Opinion
F04CP130099995A
02-09-2016
In re Unique R. [1]
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Michael G. Maronich, J.
On February 26, 2014 the petitioner, 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 Kaycee R., the biological mother, and Samuel M., the biological father, to their child, Unique R., born January 22, 2011 and of Kaycee R., the biological mother, and Kelvin P., the biological father, to their child, Jeramiah P., born December 3, 2011. All respondent parents have appeared and are represented by counsel. No parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation. The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children. The court has jurisdiction.
The statutory grounds alleged against the respondent mother as to both children, and against Samuel M. as to Unique and against Kelvin P. as to Jeramiah, is that the children have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the parents have 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 children, the parents could assume a responsible position within the life of the child, General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). The additional statutory grounds alleged against both Samuel M. and Kelvin P. as to their respective children is that, in each case, there is no ongoing parent/child relationship, which means the relationship which ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral or educational needs of the children and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent child relationships would be detrimental to the best interest of the children, General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2)(D).
I. FACTS & FINDINGS
At the trial of this matter which commenced on January 13, 2016, the parties were advised of their rights pursuant to In re Yasiel, 317 Conn. 773, 120 A.3d 1188, (2015). The Court received or heard testimony from DCF case workers and case aides assigned to work with the family, representatives from various service providers who worked with the parents and children in the areas of mental health, substance abuse treatment, parenting, housing, educational and medical services for both the parents and the children, officers from the Department of Corrections, adult probation officers, Dr. Linda Leiflend, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, and Richard Torres, M.D., the medical director of Optimus Health Care. Neither the respondent mother, Kaycee R., nor the respondent father, Samuel M., testified. The respondent father, Kelvin P., never attended any part of the trial which was held over the course of three days, although his counsel was present and participated fully on his behalf. The court received documentary evidence in the form of the written psychological evaluation prepared by Dr. Leifland, records of intake, discharge, substance abuse screening records, records of various service providers, letters and certificates from the various service providers, copies of specific steps ordered for the respondent parents in the underlying neglect proceeding, arrest and conviction records of the respondent parents, as well as a list of prescription medications obtained by Kaycee over a roughly one-year period of time ending in September 2015 together with a list of the prescribers. The court also received the social study in support of the petition for termination of parental rights dated February 5, 2015 as well as the addendum to the study dated December 14, 2015.
The court finds the following by clear and convincing evidence. Unique was born on January 22, 2011. Just over ten months later, her brother, Jeramiah, was born on December 3, 2011. On November 14, 2013 DCF filed a petition alleging that the children were neglected as the result of their mother, Kaycee's, inability to adequately provide for and parent them because of her longstanding mental health and substance abuse problems. At the time, Kelvin, the father of Jeramiah, was incarcerated and Samuel, the father of Unique, was homeless. On January 24, 2014 DCF obtained an ex-parte order of temporary custody for both children upon allegations of more serious physical and medical neglect. The order of temporary custody was sustained by the court (Kaplan, J.) on January 27, 2014. Preliminary specific steps were also confirmed at that time. Both children were subsequently adjudicated neglected on May 27, 2014 and were committed to DCF. Final specific steps were ordered for all respondent parents at that time.
As To Respondent Mother, Kaycee R.
Thirty-year-old Kaycee was born and raised in Bridgeport. She is the middle child in a family of three children. Kaycee reports that she was a special education student but denies any history as an abused or neglected child. She began using alcohol and marijuana at age fifteen, cocaine and crack cocaine by age seventeen. She has never been married. She first became involved with Samuel and bore the first of their five children by age eighteen. By age twenty-two she was the mother of four children. She has described her relationship with Samuel as abusive. Their four children were removed from her care under an order of temporary custody on December 4, 2007 and were subsequently adjudicated neglected because of physical neglect, inadequate housing, and the respondent parents' inability to adequately parent their children as the result of substance abuse and mental health issues. Custody and guardianship of the four children was transferred to Kaycee's parents in 2008 and the children have since remained in their care. Kaycee has maintained only sporadic contact with these children over the succeeding years. Kaycee's parents prefer that she not know where they live because they report " problems" in the past when she has been to their home and that " things go missing." The only contact she has had with these children over the last two years has been at sibling visitation sessions arranged for the benefit of Unique and Jeramiah concurrent with her visitation sessions.
Unique is the fifth child born of the union of Kaycee and Samuel. She was born on January 22, 2011. Kaycee's sixth child, Jeramiah, was born barely more than ten months later on December 3, 2011. Jeramiah was fathered by Kelvin. DCF first opened its case file as to Unique and Jeramiah on February 14, 2013 as the result of an anonymous phone call. At that time Kaycee was living in supportive housing through Family and Child Services. Shortly after DCF became involved, Kaycee sought assistance from Bridgeport Hospital's Child First Program because of difficulty she had coping with two-year-old Unique's out of control behavior. The worker assigned to the case raised concerns with safety because of uncovered electrical outlets and inadequate food and clothing for the two children. She also sought to educate Kaycee on how to establish a household budget and how to work consistently with the children in modeling their behavior. Ultimately the worker from Family and Child Services was able to accomplish very little because Kaycee missed sixteen out of thirty sessions scheduled. The case was closed and Kaycee was unsuccessfully discharged from the program on September 30, 2013. During the same time, Birth-To-Three services were put into place. Jeramiah was assessed as developmentally delayed in adaptive ability, communication, cognition, motor skills and personal and social development. Unique had deficits in the areas of cognition, communication and personal and social development. Much of the delays which the children exhibited were believed to be due to lack of exposure to stimulus and the worker assigned observed that Kaycee appeared to lack the ability or motivation to engage her children. Birth-To-Three continued to work with the children even after their removal from Kaycee's care and documented much improvement in both children once they were placed in foster care.
