Opinion
No. H12-CP03-008877-A
May 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
On May 11, 2005, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") filed petitions pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 et seq., to terminate the parental rights of respondent mother Kiona U., respondent father of Na-im B., Jr., Na-im B., Sr., and the respondent "John Doe" fathers of Kyon G. and Kavon P. On June 23, 2005, the court (Bentivegna, J.) dismissed the initially filed petitions because the scheduled plea date regarding the petitions was set beyond the maximum thirty days allowed from the date that the petition was filed. On June 29, 2005, the Department refiled the petitions for termination of parental rights which is currently before this court. Trial of this matter took place before this court on October 30, 31, November 1, 2, 20, December 8, 14, 2006 at the Regional Child Protection Session at the Middlesex J.D. The respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon G. and Kavon P. failed to appear. The court (Santos, J.) confirmed service of the petitions for termination of parental rights on respondent mother Kiona U., respondent father Na-im B., Sr., and respondent John Doe fathers on July 29, 2005. The court (Santos, J.) entered a default for failure to appear against respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon G. and Kavon P. on July 29, 2005. The court (Bear, J.) confirmed the defaults on the respondent John Doe fathers on October 30, 2006.
On October 30, 2006 respondent father Na-im B., Sr. consented to a termination of his parental rights. The court (Bear, J.) on October 30, 2006, found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent father Na-im B., Sr.'s consent was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered with a full understanding of the legal consequences and accepted respondent father Na-im B., Sr.'s consent. The original grounds for the termination of Na-im B., Sr.'s parental rights were withdrawn and the ground of consent was substituted.
On May 11, 2005, the petitioner filed Motions for Review of Permanency Plan and to Maintain Commitment regarding all three boys. Respondent mother and respondent father Na-im B., Sr., filed objections to the permanency plans on May 24, 2005 and June 7, 2005 respectively. The objections were consolidated with the termination of parental rights trial.
The trial court finds that it has proper jurisdiction of this matter, notice of the proceeding was provided, and no action is pending in any other court affecting the custody of the children.
II. ISSUES
The petitioner seeks to terminate the parental rights of respondent mother, Kiona U. on the sole ground that Kyon, Kavon and Na-im had been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and respondent mother Kiona U. failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of Kyon, Kavon and Na-im, respondent mother could assume a responsible position in their lives. General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). The grounds upon which the petitioner relies to terminate the parental rights of the respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon and Kavon are that the children have been abandoned by respondent fathers within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) and that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D).
Respondent mother contests the petition and argues that the petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify respondent mother with her three sons as required under General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); that she has achieved a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time she could assume a responsible position in the life of her three sons; and that termination is not in the best interest of the children.
The arguments upon which respondent mother relies to support her objection to the petitioner's May 11, 2005 Motions for Review Permanency Plan and to Maintain Commitment are the same as the arguments raised contesting the petition to terminate her parental rights. Thus, the issues to be resolved by the court are (1) Whether the petitioner made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent mother with her children? (2) Have grounds for termination been established? (3) Is termination in the best interest of the children? and (4) Is approval of the petitioner's permanency plan appropriate?
III. FACTS CT Page 10947
Based upon all of the evidence submitted at trial, the court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence. DCF's involvement in this case dates back to July 11, 2001, on which date the court (Wollenberg, J.) adjudicated Kyon G. and Kavon P. neglected children. The court, on this date, entered an order of protective supervision regarding Kyon and Kavon for a period of six months. Both children remained in the care and custody of their mother, Kiona U.
All seemed well for Kiona and her children until January 16, 2003. By this time, Kiona had given birth to her third and youngest son, Na-im B., Jr. who was three and a half months old at this time. Kiona and Na-im B.'s father Na-im B., Sr., were living together at this time. On January 16, 2003, a ninety-six-hour hold was invoked on all three children as a result of Na-im sustaining a serious non-accidental burn to his left hand on January 13, 2003. The petitioner filed an ex parte order of temporary custody on January 17, 2003, which was granted (Wollenberg, J.).
On February 6, 2003, after a contested hearing, the court (Wollenberg, J.) sustained the order of temporary custody. On August 7, 2003, Kiona entered a nolo plea as to Kyon and Kavon to the allegations set forth in the neglect petitions that Kyon and Kavon were denied proper care and attention, and were permitted to live in conditions injurious to their well-being. On August 14, 2003, Kiona and Na-im, Sr., entered nolo pleas as to Na-im, Jr., to the allegations in the neglect petition that Na-im was denied proper care and attention, was permitted to live in conditions injurious to his well-being and, in light of Na-im's young age, that his home could not provide the specialized care which his physical, emotional or mental condition requires. Based upon these pleas, the court (Wollenberg, J.), on August 7, 2003, adjudicated Kyon and Kavon neglected and committed them to the petitioner, and on August 14, 2003, adjudicated Na-im neglected and uncared for and committed him to the petitioner effective August 7, 2003.
Na-im B., Sr., was charged and convicted of risk of injury to a minor and assault in the first degree as a result of Na-im, Jr.'s injury. On April 8, 2005, Na-im, Sr., was sentenced to ten years suspended after thirty-five months to serve and five years probation. Recognizing his inability to care for Na-im, Jr., Na-im, Sr., consented to a termination of his parental rights on October 30, 2006. The petitioner's oral motion to amend to substitute consent as the sole ground for terminating father Na-im, Sr.'s parental rights was granted by agreement, and the court (Bear, J.), after canvassing Na-im B., Sr., found his consent, having been made voluntarily, knowingly and with advice of counsel, to be a valid ground for terminating his parental rights. Respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon G. and Kavon P. are and remain unknown. On December 2, 2003, the court found that further efforts to reunify Kyon, Kavon and Na-im with their respective fathers were no longer appropriate.
