017, DCF ruled out PGM as a placement resource, due to her own past dealings with DCF and her health issues.
DCF also ruled out paternal aunt Tatianna B. as a placement resource, due to her age and her inadequate housing.
DCF also ruled out Clinton’s stepfather as a placement resource, due to the fact that neither Keair nor Kaiden had any relationship with him. Also, both Clinton and Tatianna B. were sexually abused while in his care.
DCF also ruled out MGM as a placement resource, due to her history of substance abuse, poor resource management and lack of compliance with services. Essence was removed from MGM’s care as she was unable to manage Essence’s behaviors.
ADJUDICATION
On October 20, 2015, DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on Keair.
On October 23, 2015, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 12th District, Hartford, (SCJM), DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Keair.
On the same day, in SCJM (Gilligan, J.T.R.), DCF sought and obtained an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) for Keair.
The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents.
On October 30, 2015, in SCJM (Dannehy, J.), Essence and Clinton, who was represented by counsel, appeared in court and were advised of their rights.
Essence and Clinton agreed to sustain the OTC, and entered pro forma denials as to the neglect allegations. The court also issued specific steps for each respondent parent.
On July 7, 2016, in SCJM, Essence entered a written plea of nolo contendre to the conditions injurious section of the neglect petition. She was canvassed by the court (Woods, J.). The court then committed Keair to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to both respondent parents.
Clinton failed to appear in court and was defaulted.
On September 6, 2016, in SCJM, the court, (Dannehy, J.), approved the permanency plan of reunification as to Keair, found that the plan was in the best interest of the minor child, and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan.
On September 29, 2016, DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on Kaiden.
On October 3, 2016, in SCJM, DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Kaiden.
On the same day, in SCJM (Gilligan, J.T.R.), DCF sought and obtained an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) for Kaiden.
The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents.
On October 7, 2016, in SCJM (Gilligan, J.T.R.), Essence, who was represented by counsel, appeared in court and was advised of her rights.
Essence wished to contest the OTC, but agreed to waive the ten day rule as to the OTC.
Due to Clinton’s absence, the OTC was sustained as to him.
The court granted DCF’s oral motion to consolidate the OTC with the neglect petition.
On November 15, 2016, in SCJM (Burgdorff, J.), the court found service and defaulted Clinton for his failure to appear on the neglect petition as to Kaiden.
On November 21, 2016, in SCJM (Gilligan, J.T.R.), the court defaulted Clinton for failing to appear.
Essence agreed to sustain the OTC.
Essence entered a written plea of nolo contendre to the conditions injurious section of the neglect petition. She was canvassed by the court. The court then committed Kaiden to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to both respondent parents.
On August 10, 2017, in SCJM, the court, (Burgdorff, J.), approved the permanency plan of TPR and adoption as to Keair and Kaiden, found that the plan was in the best interest of the minor children, and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the plan.
On September 1, 2017, in SCJM, DCF filed TPR petitions on behalf of Keair and Kaiden.
On September 28, 2017, in SCJM, (Dannehy, J.), Clinton appeared concerning the TPR petitions on behalf of Keair and Kaiden. The court advised Clinton of his rights, appointed counsel and entered pro forma denials.
The court ordered DCF to make further efforts to serve Essence.
On November 9, 2017, in SCJM, (Dannehy, J.), the court found service as to Essence and defaulted her as to the TPR petition.
On April 23, 2018, in SCJM, Essence appeared before this court. This court vacated the November 9, 2017 default and advised Essence of her rights concerning the TPR petition.
The court is next called upon to determine whether DCF has met its burden of proving the allegations presented by the pending TPR petition concerning these children. Practice Book § 35a-3.
"A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ... In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [in General Statutes § 17a-112[j] exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Rafael S., 125 Conn.App. 605, 610-11, 9 A.3d 417 (2010). "While there are two phases to a hearing on a termination of parental rights petition, adjudicatory and dispositional the two phases may be combined in a single, nonbifurcated proceeding." (Citation omitted.) In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 226, 15 A.3d 194 (2011). In such a nonbifurcated proceeding, "disposition may not be considered until the adjudicatory phase has concluded." Practice Book § 35a-7(b).
In the adjudicatory phase of these proceedings, the court has considered the evidence related to circumstances and events prior to September 28, 2017, the date upon which the TPR petition was last amended. With regard to the allegations of failure to achieve rehabilitation brought against the respondent parents, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony relating to circumstances occurring through the close of trial. Upon review, the court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist as to the respondent parents.
LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION EFFORTS
The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial establishes that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate and maintain contact with the respondent parents throughout this litigation, as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(1).
Essence and Clinton have been inconsistent in maintaining contact with DCF.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the failure of the respondent parents to maintain contact with DCF is solely the responsibility of the respondent parents.
A. Reunification Efforts
The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial establishes that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondents with their children during the adjudicatory period. The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial also establishes that the respondent-mother was "unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts ..." Section 17a-112(j)(1). See In re Paul O., supra, 141 Conn.App. 483-85; In re Chevol G., 125 Conn.App. 618, 621, 9 A.2d 413 (2010); In re Alison M., supra, 127 Conn.App. 205.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the following services were offered to or provided to Essence:
DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, supervised visitation, transportation assistance, bus passes;
Wheeler Clinic: substance abuse evaluation and testing;
Capital Region Education
Council-Triple P: parenting education;
Voices, LLC: mental health and domestic violence counseling;
Village for Families and Children: Therapeutic Family Time;
Radiance Innovative Services: parenting education and domestic violence counseling;
Connection, Inc.: Supportive Housing;
Stephen M. Humphrey, Ph.D.: Court-Ordered Psychological Evaluation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the following services were offered to or provided to Clinton:
DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, supervised visitation, transportation assistance, bus passes;
Department of Adult Probation: supervision and monitoring;
Wheeler Clinic: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment; mental health evaluation and treatment;
Village for Families and Children: Therapeutic Family Time;
Stephen M. Humphrey, Ph.D.: Court-Ordered Psychological Evaluation.