DCF filed the neglect petition on November 14, 2013. As the court has already noted, Kelvin, the father of Jeramiah, was incarcerated and Samuel, the father of Unique, was homeless. Less than one month later in December, Kaycee lost her housing. She was discharged from the Supportive Housing program because of a felony arrest, her failure to adequately maintain her apartment and her failure to engage in substance abuse services. On January 24, 2014 an order of temporary custody was granted to DCF. Since the date of the filing of the petition, Kaycee's behavior had become more erratic and the children began to suffer from more extreme physical neglect. When the children were medically assessed Unique was found to have a cigarette burn on her chest and her asthma had not been properly attended to. In addition to Asthma, Jeramiah was found to have an unaddressed cardiac issue. Neither child was developmentally on target.
On February 14, 2014 a re-arrest was ordered for Kaycee for her failure to appear in court on her criminal charges. On May 13, 2014 Kaycee was convicted of larceny 6th, failure to appear 2nd and criminal trover 2nd and was sentenced to one year of incarceration suspended and three years of probation with conditions of substance abuse evaluation and treatment, restitution and a prohibition on driving without a license and a properly registered and insured motor vehicle. On May 27, 2014 Unique and Jeramiah were adjudicated neglected and committed to DCF. Final steps were ordered for Kaycee as well as Samuel and Kelvin at that time. Because the specific steps for Kaycee also included substance abuse treatment, DCF coordinated substance abuse services through the Office of Adult Probation so as not to duplicate services, or worse, so as not to have Kaycee receiving conflicting medication regimens simultaneously from different service providers.
Kaycee was first offered services for substance abuse treatment by DCF in September 2013 at Southwest Community Health Center. She failed to keep her appointment for intake evaluation. She was admitted to Crossroads on December 21, 2013 and accepted daily methadone maintenance. She received an evaluation and individual and group therapy but balked when offered mental health treatment. She was unsuccessfully discharged on February 16, 2014. Kaycee entered Casa House inpatient treatment through the Center for Human Services on February 27, 2014. She was diagnosed with crack cocaine and opiate dependence, specifically prescription pills. She was unsuccessfully discharged on April 14, 2014. She re-engaged on May 5, 2014 but was again unsuccessfully discharged on July 11, 2014 after she quit the program. Her pattern of behavior would be to accept services but fail to follow through. Kaycee completed her intake assessment with Adult Probation on June 20, 2014 and reported that she was in a methadone maintenance program. However her probation officer was unable to verify any program participation. By July 2014 she requested a referral to a detoxification program but she failed to show for a program intake at Northside. She finally entered a program in August, only to be unsuccessfully discharged in September. It was not until she was threatened with a violation of probation that Kaycee entered an intensive outpatient program at St. Raphael's Hospital on October 8, 2014. She completed the program on November 7, 2014 and was referred to relapse prevention and mental health treatment. Kaycee did not believe she needed additional treatment and refused the services. She sought out her own alternative treatment at Fairhaven and attended two intake sessions on March 19, 2015 and again on April 19, 2015, but failed to enter the program. Kaycee moved from New Haven to Bridgeport in May 2015 and requested services closer to her new home. She was referred to Kinsella where she completed an intake on May 19, 2015. She has been at Kinsella since that time. She receives methadone maintenance, monthly drug screens and individual as well as group counseling. She tested positive for amphetamines in October 2015. Her attendance began to taper off in November and she relapsed, testing positive for cocaine. She was referred to intensive outpatient treatment but she never engaged. She sustained a serious leg injury as the result of a dog bite on December 10, 2015 for which she was hospitalized for twelve days. She was discharged on December 22, 2015 from Bridgeport Hospital to Rosegarden Health and Rehabilitation in Waterbury where she continued to reside through the time of trial. Kinsella continues to provide her with methadone maintenance through Rosegarden.
After she returned to Bridgeport in the summer of 2015 Kaycee told her probation officer that she was receiving mental health treatment at Optimus Health Care. At the trial the court heard testimony from Richard Torres, M.D., the medical director of Optimus Health. He testified that Kaycee has never received mental health services at Optimus but she has been a patient since 2010 at the Park City Primary Care facility. Kaycee has a pattern of coming to the facility to request pain medications for a variety of ailments. Specifically she has sought Xanax and Zoloft. However, Optimus has a prescription monitoring program in place and based upon Kaycee's extensive history of prescription medication use, she has been refused prescriptions for controlled substances. Dr. Torres produced a printout of prescription medications which Kaycee has obtained over an approximate one-year period commencing in October 2014 together with a list of prescription providers and pharmacies. Between October 7, 2014 and September 9, 2015 Kaycee obtained almost fifty separate prescriptions for controlled substances from ten different physicians or health care providers, through four different pharmacies.
