Opinion
F04CP15003300B F04CP15003301B
07-17-2018
IN RE MARIAH E.-F. In re Dora E.-F.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Honorable James P. Ginocchio, Judge
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) (Department) has filed a petition to terminate the parental rights (T.P.R) of respondent mother, Angela E. (Ms. E.), and respondent father, Robert F. (Mr. F.), father of Mariah E-F. (Mariah), who was born on January 5, 2004, and Dora E-F. (Dora), who was born on June 12, 2007. The respondents were not married to each other. Both respondents were properly served and the court has jurisdiction.
Pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), the petitioner alleged that Mariah and Dora were previously adjudicated as neglected children and that Ms. E. and Mr. F. have failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the children, that pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(C) as to Mariah, the child or youth has been denied, by reason of an act or acts by mother, Ms. E., of commission or omission, including but not limited to sexual molestation or exploitation, severe physical abuse or a pattern of abuse, the care, guidance or control necessary for his/her physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being; and pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(D), as to Mariah and Dora, there is no ongoing parent/child relationship with respect to the father, Mr. F., that ordinarily develops as a result of the parent having met on a continuing 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 the parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child or youth.
A trial was held before the undersigned. on May 23, May 29, June 4, and June 12, in 2018. The petitioner was represented by the assistant attorney general. A court-appointed attorney appeared for the minor children. A court-appointed attorney also appeared on behalf of both the mother and the father. Father was present during the entire trial. Mother appeared at the commencement of trial on May 23, 2018, but left court shortly after testimony began. She again appeared briefly on May 29, 2018, and indicated she was not going to be able to remain for the trial.
The court heard testimony from various witnesses including, Jennifer Birden, DCF Supervisor; Jennifer Bringman, current treatment worker; Mariah; Officer John Dickinson, Danbury Police Department; Michael Ralabate, LMFT; Kurt Schaab, Adult Parole; and Mr. F., respondent father.
Lists of Exhibits: State’s Exhibit (A)- TPR Social Study dated April 26, 2017; State’s Exhibit (D)- Amended Study in Support of Permanency Plan, dated November 16, 2017; State’s Exhibit (E)- State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families CPS Report Narrative; State’s Exhibit (F)- correspondence from respondent mother to Department dated May 2, 2018; State’s Exhibit (G)- DCF correspondence to respondent mother; State’s Exhibit (H)- DCF correspondence to respondent father; State’s Exhibit (K)- certified criminal court documents regarding Peter F.; State’s Exhibit (L)- Danbury Police Department incident report dated November 20, 2016; State’s Exhibit (M)- Certified Criminal History of respondent mother; State’s Exhibit (N)- Certified Criminal History of respondent father; State’s Exhibit (N)- Criminal Conviction Certification Record for Peter F.; State’s Exhibit (P)- Running Narrative Document (DCF); State’s Exhibit (Q)- Mother’s Specific Steps dated March 6, 2015; State’s Exhibit (R)- Father’s’ Specific Steps dated March 6, 2015; State’s Exhibit (S)- Addendum to the Social Study for Termination of Parental Rights Petition, dated May 18, 2018;
Child’s Exhibit (C1)- photograph of Dora’s room; Child’s Exhibit (C2)- photograph of Dora’s room and bed; Child’s Exhibit (C3)- photograph of Dora’s room; Child’s Exhibit (C4)- photograph of Mariah’s room; Child’s Exhibit (C5)- photograph of Mariah’s closet; Child’s Exhibit (C6)- letter written by Mariah;
Respondent Mother’s Exhibit (M1)- letter from MCCA Residential Detoxification Clinic, dated January 11, 2017; Respondent Mother’s Exhibit (M2)- letter from MCCA Sobering Center, dated January 27, 2017; Respondent Mother’s Exhibit (M3)- letter from McCall Center for Behavioral Health, dated February 16, 2017;
Respondent Father’s Exhibit (F1)- Certificate of Participation and Completion- The Family ReEntry Fresh Start Program, dated March 19, 2015; Respondent Father’s Exhibit (F2)- Certificate of Completion- Self-Awareness Behavioral Therapy, dated July 23, 2010.
Adjudication
The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition. In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether the statutory ground for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence. In re Pascacio R., 52 Conn.App. 106, 109, 726 A.2d 114 (1999). In making the adjudicatory determination, the court is limited to considering events preceding the filing of the termination petition or the latest amendment. In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 367, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995). In this case, the petition for termination of parental rights was filed on April 27, 2017. It includes Ground B1, Ground C, and Ground D.
The court reviewed the many documents entered into evidence. After considering all of the testimony and documentary evidence presented and having the opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanor on the stand, and evaluate their testimony with all other testimony, the court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence.
Ground B1 as to the Respondent Mother (Ms. E.), Mariah and Dora
Based upon the foregoing, this court finds that Mariah and Dora have been found in a prior proceeding on December 23, 2015, to have been neglected and the mother and father have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the children. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
DCF has alleged as a ground for termination that respondent mother and father failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that they could assume a responsible position in the neglected children’s life within a reasonable time. In ruling on this allegation, the court is required to consider the age and needs of the children. C.G.S. 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). "Personal rehabilitation ... refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent [and] requires the court to analyze the [parent’s] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child." In Re Dylan C., 126 Conn.App. 71, 88 (2011), citing In Re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 789, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008). In order to meet its burden of proof with respect to such an allegation, the petitioner must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent’s level of rehabilitation " ... falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date she can assume a responsible position in her child’s life." (Internal quotation marks and internal citations omitted.) In Re Dylan C., Id.
In cases where the parents have made efforts to rehabilitate, courts have found that such efforts speak to the parents’ own conduct and not the best interests of the child. In Re Daniel A., Jr., 150 Conn.App. 78 (2014). Courts have found that despite a conviction that a parent sincerely intends to make positive strides, there was a greater conviction that it is not in the child’s best interest to delay permanency to see if a parent can achieve rehabilitation sufficient to care for the child and that a delay in permanency could be damaging to a child’s emotional health and development. In Re Daniel A., Jr., 150 Conn.App. 78 (2014). "[I]n 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 [or children] at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In Re Kasmaesha C., 148 Conn.App. 666, 680, 84 A.3d 1279, cert. denied, 311 Conn. 937, 88 A.3d 549 (2014). In In Re Adriana C., 153 Conn.App. 683 (2014), the court found that any reunification of the parent with the child constituted too large a risk for failure, with the potential for irreparable harm to the children, with little to no potential net gain for the children. In addition, the court found that the parent/child bond that presently exists between the children and the parent is overshadowed by the emotional bond and stability the children now enjoy with their foster family, and although the parent had made significant and substantial personal strides towards rehabilitation, her accomplishments did not include stable housing. The court found that in terms of the children’s needs and best interests, the parent’s accomplishments were "too little, too late."