The credible evidence put forth in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes both that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts for Essence and Clinton, and that they are unable or unwilling to benefit from § 17a-112(j)(1) efforts.
II. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO ESSENCE
A. Parental Failure to Rehabilitate- General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
DCF alleges that Essence’s parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As the children have been adjudicated neglected and Essence was provided with specific steps, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent mother has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render her able to care for her children. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Essence has yet to achieve a sufficient "level of rehabilitation ... which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child’s life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000); see In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005); In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001).
First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent mother has not achieved § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports, the exhibits, and the testimony, which showed that Essence has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence’s issues are related to mental health, parenting deficits, transience, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on October 23, 2015, (Gilligan, J.T.R.), and again on October 30, 2015, (Dannehy, J.), the court ordered preliminary specific steps for Essence. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on July 7, 2016 (Woods, J.), the court ordered final specific steps for Essence. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence failed to fully comply with the majority of those steps, which, as enumerated below, were intended to facilitate the return of the children to Essence’s care.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence has failed to fully comply with this step.
Essence failed to cooperate with home visits. She claimed that the people that she resided with would not allow DCF in the homes.
Essence failed to participate in DCF’s Administrative Case Review (ACR) on May 8, 2017.
Keep whereabouts known to DCF and your attorney .
Essence has not fully complied with this step.
Essence kept her whereabouts known to DCF until May 2017. After that date, she refused to keep DCF aware of her address and whereabouts.
Take part in parenting, and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence has failed to fully comply with this step.
The Department had initially referred Essence to Voices, LLC for therapy services on April 19, 2016. In early May 2016, Essence met with Dr. Wilson from Voices, LLC. Dr. Wilson reported that Essence had her first session on June 14, 2016. However, Essence failed to comply with treatment.
Essence has not been compliant in participating in services at Voices, LLC with Dr. Wilson.
Essence was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features and Parent-child NOS.
In October 2016, Essence was unsuccessfully discharged from services with Dr. Wilson at Voices, LLC.
On November 21, 2016, Essence agreed to re-engage in treatment at Voices, LLC.
On December 20, 2016, Dr. Wilson reported that Essence began engaging in treatment a week prior. At this time Essence’s goals were to provide a supportive therapeutic environment in order to build a therapeutic relationship where Essence would be able to share her feelings and concerns, explore and process her childhood and upbringing as it affects her parenting, life decisions, identify healthy coping skills for her current and past stressors, to process her feelings of loss and grief associated with the removal of her child, and assist in reunification. Essence additionally was supposed to gain a better understanding of how her past traumas impact her parenting and life decisions.
On February 14, 2017, Dr. Wilson reported that Essence lacked insight into how her decisions impact her parenting, especially as it pertains to Clinton. Dr. Wilson reported that Essence fails to acknowledge any fault in Clinton. On May 4, 2017, the Department was notified that Essence was unsuccessfully discharged from treatment due to her failure to comply with treatment.
In January 2016, Essence was referred to Radiance Innovative Services for parent education. She successfully completed this program and was discharged on May 24, 2016.
In February 2016, Essence and Clinton were referred to The Village for Families and Children’s Reunification Therapeutic Family Time (RTFT) program for supervised visitation and to work on their abilities to effectively parent Keair and be aware of the child’s age appropriate individual needs.
Ms. Rivera from the Village reported that Essence was always prepared and spent the visit playing with Keair. She mentioned that Essence was at all times appropriate and nurturing.
Essence completed the program and was discharged on May 23, 2016.
On October 20, 2016, Essence attended an intake with Rosa Flores from the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P) for hands-on parenting education.
On January 5, 2017, as recommended by Ms. Flores, the Department requested an extension of services for Essence. While engaged with Triple P, Essence needed constant redirection with respect to establishing a routine with the children which included providing proper food, feeding routines, proper engagement in activities, and continuing to nurture the parent-child relationship.
On April 26, 2017, Essence was successfully discharged from Triple P after receiving 8 months of services. Upon discharge from Triple P on April 17, 2017, Essence transitioned to the Village for Families and Children’s Therapeutic Family Time for continued parenting education.
On April 17, 2017, Essence began engaging with the Village for Families and Children’s Therapeutic Family Time for continued parenting education. Chastity Handler, formerly the Family Support Specialist at the Village, testified that Essence failed to successfully complete the Therapeutic Family Time program.
Submit to random drug testing; the time and method of the testing will be up to DCF to decide .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Essence has failed to comply with this step since the neglect adjudication.
Not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Essence has failed to comply with this step since the neglect adjudication.
Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence has failed to fully comply with this step.
Essence was twice referred to Voices, LLC, for individual therapy with Dr. Wilson. Essence failed to successfully complete either referral.
On April 17, 2017, Essence began engaging with the Village for Families and Children’s Therapeutic Family Time for continued parenting education. Chastity Handler, formerly the Family Support Specialist at the Village for Families and Children, testified that Essence failed to successfully complete the Therapeutic Family Time program.
Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Essence has failed to comply with this step since the neglect adjudication.
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 with this court. Sign the release within 30 days .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Essence has failed to comply with this step since the neglect adjudication.
Sign releases allowing your child’s attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child’s medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Essence has failed to comply with this step since the neglect adjudication.
Get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal income .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence has failed to fully comply with this step.
Essence had received two referrals for supportive housing through the Connection, in December 2015, and on September 7, 2016.
Essence began residing in a two bedroom apartment in Hartford. Unfortunately, by November 9, 2016, Essence and Clinton were embroiled in eviction litigation, based upon non-payment of rent.