Kiona signed specific steps on August 7, 2003, which were approved by the court (Wollenberg, J.), on that date. In accordance with these written expectations, Kiona was required to keep all appointments set by DCF; cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the children's court appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem; participate in individual and family counseling; participate in and cooperate with Klingberg Intensive Reunification Services; cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing; obtain and/or cooperate with restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents; sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers; secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income; no substance abuse; avoid criminal activity; consistently and timely meet and address the children's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs including, but not limited to, keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric or educational providers; make all necessary child-care arrangements insuring that the children are adequately supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers; immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the changes do not compromise the health and safety of the children; maintain the children within the State of Connecticut during the duration of this case except for temporary travel out of state with the authorization of DCF or the court in advance; cooperate with the children's medical providers regarding Kavon and Na-im; visit the children as often as DCF permits; and work with providers to fully learn Na-im and Kavon's medical needs and appropriate treatment. By signing the specific steps Kiona, in addition to acknowledging compliance, acknowledged that "failure to achieve these specific steps will increase the chance that a petition may be filed to terminate [her] parental rights permanently so that [her children] may be placed in adoption." (Specific Steps, August 7, 2003) (see also, In re Jeffrey C., 261 Conn. 189, 802 A.2d 772 (2002), regarding fair warning).
Kiona U., the mother of Kyon G., Kavon P. and Na-im B., was born on October 19, 1979 in Hartford, Connecticut. Kiona was raised primarily by her mother Cheryl W., and had a "okay, normal" childhood. She dropped out of high school in the ninth grade when she became pregnant with Kyon. Kiona attended the Mother and Babies Program in Windsor, Connecticut in order to obtain her GED, however, she did not complete this program because the school closed due to a lack of funding. She ultimately obtained her GED in 1998.
Kiona does not have a steady employment history. Her work consists of jobs at McDonald's, other restaurants, assembly line and warehouse facilities. (Testimony of Kiona U., December 8, 2006). Kiona's most recent employment was at Scan Optics for a brief period from May 2005 until she was laid off in June 2005. As of December 14, 2006, the last day of trial, Kiona was unemployed but claimed she was registered with a temporary employment agency and had made applications at "malls and restaurants" in the year 2006. Kiona made no mention of her job efforts prior to 2006. Prior to the boys' removal, she was receiving state assistance, Kavon's disability and working at McDonald's making $120.00 per week. According to Kiona she was "making ends meet" and if the boys are returned, her plan is to rely on these same benefits to provide for the boys. No evidence was presented by Kiona regarding what steps she had taken, or would be taking, to have these benefits reinstated if the boys are returned.
Like her employment history, Kiona has not had steady housing since January 2004, and as of December 14, 2006, she still had not obtained housing and was residing with her Aunt Valerie. Kiona did reside with her mother for a period of time, however, she was forced to leave as a result of ongoing tension between she and her mother which culminated in January 2005, when they had a physical altercation.
Kiona's presenting issues when the boys were removed and over the duration of this case were housing, unemployment, lack of parenting skills, depression and substance/alcohol abuse. Kiona was offered numerous rehabilitation services to address her issues so that she could regain custody of her boys. Visitation services at the Department from January 2003 to November 2003 were offered. Throughout the case, Kiona received a bus pass to assist her with transportation. She was offered services through the St. Francis Parent Aide Program in January 2003 and August 2003. The Klingberg Family Center ("Klingberg") provided supervised visitation and parenting education to Kiona from September 2003 to May 2005. Kiona was offered services for counseling beginning in August 2003 with Kim Newland-Carter. In January 2004, Kiona was offered housing assistance through shelter placements which would have been able to provide more permanent housing assistance. Kiona was offered housing placement in March 2004, through the Village For Families and Children. She was offered services through the Project HERS Program for individual counseling, group counseling, substance abuse education and prevention and anger management. Reunification, family preservation and counseling services were offered to Kiona through Abundant Family Center ("Abundant Family") from November 2004 to February 2005. Abundant Family also provided supervised visitation services between Kiona and the boys, beginning in November 2005. Kiona was offered additional counseling services at New Beginnings with Grace Yancek, beginning in August 2004 until July 2005. She was also offered services through The Connection, which is a supportive housing program that assists persons with searching for and locating a residence, for financial assistance with a residence, and coordination with other services that would help a person maintain the residence. The Connection provided services to Kiona from February 2005 to May 2005. Finally, in December 2004, the Department offered Kiona an actual plan to begin reunification with the boys which provided for overnight visits.
Kiona's compliance with services offered was not consistent. In August 2003, she was referred to Ms. Kim Newland-Carter, LCSW for individual counseling and family counseling. Kiona's participation was minimal, attending only eight sessions through April 2004. In July 2004, Kiona was referred to Ms. Grace Yancek, MS, MFT at New Beginnings Family Center ("New Beginnings") for individual counseling. Ms. Yancek diagnosed Kiona with a major depressive disorder. Kiona fully participated in counseling and completed a total of forty-five sessions through July 2005, at which time Ms. Yancek recommended further therapy. In August 2005, Kiona's case was transferred to another counselor for further treatment due to Ms. Yancek's departure from New Beginnings. Kiona was scheduled for an appointment on September 10, 2005, however, she failed to appear. On April 8, 2006, Kiona was referred to Ms. Ivy Young, MSW at My People Clinical Services for counseling. Kiona failed to comply with the requirements of the program and was discharged on May 31, 2006. Ms. Young described Kiona as a very angry woman. In addition to counseling, Ms. Young attempted to meet with Kiona to help her obtain employment and housing, however, Kiona failed to follow through.
Kiona's participation in the services provided by Klingberg was good and she made "great" improvement in the program. However, Kiona refused to participate in an additional parenting group recommended by Klingberg, and held during evening hours. Abundant Family Center attempted to work with Kiona from November 2004 to February 2005, on family reunification and preservation counseling and related services. Kiona did not successfully complete the Abundant Family Center reunification and family preservation program. She missed half of the scheduled visits with Troy Moses, the program manager. As part of the Abundant Family reunification program, Kiona was to have overnight unsupervised visits with the children. On December 16, 2004, an overnight visit was to occur with the children. However, upon Mr. Moses's arrival at Kiona's home, she was frustrated and upset, smelled of alcohol, displayed erratic behavior and a loss of anger control, which resulted in the cancellation of the visit with the children. Abundant Family Center could not maintain services for Kiona due to Kiona's missed appointments and unwillingness to participate in the program.
