In re Stacy F.

Full title: IN RE STACY F

Court: Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Middlesex Juvenile Matters at Middletown

Date published: Aug 14, 2006

2006 Ct. Sup. 14923 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)

Opinion

No. H14-CP01-006869-A

August 14, 2006

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

STUART DAVID BEAR, JUDGE.

INTRODUCTION:

This is a termination of parental rights proceeding.

1. Court-related matters:

The following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence:

1. On April 18, 2000, the commissioner of the department of children and families ("DCF") filed a petition of alleged neglect concerning Stacy F. ("Stacy"). (Exhibit 20, 2.)

2. On February 8, 2001, Stacy was adjudicated neglected by the court, and an order of six months' protective supervision was entered. Id.

3. On August 8, 2001, the order of protective supervision expired. Id. Because the family continued in services, on August 14, 2001, the DCF file was closed. Id.

4. However, on December 5, 2001, DCF again filed a petition of neglect concerning Stacy. Id.

5. On February 12, 2002, DCF invoked a ninety-six hour hold for Stacy. Id. Stacy and her brother were placed with her maternal grandmother, and they have continuously lived with her since that date. Id., 38.

6. On February 15, 2002, DCF filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of Stacy, which motion was granted on such day. Id., 2.

7. On February 25, 2002, the order of temporary custody was sustained by the court. Id.

8. On March 26, 2002, Stacy again was adjudicated neglected, and she was committed to the care, custody and guardianship of DCF. Id.

9. On January 15, 2003, a permanency plan with a goal of reunification was approved by the court. Id. On that day, the court found that further efforts to reunify Stacy with her father were no longer appropriate. Id.

10. On May 21, 2004, the court approved the plan of transfer of Stacy's guardianship to her maternal grandmother. Id., 3. Also on May 21, 2004, the court found that further efforts to reunify Stacy with either of her parents were no longer appropriate. Id.

11. On April 13, 2005, DCF was allowed by the court to withdraw its permanency plan of transfer of guardianship to the maternal grandmother, and to file a new permanency plan seeking termination of parental rights. (Motion for judicial notice, para. 27, p. 3.)

12. On May 25, 2005, DCF filed its permanency plan for termination of parental rights and adoption. Id., para. 28, p. 4.

13. On July 15, 2005, DCF filed its petition for termination of parental rights on the basis of Ground (B)(i), the parents' failure to rehabilitate. Id., para. 29.

14. On June 14, 2006, after the filing of a written motion, DCF was permitted by the court to amend its petition by the addition of Ground D, no parent-child relationship. Id., para. 34.

15. On July 17, 2006, the trial began. It concluded on July 28, 2006.

2. Family history:

1. Stacy was born approximately two years before her parents' marriage. (Exhibit 20, 5.) 2. Between May 5, 1999, and June 11, 2003, the police in the town where the family lived were called to the family home or otherwise had contact with one or both parents at least ten times because of domestic violence or alcohol-related incidents:

A. On May 5, 1999, each of the parents was arrested. The mother used profanity in front of her young children. The mother was subsequently ordered not to enter the family home within twenty-four hours of consuming alcohol.

B. On July 7, 1999, a warrant was to be sought against the mother for disorderly conduct and for violation of the protective order.

C. On July 17, 2000, Stacy called the police after she was unable to wake up the mother. Between the time of the call and the arrival of the police, the mother awakened, and she was able to assure the police that she was fine. However, the incident was quite frightening for Stacy because she thought her mother was dead.

D. On September 11, 2001, there was a domestic dispute between the parents that had a traumatizing impact on Stacy. The mother's version is described in exhibit 26, a December 17, 2003, report of psychological evaluation: ". . . her husband was on the phone talking with his older daughter and [the mother] wanted him to get off the phone. He finally hung up and threw the phone at her. She cannot remember if the phone hit her or not but she doesn't think so. He then got up and grabbed her. She stated that her husband used to grab her sometimes and throw her into things. On this date, he grabbed her and kept shoving her into a door behind her. [The younger brother] was sitting on the floor the whole time watching. [The mother] kept on yelling at her husband to stop, but he continued. She said that she could see [the younger brother] watching, frozen. When [the father] finally stopped, [the mother] looked around and saw that [the younger brother] was gone. She went upstairs where the children were hiding, locked in a bathroom. Stacy told her that she had been calling [the younger brother] to come upstairs throughout the incident, but he would not move. When Stacy heard the thumping stop, she ran downstairs and grabbed him and brought him upstairs with her. [The mother] took the children and went to her mother's house. [The mother] stated that she called the police to report the incident, but now regrets doing so, because it got DCF involved in their lives. When [the father] went to court on the charge, the court made him leave the home." (Exhibit 26, 4.) The mother also "stated that the incident on 9/11/01 was their last physical confrontation. She said that her husband moved back into the house at Christmas of 2001 and he remained until February of 2002. She said that he left then because of her drinking. They separated for about a year without even speaking, and they divorced in April 2003."

E. On November 20, 2001, while the children were in her vehicle, the mother caused an accident with another vehicle driven by a woman. (Exhibit 7.) A police officer asked the mother "what happened and [the mother] stated `I was driving down the road, I don't know, that bitch locked up her brakes.' Id., 7. The officer "noted that [the mother] was not looking at me while speaking with me and that she was attempting to light a cigarette. I asked [the mother] not to light the cigarette and to explain to me what happened in the accident. [The mother] stated she really didn't know what happened in the accident." Id. The officer further noted that "[w]hile speaking with [the mother] . . . her eyes were bloodshot and glossy." Id. The officer detected "a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her breath." Id. The mother denied that she had been drinking. The mother was arrested for the offenses of risk of injury, two counts, reckless driving and driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs. Id. 5.