After being evicted, DCF attempted to assist Essence in finding new housing, but Essence failed to complete the necessary paperwork.
Essence began living with various people, including some of Clinton’s relatives.
On February 15, 2017, Essence commenced residence in a one-bedroom apartment in East Hartford, subsidized by the Connection Supportive Housing for Families. However, on June 21, 2017, Essence was unsuccessfully discharged from Supportive Housing for failing to comply with requirements.
As of the time of the TPR trial, Essence was residing with her aunt in New Haven.
Initially, Essence claimed that she was working at Burlington Coat Factory since March 2016. However, she failed to provide proof of employment to DCF. By October 6, 2016, she was no longer employed there.
Essence worked for Ruby Tuesdays for a short period of time. By April 17, 2017, Essence indicated that she was employed at Kentucky Fried Chicken, but she failed to provide proof of employment to DCF.
As of May 9, 2018, Essence provided DCF proof that she was employed at Walmart.
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 .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence has failed to fully comply with this step.
Essence has a history of being transient. She has been residing with different persons in different households. DCF has only been able to assess her household on one occasion, on February 23, 2017.
On June 22, 2017, the Department received a copy of the police report from East Hartford Police involving an incident with Clinton and Essence on June 18, 2017. At the time of that incident, Essence acknowledged that she was Clinton’s girlfriend.
Additionally, Clinton’s Connecticut Driver’s License identifies his place of residence as that of Essence’s legal address.
Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence has failed to fully comply with this step.
The Department has attempted to have discussions of safety planning with Essence. However, she was unwilling to engage in these discussions, as she has denied that domestic violence is a concern for her.
During a meeting at the DCF office on May 23, 2016, DCF personnel observed that Clinton screamed at Essence, stating "shut up bitch" and stormed out of the room. Essence stated that she was getting tired of Clinton’s outbursts and had been thinking about leaving the relationship.
Keep the child(ren) in the state of Connecticut while this case is going on unless you get permission from DCF or the court to take them out of state. You must get permission first .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Essence failed to comply with this step.
Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF permits .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence failed to fully comply with this step.
Essence failed to visit her children on the following scheduled visitation dates:
February 20, 2016
May 5, 2016
May 21, 2016
September 17, 2016
September 21, 2016
February 1, 2017
March 21, 2017
May 17, 2017
June 2, 2017
October 4, 2017
October 11, 2017
October 18, 2017
November 15, 2017
November 20, 2017
December 13, 2017
December 23, 2017
January 24, 2018
February 14, 2018
February 28, 2018
March 21, 2018
Additionally, Essence failed to maintain contact with DCF from June 19, 2017, through September 21, 2017, and failed to visit her children during this period of time.
Essence was late for the following visits:
November 5, 2015
January 12, 2016
April 23, 2016
June 15, 2016
October 5, 2016
October 20, 2016
January 21, 2017
February 4, 2017
May 10, 2017
May 21, 2017
October 28, 2017
January 3, 2018
February 21, 2018
This court concludes that Essence has been unable to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of her children, insofar as she is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from the date of commitment through the date of the filing of the TPR petition and continuing through the time of trial, Essence has not been available to take part in her children’s lives in a safe, nurturing, and positive manner, and, based on her issues of mental health, parenting deficits, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling and services, she will never be consistently available to Keair or Kaiden.
The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Essence has consistently failed to be available for her children by virtue of her failure to address her issues appropriately and in a timely manner.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence has refused to attend or complete counseling. She has failed to comply with visitation satisfactorily. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence has failed to show any consistent and adequate benefit from these referrals. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has failed to improve her parenting ability to acceptable standards, as far as her children’s safety and emotional needs are concerned.
DCF has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Essence cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Keair and Kaiden safe and healthy and to maximize their abilities to achieve.
When one also considers the high level of care, patience, and discipline that the children’s needs will require from their caregiver, it is patently clear that Essence is not in a better position to parent her children than she was at the time of their commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, Essence is no better able "to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than [s]he had been at the time of the child[ren]’s commitment." In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 367, 730 A.2d 106 (1999); see In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. 670 ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by [DCF]"); see also In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 124-25, 614 A.2d 832 (1992); In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 206, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).
Even if Essence was finally capable of realizing and correcting her problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect her to be able to parent her children at any time in the near future, if ever.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Keair and Kaiden’s needs for permanence and stability do not allow for the time necessary for Essence to attempt rehabilitation. Given this respondent’s history of mental health and parenting issues, it is reasonable to infer that she will remain besieged by those issues for some extensive time, and that she will not be physically available to serve as a custodial resource for any of her children during the time frame for rehabilitation contemplated in § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii). See In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 670-72, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010). Thus, the evidence related to the effectiveness of her treatment supports the conclusion that DCF has met the burden of proof on this TPR element. See In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485, 515, 78 A.3d 797 (2013); In re Cheila R., 112 Conn.App. 582, 591-92, 963 A.2d 1014 (2009).
Given the age, sensibilities, needs, and special needs of the children involved, and given Essence’s failure and/or inability to correct her issues, it would be unreasonable to conclude that she would be able to achieve rehabilitation from her various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for her children within a reasonable time.
Keair and Kaiden need a parent who is able to effectively care for them now. Neither child can wait for the remote possibility that their biological mother might overcome her mental health and parenting issues and her failure to appropriately comply with referrals and services and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day in the future. Keair and Kaiden are unable to wait for Essence to show that she has rehabilitated herself and is ready to assume her parental role. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384, 784 A.2d 457 (2001). Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that DCF has proved that Essence failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii).
In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the child at issue, assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, and reached its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 361-63, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995).
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Essence and her sons.
Continued foster care is detrimental to the children’s development. These children require a permanent home that is safe and nurturing, along with a caregiver that is capable and up to the challenging task of raising them.