In December 2014 Dr. Linda Leiflend, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, completed a psychological evaluation of Kaycee together with interactional evaluations with the children. She produced a written report dated January 12, 2015 which was accepted in evidence and she testified at trial. Dr. Leifland noted that Kaycee has a long history of mental health issues, substance abuse and trauma. Kaycee prefers pain medications, specifically opiates, over " street drugs" and has historically been resistant to treatment. She noted that the Yale New Haven Hospital records indicated that during 2014 Kaycee made multiple trips to the hospital to obtain pain medications. Kaycee tested as borderline in cognitive functioning, verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and full scale IQ. Dr. Leifland attributed this to cognitive impairment or simple, non-cooperation with the testing on Kaycee's part. In addition, Dr. Leifland was unable to evaluate Kaycee's personality functioning because of Kaycee's " inconsistent and possibly random" responses. She attributed this to lack of focus and possible reading difficulties and opined that the task of engaging in the test was possibly too difficult for Kaycee. The Rorschach test was unable to be scored because Kaycee was unable to give a sufficient number of responses or provide an adequate explanation for her responses. There was no evidence of psychosis. In the interactional portion of the evaluation, Dr. Leifland noted that there was nothing unsafe about Kaycee's interactions with her children but it was not an " especially enriched" interaction. Kaycee appeared to have somewhat of a bond with Unique but not with Jeramiah. Kaycee became mildly irritated with her children rather easily. Based on her review of visitation records and reports Dr. Leifland noted that Kaycee was easily overwhelmed by her children. Dr. Leifland concluded that Kaycee lacks insight into her substance abuse problems and that her level of functioning is characterized by anxiety and unstable mood. She concluded that Kaycee lacks understanding of the needs of her children and lacks the proper ability to provide for their care, all the more so in light of the heightened level of care and attention required by Unique and Jeramiah with their behavioral issues. In order for Kaycee to assume the role of a custodial parent she would first require dual diagnosis treatment for substance abuse and mental health and, only after successful completion of such treatment, intensive parenting education and therapy with her children. Dr. Leifland testified at the trial that since Kaycee has not engaged in and completed the dual diagnosis treatment and parenting in the year since the evaluation, that Kaycee is not prepared to parent her children now and would likely not be in a position to do so within a reasonable period of time.
Since the children have come into DCF care Kaycee has been offered weekly visitation. Between January 2014 and November 2015 seventy-four visits have been scheduled, Kaycee's attendance has been sporadic and she has failed to show for thirty-two visits. When she has come to visits she is clearly overwhelmed by the children. She is uncomfortable and frequently leaves early. There have been visits where she hardly engages with the children at all, staying long enough to get her bus tokens before leaving. To get her to stay for the entire visit, DCF staff began withholding the tokens until the end of the visit. There is no evidence of a strong bond. In the words of DCF case worker, Jill K., " The bond between mother and children is not warm and welcoming." When she does try to engage the children she clearly favors Jeramiah over Unique. Unable to get her mother's attention, Unique would go and sit in the corner by herself. DCF arranged a program of supervised visitation with parenting skills coaching through Positive Services for Kids, but Kaycee's attendance was sporadic. She was discharged from this service in July 2015 for lack of attendance. She would frequently cancel at the last minute without excuse and leave the children disappointed. The children clearly resented this and it showed in their behavior toward her in subsequent visits. There is no indication that the children are ever upset or unhappy at the end of a visit. On occasions when DCF arranged a concurrent sibling co-visit with Kaycee's four older children, Kaycee has been completely overwhelmed and the visits have gone very poorly. On one notable occasion when the DCF case aide arrived with the children for a visit, Kaycee was already at the DCF office waiting in the visitation room. The case aide opened the door to discover Kaycee seated at the table " with a whole bunch of bottles of medicine" in front of her which she quickly scrambled to hide in her purse.
Since Kaycee was discharged from supportive housing in December 2014 she has failed to maintain stable housing. Over this two-year period there have been periods of time when her whereabouts were unknown. At other times she has been staying temporarily with friends. Since her discharge from Bridgeport Hospital, Kaycee has been rehabilitating at Rosegarden in Waterbury. When she completes her period of rehabilitation she will be homeless. Throughout the time of DCF involvement, Kaycee has never maintained legal employment. She has admitted to Jill K. that she has been earning money and surviving as a prostitute.
Kaycee was medically cleared to attend the trial and was transported to and from the court by Rosegarden staff. On the first day of the trial she was using a wound vacuum, a portable electrical device to assist in keeping the healing wound on her leg dry. She returned from the lunch break and told DCF case worker, Jill K., that she had been out shopping. Moments later when court reconvened for the afternoon Kaycee's counsel reported to the court that her client had left the building because she claimed her wound vacuum was not functioning properly. On the morning of the third day of the trial the court heard testimony from Ian F., a staff member from Rosegarden. He testified that Kaycee called him during the lunch break on the first day of trial to tell him that the wound vacuum was not working properly. He advised her to go to the hospital if the wound was bleeding. Kaycee did not go to the hospital. Instead she returned to Rosegarden where Ian F. inspected the wound and found it stable. He also found the wound vacuum to be unnecessary and its use was discontinued. Ian F. testified that there was no medical reason for Kaycee to have left the court on the afternoon of the first day and to have returned to Rosegarden. He further testified that upon return to Rosegarden that afternoon Kaycee distributed Benadryl, which she had apparently purchased during her lunchtime shopping spree, to several other patients in violation of house rules. The medication was confiscated.