The Children Mariah
Mariah is a 14-year-old young girl who remains in foster care. Mariah is stable and happy, and is managing her trauma and healing. Mariah has a positive outlook and has been very articulate about her needs and wants, while being cognizant of not influencing her sister, Dora. While living in Connecticut, Mariah attended school in New Milford. Mariah enjoys school and is excelling in science. She is a social girl with many friends. Mariah is becoming fashion conscious, having her own sense of style. Mariah formed a strong attachment to her foster family in Connecticut and felt emotionally supported and safe with them. Mariah does not want to return home to her mother, father, or maternal grandparents and is strong in that opinion. Mariah has not wanted any contact or visits with her maternal grandparents due to her grandmother’s lack of acknowledgment of her role in Mariah’s abuse and feeling that her grandmother had not supported her and made her feel safe. Mariah has continued to share stories of her experiences when under her grandparents’ care, during the times they would leave her and her sister with their mother and had no idea what was going on with them. Mariah shared stories about her having to care for Lelo, her great grandfather, who was left in her grandparents’ care. The grandparents later put Lelo in respondent mother’s home. Mariah talked about having to supervise him, feed him, and clean him. Mariah has shared that she and Dora were left alone many times, for long periods. She had shared stories about having to pick through garbage dumpsters with her mother and times when she and Dora were left alone in a car, where she and her sister would be asked to urinate in bottles for mother and her friends, most of which occurred when under the care of her grandparents. The Department has been able to identify other family supports and was able to connect with an older maternal cousin, with whom Mariah has become close to and expressed wanting to live with. Mariah remains in therapy for continuing work around her trauma and is working through her relationship with her family. Mariah’s clinician at Family and Children’s Aid, Jenna Capote, was impressed with Mariah’s maturity and ability to articulate her feelings. She supported Mariah in her not wanting any contact with her parents or grandparents, given how unsafe she felt with them. However, the Department, with her clinician, encouraged her to consider future contact with them. Mariah recently had to revisit her trauma in preparation for the criminal trial for Peter F. Mariah handled this with maturity and strength. Mariah was very relieved upon hearing she would not have to testify and that Peter F. had pled guilty and will remain in prison for abusing her. Mariah is anxious to move on with her life and is hopeful she will be able to remain in her cousin’s home in California. Mariah is a healthy, young girl with no medical issues. Mariah receives routine dental and medical care as required. (State’s Exhibit A p. 10-11.)
Mariah testified at trial via videoconference from California. She appeared bright, articulate, and extremely credible. She testified that she does not know Mr. F. as her father being that he has been out of her life for substantial periods of time. She is very well aware of the fact that his absence in her life has been due to his long periods of incarceration. At this time she has no desire to have any contact with Mr. F. Mariah also described her life with her mother while living in Connecticut. It was a tragic tale in which she described in specific detail incidents which she and Dora were exposed to as young children. When Mariah was being sexually assaulted by her mother’s boyfriend, Ms. E. was sleeping in another room. Mariah is very well aware of her mother’s mental health and substance abuse issues and at this time has no desire to have contact with her.
Dora
Dora is an 11-year-old girl who continues to reside in foster care. Before leaving for California, Dora and Mariah lived in a foster home in New Milford, CT, where they were placed in March 2015. Dora is not fully aware of the circumstances which brought her into care, but like Mariah, continues to share stories of the neglect and abuse they suffered in the care of their maternal grandparents and mother. Dora has a closer emotional connection to her maternal grandparents and continued to visit them weekly when residing in Connecticut. Dora also expressed wanting no contact with her mother or father. Dora is a typical little girl in many ways, liking dolls and playing. Dora likes listening to music and enjoys attending school and being with friends. Dora felt secure in her New Milford foster home and wanted it to be a permanent placement, however, she realized that it was not a forever home. Dora has been connected to the elder maternal cousin and reported feeling comfortable with her and also wanted to live with her. Dora still wants to please others, though she is beginning to exert more independence and self-determination. Dora also attended weekly therapy with Jenna Capote, at Family and Children’s Aid. Ms. Capote was supportive of Dora’s decision to not have contact with her mother and father. Dora enjoys school, is a good student, and has many friends. Dora does not have any learning issues at this time, with her prior speech issues resolving after her tonsillectomy. Dora is a healthy, young girl who will need orthodontic work. Dora also continues to have enuresis for which she is now taking medication. (Id. at 11-12.)
Mother
Ms. E. was born to her mother and father, Antonio and Cecelia E. on August 2, 1974, in Queens, New York. Ms. E. and her family moved to Connecticut where she attended St. Peter’s Elementary and Middle School, then attended Immaculate High School for two years and then transferred to Danbury High School, where she graduated. Ms. E. went on to attend college, first at the University of Pittsburgh and then the University of Connecticut. Ms. E. did not graduate college. Ms. E. reported a diagnosis of Bi-Polar disorder and has struggled with mental health issues for many years. Ms. E. has reported being involved in various mental health treatment services and using alternative treatments instead of medications. Ms. E. has had difficulty maintaining stability in any treatment. Ms. E reported her substance use began with marijuana at age 19. Ms. E. has a criminal history dating back to 2010, where she was arrested in Westchester County, New York, when she was caught with Peter F. using heroin in her car with Dora in the backseat. Ms. E. incurred additional charges relating to her substance abuse in November 2016, (State’s Exhibit L) and in March 2017.
Ms. E. reported she has never been married and began her relationship with Mr. F. in 2001. The couple was never married, but produced two children, Mariah, born in 2004, and. Dora born in 2007. Ms. E. reported she met Peter F. in approximately 2010, through her business. Ms. E. reported that they began their relationship after he assisted her in organizing and structuring her business. He then began helping her with the care of Mariah and Dora. Ms. E. reported she ended her relationship with Peter F. before learning of his rape of Mariah.