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Essence is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. See In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 354, 776 A.2d 487 (2001). In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent mother’s parenting deficits as they relate to her sons’ need for a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent who can meet their requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Essence further time to rehabilitate herself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of her children, would not be in the best interests of Keair or Kaiden. In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 507-08; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
III. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO CLINTON
A. Abandonment- General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)
The petitioner DCF has alleged that Clinton abandoned Keair and Kaiden as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).
In its pleadings, DCF alleged the following as to this statutory ground:
Clinton has had sporadic visitation with Kaiden and Keair.
Clinton has not visited with Kaiden and Keair consistently in a lengthy period of time.
Clinton has not provided financial support for Kaiden and Keair.
Clinton has never sent cards, gifts or letters to Kaiden and Keair.
Clinton has never acknowledged Kaiden or Keair’s birthday or other special days.
Clinton has never participated in the children’s education or shown an interest in the children’s health.
Based upon the evidence produced in this matter, the court finds that DCF has failed to prove this ground by clear and convincing evidence.
B. Parental Failure to Rehabilitate- General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
DCF alleges that Clinton’s parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Keair and Kaiden have been adjudicated neglected and Clinton was provided with specific steps, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent father has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for his sons. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Clinton has yet to achieve a sufficient "level of rehabilitation ... which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he] can assume a responsible position in [his] child’s life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448; see In re Alejandro L., supra, 91 Conn.App. 259; In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 665.
First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent father has not achieved § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports, the exhibits, and the testimony, which showed that Clinton has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton’s issues are those of mental health, substance abuse, parenting deficits, domestic violence, transience and a failure to attempt and benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Clinton has been placed on notice to address his issues in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on October 23, 2015, (Gilligan, J.T.R.), and again on October 30, 2015, (Dannehy, J.), the court ordered preliminary specific steps for Clinton. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on July 7, 2016 (Woods, J.), the court ordered final specific steps for Clinton. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with the majority of those steps, which, as enumerated below, were intended to facilitate the return of Keair and Kaiden to Clinton’s care.
Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton has failed to fully comply with this step.
Clinton failed to visit his children on the following scheduled visitation dates:
January 23, 2016
January 26, 2016
February 2, 2016
February 20, 2016
March 15, 2016
April 23, 2016
April 30, 2016
May 5, 2016
June 1, 2016
November 1, 2016
November 8, 2016
Clinton failed to maintain contact with DCF and, consequently, did not visit with Keair and Kaiden from June 18, 2016, through October 25, 2016.
Clinton’s whereabouts were unknown from after April 8, 2017, through June 12, 2017, when he was incarcerated.
Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and the children are at all times .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
Throughout this litigation, Clinton has consistently failed to keep DCF aware of his whereabouts.
Clinton failed to give DCF his address and failed to allow DCF to conduct home visits.
Clinton failed to maintain contact with DCF and, consequently, did not visit with Keair and Kaiden from June 18, 2016, through October 25, 2016.
Clinton’s whereabouts were unknown from after April 8, 2017, through June 12, 2017, when he was incarcerated.
Take part in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
Clinton has minimized his mental health issues throughout DCF’s involvement with his children.
DCF records indicate that Clinton had previously been diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder, Depression and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. He also had a history of auditory and visual hallucinations.
After a court ordered evaluation, Dr. Humphrey recommended that Clinton seek a consultation with a psychiatrist, with the objective of prescribing psychotropic medication.
Aside from an evaluation at InterCommunity and the court ordered evaluation, Clinton has failed to comply with mental health treatment.
DCF referred Clinton to Radiance for domestic violence consulting. Clinton failed to successfully complete this program.
Clinton was discharged successfully from The Village’s Reunification Therapeutic Family Time on May 3, 2016.
DCF was unable to refer Clinton for further services during the periods when he was whereabouts unknown.
Accept in-home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton was not recommended for in-home support services.
Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
On February 17, 2017, Clinton visited the Hartford Area DCF Office. He admitted to DCF personnel that he had been smoking marijuana just prior to meeting with them, and further admitted that he was under the influence of marijuana.
Clinton refused to participate in substance abuse treatment or an evaluation.
Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of [which] will be up to DCF to decide .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
The court will incorporate its comments in the previous section, "Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment," by reference.
Not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
The court will incorporate its comments in the previous section, "Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment," by reference.
Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
The court will incorporate its comments in the previous sections, "Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment," and "take part in parenting and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals," by reference.
Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Clinton failed to comply with this step.
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 with this court. Sign the release within 30 days .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
Clinton has not been compliant with this step. He has refused to sign releases for DCF.
Since DOE’s involvement, Clinton has been inconsistent with signing releases of information and allowing DCF to maintain contact with his providers. On some occasions, Clinton’s attorney had to intervene for Clinton to sign releases within 30 days. In January 2016, Clinton revoked the release of information that allowed DCF to have contact with his probation officer.
Sign releases allowing your child’s attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child’s medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Clinton failed to comply with this step.
Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
Clinton’s housing has been unstable throughout the pendency of this litigation.
Clinton has resided temporarily with friends and relatives.
He did reside in an apartment with Essence, but, as of November 9, 2016, they were the subject of eviction proceedings.
Clinton was incarcerated on June 12, 2017. He was released between May 29, 2018, and June 27, 2018.
Clinton was employed for short periods of time at Ruby Tuesdays and at the Yankee Clipper.
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 child(ren) .
*22 The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
Clinton failed to keep DCF apprised of his whereabouts from November 2016, through January 2017, and from April 20, 2017, through June 12, 2017.
Clinton also refused to allow DCF to conduct home visits.
Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
DCF referred Clinton to Radiance for domestic violence consulting. Clinton failed to successfully complete this 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 .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that, on the below listed dates, Clinton was involved in the below listed criminal activity:
January 31, 2017: Larceny in the Fourth Degree
February 17, 2017: Possession of Marijuana
April 20, 2017: Assault in the Third Degree
June 8, 2017: Engaging Officer in Pursuit
Evading Responsibility
Learn to take care of the child(ren)’s physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including keeping the child(ren)’s appointments with his/her/their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton has not had his children in his custody since prior to the neglect adjudication.
Keep the child(ren) in the State of Connecticut while this case is going on unless you get permission from the DCF or the court to take them out of state. You must get permission first .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton has not had his children in his custody since prior to the neglect adjudication.
Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF permits .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton failed to fully comply with this step.
Clinton failed to visit his children on the following scheduled visitation dates:
January 23, 2016
January 26, 2016
February 2, 2016
February 20, 2016
March 15, 2016
April 23, 2016
April 30, 2016
May 5, 2016
June 1, 2016
November 1, 2016
November 8, 2016
Clinton failed to maintain contact with DCF and, consequently, did not visit with Keair and Kaiden from June 18, 2016, through October 25, 2016.
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 DCF to investigate and consider as a placement resource for the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Clinton failed to comply with this step.
Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Clinton failed to comply with this step.
This court concludes that Clinton has been unable to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of his children, insofar as he is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from the date of commitment through the date of the filing of the TPR petition and continuing through the time of trial, Clinton has not been available to take part in his sons’ lives in a safe, nurturing, and positive manner, and, based on his issues of mental health, substance abuse, parenting deficits, domestic violence, transience and a failure to attempt and benefit from counseling and services, he will never be consistently available to Keair or Kaiden.
The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Clinton has consistently failed to be available for his sons by virtue of his failure to address his issues appropriately and in a timely manner.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton has failed to improve his parenting ability to acceptable standards as far as his children’s safety and emotional needs are concerned.
DCF has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Clinton cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Keair and Kaiden safe and healthy and to maximize their abilities to achieve.
When one also considers the high level of care, patience, and discipline that Keair and Kaiden’s needs will require from their caregiver, it is patently clear that Clinton is not in a better position to parent his children than he was at the time of Keair and Kaiden’s commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, Clinton is no better able "to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than he had been at the time of the child’s commitment." In re Hector L., supra, 53 Conn.App. 367; see In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. 670 ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by [DCF]"); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 124-25; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.
Even if Clinton was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his sons at any time in the near future, if ever.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Keair and Kaiden’s needs for permanence and stability do not allow for the time necessary for Clinton to attempt rehabilitation. Given this respondent’s failure to progress in his parenting abilities, it is reasonable to infer that he will remain besieged by those issues for some extensive time, and that he will not be physically available to serve as a custodial resource for Keair and Kaiden during the time frame for rehabilitation contemplated in § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii). See In re Katia M., supra, 124 Conn.App. 670-72. Thus, the evidence related to the ineffectiveness of his rehabilitation supports the conclusion that DCF has met the burden of proof on this TPR element. See In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 515; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
Given the age, sensibilities, needs, and special needs of the children involved, and given Clinton’s failure and/or inability to correct his issues, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he would be able to achieve rehabilitation from his various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for Keair and Kaiden within a reasonable time.
Keair and Kaiden need a parent who is able to effectively care for them now. Neither child can wait for the remote possibility that his biological father might address his issues and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for him one day in the future. Neither Keair nor Kaiden are able to wait for Clinton to show that he has rehabilitated himself and is ready to assume his parental role. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [his] ability to manage [his] own life, but rather whether [he] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384. Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that DCF has proved that Clinton failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii).
In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the children at issue, assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, and reached its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361-63.
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Clinton and his sons.
Continued foster care is detrimental to the child’s development; Keair and Kaiden require a permanent home that is safe and nurturing, along with a caregiver that is capable and up to the task of raising each child.
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Clinton is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. See In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent father’s parenting deficits as they relate to his sons’ need for a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent who can meet his requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Clinton further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of his sons, would not be in the best interests of Keair or Kaiden. In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 507-08; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
DISPOSITION
As the court has concluded that statutory grounds for termination exist, it next must determine "whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 827, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005); see also In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511 n.15, 613 A.2d 748 (1992). In this dispositional phase the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events through the close of evidence. Practice Book § 35a-9.
The best interest element of § 17a-112(j)(2) has been defined as follows: "The best interests of the child include the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of [his or her] environment ... In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent’s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child ... In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 340, 16 A.3d 1250, [cert. denied, 301 Conn, 298, 22 A.3d 1275] (2011)." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 766 n.15, 23 A.3d 18 (2011), aff’d, 306 Conn. 438, 51 A.3d 334 (2012). "In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k) ] ... The seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ... There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence ... In re Alison M., [supra, 127 Conn.App. 211]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Etta H., 146 Conn.App. 751, 762, 78 A.3d 295 (2013).
SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS
The court has made each of the seven written factual findings required by § 17a-112(k) based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented at trial, and has considered the evidence relevant to each of these findings in deciding whether to terminate the respondent parents’ individual parental rights. See In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 835; see also In re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 734, 994 A.2d 233 (2010).
1. 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)
DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother, Essence, or that the following services were provided to her:
DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, supervised visitation, transportation assistance, bus passes;
Wheeler Clinic: substance abuse evaluation and testing;
Capital Region Education
Council-Triple P: parenting education;
Voices, LLC: mental health and domestic violence counseling;
Village for Families and Children: Therapeutic Family Time;
Radiance Innovative Services: parenting education and domestic violence counseling;
Connection, Inc.: Supportive Housing;
Stephen M. Humphrey, Ph.D.: Court-Ordered Psychological Evaluation.
DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father, Clinton, or that the following services were provided to him:
DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, supervised visitation, transportation assistance, bus passes;
Department of Adult Probation: supervision and monitoring;
Wheeler Clinic: substance abuse evaluation, testing and treatment; mental health evaluation and treatment;
Village for Families and Children: Therapeutic Family Time;
Stephen M. Humphrey, Ph.D.: Court-Ordered Psychological Evaluation.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate, and comprehensive services to the respondent parents, Essence and Clinton, to facilitate their reunification with their respective children, and made reasonable efforts to reunite each parent with their children. See In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Essence and Clinton did utilize some of these services as indicated herein, but failed to gain appropriate benefits from these services.
On the basis of this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Essence and Clinton are each unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as their children are concerned. Section 17a-112(j)(1). Their individual serious issues clearly and convincingly made each one unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with their children in a timely manner, if at all. See In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004) (terminating parental rights where parent was incapable of providing for children, even when positive feelings existed); see also In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 542, 744 A.2d 915 (2000) (terminating parental rights where parents did not take responsibility for situation and did not benefit from services offered).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that Essence and Clinton were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite having knowledge of the nature of their individual issues, Essence and Clinton remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with their children.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for Essence and Clinton with regard to their children.
2. Reunification Efforts Pursuant to Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(2)
This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that Essence and Clinton are each presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as are contemplated by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as amended.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify Essence and Clinton with their children. See In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 478-79, 771 A.2d 244 (2001).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that each respondent parent was aware of her or his individual issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that despite this notification, Essence and Clinton remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for Essence and Clinton with regard to their children.
3. Compliance with Court Orders- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(3)
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on July 7, 2016, the court (Dennehy, J.), issued final steps as to both respondent parents. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence failed to comply in a timely manner with the majority of those steps, which as enumerated above, were intended to facilitate the return of her children to the respondent parents’ care.
Essence and Clinton complied with some of those steps, which as enumerated above, were intended to facilitate the return of their children to the respondent parents’ care.
The court incorporates by reference its previous findings made in this decision concerning the respondent parents’ compliance with the specific steps, as well as each respondent parent’s failure to benefit from these services.
4. The Children’s Feeling and Emotional Ties- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(4)
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Essence and Clinton have a relationship with Keair.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the children have a relationship and a bond with their foster parents.
Kaiden appears to have a relationship with Essence.
Keair and Kaiden have a sibling relationship.
There is no indication that either child has an attachment to either biological parent. The children’s prime attachment appears to be to the foster parents.
5. Age of the Children- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(5)
Keair was born on October 15, 2015, and is thirty-four months old.
Kaiden was born on September 19, 2016, and is twenty-three months old.
6. Parents’ Efforts to Adjust Their Circumstances, Conduct, or Conditions to Make It in the Best Interest of the Child to Return Such Child Home in the Foreseeable Future- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(6)
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Essence and Clinton have been unable and/or unwilling to make realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to acceptable parental standards.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Essence has been unable and/or unwilling to address her issues, especially her mental health issues, substance abuse issues, parenting deficits, transience and failure to fully benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.
Despite being offered opportunities to address her issues, Essence has failed to do so with any degree of finality.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Essence has failed to complete her mental health treatment and to deal effectively with her chronic transience. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence has failed to gain sufficient benefit from her services in order to serve as a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Keair and Kaiden.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite DCF’s best efforts, Essence is unable and/or unwilling to take the steps necessary in order to attempt to become a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Keair and Kaiden. The evidence at the TPR trial clearly and convincingly shows that she is incapable of being a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for her sons. Essence is obviously unable to care for Keair and Kaiden appropriately and to provide them with the safety, care, permanence, and stability that the children need and deserve.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton has made little or no realistic and sustained efforts to conform his individual conduct to acceptable parental standards. He has made little effort to undertake any necessary rehabilitative steps in order to be an effective and productive part of his sons’ lives and upbringing. Although he has undertaken and completed some services, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that his parenting abilities have not improved to the point where he could serve as safe, responsible and nurturing parent for his children. His obvious parental deficits and his serious criminal recidivism make him incapable of being a safe, responsible and nurturing father for Keair and Kaiden.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite DCF’s best efforts, the respondent parents are individually unable and/or unwilling to take the steps necessary in order to attempt to become safe, nurturing, and responsible parents for their children. They have each demonstrated that they are unable to care for their children appropriately and to provide them with the safety, care, permanence, and stability that each child needs and deserves.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent parents have not made the changes necessary in their individual lifestyles in a timely manner that would indicate that either one would be a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for Keair or Kaiden.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow the respondent parents further time to rehabilitate themselves, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the children’s lives would not be in the best interests of Keair or Kaiden.
7. Extent to Which the Parents Were Prevented from Maintaining a Relationship with the Children- General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(7)
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, the Department of Corrections, the foster parents, or third parties prevented Essence, or Clinton from maintaining a relationship with Keair or Kaiden, nor did their individual economic circumstances prevent such relationships, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.
BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN
The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of the parental rights of Essence and Clinton would be in Keair or Kaiden’s best interests. Applying the appropriate legal standards to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
In determining whether termination of Essence or Clinton’s parental rights would be in their children’s best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the children’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability, and continuity of their environment; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of their relationships with their foster parents and their biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents. See In re Mia M., 127 Conn.App. 363, 374-75, 14 A.3d 1024 (2011); In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., supra, 55 Conn.App. 816. In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance the children’s intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their 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 interest in preserving family integrity).
Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that it is not in Keair or Kaiden’s best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with the respondent parents.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence and Clinton have numerous issues that are clearly antithetical to safe, responsible, and nurturing parenting, and are also antagonistic to Keair and Kaiden’s best interests.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence’s issues are those of mental health, parenting deficits, transience, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence was unable to appropriately address these issues by the time of the amendment of the TPR petition.