On the second day of the trial the court was advised by Kaycee's counsel that Kaycee felt nauseous and wanted permission to excuse herself from the courtroom as necessary during the proceedings. The court observed Kaycee to leave the courtroom several times and return after a brief period of absence. While she was in the courtroom and seated at the counsel table she appeared to be fighting the urge to fall asleep. At some point she left the courtroom and never returned for the rest of the day. On the third day of the trial Kaycee appeared to this court to be even more seriously impaired. Slumped back in her chair, head back with her eyes closed, she appeared to have fallen asleep several times, only to be subtly roused by her counsel.
As To Respondent Father, Samuel M.
Samuel M. is thirty-six years old. He was removed from his mother's care at age five and raised by his grandmother. Aside from Samuel's statement to DCF personnel that he had a hard early life and turned to drugs, the court heard little or no evidence of Samuel's life before DCF became involved with the family regarding his daughter, Unique. Samuel was incarcerated on July 20, 2011 when Unique turned six months old. He was paroled to community release on April 12, 2012, but he absconded and was on the run for three months before being taken into custody and returned to prison. When he was released again from prison on February 1, 2013, and saw his daughter, Unique, for the first time, she was over two years old. After twenty-one months of freedom, Samuel was re-incarcerated for violation of probation on November 17, 2014. He remains in prison to this date, with a maximum release date of August 28, 2016.
Samuel, like Kaycee, has a long history of substance abuse and mental health issues. He is currently diagnosed with psychotic disorder, bi-polar disorder and post-traumatic stress syndrome. He is currently prescribed the psychotropic medication, lithium. He is classified as a polysubstance abuser and has readily admitted to using crack cocaine, PCP, K-2 and marijuana. He has never successfully completed any substance abuse program to which he has been referred. Like Kaycee, DCF has coordinated Samuel's services through Adult Probation. Upon his release from prison in February 2013 he was referred to CT Renaissance for a twelve-week program of motivational enhancement therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. He attended only three sessions and consistently tested positive for PCP. On November 26, 2013 he was referred to intensive outpatient therapy but attended only one session and was discharged on December 9, 2013. He was referred to Regional Network for inpatient treatment after reporting symptoms of paranoia and delusions. Treatment commencing January 7, 2014 consisted of weekly individual and group therapy in addition to psychiatric treatment. He failed to attend group sessions on a regular basis and stopped individual counseling by June 2014. He was re-engaged in treatment by July 2014 but discharged unsuccessfully by September. Between September 2013 and April 2014 he was hospitalized on three separate occasions suffering from delusions and visual and auditory hallucinations. On August 20, 2014 he called in a suicide threat to his counselor, provoking an emergency medical intervention. He was unable to be found by police and medical personnel on that date, but he returned to the program the next day unharmed. Over the course of his treatment with Regional Network he has consistently tested positive for marijuana, PCP, cocaine and benzodiazepines. He was discharged from the program on September 30, 2014. The court heard testimony that Samuel independently sought services at Southwest Community Health Center during the summer of 2014 without advising either Southwest or Regional Network of the other's involvement or treatment plan, running the risk of overdose or death by engaging in two simultaneous medication regimens. Throughout the course of this time Samuel refused all referrals to inpatient treatment.
During the time that he was out of prison, February 13, 2013 through November 2014, Samuel was, for the most part, homeless. He told his DCF caseworker, Carlos H., that he slept in abandoned buildings and homes and occasionally with friends. He maintained no legal employment during this time, telling Carlos H. that he " did what he had to do" to survive.
During his most recent incarceration commencing in November 2014, Samuel has incurred three disciplinary tickets. He receives mental health and addiction services and has been assigned a mental health case worker. He has completed a parenting class, is currently enrolled in a G.E.D. program and is on a waiting list for discharge planning. Samuel has a lengthy criminal record going back to 2007 including multiple convictions for larceny, assault, violations of probation, failures to appear, criminal trespass and escape from custody.
When he was released from prison in February 2013 and saw his daughter, Unique, for the first time he was reluctant to initiate visitation. DCF case worker, Jill K., testified that Samuel was honest with her about his substance abuse and mental health issues and confessed that he could never care for his daughter. He started visitation but became discouraged and stopped. In September 2014 he changed his mind and requested to see Unique. Between February 14, 2014 and the time he was re-incarcerated on violation of probation charges in November 2014, thirty-nine visitation sessions were scheduled for Samuel. He attended only eight. The visits did not start well. Unique was uncomfortable with her father. He was a stranger. After Samuel was incarcerated in November 2014, once again he requested to see his daughter. He has since been provided with monthly visits at the prison. At first Unique was reluctant to be engaged by her father, but over the course of time she has come to accept him. He always acts appropriately and shows attention and affection. Unique has come to respond in kind. There is, however, no indication that she regards him as anything more than a visiting resource. Samuel has never had to contribute to the financial support or the care of his daughter on a day-to-day basis and there is no evidence that she regards him as a parent.