DCF became involved with Ms. E. in 2006, due to child protection concerns, substance abuse, and unaddressed mental health issues.
On April 2, 2015, Ms. E. met with the Department and agreed to provide a release of information to receive an ABH referral for a substance abuse evaluation at MCCA, Inc.
On April 15, 2015, Ms. E. scheduled a walk-in appointment at MCCA, Inc. Ms. E. was instructed by MCCA, Inc. to return at 2 pm for her substance abuse evaluation. At 2 pm, Ms. E. contacted MCCA, Inc. and cancelled her appointment for the evaluation due to not having a way of getting to the appointment. The appointment was rescheduled for April 28, 2015, and she was also encouraged to return on Wednesday if she would like to do a walk-in instead of waiting for her next appointment. Ms. E. did not attend the walk-in appointment nor did she keep her scheduled appointment for April 28, 2015. (State’s Exhibit A p. 15.)
On May 26, 2015, the Department reminded Ms. E. that she will need to attend a substance abuse evaluation at MCCA, Inc. Ms. E. stated that she did not wish to attend MCCA, Inc. anymore as she did not like "the feeling she got when she was last there." Ms. E. was informed of other contracted services that she could attend for substance abuse evaluation. She stated she did not want to attend any services that are contracted by the Department and stated she will go to Quest Diagnostics for a drug screening. Ms. E. did not follow through with this and did not receive a drug screening. (Id. at 15-16.)
On May 26, 2015, Ms. E. was asked if she would perform a hair test for the Department and she stated that she would not agree to a hair test. Ms. E. failed to attend scheduled appointment in June 2015. (Id. at 16.)
From May 2015, to January 2017, Ms. E. had not performed any substance abuse evaluation or drug screening. Ms. E. has a self-reported history of substance abuse, and was arrested in November 2016, for charges including possession of a controlled substance. From January 9, 2017, to January 14, 2017, she entered a detox program through MCCA and was then referred to the Carnes Weeks Center in Torrington, Connecticut. She remained there from January 15, 2017, until the beginning of March 2017. At that time, it was reported by Ms. E.’s juvenile court attorney that she was in a program in New Haven through the jail diversionary program. There was testimony at trial that she has failed to provide releases to indicate whether or not she was successfully in compliance or successfully completed these programs. See Mother’s Exhibits (M1), (M2), (M3).
Ms. E. has not kept all appointments set by or with DCF. Ms. E. has been inconsistent with attendance and communication. Ms. E. failed to participate in scheduled meetings with the Department and supervised visits from March 2015 to April 2015. Ms. E. did not participate in the Considered Removal Meeting on March 6, 2015, in regard to planning for Dora and Mariah. Ms. E. then missed 15 scheduled visits with the children from April 29, 2015, to June 2015. Ms. E. did not attend the initial Administrative Case Review on May 11, 2015. Ms. E. did not attend subsequent Administrative Case Reviews on October 27, 2015, and April 19, of 2016. She attended an Administrative Case Review on October 13, 2016, but was unable to remain at the meeting due to her inability to maintain her emotions. (State’s Exhibit A p. 14.)
Ms. E. has informed the Department that she is diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and was medicated for this in the past. She stated that she was attending treatment for this diagnosis for five years and did not want to receive treatment any longer. (Id. at 17.) Ms. E. has not cooperated in any recommended services by the Department. Ms. E. was recommended to go to Newtown Family Services, MCCA (State’s Exhibit G), Catholic Charities, or a similar service for counseling. Ms. E. did not seek out counseling with these services or any other similar services stating that she had been in counseling for her mental health and did not need additional services. Ms. E. has not provided documentation of her reported engagement with a psychiatrist. Ms. E. was requested to engage in family sessions with Mariah in October 2015. Ms. E. did not respond to the Family and Children’s Aid clinician and was a no-show for a scheduled appointment. Ms. E. did engage with CCBH briefly, but provided a limited release for the Department in July 2016, so her involvement with this agency is unknown.
Ms. E. was recommended to work with the Ahavah Family Services during supervised visits and separate sessions for parenting education. Ms. E. was referred to Ahavah Family Services on April 23, 2015, and began services on May 20, 2015. Ms. E. was inconsistent in her attendance as to the supervised visits with the children. Ms. E. did not begin parenting education sessions with the Ahavah clinician as mother was inconsistent with appointments and would cancel her visits last minute, resulting in discharge from the service in. September 2015, due to her noncompliance. (State’s Exhibit A p. 17-18.)
The Department was made aware that in February 2017, Ms. E. had engaged in inpatient substance abuse treatment, but she failed to sign releases with the program provider. There was also testimony at trial from Michael Ralabate, a licensed therapist, that he has been treating Ms. E. for approximately one year. He testified that Ms. E. has been consistent with attendance and has had a positive attitude towards therapy. The goal of therapy is to have Ms. E. improve her decision-making and bring some structure to her life. Also, there would be need for her to discuss her children and the issues and facts that led to the loss of her children. Mr. Ralabate conceded that Ms. E. was not an accurate historian; he was not aware of her substance abuse history. Because of her mental health issues, Mr. Ralabate recommended that Ms. E. be put on medication. Medication would help her to manage her bipolar disorder. Mr. Ralabate concluded his testimony by stating that, although Ms. E. has made some progress in treatment, she has not been successful in coming to an understanding as to why her children are not in her care. On October 3, 2017, Ms. E. wrote the following letter to Joette Katz, Commissioner of the Department and Children and Families. (State’s Exhibit F.)
Dear Joette,
This is a fair warning letter for the return of my property. A woman and a man has used your office to harm me.
1) I Angela E. gave no entity the right to administer my property.
2) I say that exhibit A is my property.
3) I say that no man or woman will make claim saying my claim is untrue.
4) I want my property returned.
5) Said property will be totally under my control posthaste and returned to me within (3) three days.
6) I will charge the wrongful hold up of my property $1 dollar every minute of the day said property is not returned to me starting the 22nd day after suit is received.
Attached is Exhibit A, a picture of her child
On May 2, 2018, Ms. E. wrote the following letter to Commissioner Katz. (State’s Exhibit F.)
I, the woman commonly known as Angela E., forgive every man, woman, person, or agency of any harm that has occurred. Thank you for your services. I no longer wish to avail myself of your services. I require that my creation is restored to me, the woman commonly known as Angela E. Any man or woman who continues to administrate my creation other than the immediate restoration of my creation will be doing so without my consent and will be held liable for damages.