Despite the December 16, 2004 incident, actual overnight, unsupervised visits took place on December 23 to 27, 2004, with Kyon and Kavon; December 30, 2004 to January 2, 2005, with all three children; January 14 to 17, 2005, with all three children and January 28 to 30, 2005, with all three children. Although these visits were uneventful and went well, this reunification effort ended following the last of the four overnight visits, because of reports of a domestic violence incident between Kiona and maternal grandmother. This altercation between Kiona and her mother took place in the residence of maternal grandmother during the last overnight visit. The boys were in the residence when the altercation occurred. Kiona admitted to having a verbal and physical altercation with her mother and she admitted that these altercations were an ongoing problem with or without the children present. (Pet. Ex. 15). This pattern of domestic violence with maternal grandmother was evident in July 2004, when Kiona was asked to leave her mother's home for a brief period due to an argument they had. In February 2005, Kiona was involved in another altercation with her mother which resulted in her arrest for disorderly conduct and assault. The charges were ultimately dismissed after Kiona completed the family violence program.
Abundant Families also provided supervised visits beginning in November 2005. Kiona was consistent with her visits and maintained excellent attendance at the visits. According to Beatrice Allen, the visitation specialist, in the beginning, Kiona was very demanding and aggressive during her visits with the children, however, with assistance she was able to redirect her behavior. Although Kiona has consistently visited her children for a majority of the visits, and has appropriately interacted with them, she still falls short of the parenting skills necessary to encourage the belief that she can care for the children on a consistent, day-to-day basis. During the visitations since November 2005 at Abundant Families Center, Kiona has had her maternal Aunt Valerie join the visits three-quarters of the time. Although Kiona has provided snacks and food for the children during the visits, she typically does not have sufficient money to provide snacks for them. Aunt Valerie generally provided food and snacks for the children. The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Kiona is not able, on her own and without the assistance of others, such as Aunt Valerie, to manage all three children during visits. Kiona still needs the assistance of an older person to serve as a mentor. This was also demonstrated in January 2005 when Kiona was involved in an altercation with her mother. When confronted with the problem, she contacted Na-im, Kyon and Kavon's foster mothers in order to return them home. Na-im was returned home, however, Kyon and Kavon remained with Kiona because their foster mother felt that Kiona needed to be able to handle her children in emergency situations. (Pet. Ex. 15.) Although Kyon and Kavon remained with Kiona, it was clear that she becomes overwhelmed in emergency situations.
In December 2004, Kiona was referred to Connecticut Children's Medical Center ("CCMC") in Hartford to complete a refresher course in Sickle Cell Disease to help her in caring for Kavon who has been diagnosed with the disease. To her credit, Kiona did complete the course, however, after over three years of visitation and parenting services, the fact remains that Kiona has not demonstrated the ability to manage the boys independently of the aid, assistance or guidance of others. According to Ms. Allen, the assistance of a mentor is necessary to help Kiona with follow-though on parenting recommendations and to learn to de-escalate her anger when it arises. (Testimony of Beatrice Allen.)
Kiona feels that the only issues she needs to address are housing and employment. The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates otherwise. Kiona has an alcohol problem. (Testimony of Troy Moses, Ivy Young, Dr. Leite, Pet. Ex. 10 p. 4.) In an effort to address this problem, the petitioner referred her to the HERS program in September 2004 for individual counseling, group counseling, substance abuse education and prevention and anger management. Kiona's clinician and case manager made several attempts to engage Kiona during the course of the program. In April 2005, Kiona was contacted by her clinician, Ms. Pat Baugh, because she missed her appointment. Kiona agreed to attend a rescheduled appointment, however, she did not show for her individual or group session for the month of April 2005. Kiona's progress toward stated goals of the program was poor and she showed defiance towards recommendations for anger management, coping skills group, along with substance abuse and prevention and HIV education groups. Kiona was discharged from the HERS program the end of April 2005.
Kiona remains unemployed and without housing. Except for a brief employment period with Scan Optics from May 2005 until June 2005, Kiona has not maintained any regular employment during the period of over four years that the children have been in custody with the petitioner. From January 2003 to January 2004, Kiona resided at 5 Florence Street in Hartford. In January 2004, Kiona's landlord at 5 Florence Street offered her a one-bedroom apartment until she was reunified with her children. Kiona refused to accept the landlord's offer. (Testimony of Lorrie Wynter.) The petitioner referred Kiona to at least five shelters in early 2004, Kiona did not follow through. In March 2004, the petitioner referred Kiona to the Village for Children and Families for housing which required Kiona to share an apartment which she refused to do. Kiona was referred to the Connections Program for housing and employment. Ms. Georgia Artis was assigned Kiona's case manager in February 2005. Kiona failed to comply with the requirements of the Connections Program. Compliance with the Connections Program required Kiona's compliance with other service providers who were assisting her, namely, Abundant Family Center family reunification and preservation program, Project HERS and with the Department. Although the Connection service was formally terminated when the Department filed its initial termination petition in May 2005, independent of the initial filing of the termination petition, Kiona was not in compliance with the Connections Program. According to Ms. Artis, independent of the initial filing of the termination petition in May 2005, Kiona's case should have been closed because of her noncompliance. Ms. Artis's testimony was compelling. Kiona was not in compliance with the requirements of the Connections Program because of her poor record of keeping appointments with Ms. Artis, behavioral issues exhibited when she would meet with Ms. Artis, her failure to comply with Abundant Family and Project HERS, and her resistance to completing job applications. Ms. Artis was also concerned with Kiona's suspected abuse of alcohol and substance use in light of Kiona's erratic behavior. Although Kiona's hair test in May 2005 was negative, she was still not in compliance with The Connection Supportive Housing program.
In August 2005, the petitioner provided Kiona with additional housing and employment assistance. Kiona was given a list of nineteen housing resources and lists for subsidized housing, and a list of employment seeking services in the Hartford area and surrounding towns. Kiona's social worker Janeen Dafeo designed a letter to give to perspective employers and housing resources to confirm Kiona's search. Kiona claimed she cooperated and followed through on the petitioner's housing and employment referrals yet she produced no corroborating evidence that she did. This court is not persuaded by Kiona's testimony on this issue and cannot reasonably infer that she adequately followed through, given the length of time Kiona had to look for housing and employment, the assistance provided to her by the petitioner and, most compelling, during this entire period of time, January 2004 though December 2006, Kiona was free to focus on rehabilitating herself without having to maintain the day-to-day care and custody of the boys.