As To Respondent Father, Kelvin P.
Kelvin P. is thirty-eight years old. He has never been married, but he has two older children from a prior relationship who reside with their mother outside of the State of Connecticut. The court heard no evidence as to how Kaycee and Kelvin met, the details of their relationship or whether they ever lived together. Kelvin has a lengthy criminal history dating from November 2001 and he has spent a significant portion of his adult life in prison. His criminal record contains over twenty convictions including violent offenses and multiple convictions for the sale of narcotics and controlled substances. Most notably and most recently he was convicted and incarcerated in September 2014 on a charge of strangulation 2nd for a vicious assault on a woman with whom he was romantically involved. Based on his conviction record which was introduced into evidence, he was in all probability incarcerated at the time his son Jeramiah was born. In June 2013 Kelvin was again incarcerated. His young son, Jeramiah, was barely eighteen months old. Kelvin was released from prison in May 2014 but was only free for about four months before being jailed again for the strangulation conviction. Kelvin was released from prison on those charges in November 2015.
Upon his release from prison in May 2014, Kelvin was sent to a half-way house in Waterbury for two months. He was assessed for alcohol abuse. Kelvin reported that he had been using alcohol since the age of fourteen and drank daily. He was referred to intensive outpatient treatment at CT Renaissance but attended only four sessions before he was discharged as unsuccessful. Before he was re-incarcerated in September 2014 he was offered visitation with his son, Jeramiah. He attended only eight of twenty-eight scheduled visits. He attempted to interact with his son but was unsuccessful. DCF staff reported that he frequently showed up for visits reeking of alcohol. Some of these visits were as early as 11:00 a.m. On these occasions he was especially garrulous with DCF, but paid little attention to his son. After Kelvin was re-incarcerated he had four visits with his son at the prison. During the first visit Jeramiah refused to acknowledge his father and hid under the table. Although the remaining three visits were held in a more private visitation room, Kelvin was still unable to engage his son. Kelvin's last visit with his son occurred on December 20, 2015 at a McDonald's in Stratford. He ignored his son and engaged the DCF worker in conversation. Kelvin didn't even have the money to buy his son a meal. The DCF worker paid for Jeramiah's meal.
During his last incarceration Kelvin engaged in no voluntary services. He attended a mandatory domestic violence education class. Upon his release from prison he declined any substance abuse or parenting services offered by DCF. He told his DCF case worker, Jill K. " I got all I needed in prison." He refused to sign releases. The court heard no evidence that Kelvin ever contributed to the financial support or the care of his son on a day-to-day basis at any time during his release from prison. Kelvin did not attend the trial of this matter although he was aware that it was going forward.
As To The Children, Unique R. and Jeramiah P.
Unique and her younger brother, Jeramiah, were born ten months and three days apart. Currently, Unique is five years old and Jeremiah is four years and two months old. At the time they were removed from their mother, Kaycee's, care in January 2014, both children were assessed. Both children were disheveled and dirty and showed obvious signs of physical neglect. Unique was found to have a cigarette burn on her chest. She had untreated asthma, high lead levels in her blood, developmental delays and she was anemic. Her mental status examination was normal for mood, affective expression, psychomotor activity, thought content, consciousness, interpersonal relationships, memory, judgment, insight, speech, sleep and appetite. Her behavior was impulsive and she had difficulty following direction. She was determined to be eligible for special education services because of her developmental delays. On June 9, 2014 she was determined to be medically complex because of the severity of her asthma.
Jeramiah was born positive for opiates. Upon removal from his mother's care, he was found to have a heart murmur, asthma and acid reflux. In addition, he suffered from developmental delays, particularly in the areas of articulation, phonology and receptive language skills. His mental status examination was normal for mood, affective expression, psychomotor activity, thought content, consciousness, interpersonal relationships, memory, judgment, insight, speech, sleep and appetite. Jeramiah had difficulty communicating and his behavior was impulsive. Jeramiah was screened using the Battelle and BASC-2 scales and found to be at risk in the areas of adaptability, aggression, social skills and attention problems. Like his sister, Unique, he was also determined to be medically complex because of his asthma.
Upon removal both children were initially placed in emergency foster care and within thirty days were transitioned into a non-relative, medically complex foster home with two older foster children. Although they have remained in this same home since that time, the foster parents are not an adoptive resource. Since coming into foster care, DCF has explored various relative resources for the children. Initially the maternal grandparents, who are guardians of Kaycee and Samuel's four older children, presented themselves as proposed guardians for Unique and Jeramiah. However, due to their current living conditions and circumstances, DCF is not able to recommend placement of Unique and Jeramiah in their home. Samuel has offered both his parents and his sister as resources for the children. However DCF has never been able to contact either his parents or sister at the phone number which he provided. Kelvin has offered his sister who resides in Athens, Alabama as a resource. DCF completed an interstate compact, not once but twice, to clear her as a placement. Unfortunately, she withdrew her offer to be a resource for the children shortly before this matter proceeded to trial. DCF is now considering a new adoptive resource, the family that has served as a respite family for the current medically complex foster family. This family has taken care of Unique and Jeramiah for up to a week at a time when the current family has taken vacations. They have demonstrated an ability and willingness to parent the children. Unique and Jeramiah know this family and are comfortable with them.