During the pendency of this matter, Essence has failed to comply with specific steps. She has refused to cooperate with DCF or with the services to which she was referred. Her ability to care for her sons remained as poor at the time of the TPR trial as it was at the inception of the case.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite her referrals and services, Essence has failed to rehabilitate herself sufficiently to be a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Keair and Kaiden.
The court also finds alarming Essence’s relationship with Clinton and her deference to his wishes. Unfortunately, Clinton is a continuation of Essence’s pattern of inappropriate and questionable relationships.
The court also finds that too much time has already elapsed to justify giving Essence further time to show her rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Clinton has failed to rehabilitate himself to a level adequate to serve as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent to Keair and Kaiden. Despite the best intents and efforts of DCF to involve him with the children, he has been unwilling to come forward and be accountable in a sincere way. He has failed to demonstrate any real initiative to rehabilitate himself so as to be a part in Keair and Kaiden’s lives, to successfully address his own issues, or to provide an appropriate home and suitable guidance for his sons. The respondent father has failed to visit his children appropriately and has failed to maintain contact with DCF appropriately.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Essence and Clinton cannot keep any of their sons safe or care for them properly. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Essence and Clinton have failed to gain insight into the efforts that each needs to make in order to become a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for their children. The clear and convincing evidence shows that each respondent parent’s individual judgment and conduct still remain questionable.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Keair and Kaiden cannot afford to wait any longer for their parents to rehabilitate themselves. Each parent has been given more than ample time to accomplish this, without success.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time that the respondent parents need to attempt to rehabilitate themselves and establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing, and responsible parents, if that were possible, is time that the child cannot spare.
Essence and Clinton’s individual parental performances clearly and convincingly show that each one lacks the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill a valid parental role. Their individual failures to address their issues in a timely manner and to successfully address their individual parental deficits clearly and convincingly show that it is unlikely that they will ever be able to conform their individual behaviors to appropriate parental standards or be able to serve as a safe, nurturing, and responsible parents for Keair or Kaiden.
Based upon the individual behaviors and performances so far of Essence and Clinton, this court cannot foresee any of the respondent parents in this case ever having the ability or the patience required to follow the regimen necessary for his or her children to maximize his abilities and achievements.
At the TPR trial, counsel for the children indicated that the parents remain incapable of caring for the children now, and that Keair and Kaiden need permanency now.
Counsel for the respondent parents argued against the TPR.
Counsel for Essence argued that there was a parent-child relationship between her client and the children. She pointed out that Essence had completed some services and that her visits with Keair and Kaiden had gone well.
Counsel for Essence argued that it was in the best interests of the children to be in their mother’s care.
Counsel for Clinton argued that Clinton’s neurological issues caused his antisocial behavior and that he needed assistance with his issues. Counsel further argued that Clinton deserved an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to parent.
Despite the arguments of the respondents’ counsel, the clear and convincing evidence shows that neither of the respondent parents are in any position to assume their children’s care in a safe, nurturing and responsible manner.
Essence has addressed none of her extremely concerning issues in a manner that would give confidence. She has not completed most of her services. Her history of visitation has been inconsistent.
In his report of his April 2016, evaluation of Essence, Dr. Humphrey noted the following:
[Essence] presents with a sweet, cheerful demeanor. Despite her extensive trauma history, which (per her report) includes numerous instances of sexual abuse and exploitation, she exudes an innocence and guilelessness. Perhaps related to this, she exhibits subnormative intellectual functioning and in some ways comes across as much younger than her nineteen years ...
The relationships with boys/men [Essence] identified as significant (i.e., [J.], [T.], [Clinton] ) were marked by concerns including criminal activity or substance abuse ...
[Essence] said she did not think there was anything she needed to work on or change. Her judgment with regard to matters affecting Keair’s safety- and denial and minimization of safety concerns- is addressed in more detail in response to question five. [Essence] views the world in an unsophisticated way, and is not likely to think actively about anything beyond her immediate circumstances. She will tend to conform to her environment and those in it, which is a principal cause of concern as it relates to [Clinton’s] history and associations ...
Given her lack of awareness of child protection concerns related to both herself and Clinton, especially after DCF’s protracted involvement, raises questions about whether [Essence] will be able to acquire a proper understanding of safety risks ...
Dr. Humphrey testified that Essence had difficulty in understanding or appreciating child protection issues. He also indicated that she could not see the reason for involvement in child protection issues. Dr. Humphrey believed that Essence first needed to be able to identify behavior that she had to alter.
However, Dr. Humphrey felt that Essence would fail to gain much insight, and that any gain would be insufficient to be normative.
In his report of his evaluation of Clinton, Dr. Humphrey wrote the following:
[Clinton]’s psychological difficulties appear to center primarily on a history of traumatization and posttraumatic symptoms, neurological injury, mood dysregulation (including problems with anger management and a seeming history of depressive affect), and unusual behaviors and verbalizations, including confabulation and stories. These stories are typically within the realm of possibility (e.g., his claims about his athletic and academic achievements), and perhaps at times created to avoid responsibility (e.g., the feigned auto accident, reasons for missing probation appointments with Mr. Francis).
Because of the apparent history of fabrication and perhaps even self-deception, as well as [Clinton]’s invalid psychological testing, it is difficult to know what claims to believe and not to believe if they are not verified by another source ...
[Clinton] described a history of head injuries, stating he had concussions from playing football and "a stroke from so much head trauma." Documents indicate he also had a severe head injury following a diving accident at age eleven.
[Clinton] also described injuries deriving from his self-reported history of violent behavior and involvement with others who are violent. Specifically, he said the Hartford Police once knocked him unconscious. On a separate occasion, during a street fight, someone allegedly "stomped" his head. He suggested this was the same time (i.e., "a couple months" before this evaluation) when he was jumped and "some dudes ... threw a rock at (his) head." He said he lost consciousness on this occasion and awoke at St. Francis Medical Center. He said he was also "dazed" in an automobile accident around the same time.