Kiona's depression has not been resolved. She was diagnosed with major depression by Ms. Yancek in August 2004. Dr. Stephanie Leite, the court-appointed psychologist, evaluated Kiona in March 2006 and Dr. Leite agrees with Kiona's diagnosis of depression. She, like Ms. Yancek, feels Kiona needs additional therapy. Dr. Leite, however, does not believe Kiona will benefit from therapy because of her mistrust of others, and her "great wall of defenses." (Testimony of Dr. Stephanie Leite.) Dr. Leite opined that Kiona is not capable of rehabilitating within a reasonable period of time due to her defensive nature and her depression. Dr. Leite opined that the boys need a stable environment in which they feel nurtured. Dr. Leite, based upon her assessment of Kiona and the children, does not believe that Kiona can provide the stable and permanent environment the boys need. Dr. Leite does acknowledge that Kiona is a good parent, loves her children and is bonded to them as they are with her. However, she is "not able to meet [the children's] psychological needs, [and] is not likely to do so in the future." (Petitioner's Ex. 10; Testimony of Dr. Leite.)
Kyon G. is the oldest of Kiona's three boys. Kyon is very articulate and is clearly bonded with his mother and his extended family. He has been in foster care since January 2003. He was placed in a non-relative DCF foster home for two and a half years. In August 2006 Kyon was placed with his brothers in a preadoptive home, however, due to the preadoptive mother becoming ill, the children were moved from this home and in October 2006 placed with Na-im's former foster family. Although this is not a preadoptive home, it is clear the boys are in a stable, structured, loving and nurturing environment and have adjusted well. Kyon is involved with community activities and has perfect attendance at school and receives good grades. He is a gymnast and has competed on a national level winning a platinum metal for his performance.
Kavon P. is the middle child of the three boys. He is somewhat quiet but is not shy about verbalizing his wants and desires. He, like his brother Kyon, is bonded to his mother and extended family. Kavon has expressed interest in the drums and wants to be a police officer or firefighter when he grows up and has kept to his occupational desire for over three years. He attends Kenelly School and has perfect attendance and good grades. He is medically complex in that he has been diagnosed with sickle cell anemia. He is seen by Dr. Nathan Hagstrom at the Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford and is required to have routine blood transfusions every four weeks for a minimum of ten years. He is presently doing well and is medically up to date. Kavon is aware of the possibility that he may not be able to live with his mother on a full-time basis. He, like his brother Kyon, has adjusted well to his current placement.
Na-im B., Jr. is four and a half years old and is the youngest of the three brothers. Na-im is outgoing and friendly. He has been in foster care since he was three months and in the same foster home as his older brothers for over one and a half years. He has had a total of two other specialized foster care placements. Na-im is not able to share any insight as to his feelings about the possibility of not being able to live with his mother, yet there is a bond between them. This lack of insight is appropriate for his age. Na-im is medically up to date. He was diagnosed with mild asthma and requires a nebulizer when symptoms arise. After receiving a brief period of Birth To Three services, a PPT was performed and, as a result, it was recommended that Na-im receive special education services one hour per week at school. No recommendations were made for speech, language therapy or occupational therapy.
All three boys have a strong bond with each other and appear to be in good health. Both Kyon and Kavon are doing well in school and Na-im has been appropriately tested for special education services which he will receive while in school. Kavon's sickle cell is stable and he is getting the medical treatment for his disease. Although the boys' current placement is not a preadoptive home, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that they are in a stable, structured and nurturing environment.
Kiona, on the other hand, has not set forth a cogent plan for the boys if they are returned to her. Since January 2004, she has not secured or maintained a placement setting that would be appropriate for permanency for the children.
IV. LEGAL DISCUSSION A. ADJUDICATORY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS FINDINGS
" `Termination of parental rights' means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents so that the child is free for adoption . . ." General Statutes § 45a-707(8). "[I]t is both a fundamental right and the policy of this state to maintain the integrity of the family. Where a fundamental right is involved, the burden of proof is always on the party seeking to interfere with that right." In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 295, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). "[T]ermination of a parent's rights to his or her children was unknown to the common law." In re Eden F., 48 Conn.App. 290, 321, 710 A.2d 771 (1998), rev'd on other grounds, 250 Conn. 674, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). The statutes creating procedures for the termination of parental rights are in derogation of common law. CT Page 10956 Id. Without the existence of such state statutes, the power of a juvenile court to terminate parental rights would not exist. Id. "The rights of children to protection from harm and to placement in a nurturing environment are core values of our society. So too, is the right of parents to raise their children without undue government interference . . . Since the severance by the state of a parent-child relationship implicates fundamental rights and the termination of a parent's rights is a creature of statute, it is essential that a parental termination can be decreed only in both strict and literal compliance with the applicable state statutes." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 43, 887 A.2d 415 (2005).
General Statutes § 17a-112(j) imposes upon DCF the clear and convincing evidence standard for the burden of proof. "In order to terminate rights under § 17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); (2) termination is in the best interest of the child; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2); and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a-112(j)(3)." In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004).
1. Reasonable Efforts to Locate and Reunify. § 17a-112(j)(1)
For a child in the custody of DCF, the first requisite for termination of parental rights is the exhaustion of reasonable efforts by DCF to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent. General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1). "[Section 17a-112(j)(1)] imposes on the department the duty, inter alia, to make reasonable efforts to reunite the child or children with the parents. The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof. Neither the word reasonable nor the word effort is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn . . . [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." In re Samantha C., supra, 268 Conn. 632. Section 17a-112(j)(1) does not contemplate that the trial court will rely upon the judicial findings in an earlier proceeding that reunification efforts have been appropriate. The trial court considering the petition for termination of parental rights must make its own determination based upon evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, despite the permanency plan hearings on December 3, 2003 and July 15, 2004, at which courts found DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the reunification permanency plans for Kyon, Kavon and Na-im, DCF needed to provide proofs of these efforts at this trial.
Pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(1), the court need not make a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the parent, if a court has previously determined at a permanency plan hearing that such efforts at reunification were no longer appropriate. General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1). Such finding was made by the court (Bentivegna, J.) as to all three fathers at the permanency plan hearing held on December 2, 2003. Thus, since this finding was previously made, no such finding need be made by this court as to the respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon G. and Kavon P.
Between the time Kyon, Kavon and Na-im were removed in January 2003 and up to the filing of the termination petition on June 29, 2005, the petitioner made all reasonable efforts to reunify them with Kiona. Kiona was offered services though the HERS program for individual and group counseling, substance abuse education and prevention, anger management and coping skills counseling and HIV/AIDS education and prevention. Kiona was also offered family reunification and preservation as well as counseling and related services through the Abundant Family Center. She was offered parent aide services though the St. Francis Parent Aide program. She was offered housing assistance, including shelter placements which would have been able to provide additional permanent placement assistance. Kiona was offered housing and employment assistance through the Connection Program. She was also offered individual counseling with Kim Newland-Carter and she was offered counseling with Grace Yancek at New Beginnings. Kiona was provided visitation with her children, transportation services and bus passes. She was also offered an actual plan to begin reunification with the provision of overnight visits with her children. Despite the petitioner's reasonable efforts, Kiona was unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. This court recognizes and acknowledges Kiona's consistent and regular attendance at visits with her sons. This court also recognizes Kiona's attendance at forty-five counseling sessions with her counselor Grace Yancek, however, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Kiona missed appointments scheduled at the HERS program, showed defiance towards recommendations for anger management and coping skills, failed to meet with Troy Moses of the Abundant Family Center on an adequate basis, displayed erratic behavior and out-of-control anger despite the counseling services provided, and did not take advantage of the housing and employment assistance offered by the petitioner. The testimony of Ms. Georgia Artis, Kiona's case manager with The Connection program, is most compelling regarding Kiona's compliance. Ms. Artis, whose testimony clearly demonstrated that she had no "ax to grind," went above and beyond the call of duty to assist Kiona in finding housing and employment. Yet, despite Ms. Artis's efforts, Kiona did not show up for appointments, did not answer phone calls from Ms. Artis and showed resistance to completion of employment applications. Additionally, although policy dictated that Kiona should have been discharged from the program because of an incident she had with the maternal grandmother in February 2005 which resulted in a criminal charge, Ms. Artis continued to work with Kiona, however, Kiona's compliance was still lacking.
Kiona contends that the petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts when it unreasonably interfered with and caused the cessation of The Connection program. According to Ms. Artis, notwithstanding the filing of the petition to terminate Kiona's parental rights, Kiona's noncompliance with the requirements of the Connection Program is what led to the termination of these services. Compliance with The Connection program required compliance with other service providers who were assisting Kiona, inter alia, Abundant Family Center, Project HERS and the Department. Kiona was not in compliance with all services.
Kiona concedes she was unsuccessfully discharged from the Project HERS program, however she contends that the petitioner's referral to this program in the first instance was unreasonable. She contends that if the petitioner believed she had an alcohol problem it should have treated the problem as such and referred her to Alcoholics Anonymous instead of "chasing the problem as if it were a drug problem." (Respondent's brief, p. 4.) The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Kiona did have a problem with alcohol. The testimony of several providers who smelled alcohol on Kiona when she met with them, and Kiona's display of erratic behavior and out of control anger substantiates this. The petitioner could have and probably should have addressed the alcohol problem more specifically by referring Kiona to Alcoholics Anonymous. However, the fact that it did not does not defeat the proposition that reasonable efforts at reunification were made. The petitioner made what the court finds as a reasonable attempt to grasp Kiona's alcohol problem. She failed to fully engage herself in the program in the first instance. Several unsuccessful attempts were made by the HERS clinician to engage Kiona, however she failed to respond and, was defiant towards recommendations for anger management and coping skills group sessions. In addition, the petitioner provided housing and employment referrals, counseling services, reunification services, visitation, parent aide services and transportation. The fact that the petitioner failed to refer Kiona to Alcoholics Anonymous does not vitiate the numerous other efforts made by the petitioner to reunify Kiona with her children. The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the petitioner made all reasonable efforts to reunify Kiona with her children.
2. Adjudicatory Findings
"To justify the termination of parental rights in the absence of consent, one or more of the grounds set forth in General Statutes § [17a-112(j)(3)] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 118, 614 A.2d 832 (1992). "In contrast to custody proceedings, in which the best interests of the child are always the paramount consideration and in fact, usually dictate the outcome, in termination proceedings the statutory criteria must be met before termination can be accomplished and adoption proceedings can begin. No all encompassing best interests standard vitiates the requirement of compliance with the statutory criteria." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 538, 744 A.2d 915 (2000). There must be "strict compliance with the statutory criteria [of § 17a-112(j)(3)] before termination of parental rights and subsequent adoption proceedings can occur." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Juvenile Appeal (84-BC), 194 Conn. 252, 257, n. 9, 479 A.2d 1204 (1984). No findings are necessary as to respondent father Na-im B., Sr. in light of his consent.
The sole statutory ground upon which the petitioner relies to terminate the parental rights of Kiona is, that "[t]he child has been found by the Superior Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take and facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). As Kyon, Kavon and Na-im have been found to be neglected in a prior proceeding, the question to be determined is whether Kiona has achieved such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of Kyon, Kavon and Na-im, Kiona could assume a responsible position in their lives. The court finds in favor of the petitioner on this ground.
" `Personal rehabilitation' as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive useful role as a parent . . . [Section 17a-112] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time. [The statute] requires the court to find by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation that [Kiona has] achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [Kyon, Kavon and Na-im's] life." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that between January 2003 and June 29, 2005, Kiona failed to achieve the level of rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that she could assume a responsible position in Kyon, Kavon and Na-im's life, given their ages and needs, in the near future. The court recognizes that Kiona made some improvements during this time. Clearly, she consistently visited the boys and interacted with them appropriately during their visits. She attended and successfully completed a sickle cell refresher course so that she could appropriately handle Kavon's sickle cell disease. Most notably, Kiona completed forty-five sessions with Grace Yancek. However, despite this, the level of improvement Kiona reached still falls short of that which is required to care for Kyon, Kavon and Na-im. Although Kiona attended the counseling sessions with Grace Yancek, her behavior demonstrated that she did not apply what she should have been learning through counseling. The evidence demonstrates that Kiona while in counseling continued to display erratic behavior and out-of-control anger which resulted in the loss of an overnight visit with her children in December 2004. Kiona had many confrontations with her mother which culminated to the point of reunification efforts having to end when an altercation between Kiona and her mother occurred during an overnight visit with the boys in January 2005. Kiona had another altercation with her mother in February 2005 which resulted in assault charges which were ultimately dismissed after she completed the Family Violence Program. Kiona also exhibited angry and defiant behavior in the HERS Program, toward Troy Moses of Abundant Family Center and Ms. Georgia Chapman of the Connection Program.