Since coming into foster care both children have made substantial progress, physically and developmentally. Jeramiah's heart murmur has resolved and both children's asthma has been successfully managed. Lead levels in Unique's blood have decreased. Both children, however, continue to present behavioral problems, particularly Jeramiah. They require a high level of structure and present security challenges. The home must be locked to prevent them from running, particularly Jeramiah. When they play outside it must be within a fenced-in yard under supervision. The children appear bonded to the foster family whom they look to as parents and call the foster mother, " Mommy."
As to their biological parents, there does not appear to be a significant parent-child bond between Kaycee and her children, much less so between the children and their respective fathers. The children, now four and five years old, have been out of their mother's care for over two years. Kaycee has exercised sporadic visitation over this time and does not interact well with her children when visits have occurred. Neither of the children have ever expressed a loss or a longing for their mother. Neither have ever been observed to call her " mommy" or refer to her by any other maternal reference. Unique never met her father until she was two years old. For the next two years his contact with her was sporadic. She has never known him as a parent. It has only been over the last year while Samuel has been incarcerated and has exercised monthly visits with Unique at the prison that there appears to have been formed a relationship. DCF, by providing monthly visitation, has helped to foster a bond between Unique and Samuel. However, it is not a parental bond, but merely a bond as a visiting resource. Kelvin has no bond with his son, Jeramiah, not even as a visiting resource. Jeramiah will not engage and interact with his father and has, at times, appeared almost frightened of him.
II. ADJUDICATION
In order to terminate parental rights the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that DCF " has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and reunify the child with the parent unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from the reunification efforts . . . providing that such finding is not necessary if the court has determined at a hearing that such efforts are not appropriate." General Statutes Section 17a-112(j)(1). The court has reviewed in detail the efforts and the services which DCF has provided to Kaycee, Samuel and Kelvin, directly and in collaboration with the office of adult probation, to enable each of them to reunify with their child or children. In light of the extensive services, including parenting classes and education, substance abuse treatment both inpatient and outpatient, mental health treatment, supervised visitation and case management, which DCF has offered to each of the respondent parents, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to locate and reunify both children with their respondent mother, Kaycee, and each of their respective respondent fathers, Samuel and Kelvin.
I
Under General Statutes Section 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i) the issue is whether the respondent parent has " achieve[d] such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, the parent could assume a responsible position within the life of the child." In considering rehabilitation under the provisions of General Statutes Section 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), " the critical issue is whether the parent has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 261, 763 A.2d 71 (2000). " The issue is not whether respondent has improved his ability to manage his own life, but rather whether he has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child." In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 167, 180, 743 A.2d 165 (1999); In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). " As part of the analysis, the trial court must obtain a historical perspective of the respondent's child caring and parenting abilities, which includes prior adjudications of neglect, substance abuse and criminal activity." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 353-54, 776 A.2d 487 (2001).
Kaycee has been beset with substance abuse issues and mental health issues since adolescence. She continues to abuse controlled substances, particularly prescription pills, specifically opiates. She has a profound lack of understanding of the needs of her children and an inability to provide for their needs on a day-to-day basis, particularly in light of their demanding behavioral problems. The court is especially persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Leifland that since Kaycee has not even begun to engage in, much less have completed, mental health and substance abuse treatment and parenting in the entire two years that the children have been in foster care, that Kaycee is not now prepared to parent her children and would likely not be in a position to do so within a reasonable period of time.
Both Samuel and Kelvin have convincingly demonstrated that each has for most of his adult life been unable to function in a socially acceptable manner. Both have lengthy criminal records. As a result, each of these men have been incarcerated for over half as long as either of their children have been alive. Neither has ever provided for the financial support of his child or has had to meet the demanding needs of providing for such child on a continuing day-to-day basis. Samuel suffers from debilitating mental health and substance abuse problems. He has never successfully completed any treatment program to which he has been referred and there is no reasonable prospect that he will. He has provided no reason for this court to believe that he has the ability to care for the needs of his daughter, Unique, or that he could within a reasonable amount of time, considering the ages and needs of his daughter, assume a responsible position in her life. Kelvin has an especially alarming criminal background with multiple convictions for the possession and sale of controlled substances as well as for extreme acts of violence. He has never even made the pretense of attempting to rehabilitate and has flatly refused every offer of services for help with his apparent alcohol abuse problem or for parenting. He cares so little for his son that he failed to come to court for any part of this three-day trial. He has provided every reason for this court to believe that he not only lacks the ability to care for the needs of his son, Jeramiah, but that he could care less about rehabilitating himself so that within a reasonable amount of time, considering the ages and needs of his son, he could assume a responsible position in his life.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the children, Unique and Jeramiah, have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the respondent mother, Kaycee, and the respondent fathers, Samuel and Kelvin, have each 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 children, any of them could assume a responsible position within the lives of their children.