Angela E.
On November 20, 2016, Ms. E. was arrested for possession of a controlled substance/cannabis, larceny in the third degree and conspiracy to commit larceny. Ms. E. was again arrested on March 30, 2017, for assault in the third degree and breach of peace in the second degree in New Haven. Ms. E. also had pending charges from January 23, 2016, for breach of peace in the second degree and failure to appear. (State’s Exhibit M.)
Respondent mother should be commended for her recent participation in treatment and counseling. However, in spite of her minimal progress, the court must determine whether or not she has achieved such a degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in the life of the children. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). In order to make an informed decision, the court must fully consider the respondent mother’s history with regard to substance abuse and mental health issues.
The evidence at trial established that Ms. E., who is 44 years old, has an extensive history of substance abuse. Ms. E. has been unable to rehabilitate in the 10 years since she has been involved with the Department. Ms. E. has not had guardianship of Mariah and Dora since December 15, 2010. Due to her substance abuse and mental health issues, her children were placed under the guardianship of maternal grandparents, who did not always exercise good judgment on behalf of Mariah and Dora. Despite Ms. E. not having legal guardianship of her children, maternal grandmother allowed the children to reside with Ms. E. for periods of time and both girls were physically abused and neglected. This further exposed the children to the various men in mother’s life and her continued substance use. As a result, Mariah was sexually abused and raped by mother’s boyfriend, Peter F., who was charged and convicted of this crime.
Given Mariah and Dora’s age and need for permanency, the length of time that they have already spent in foster placements, the mother’s history of failed participation in multiple substance abuse programs and the nature of her other rehabilitative efforts to date, which the court finds to be insufficient, the court finds that Ms. E. will not be able to parent Mariah and Dora within a reasonable period of time. With respect to Mariah and Dora, the court finds that DCF has proven the alleged adjudicatory ground of parental failure to rehabilitate by clear and convincing evidence.
Ground C as to the Respondent Mother (Ms. E.), Mariah
As noted above, the factual findings in B1 should be incorporated into ground C as they relate to mother. Ms. E. entered into a relationship with Peter F., who had a lengthy criminal history and was a convicted felon. He had numerous convictions for larcenies, possession of narcotics, and violations of probation. He served a substantial period of time in prison. (State’s Exhibit O.) When he was not incarcerated, Ms. E. permitted Peter F. to reside in her home while the children were present. As a result, Mariah was sexually abused and raped by mother’s boyfriend, Peter F., on several occasions while the mother was at home. Mariah indicated that Peter F. had come into her bedroom while she was living with her mother, came into her bedroom one night, climbed on top of her, and committed sexual intercourse. At the time of the incident, which occurred in December 2014, Mariah was only 11 years old. Mariah had to undergo a forensic interview, she was concerned about the possibility of being pregnant, the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases, and she was also concerned that future incidents may happen with her sister if the defendant gets out and the children are returned back to the mother and they resume dating. (State’s Exhibit K.) Mariah had to be prepared to testify in the event the case went to trial. Fortunately for Mariah, she did not have to testify in open court as to the graphic details of the sexual assault. Peter F. pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to a period of incarceration and special parole. He was placed on the sex offender registry for life. (State’s Exhibit O.)
The court finds the Department has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence on this ground as to Mariah. The evidence clearly supports the termination of Ms. E.’s parental rights based on parental acts of commission or omission, that the Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that (1) as to Mariah, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(C), the child has "been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission, including, but not limited to, sexual molestation or exploitation, severe physical abuse or a pattern of abuse, the care, guidance or control necessary for the child’s physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being, except that non-accidental or inadequately explained serious physical injury to a child shall constitute prima facie evidence of acts of parental commission or omission sufficient for the termination of parental rights ..." (Ground C.)
Ground B1 as to the Respondent Father (Mr. F.), Mariah and Dora
Mr. F. was born in New Haven, Connecticut on February 7, 1971, to Mary and Richard F. Mr. F. reported he is the middle of three children, having a younger sister and an older sister. Mr. F. reported that his eldest sister resides in Vermont and his younger sister resides in a group home in Connecticut. Mr. F. reported that his parents are deceased. Mr. F. reported that he had a good childhood and a good relationship with his sisters. (State’s Exhibit A p. 4.)
Mr. F. reported that he attended St. Bernard’s Elementary School and attended Cross High School, though he did not receive his diploma. Mr. F. reported that he did attend college for one year at the University of Miami. Mr. F. has reported employment with the American Fiberglass Company as a teen, the Sea Wall Company in Florida and at various truck driving and labor jobs. (Id. )
Mr. F. reported never being married and that he met Ms. E. in 2000. Mr. F. described their relationship as good and that they had two children, Mariah and Dora. Mr. F. was incarcerated shortly after Dora’s birth in 2007. (Id. )
Mr. F. denied any medical or mental health issues, though he did describe that his substance abuse began over 10 years ago with prescription medication. Mr. F. had described engaging in some detox and substance abuse treatment. (Id. )
Mr. F. has a lengthy criminal history dating back to 1992. Mr. F. has convictions for charges that include: tampering with a motor vehicle, several counts of probation violations, several counts of failure to appear, several counts of drug possession, and several counts of burglaries and larcenies. (State’s Exhibit N.) Mr. F. has been under the supervision of the criminal justice system for the duration of his involvement with the Department. (Id. )
Mr. F. has been placed on parole as of November 20, 2014, and began living at Maple House in December 2014. Mr. F. began attending Family Re-entry in Bridgeport, Connecticut, while living at Maple House. Mr. F. complied with his treatment successfully completing the six sessions of individual counseling focused on relapse prevention, life skills group, eight sessions of anger management, a fatherhood support group and drug screenings made mandatory by Family Re-entry. Mr. F. informed the Department that he had a past addiction to prescription medication and had been sober for over 10 years. Mr. F. completed his programs and groups at Family Re-entry and was successfully discharged on May 19, 2015. (Id. at 24.)