Abundant Family provided reunification and other counseling services from November 2004 until February 2005. Kiona missed half of the scheduled appointments with Troy Moses, program director of Abundant Family, and it was during this time in December 2004 when Abundant Family was to start overnight visits, that Kiona displayed erratic behavior and out-of-control anger which resulted in cancellation of the visit. Kiona failed to successfully complete the Abundant Family program. The petitioner provided Kiona with housing referrals in the form of shelter placements which could have led to permanent housing. Kiona refused or did not follow through on the referrals. She was referred to The Connection Program in May 2004 and was assigned a case manager in February 2005. The Connection Program would have essentially guaranteed housing and employment for Kiona had she complied with the program. Kiona failed to comply with the program, and services were therefore terminated.
Kiona was very consistent in attending visits with her boys and appropriately interacted with them during the visits. However, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that despite the number of years of counseling and parent aide services provided to Kiona, she has not demonstrated the ability to manage the boys without assistance from her Aunt Valerie. Kiona still needs the assistance of an older person to serve as a mentor to assist in parenting the children. Kiona did not have enough money to bring snacks for the children during visits. Kiona has had four years to rehabilitate herself and she has had the tools handed to her "on a silver platter" to do it. She failed to take advantage of the opportunity to rehabilitate herself to the level that would encourage the belief that she could assume a responsible position in the boys lives given their ages and needs.
The statutory framework of § 17a-112(j)(B)(i) requires the court to analyze the parents' rehabilitation "as it relates to the needs of the particular child" and consider if such rehabilitation is foreseeable "within a reasonable time." In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 167, 554 A.2d 722 (1989), In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 366-67, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). Because of this requirement that the court predict what may happen within a "reasonable time" after the filing of the termination petitions, the court must consider not only Kiona's conduct prior to the filing of the petitions, but also her conduct since that time.
Kiona's last session with Grace Yancek was in July 2005. Kiona was reportedly making progress, however, Grace Yancek's note of July 8, 2005 indicates further sessions were recommended. Upon Ms. Yancek's departure from the New Beginnings program, the program attempted to continue the counseling service for Kiona with another counselor. Kiona did not keep her scheduled appointment and did not contact New Beginnings. Kiona was provided additional assistance for housing in August 2005, including a list of housing resources and lists for subsidized housing. Kiona was also offered transportation in August 2005 to actually search for apartments, however she refused this assistance. Kiona was offered employment assistance in August 2005, however she failed to follow through. Kiona was informed by the petitioner of a housing fair in September 2005, however, she did not attend the housing fair. Kiona testified that she located a one-bedroom apartment in Hartford. Kiona was asked by the petitioner to follow up on this housing possibility, however she did not. In May 2006, Kiona asked Ivy Young, of My People's Clinical Services for assistance with employment and housing. Ms. Young agreed to assist Kiona in these areas, however, Kiona failed to keep a follow-up appointment with Ms. Young or to ever contact Ms. Young again. Except for a brief employment period with Scan Optics, from May 2005 until June 2005, Kiona has not maintained any regular employment since the removal of the boys in January 2003. As of the last day of trial, in December 2006 Kiona remained unemployed, had not found housing and was still residing with her Aunt Valerie.
Dr. Stephanie Leite, the court-appointed psychologist examined Kiona in March 2006. Dr. Leite agrees with Ms. Yancek's diagnosis of depression. Dr. Leite opined that as of the date of her evaluation of Kiona in March 2006, rehabilitation was not likely because of Kiona's defensive position and depression. (Testimony of Dr. Leite.) According to Dr. Leite, Kiona "easily gets into conflicts with other people because of poor coping skills, a gross suspiciousness of others and a tendency to blame others for her own failings." (Pet. Ex. 10, p. 6.) Dr. Leite further opined that Kiona's depression is a part of her personality style. (Testimony of Dr. Leite.) According to Dr. Leite, Kiona needs ongoing therapy. It is Dr. Leite's opinion that a person with depression can function as an appropriate parent but only with engagement of appropriate services, such as therapy. Dr. Leite's recommendation that Kiona engage in ongoing therapy is consistent with Ms. Yancek's July 2005 recommendation. As of the time of trial, Kiona had yet to re-engage in therapy or any other form of counseling despite Yancek's recommendation in July 2005.
Kiona, during her testimony, failed to set forth a definite plan regarding how she would resolve the chronic employment and housing concerns that she herself admits are barriers to her rehabilitation (Testimony of Kiona U.), and she concedes that she is not immediately capable of raising her boys as a parent, but will be "in the very near future once housing is available." (Respondent mother's brief, p. 7.) However, in its totality, given the length of time that Kiona has had to rehabilitate and the tools provided to her to do so, the clear and convincing evidence compels the conclusion that Kiona lacks the ability to assume a responsible position in Kyon, Kavon and Na-im's lives within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The grounds upon which the petitioner relies to terminate the parental rights of the respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon and Kavon are that the boys were abandoned by their respective John Doe fathers in the sense that these fathers have failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the boys, General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A), and that there is no on-going relationship between the boys and the respondent John Doe fathers, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D).
The petitioner claims that the respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon and Kavon have abandoned them. "Abandonment focuses on the parent's conduct . . . A lack of interest in the child is not the sole criterion in determining abandonment . . . General Statutes § 17-112(j)(3)(A) defines abandonment as the fail[ure] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . . Abandonment occurs where a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child, and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare . . ." In re Deana E., 61 Conn.App. 185, 193, 763 A.2d 37 (2000). The respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon and Kavon have not visited the boys, have made no attempts to contact them, have provided no financial support, have never asked about the welfare of the boys and have shown no concern for the boys as evidenced by their lack of involvement in visits, medical appointments and their failure to inquire of the boys situation. The evidence is clear and convincing that the respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon and Kavon have abandoned them.