II
Under General Statutes Section 17a-112(j)(3)(D), an ongoing parent/child relationship is defined as " the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a continuing, day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child." " [T]he court may grant a petition to terminate parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no ongoing parentchild relationship, 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 . . . This part of the statute 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 . . . [O]ur Supreme Court defined an ongoing parent-child relationship as it applies to noncustodial parents. The court stated that termination of a noncustodial parent's rights requires a finding that the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent . . . When the child does have present memories or feelings, there must be a finding that no positive emotional aspects of the relationship survive . . . We recognize that the evidence regarding the quality of [a parent's] relationship with [a] child must be reviewed in the light of the [parent's] limited access to visitation at the time of the petition." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Christian P., 98 Conn.App. 264, 268-70, 907 A.2d 1261 (2006).
Samuel never laid eyes on his daughter until she was over two years old. For the next nineteen months until he was re-incarcerated in November 2014, he attended only eight of thirty-nine scheduled visitation sessions. Since then he has had monthly visitation at the prison. He has never provided financially for Unique. He has never cared for Unique or had to meet her needs on a day-to-day basis. She does not know him as a parent, only as a visiting resource, and that, only through the efforts of DCF since his re-incarceration. The court finds that no parent-child relationship exists, or has ever existed, between Samuel and his daughter, Unique. The court further finds that no positive emotional aspects of a parent-child relationship survive between them. As the court has noted and found in its analysis of whether Samuel has failed to rehabilitate for purposes of General Statutes Section 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), there is no reasonable prospect that Samuel will ever be able to rehabilitate himself so as to be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his daughter. The court now finds that it would be detrimental to Unique's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop.
Kelvin has attended only eight of twenty-eight visits scheduled with his son, Jeramiah, while he has been out of prison. While he was incarcerated he requested only four visits with him. Kelvin is unable to engage his son and interact with him during visits. There exists no bond between them. He has never provided for Jeramiah financially. He has never cared for Jeramiah or had to meet his needs on a day-to-day basis. Jeramiah does not know Kelvin as his father. The court finds that no parentchild relationship exists, or has ever existed, between Kelvin and his son, Jeramiah. The court further finds that no positive emotional aspects of a parent-child relationship survive between them. As the court has noted and found in its analysis of whether Kelvin has failed to rehabilitate for purposes of General Statutes Section 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), Kelvin has made it abundantly clear, and the court so finds, that there is no reasonable prospect that Kelvin will ever be able to rehabilitate himself so as to be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his son. The court now finds that it would be detrimental to Jeramiah's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship between Samuel and his daughter, Unique, or between Kelvin and his son, Jeramiah, which is defined as the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a 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 between Samuel and Unique or between Kelvin and Jeramiah would be detrimental to the best interest of each child.
III. DISPOSITION
In making the dispositional decision in a nonconsensual case, " the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors" specified in General Statutes § 17a-112(k). See, e.g., In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995). " [T]hose seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered . . . There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.'" In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 46-47, 907 A.2d 126 (2006). As required by the statute, the court has considered the statutory factors and makes the following written findings with regard to DCF's petition to terminate the respondents' parental rights, and the court has considered these findings in determining that it is in best interest of the children to terminate the parental rights of the respondent mother and both respondent fathers. In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000).
1. As to the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parents and the children by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the children with the respondents, the court finds that DCF had been involved with this family since February 14, 2013 in an effort to provide services and prevent the removal of the children from the family home. After the children came into DCF care, DCF directly and in collaboration with the office of adult probation attempted to offer substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, parenting assistance and supervised visitation to the respondent mother as well as to both respondent fathers as the court has already noted in detail in this memorandum. The court finds the timeliness, nature and extent of services offered by DCF to the respondent mother and to both respondent fathers to facilitate the reunion of the children with the respondents, to be fair and reasonable.
2. As to whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, the court has already noted in detail in this memorandum the efforts which DCF has made to reunite the children with their parents. The court finds that from the time that the children came into the care of DCF, it has made reasonable efforts to reunite the children with the respondent mother as well as both respondent fathers.
3. As to the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under the terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, the court finds that specific steps were ordered for all respondent parents at the time the order of temporary custody was issued on January 24, 2014, and at the time the children were adjudicated neglected on May 27, 2014. The court finds that DCF has fulfilled its obligations to provide services to the respondent parents with a goal of reunifying the family, but that the respondent parents have failed to comply with their obligations and have failed to achieve the goals set forth for them in the specific steps.
4. As to 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 of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties, the court finds that the children have been in DCF care for over two years and have been placed in the same foster home (second foster placement) for almost two years. During this time the respondent mother, Kaycee, has been inconsistent in exercising visitation and has failed to avail herself of substance abuse and mental health treatment which she so desperately needs before she can begin to work on acquiring the parenting skills needed to provide for these demanding children. As a result there is no longer a viable parent-child bond between Kaycee and her children. The children express no sense of loss at her absence or sense of longing for her. There has never been a parent-child bond between Samuel and his daughter, Unique. Samuel has been absent for most of Unique's life. Through DCF's efforts in providing visitation over the past year, Samuel has developed a relationship with Unique as a visiting resource. However, Unique does not know him as her father and is not bonded to him as such. There has never been a parent-child bond between Kelvin and his son, Jeramiah. Kelvin has been absent for most of Jeramiah's life. He has no relationship with Jeramiah and on occasion during visitation Jeramiah has appeared frightened of him. Jeramiah does not know Kelvin as his father. Both children have been in the same foster home for almost two years. They refer to their foster mother as " mommy" and both are bonded to her as a parent.