In May, of 2015, Mr. F. was contacted by the Department and informed of his specific steps. (State’s Exhibit R.) Although the steps were approved and ordered as preliminary specific steps by the court, they were signed by Mr. F on March 11, 2015, and he was put on notice as to what steps he was required to do to avoid termination of his parental rights (the present case can be distinguished from the decision in In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485 2013. In Elvin G., no specific steps were ordered either as preliminary or final steps. The court found this omission to be a harmless error in light of the totality of circumstances that led to the father’s termination of parental rights). In Mr. F.’s case, he was told by the Department that his specific steps included individual counseling after completing his Family Re-entry Program. Mr. F. argued that he did not need additional counseling and failed to follow through with this recommendation. (State’s Exhibit P p. 7.)
After being discharged, Mr. F. attended parole stipulated groups in Danbury. During a random drug screening, Mr. F. was arrested due to testing positive for opiates which violated his parole and he was then incarcerated from September 2015, to February 2016. (State’s Exhibit P p. 16.)
Mr. F. again violated his parole in June 2016, after attempting to steal a vehicle, using heroin, and then fleeing the state in October 2016. During this period of time, Mr. F. did not notify the Department as to his whereabouts and his recent re-involvement with the criminal justice system. Mr. F. was arrested in Florida and extradited back to Connecticut in December 2016. (State’s Exhibit A p. 25-26.)
Parole Officer Kurt Schaab testified at trial and confirmed much of this information. He testified that he first met Mr. F. on July 8, 2015. In his first meeting with. Mr. F., he obtained background information with regard to Mr. F.’s criminal history and the charges that led up to his most recent convictions. He also obtained information regarding Mr. F.’s substance abuse history. Mr. F. was advised by his parole officer as to the conditions he would be required to follow. The conditions of parole included: that he obtain employment, that he possess no weapons, that he not leave the state without approval, that he report to his parole officer as scheduled, that he not consume alcohol, that he not use illegal substances and that he not violate the law. Parole Officer Schaab testified that Mr. F. missed his curfews on July 18, 19, 20, 21, in 2015. Mr. F. tested positive for illegal drugs on August 19, September 1, and September 23, in 2015. On September 30, 2015, Mr. F. was remanded to custody due to his violation of parole.
In February 2016, he was once again released to parole and sent to a halfway house. Mr. F. met with Parole Officer Schaab on May 9, 2016. Officer Schaab testified that for the months of May, June and July, in 2016, Mr. F. tested negative for any illegal substances, but on August 3, 2016, he relapsed by using heroin. On August 10, 2016, Mr. F. failed to report to parole. On August 17, 2016, Mr. F. met with this parole officer to discuss his recent involvement regarding a stolen motor vehicle. Mr. F. initially denied any involvement with regard to this incident until he was shown video evidence showing him to be a passenger in the stolen vehicle. Mr. F. later admitted that he knew the car was stolen. On August 24 and 31, in 2016, Mr. F. did not report to parole. On August 31, 2016, he failed to pick up his methadone dosage and was not in compliance with his substance abuse treatment. Due to his criminal involvement regarding a stolen motor vehicle, his failure to complete substance abuse treatment, and his failure to report to parole, Mr. F.’s case was referred to the fugitive team on September 19, 2016.
Mr. F. has not maintained stable housing since the onset of this case. Mr. F. had resided with Ms. E. when he was not residing in parole housing. Mr. F. was employed briefly with an ice company from May 2015, until September 2015, when he was again incarcerated. He did not disclose his work assignments after his release from prison in February 2016. (Id. at 25.)
Mr. F. did not keep appointments with the Department since his release from prison in February 2016. Mr. F. participated in. the Considered Removal Meeting on March 6, 2015, and the initial Administrative Case Review, on May 1, 2015. Mr. F. was unable to participate in the October 27, 2015, review due to his incarceration and he refused to participate on April 19, 2016, by telephone and failed to participate in June 2016.
Mr. F. was referred to Ahavah Family Services to attend parenting education and modeling during supervised visits. The referral was made on April 23, 2015, and the first visit was held on May 20, 2015. Mr. F. was inconsistent with attending the supervised visits due to his extensive work schedule. Ahavah Family Services and the Department worked to accommodate Mr. F.’s work schedule, but Mr. F. could not provide a consistent time that he would be available for visits. Mr. F. only attended the introductory parenting session and did not attend any parenting education sessions. Ahavah Family Services attempted several times to schedule a day and time to meet for further parenting sessions until July 2015. No other services were offered due to Mr. F.’s lack of consistency with the Department, his volatility during the few interactions, and his incarceration. (State’s Exhibit A p. 24.)
Mr. F. was provided visits with Mariah and Dora from March 13, 2015, after the children were placed in care, until his incarceration in September 2015. There was testimony that Mr. F. missed some visits due to work and transportation, but for the most part he was consistent and when he did visit the children he was appropriate. After Mr. F. was incarcerated again in 2016, Mariah and Dora expressed, through their therapist, Jenna Capote, that they no longer wished to visit their father.
As of April 2018, Mr. F. has been incarcerated. His maximum release date from prison is sometime in 2020 or 2021. Mr. F. testified that he would most likely be released earlier and sent to a halfway house. Mr. F. also testified that when he is released from prison he will have the capacity to obtain meaningful employment with substantial income. He intends on buying a three-bedroom home in the suburbs where he and the girls can live. He testified that he would cooperate with the Department, sign releases, comply with the steps, and do whatever was necessary to have his children returned to him.
Mr. F. testified that he has not been in his children’s lives mainly because of his incarceration. When he testified, he took no blame or accountability for his criminal conduct and how his multiple periods of incarceration affected his children. He portrayed himself as more of a victim of the criminal justice system as opposed to someone who knowingly chose to abuse drugs, to commit serious crimes, and to violate his parole on multiple occasions; all of this resulting in long periods of incarceration; all of this happening when his young children really needed him. Now, at the age of 47, Mr. F. proposes a grandiose plan in which he will no longer be involved in the criminal justice system, he will gain meaningful employment, cooperate with DCF, and he and his two daughters will live in a three-bedroom house in the suburbs. There is nothing in this case by way of testimony, evidence, or exhibits that would lead the court to believe this plan could ever materialize.
Given Mariah and Dora’s age and need for permanency, the length of time that they have already spent in foster placements, the father’s lengthy criminal history and multiple periods of incarceration, his failure to engage in meaningful substance abuse treatment and the nature of his other rehabilitative efforts to date, which the court finds to be insufficient, the court finds that Mr. F. will not be able to parent Mariah and Dora within a reasonable period of time. With respect to Mariah and Dora, the court finds that DCF has proven the alleged adjudicatory ground of parental failure to rehabilitate by clear and convincing evidence.