The petitioner alleges that the respondent John Doe fathers of Kavon and Kyon have no ongoing parent-child relationship with them. "[Section 17a-112(j)(3)(D)] requires the trial court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists, and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop . . . In considering whether an ongoing parent-child relationship exists, the feelings of the child are of paramount importance . . . The ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent . . . Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jonathan G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 525, 777 A.2d 695 (2001).
Neither Kyon nor Kavon have any present memories of their respective John Doe fathers in that neither child has seen his father since they were infants. Neither Kyon nor Kavon have sought their fathers out for comfort or asked for their fathers. The evidence is clear and convincing that no ongoing parent-child relationship exists between the respondent John Doe fathers and Kyon and Kavon.
CT Page 10964
B. DISPOSITION 1. Mandatory Findings § 17a-112(k)
"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 exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Danuael D., 51 Conn.App. 829, 835-37, 724 A.2d 546 (1999)."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 arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k)]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Vanna A., 83 Conn.App. 17, 26, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004). "The factors, however, serve simply as guidelines to assist the court in its determination of the child's best interest, and each factor need not be proven by clear and convincing evidence." In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-59, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). "The judicial authority may admit into evidence any testimony relevant and material to the issue of the disposition, including events occurring through the close of the evidentiary hearing, but no disposition may be made by the judicial authority until any mandated social study has been submitted to the judicial authority. Said study shall be marked as an exhibit subject to the right of any party to require that the author, if available, appear for cross-examination." Practice Book § 53a-9.
The court, after having considered all testimony and documentary evidence relating to the issue of disposition, and which evidence includes all relevant social studies and events occurring through the close of the trial, makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence:
1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.Appropriate and timely services were provided to Kiona and Kyon, Kavon and Na-im by the petitioner. Referrals for Kiona were made to numerous service providers to help her address substance/alcohol abuse, mental health, housing and employment issues. These service providers include St. Francis Parent Aide program, parenting groups through Klingberg Family Centers, individual counseling with Kim Newland-Carter, individual counseling with Grace Yancek though New Beginnings, Project HERS program for anger management/coping skills, substance abuse classes, and HIV/AIDS education and prevention. Family reunification and preservation services were provided through Abundant Family Center who also provided supervised visitation services between Kiona and the boys. The petitioner offered housing assistance, including shelter placements and placement through the Village for Families and Children. Housing and employment assistance was also offered through The Connection Program. Unsupervised and supervised visitation with Kyon, Kavon and Na-im was provided as well as transportation services. Services could not be provided to the respondent John Doe fathers since their whereabouts were unknown and remain unknown.
2. Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 as amended.As noted above, DCF has made reasonable efforts, to reunify Kiona with Kyon, Kavon and Na-im however, Kiona was unwilling to benefit from those efforts. Respondent John Doe fathers are unknown and on December 2, 2003, the court (Bentivegna, J.), found by clear and convincing evidence that continued efforts toward reunification with respondent John Doe fathers were no longer appropriate.
3. The terms of an applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order(s).Specific steps were ordered for Kiona, however, she did not comply with several of them. After Kyon, Kavon and Na-im were removed, referrals for Kiona were made for substance abuse and mental health treatment and housing and employment assistance. Although Kiona participated in some of the services to which she was referred there were many in which she did not fully participate. Kiona missed appointments and failed to follow through on recommended treatment and housing and employment referrals, all of which have been addressed in detail above. Given Kiona's lack of participation in many of the services offered, she was unwilling to benefit from the services provided to help her address her issues so that she could effectively parent Kyon, Kavon and Na-im.
4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to their parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.Kyon, Kavon and Na-im have positive feelings toward Kiona. Kiona does love the three boys and wants to interact well with them and do a "good job" as a parent and, overall is dedicated to them. The children share a strong bond with each other and with their mother. Dr. Leite, the court-appointed psychologist, concluded that it is in the best interest of the boys that they be in a permanent placement. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Kiona cannot provide such permanency for the boys now nor within a reasonable period of time. Dr. Leite also concluded that Kiona is not able to meet the children's psychological needs and is not likely to do so in the future. The boys are presently in a foster home where they have structure, stability and some sense of permanency. It has been four years since the removal of these boys and Kiona has yet to set forth a definite plan regarding where they will live and how she will care for them on a day-to-day basis. This court recognizes that the boys are not in a preadoptive home, however they are in a stable, nurturing environment which allows them some sense of permanency which Kiona cannot give them now nor within a reasonable period of time. Kiona contends that it is not in the best interest of the boys to terminate her parental rights because their exists a strong bond between herself and the boys and because the boys are not in a preadoptive home. After careful review and consideration of the evidence and relevant case law, it is clear, that even where there is the presence of a bond between a parent and a child and even though a child may not be adopted, combined with the recommendation of the expert, the presence of the bond does not undermine the conclusion that termination is in the child's best interest. In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004). Furthermore, the Appellate Court has concluded that a termination of parental rights is appropriate in circumstances where the children are bonded with their parent if it is in their best interest to do so. In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 106, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000). The respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon and Kavon are unknown and Kyon and Kavon have no emotional ties to them. Na-im B., Sr. has consented to a termination of his parental rights to Na-im, Jr. and therefore acknowledges that termination is in Na-im's best interest. Nonetheless, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Na-im, Jr. has no emotional ties or bond with Na-im, Sr. Na-im, Jr. was only three months old when he was removed from his mother and father, and he has not had contact with Na-im, Sr. since his removal.