[Clinton] said he suffers from "epilepsia (sic)" due to his concussions and head trauma, stating he had "bad seizures" in the past, but they had stopped. He said he last had a seizure in 2014, when he passed out in the heat during a parade. He said he asked if he could stop taking seizure medication and was given permission to do so.
If [Clinton]’s report is accurate (and the Wheeler Clinic report of the head injury from diving into a pool is accurate), this number of head injuries (and allegedly a stroke) could cause significant neurological disruption and could lead to some of the problems [Clinton] exhibits with aggression, impulsivity, and confabulation. Problems with executive functioning might figure prominently with regard to these symptoms. [Clinton] also reported significant problems with his memory, stating he cannot "physically remember the timing of ... past events." He alleged he had been seeing a neurologist before his health insurance lapsed.
Historically, [Clinton] has been diagnosed with depressive symptoms, as well as Bipolar Disorder. The only depressive symptoms he reported during the present evaluation pertained to his son’s removal, but based on the history described in documents it is clear depressive symptoms have been present at varying degrees throughout his life, as might be expected given his history of trauma, abuse, neglect, and transience. He denied such a history, however.
Documents suggest [Clinton] had a history of visual and auditory hallucinations during adolescence, but he denied this. He exhibits a tendency toward confabulation (i.e., production of distorted or fabricated recollections). Generally, this is done without a conscious intent to deceive, although in his case whether there is such intent is debatable.
What is clear is [Clinton] presents these distortions quite fervently and is resistant to acknowledging they are not accurate even in the face of contradictory evidence. Such behavior is usually the product of a neurologically driven process, although in his case, likely contributors include a genetic component, a severe trauma component, a self-reported history of head trauma, and other psychiatric disturbance.
Historically, and in the current evaluation, [Clinton] is reported to have made a number of claims that strain credulities. These include, in particular order:
[Clinton] told hospital staff around the time of Keair’s birth that he had previously had a child who died after being jaundiced (and that the mother committed suicide). During the present evaluation he said his brother (who was shot and killed) was the father, and that "Justin" was his uncle and apparently not the father of the child. He suggested he was misunderstood at the hospital.
[Clinton] claimed his sister was on the roster of the Morgan State basketball team (she is not) and that they were playing in the Sweet 16 (they were not, at least at that time). He also said his brother would be playing football at Georgia Tech.
[Clinton] said he was a redshirt at LSU (football) and was "kicked out" as he was in a bar fight. (Related to this, he has ostensibly said both that he played football at Rutgers, and- to this examiner- he went to a "training camp" there before going to LSU.
[Clinton] initially told this examiner he was "going to school" for human relations and "psychiatrical (sic) with kids." When pressed about this, he said he had not yet started school but had purchased his books and would be starting Manchester Community College on 5/24/16. Again, while this may be accurate, it seemed questionable.
[Clinton] extolled his prowess with women in high school, i.e., "They used to call me a whore ... I couldn’t help it, I’m young. I thought I was doing a good thing. I was having sex with people’s girlfriends." He later reported Ms. Denny was his "first real girlfriend." [Clinton] ostensibly tried to convince Ms. Spence he had been in a serious car accident when (she claims) he was at a visit. This episode is different from the others in that, if true, it appears there was an intent to deceive for some immediate, tangible goal. Similar to this are Mr. Williams’ statements about [Clinton]’s excuses for missing appointments.
[Clinton]’s current probation officer opined he engages in "a lot of story-telling."
[Clinton] was reportedly transferred to the Technical Violation Unit for probation as he was noncompliant with treatment with his previous probation officer. She claimed he would lie and say he had attended groups. She also described him as deceitful, alleging he was in a serious car accident and pretending to be someone else when he missed an appointment. She suggested he also lied about his mother not being available by telephone.
[Clinton]’s current probation officer said [Clinton] has given excuses as to why he cannot attend probation appointments, and has said things about threats to his life being monitored by the Shooting Task Force that (based on his research) appeared to be untrue. He also said [Clinton]’s problems with treatment compliance had continued, noting, "Since I’ve had him, he has been kicked out of Wheeler Clinic and Catholic Charities." He said while in the past [Clinton] might have been violated by now, probation officers are now encouraged to work with clients in such circumstances ...
In his testimony at trial, Dr. Humphrey testified that he recommended that Clinton participate in a psychotropic medication consultation. He indicated that he diagnosed Clinton as suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Dr. Humphrey noted that Clinton had been prescribed psychotropic medication in the past, but refused to take it.
Our courts have recognized that "long-term stability is critical to a child’s future health and development ..." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). Furthermore, "[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence" when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children. In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff’d, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The court is obliged to agree with DCF, and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Keair and Kaiden are entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty that each child has lived with as to the unavailability of his biological parents as caretakers.
DCF recommended the TPR. There has been absolutely no evidence to establish the unreasonableness of this request.
Having balanced the individual and intrinsic needs of Keair and Kaiden for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with the respondent parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the child’s best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to the respondent parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.
Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, including the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of the applicable respondent parents as to Keair and Kaiden is in the best interests of each child in question.
ORDER OF TERMINATION
WHEREFORE, after due consideration of Keair and Kaiden’s sense of time, each child’s need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship each child has with his foster parent, and the totality of circumstances; and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights; and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in each child’s best interests, the court issues the following ORDERS:
That the parental rights of Essence D. are hereby terminated as to the children Keair W. and Kaiden W.
That the parental rights of Clinton W. are hereby terminated as to the children Keair W. and Kaiden W.
That the Commissioner of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Keair and Kaiden for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for each child.
That permanency plans shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.