Ground D as to the Respondent Father, (Mr. F.), Mariah and Dora
DCF also alleged the additional statutory grounds of lack of ongoing parent-child relationship in the termination petition which it filed concerning respondent father.
By statute, no ongoing parent-child relationship 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 ..." C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(D). In determining that no ongoing parent-child relationship exists, the court is also required by statute to make a finding that "... to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child." Id.
The evidence at trial established that Mr. F., who is 47 years old, has an extensive criminal history that dates back to 1992. He has spent a substantial period of his adult life in prison. He has been in prison for most of his children’s lives. He is presently incarcerated. He has a history of substance abuse and a negative and combative attitude towards any sustained and meaningful treatment. He has been unable to successfully rehabilitate himself in the 10 years since he has been involved with the Department. Mr. F. has not had guardianship of Mariah and Dora since December 15, 2010. In fact, Dora was born on June 12, 2007. Her father has been incarcerated for most of her life. Because of his multiple incarcerations and his failure to rehabilitate, Mr. F. has been unable to meet on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of Dora. Mr. F. did not and could not provide Dora with a nurturing, consistent, enduring relationship that is expected of a parent for his child.
The same is true for Mariah. Mariah is now 14 years old and very capable of articulating her position with regard to her father and mother. She has written that "there have been many occasions where I know and feel that both of you aren’t stable to raise Dora and I. Both of you guys have stolen things, done drugs, and if I still was with you guys I would still be Dora’s Mom." (Child’s Exhibit 6.) "I am 14 years old and was born on January 5th, 2004. I have realized that my dad hasn’t been there for a single birthday ..." (Id. )
Although Mr. F. testified at trial that he has sent gifts, cards, and letters to his daughters, there was no credible evidence that Mr. F. provided or sent letters, cards, or gifts either directly to them, or to their therapists, or to their attorney. In fact, when testifying at trial, Mr. F. had a difficult time remembering the children’s birthdays. He has not provided any financial support for his children. At trial, Mr. F. conceded that he hasn’t been there for his children, especially when they were going through difficult times, because he has been in jail for most of their lives. He further testified that when he did visit with his children, his ability to gain a meaningful understanding of his daughters’ lives and what they were exposed to as young children was compromised by the fact that he could not be there for them. He blamed this on his long periods of incarceration.
Given Mariah and Dora’s age and need for permanency, the length of time that they have already spent in foster placements, the father’s lengthy criminal history, his substantial periods of incarceration, his substance abuse issues, and his failure as a parent to meet on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the children, the court finds that DCF has proven the alleged adjudicatory ground of no ongoing parent-child relationship by clear and convincing evidence.
Reasonable Efforts
In order to terminate a parent’s parental rights under § 17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that "it has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and reunify with the child unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 837, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005). "Because the two clauses are separated by the word ‘unless,’ this statute is plainly written in the conjunctive. Accordingly, the Department must prove either that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts." (Emphasis in the original.) In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 552 (2009). "[T]he statute imposes on the Department the duty ... to make reasonable efforts to unite 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 efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act by which the requirement was drawn ... [R]easonable efforts mean doing everything reasonable, not everything possible ..." (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001). As is permitted under our law, the evidence as to both the adjudicatory and dispositional phases is heard at the same trial. In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 676, 688-90 (1999). As to the respondents Ms. E. and Mr. F., DCF has alleged that it made reasonable efforts to reunify and that, in the alternative, the parent is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from rehabilitation services.
Based on the findings of fact made by the court, as noted in detail above, the court finds that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, prior to the date of the filing of the termination of parental rights petition, it made reasonable efforts to reunify Mariah and Dora with Ms. E. In the alternative, the court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that, as of the adjudicatory date, Ms. E. has been unable to benefit from reunification efforts. In making this determination, the court has taken into account the numerous, appropriate and reasonable services offered to Ms. E to enable her to reunify with her children. Ms. E. was offered to participate in Administrative Case Reviews and was offered services for mental health and substance abuse issues. She was also offered weekly visitation with Mariah and Dora. She failed to participate in scheduled meetings with the Department and did not consistently visit the children. As noted, although Ms. E. has engaged in some treatment, she failed to provide releases from her current program providers indicating her progress, her future goals, and whether or not she has successfully completed the programs. She continued to abuse drugs, engage in criminal conduct, and during the pendency of the case she engaged in an intimate relationship with Peter F., who had a lengthy criminal history and was also convicted of sexual assault of her daughter, Mariah. The court finds that all of the services offered to Ms. E. constituted reasonable efforts at reunification. The court further finds that Ms. E. is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.
Based on the findings of fact made by the court, as noted in detail above, the court finds that DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, prior to the date of the filing of the termination of parental rights petition, it made reasonable efforts to reunify Mariah and Dora with Mr. F. In the alternative, the court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that, as of the adjudicatory date, Mr. F. has been unable to benefit from reunification efforts. In making this determination, the court has taken into account the numerous appropriate and reasonable services offered to the father to enable him to reunify with his children. Father was consistently offered Case Plans and Administrative Case Reviews. The Department made reasonable efforts to communicate with Mr. F. during the pendency of this case whether he was incarcerated or not. On many occasions, the Department attempted to speak to Mr. F. regarding past treatment, future services, and goals he may need to pursue. The Department attempted to provide updates for him regarding his children. On several occasions, he was angry and uncooperative with the Department and directed the social worker to communicate with his attorney only. For example, on February 29, 2016, Mr. F. called the Department to inquire about visitation with his children. At one point during the conversation, Mr. F. became irate, very aggressive and threatening toward the worker when she asked him what services he was involved in since being released from jail. (State’s Exhibit P p. 24.) On April 18, 2016, Mr. F. became hostile toward the worker when she called him to remind him of the ACR scheduled for Tuesday, April 19, 2016. (Id. at 30.) On June 3, 2016, Mr. F. called the Department and began yelling and cursing at the social worker. He stated that he has a right to see his children and has a right to have them home with him. The worker attempted to talk to him about his case goals and specific steps, but he was unable to listen. (Id. at 33.) On March 22, 2017, Mr. F. called the Department from prison and stated his reasons for refusal to sign releases. He stated he was unable and unwilling to provide any information to the worker regarding his legal status. The worker attempted to update him on the status of his children but he was too argumentative and belligerent to be receptive to any information. (Id. at 37.) On December 14, 2017, Jennifer Bringman sent a correspondence to Attorney Scott Maser stating that:
The Department is obligated to continue to make efforts with the parent in providing services, obtaining information as to any progress they are making in any services, or continued issues, as well as to provide the parent with information regarding their children. At the most recent ACR on October 25, 2017, your client was on the phone, but only briefly, as he would not engage in any discussion and would not remain on the phone, even to listen to updates regarding his children. He only complained and was argumentative. The Department made another attempt today, to engage in a phone call with your client and his counselor at the prison. Releases were also sent to him for signature to allow the Department access to any services he has engaged while incarcerated, as well as to confirm your client’s recent report (according to the motions recently filed) regarding his anticipated discharge date. Your client sent a message through the corrections officer that he will not communicate with the Department, sign any releases, and that all communication is to go through you. The Department is again requesting your assistance in obtaining information as to your client’s status and services while incarcerated, any recommendations for continued services based on his status in prison, as well as any anticipated discharge date and plans around this. (Id. at 49.)