5. The age of the child.
Kyon was born on August 25, 1996, and is ten years and nine months old. Kavon was born on December 25, 1999 and is seven and a half years old. Na-im was born on September 24, 2002 and is four years and eight months old. All three boys are together in their current foster home. All three are medically up to date and are being well cared for. Although they are presently not in a pre-adoptive home, they are in a structured and nurturing environment. Kyon is involved in community activities such as football and baseball and participates in a dance/acrobatic class and has performed in recitals and competitions. Kavon has an interest in becoming a firefighter or a police officer. As of October 2006 he was enrolled in drum lessons. Na-im, the youngest of the three has adjusted very well to his foster home. He was tested for special education services in December 2005. As of October 2006, he was on the wait list for preschool and upon entering would be provided special education services. Foster care should be a strictly time-limited interval in the life of any child. The Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq., as amended, envisages that after twelve months in foster care a child deserves a permanent home. Kyon, Kavon and Na-im have been in foster care for over four years. They should be legally free for adoption without further delay.
6. The efforts each parent has made to adjust his or her circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return home in the foreseeable future.Neither Kiona nor the respondent John Doe fathers of Kyon and Kavon have adjusted their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of Kyon, Kavon and Na-im to return to either of them in the foreseeable future. Neither of them, have any current viable plans for the boys to live with them.
7. The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.Nothing has prevented Kiona or the respondent John Doe fathers from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Kyon, Kavon and Na-im. Due to the lack of the identity of respondent John Doe fathers, visitation could not be provided to them. Kiona's visits with the boys were frequent (weekly) and regular. The lack of a meaningful relationship is not due to any unreasonable interference by DCF, foster parent, or any other third party, but rather due to Kiona's unwillingness to address her issues and the lack of the identity of respondent John Doe fathers.
2. BEST INTERESTS
With respect to the best interests of the child as contemplated by General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2), based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of Kiona, respondent John Doe fathers, and respondent father Na-im, Sr. as to Kyon, Kavon and Na-im is in their best interest. The boys are very bright children who are developing appropriately and have no medical problems. The boys are presently in a nurturing, structured and stable environment and have a sense of permanency, consistency and stability which is crucial for them right now.
The respondents are unable to assume responsible parental roles for the boys. None of them have put forth a viable plan to secure and maintain permanency for these boys. Kiona has failed to address her issues, respondent fathers of Kyon and Kavon are unknown and recognizing that he is unable to care for Na-im, respondent father, Na-im B., Sr. has consented to the termination of his parental rights to Na-im. In view of the fact that Kiona, respondent John Doe fathers and Na-im B., Sr. are not in a position to care for Kyon, Kavon and Na-im right now or at any reasonably foreseeable time in the future, termination of their parental rights is in the best interest of Kyon, Kavon and Na-im.
In finding that termination of the respondents' parental rights would be in Kyon, Kavon, and Na-im's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors including the boys interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environment; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of their relationship with the foster mother and biological parents; the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents; and their genetic bond to the respondents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). The court has also balanced the boys' intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the potential benefit of maintaining a connection with their biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity). Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establish that termination of respondents' parental rights is in Kyon, Kavon and Na-im's best interest.
With regard to permanency, the court considers the testimony of Dr. Leite who opined that it is in the best interest of children, generally, to be in a permanent placement and that it is in the best interest of these boys to find them a permanent home. Kyon, Kavon and Na-im are entitled to resolution, without delay, of the period of uncertainty as to the availability of respondents to serve as their parents by terminating respondents' parental rights. After considering the boys' sense of time, their need for a secure and permanent environment, the need to avoid future placements, and the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that termination of respondents' parental rights is in Kyon, Kavon and Na-im's best interest.
C. REVIEW OF PERMANENCY PLANS
Pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129(k) and Practice Book § 35a-14, on May 11, 2005, the petitioner filed Motions to Review Permanency Plan and Maintain Commitment as to the three boys. In its motions, the petitioner requested the court to review and approve the plan for termination of parental rights and adoption and to maintain commitment of Kyon, Kavon and Na-im, as both were in their best interest. The petitioner also requested the court to find that it made reasonable efforts to achieve the identified permanency plan and to find by clear and convincing evidence that continuing efforts to reunify Kyon, Kavon and Na-im with Kiona were no longer appropriate. On May 24, 2005 and June 7, 2005 both Kiona and Na-im B., Sr. filed objections to the permanency plan which were consolidated with the termination of parental rights trial.
At a hearing on the Motion for Review of Permanency Plan and to Maintain Commitment, the judicial authority shall determine by a fair preponderance of the evidence whether it is in the best interest of the child to maintain commitment. General Statutes § 46b-129(k); Practice Book § 35a-14. The party seeking to maintain the commitment has the burden of proof. Id. In addition to determining whether to maintain the commitment, the judicial authority shall also determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether efforts have been made by DCF to reunify the child with the parent, whether DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan, whether the proposed goal of the permanency plan is in the best interest of the child, and, whether by clear and convincing evidence efforts to reunify the child with the parent are still appropriate. Id. DCF has the burden of proof in each determination to be made by the court. Id.
Based upon the evidence introduced at the termination of the parental rights trial, including but not limited to, the social study and addendum submitted in support of the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:
1. The plan for termination of parental rights and adoption is in the best interest of Kyon, Kavon and Na-im and therefore approves the plan filed on May 11, 2005.
2. It is in Kyon, Kavon and Na-im's best interest to maintain their commitment and therefore the court grants DCF's Motion to Maintain the Commitment filed on May 11, 2005.
3. DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the identified permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that:
4. Continuing efforts to reunify Kyon, Kavon and Na-im with their mother, Kiona U. is no longer appropriate.
The court overrules all objections to the permanency plans.
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
Based on the findings that have been made by clear and convincing evidence and considering the seven factors set forth in the previous section, it is hereby ORDERED that the parental rights of Kiona U., because of her failure to rehabilitate within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) and respondent John Doe fathers because they have abandoned their respective sons within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(A), and there is no ongoing parent-child relationship within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(D), and respondent father Na-im B., Sr. because he has consented, hereby are terminated, and that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the purpose of placing the children in adoption. A permanency plan shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and such further reports shall be timely presented to the court as required by law.
The court recognizes the strong bond that exists between the boys, their mother and their extended family members. The court therefore recommends that supervised visitation continue up to and post-adoption if therapeutically appropriate.
More importantly, this court recognizes the strong bond that exists between the boys and finds that separation of the boys would be detrimental to them and not in their best interest. This court therefore orders that the boys remain together for any future placements.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ORDERED this May 11, 2007.