5. As to the ages of the children, the court finds that Unique was born on January 22, 2011 and is five years old. Jeramiah was born on December 3, 2011 and is four years and two months old.
6. As to the efforts the parents have 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, the courts finds the following. Kaycee has longstanding mental health and substance abuse problems which have prevented her from being available to parent her children. She has failed to address these issues so as to adjust her circumstances or conduct in an effort to reunite with her children. She has failed to avail herself of parenting education and therapy with her children and failed to take full advantage of the opportunities for visitation offered to her. There is no indication that she has ever inquired of DCF as to the health, safety and well-being of her children since they have been in foster care. Samuel has mental health and substance abuse issues which have prevented him from being available to parent his daughter. In addition he has a lengthy criminal record which has resulted in his incarceration for long periods of time. He has failed to address these issues so as to adjust his circumstances or conduct in an effort to reunite with his daughter. He has failed to take full advantage of visitation offered to him in order to reestablish the parent-child bond. There is no indication that he has ever inquired of DCF as to the health, safety and well-being of his daughter since she has been in foster care. Kelvin has unaddressed alcohol abuse issues. In addition he has a lengthy criminal record which has resulted in his incarceration for long periods of time. These issues have prevented him from being available to parent his son. He has failed to address these issues so as to adjust his circumstances or conduct in an effort to reunite with his son. He has failed to take advantage of visitation offered to him in order to re-establish the parent-child bond. There is no indication that he has ever inquired of DCF as to the health, safety and well-being of his son since he has been in foster care.
7. As to 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, the court finds that there has been no unreasonable act on the part of the DCF, the foster parents, any other party, or any other person or entity which has prevented or hindered the respondent parents from maintaining a meaningful relationship with his or her child. The court finds that none of these parents have been prevented by economic circumstances from exercising their rights of visitation. DCF has provided both transportation and visitation for all parents, including transportation to enable each respondent father to have visitation during the periods of time when each was incarcerated. The court further finds that there has been no unreasonable act by the respondent mother or either of the two respondent fathers toward any other parent which has prevented or hindered one parent from maintaining a meaningful relationship with his or her child.
Best Interests of the Child
The court, at this phase in the dispositional stage of these proceedings, must now address the issue of whether the termination of the parental rights of the respondents is in the best interests of the children. In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992). The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the respondent mother, Kaycee's, and the respondent father, Samuel's, parental rights is in the best interests of the child, Unique, and that termination of the respondent mother, Kaycee's, and the respondent father, Kelvin's, parental rights is in the best interest of the child, Jeramiah. 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 the foster family and with 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, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000). The court also balanced the children's intrinsic need for stability and permanency against the remote potential benefit of maintaining a connection with their respective parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998).
In making this determination, the court notes that Kaycee's bond with the children has only grown weaker since the children have been out of her care. She has difficulty interacting with them and has grown uncomfortable with them. With the passage of time the children show no sense of loss or longing for her. Given the dim prospects that Kaycee will ever gain insight into her mental health and substance abuse issues and be able to assume a responsible role in her children's lives, there is little or no reason to try and preserve what is left. Samuel has been absent for half of Unique's life and there is no reasonable prospect that he will ever be able to serve a role as anything other than a visiting relative. There is no reason to preserve this relationship. As to Kelvin, he has no discernable bond with his son, Jeramiah. Jeramiah suffers from no apparent loss at his father's absence from his life. There is no relationship to preserve. Neither child has ever expressed any sense of loss or longing for his or her respective father.
The court is persuaded that each of these children are bonded to their foster family by their overall mental, emotional and developmental progress and lack of behavioral indicia to the contrary. The court is not troubled that the foster family with which the children have resided is not an adoptive resource. " [T]he law does not preclude the termination of a biological parent's rights simply because adoption of the child by new parents is not imminent. Although subsequent adoption is the preferred outcome for a child whose biological parents have had their parental rights terminated . . . it is not a necessary prerequisite for the termination of parental rights. While long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development . . . adoption provides only one option for obtaining such stability." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Davonta V., 285 Conn. 483, 492 940 A.2d 733 (2008). Part of the reason that the children have been with the current foster family for so long is that DCF spent a significant amount of time and resources attempting to identify and approve an outof- state relative adoptive resource. That relative has now withdrawn and DCF has identified another adoptive resource whom the children know and with whom they are comfortable. The best interests of these children will be served by freeing them from the legal relationship with their biological parents so that they can have the love, care and permanency they require.
Conclusion
Wherefore, having considered all of the evidence and statutory considerations, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for the termination of parental rights of the respondents, Kaycee R. and Samuel M., to their child Unique and of the respondents, Kaycee R. and Kelvin P., to their child Jeramiah and also having found, by clear and convincing evidence, upon all of the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in the children's best interests to terminate the parental rights of each of the respondents, the court hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondents, Kaycee R. and Samuel M., to the child, Unique R. and the parental rights of the respondents, Kaycee R. and Kelvin P., to the child Jeramiah P. It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent for the children, Unique R. and Jeramiah P.