On February 13, 2018, the Department attempted to speak with father along with his attorney, Scott Maser. Father refused to provide any information as to his current living arrangements or to sign a release. He became argumentative stating the Department is violating his rights by continuously asking him for information and by the repeated phone calls and mail sent to him in prison. The worker reminded him that it was her obligation to confirm his living situation as well as determine what services he may be in. He told the social worker she was only to communicate with him through his attorney. The worker made requests of Attorney Maser for releases and confirmation of the information as the parent is obligated as well as the Department to make the efforts. (Id. at 50.)
During the pendency of the case, he and his lawyer were asked to provide releases to program providers regarding treatment. Except for one release provided to the Department of Corrections, no others have been provided. As noted above, he was also offered visitation with Mariah and Dora and for the most part those visits went well. Although Mr. F. did engage in some of the offered services in 2015, he did not sufficiently benefit from these services. Mr. F. continued to engage in criminal activity, fled to another state, used illegal drugs, violated his parole, and is currently incarcerated. The court finds that all of the services offered to father constituted reasonable efforts at reunification. The court further finds that Mr. F. is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts.
Accordingly, the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the court’s finding that Ms. E. and Mr. F. are unable to achieve rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time and that they have been unable to do so since the children have been removed from their care. Given the age and needs of Mariah and Dora, the court further finds that Ms. E and Mr. F. are unable or are unwilling to benefit from reunification services. The children’s attorney, Tasheedah Roberts, has informed the court that she agrees that termination of the parents’ parental rights is in the children’s best interest. For all of the reasons as stated above, the court agrees.
Disposition
As our courts have long observed, the deleterious effects of prolonged temporary care is well known. In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2ed 1313 (1983). "It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents. There is little that can be as detrimental to a child’s sound development as uncertainty ..." Lehman v. Lycoming Country Children’s Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982).
On disposition, the court may consider information through the close of the evidentiary hearing. In the dispositional phase of this case, the court has considered the evidence and testimony relating to the facts and circumstances through June 12, 2018, the final date upon which the evidence was taken in this matter. In making the dispositional findings, the court incorporates by reference here all of the factual findings it has previously made in this memorandum of decision. For all of the above reasons, and given that Ms. E. and Mr. F. have not demonstrated an adequate period of stability and commitment to services, the court, having found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by the petitioner for the termination of Ms. E.’s and Mr. F.’s parental rights have been proven, the court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in General Statutes § 17a-112(k). In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345 (1994). These "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." (Citation omitted.) In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 261 (2003). The court has considered these findings in determining that it is in Mariah and Dora’s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Ms. E. and Mr. F. The children have a warm and nurturing relationship with their current foster relative and have thrived in her care. They deserve to be with a family who can offer them the permanency and stability that they require.
The seven statutory findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent
DCF offered timely services to facilitate reunification between Mariah and Dora and Ms. E and Mr. F. The services were sufficient and were offered on a timely and consistent basis. Since the removal of Mariah and Dora, the Department has offered visitation with Ms. F. and Mr. F. The Department has made referrals for mental health services, substance abuse services, parenting counseling, and supportive housing. Referrals were made to the Department of Social Services, Catholic Charities, Danbury Hospital Community Center or Behavioral Health and Outpatient Mental Health Services, Catholic Family Services, Newtown Family Services, The Women’s Center, and Family and Children’s Aid. Referrals were made for parenting assessment and services through the RIFT and TFT programs and Ahavah Family Services. The Department has offered referrals for services for substance abuse assessment and treatment through MCCA and Quest Labs. The Department offered Administrative Reviews of treatment plans. The Department offered case management services including weekly visitation.
2. Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended. Reasonable efforts to reunify the children with the parents were made by DCF pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
On January 6, 2016, the Department filed a motion to review permanency plan for revocation of commitment and reunification with parents. On February 24, 2016, the Danbury Superior Court for Juvenile Matters approved this plan. On February 7, 2017, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, Bridgeport, approved the permanency plan for termination of parental rights and adoption. A finding was made that reasonable efforts were made to achieve the permanency plan regarding Mariah and Dora. Services were offered to address the issues that led to the removal of the children. Ms. E. and Mr. F. were made aware of the court expectations and were offered and provided services, as outlined above, to assist her in meeting those expectations. In addition, visitation was offered and provided.
3. The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order
Regarding court-ordered expectations, mother, father, and maternal grandparents had had specific steps ordered since January 2015. Both parties made efforts with their steps, however, they were unable to make or sustain progress in regard to the needs of the children. Mother was inconsistent with parenting services, with her visitation, and with her compliance in substance abuse and mental health treatment. Father has remained involved with the criminal justice system, and is currently incarcerated. Father did make efforts with parenting services for a brief time while he was in the community and made progress. However, father was unable to sustain his progress relapsing with his substance abuse and criminal activity. Maternal grandparents engaged in counseling services and parenting, though despite their best effort, were unable to acknowledge and accept their role in Mariah’s abuse, with grandmother further blaming the child for the family’s circumstances.
4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child’s parents, any guardian of such child’s person, and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties
Mariah is a 14-year-old girl who was clear about the relationship with her parents and maternal grandparents. Mariah does not feel safe with any of these adults and does not want any further contact with them. Mariah was repeatedly traumatized while in their care and is not trusting of their ability to change given their inability to acknowledge and understand their role in her abuse. Mariah expresses wanting to move on with her life without further worry or wait. Mariah was attached to her previous foster parents, with whom she has resided for over a year, and whom she identifies as a support in her life. She looks forward to a continued relationship with them. Moreover, Mariah has connected with a maternal cousin with whom she would like to reside and grow up with. Mariah expresses feelings attached to this cousin, as well as a feeling that she can keep her safe, while maintaining a distant connection to her extended family.
Dora is almost 11 years old and conflicted about her relationship in regard to her maternal grandparents, though it is clear about her not wanting any communication with her mother or father. Dora is only just beginning to understand the abuse and neglect she experienced in the care of her mother and grandparents. Dora expresses not knowing her father at all, and not wanting to. Dora expresses uncertainty about her mother as well. Dora wants to please and to do as others want, but is able to express she does not want to go home. Dora is currently placed with a maternal cousin with whom she is able to identify a strong connection and feeling of safety. Dora wants to live with and grow up in her care.
5. The age of the children
Mariah is 14 years old and requires a stable and reliable caregiver in order to meet her needs.
Dora is 11 years old and requires a stable and reliable caregiver in order to meet her needs.
6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent’s circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child
Ms. E. has struggled with her substance abuse and mental health for many years, resulting in her giving up her daughters to her mother and father through a temporary guardianship order through probate court. Ms. E. maintained a strong influence over Mariah and Dora, as well as her parents, Mr. and Mrs. E. The maternal grandparents allowed mother to be in a caretaking role of her children despite her continued instability. This resulted in her children being sexually abused and neglected. Ms. E. has been unable to maintain any consistency in her life with regard to her children. Since the Department’s initial involvement with the family in 2008, Ms. E. has not made consistent contact with the Department and was unable to follow through with visitation as planned with her children. Ms. E. has made some efforts to address her substance abuse and mental health issues. However, Ms. E.’s inconsistency and lack of follow-through has resulted in the inability to adjust her circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the children to return them to her in the foreseeable future.
Mr. F. has been incarcerated for most of his children’s lives and has been unable to provide for them in any meaningful capacity. Mr. F. did make efforts initially with the Department in parenting and visitation, though he was unable to sustain his progress, engaging in further substance abuse and criminal activity. Mr. F. has not maintained consistent contact with the Department and when he has many of his interactions were volatile. Mr. F. is incarcerated for the foreseeable future and is unable to provide for his children in any capacity.
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
To the Department’s knowledge, Ms. E. and Mr. F. have not been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with their children by an unreasonable act or conduct by anyone, or by their economic circumstances.
Best Interest of the Children
The court must now address the issue of whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child. In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. at 163. In determining the issue of the best interest of the children, the court has considered the adjudicatory and dispositional evidence in their entirety, and the court concludes by clear and convincing evidence there is no permanency plan that could have secured the best interest of Mariah and Dora that is less restrictive than termination of the parental rights at issue. See In re Azareon Y., 139 Conn.App. 457 (2012), cert. granted, 307 Conn. 950 (2013); In re Julianna B., 141 Conn.App. 163 (2013). The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Ms. E.’s and Mr. F.’s parental rights is in the best interest of Mariah and Dora. In making this determination, the court has considered the children’s age, growth, development, need for stability, length of stay in the foster home, nature of their relationship with their foster family and their biological family, the degree of contact maintained by the biological parents and the genetic bond to the respondents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167 (2000). It is clear that Ms. E. and Mr. F. are in no better position today to provide for the children than they were at the time of their removal. The problems that led to the removal have not been rectified and the prospects of improvement are highly unlikely. The children cannot wait indefinitely for the resolution of these issues. Ms. E. and Mr. F. have not been able to put the children’s interests ahead of their own. Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for all children. The children’s best interests will not be served by reunifying them with Ms. E. and Mr. F. This conclusion is clearly and convincingly supported by the testimony and evidence presented to the court at the time of trial.
Mariah and Dora have found security in the care they are receiving by the relative foster home. Mariah has clearly expressed that she does not want a relationship with the mother or father, and at this time she does not want to speak to her grandparents, or return to reside with them, as she does not trust that they can keep her safe given the repeated times they allowed her to return to her mother’s care where she was neglected, and physically and sexually abused. Although Mariah is resilient, she will need continued therapy and the love and support of a nurturing caregiver. She is optimistic and looking forward to her future in California. She wishes to be adopted by her maternal cousin.
Dora has been more ambivalent than her sister regarding her relationship with her maternal grandparents. However, Dora has been able to come to a place where she’s looking forward to a new life with her maternal cousin if she is legally allowed to move on with that plan. Dora is old enough to know and understand that Mariah has no desire to return to her grandparents and/or her parents. With this knowledge, Dora wishes to remain with Mariah and grow up in the care of their cousin in California. Dora has also expressed not wanting any contact with her mother and father. She would like to maintain contact with her maternal grandparents as long as there are boundaries and limitations with regard to their conversations. She has become independent and vocal about her past abuse and is certain that she does not want to be exposed to that life again. She deserves to be raised by a caretaker who cannot only love her, but assure that her physical and emotional safety comes first. Dora has an interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and a continuous, stable environment. She has this with her foster relative. To expose the child to the same degree of uncertainty is not in her best interest.
Conclusion
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing findings and having considered all of the evidence, after due consideration of the children’s need for a secure, permanent placement, the totality of the circumstances, and having considered all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that efforts at reunification with Ms. E. and Mr. F. were made and that the parents were and continue to be unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts, and that further efforts are no longer required, that grounds exist to terminate Ms. E.’s and Mr. F.’s parental rights as alleged, and that it is in the children’s best interest to do so.
It is accordingly ORDERED that the parental rights of Angela E. and Robert F. are hereby TERMINATED as to Mariah E-F and Dora E-F;
That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent of the children for the purpose of securing the children’s adoption as expeditiously as possible, with first consideration to be given to the current foster parent;
That a written report of the plan for the children shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be timely filed and presented to the court as required by law.
The Clerk of the Probate Court which has jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of Mariah and Dora shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Bridgeport when and if any such adoption is finalized, or DCF shall file a petition for adoption with the Superior Court pursuant to Public Act 12-82, § 16.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ordered.