F. On January 6, 2002, the father went to the police department because the mother was drunk, Stacy had scarlet fever and he needed to take her to the hospital or, in the alternative, obtain a prescription for her. While he was speaking to the police, they received a 911 call from the mother asking for an ambulance for Stacy. The police sent an officer and an ambulance to the home. In Stacy's presence the mother stated: "I wanted the ambulance not the f____ police." When the officer explained that he was there to assist, the mother said: "I don't want you near my children." She pushed Stacy behind her and told the officer: "I want you out of my house, you f____ asshole." She then told Stacy: "Don't go near him, he is an asshole." The ambulance arrived and took Stacy to the hospital. (Exhibit 20, 6.)

G. On January 24, 2002, the mother created an altercation with her mother, the maternal grandmother, at the mother's home in the presence of Stacy. Stacy stepped in between the mother and her younger brother, and she told the mother, who was drunk, to leave her brother alone. When the police officer found the mother, "he detected a heavy smell of alcohol on her breath." Id. When confronted with her drinking, the mother denied that she had consumed alcohol, denied that she had argued with the maternal grandmother, denied that she had grabbed at her son and denied that Stacy had said anything to her . . ." Id.

H. On January 27, 2002, the police "responded to a domestic violence call" at the parents' home. A police officer "noticed a mild odor of alcoholic beverage on her breath . . ." Id., 7.

I. On January 31, 2002, the mother "called the police department reporting that she was intoxicated and wanted to go to the hospital for treatment . . ." Id., 7.

J. On February 6, 2002, the police received a 911 hang-up call. A police officer responded to the home to investigate. The officer "observed [the mother] using walls, tables and objects to maintain her balance as she walked and spoke with a heavy slur in her voice. [The mother] denied drinking, stating that she took 3 Ativans, but was unable to say exactly when she took them and she refused to show the officer the prescription bottle . . . The officer noted that during the course of his visit [the mother's] mood swings would go from being verbally abusive, argumentative, defiant, and insulting to meek and behaved . . . to crying and feeling sorry for herself and then to another mood. At times, [the mother] exhibited paranoia when asked questions about her medication or drinking. She refused to answer questions because she felt it would be used against her . . . Based on [the mother's] behavior, an ambulance was called to her residence and she had to be forcibly transported to Hartford Hospital . . . According to the hospital clinician, [the mother] was still combative and abusive and was going to be placed in restraints and medicated and would not be released during the night time hours . . ." Id., 7; see exhibit 6.

K. On February 12, 2002, in the presence of her children, as they were being removed pursuant to a ninety-six hour hold, the mother yelled at the father, who was giving Stacy a hug and a kiss, to "`get away from my children. Get the f____ away from my children.' The officer intervened and told [the mother] to stop swearing and yelling in front of the children. At this time, the officer noted a heavy smell of alcohol on [the mother's] breath. [The mother] said goodbye to the children and the DCF social worker left the home. According to the officer, [the father] left at the same time and as he was leaving, [the mother] yelled `Don't come back you f____ son of a bitch, don't ever come back' . . ." (Exhibit 20, 8.)

L. On March 8, 2002, the maternal grandmother, with whom the children were living, called DCF to report that she had been warned by a friend of the mother that the mother had hired four men to kidnap the children so that she and the children could flee Connecticut and move to another state. DCF contacted the G — police department. The mother was subsequently arrested for the alleged offenses of attempt to commit kidnapping in the second degree, conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the second degree, attempt to commit custodial interference, conspiracy to commit custodial interference, two counts of attempt to commit risk of injury, and two counts of conspiracy to commit risk of injury. Id., 8; see exhibits 4 and 5. Eventually, the mother pled guilty to a reduced charge and received one year of probation. (Exhibit 20, 8.)

IN. In connection with the December 17, 2003, psychological evaluation, the mother stated that her last alcohol ingestion was on December 12, 2002. (Exhibit 26, 5.) The mother stated that "she ended up in the hospital, but does not know exactly how that happened. She believes the Mobile Crisis Unit was involved in having her signed in. At the time, she could barely even walk. She had been experiencing blackouts and she had seizures from withdrawal." Id.

N. On June 11, 2003, the mother was alleged to have violated the protective order that prohibited her from coming within one hundred yards of her children. Id., 5-8, 39-40.

O. As of December 17, 2003, the mother did "not believe that she has any lasting effects from her alcohol use. She does have some problem with her memory about things that occurred around the time of her seizures. However, she has no other problems related to the alcohol use. [The mother] stated that she has no other addictive problems, other than smoking cigarettes. She does not use any illegal drugs." Id. Also as of that date, the mother continued to deny the negative, and perhaps irreparable, effects on Stacy of her alcoholism: "when asked how she thought her alcohol abuse has affected her children, she stated that it is in part why they are not at home. However, she went on to say that she always drank at night after the children went to bed, so they did not witness it at all. Up until the last few months before they were taken away, they were not affected at all by her drinking. Even near the end, they only saw her have a single drink in the mornings because she was shaking without alcohol in her system. Therefore, she did not believe her alcohol use really affected them even then. The only effect was that they were taken away by DCF." Id., 6.

P. Several police reports were admitted as full exhibits. (Exhibits 1-7 and 31.)

3. During Stacy's childhood, there were a number of domestic violence incidents, and the mother "admitted that her daughter had witnessed a significant amount of the domestic violence that occurred between her and [the father]." The mother stated that Stacy had tried to protect her, and that Stacy had tried to stop the violence. (Exhibit 26, 8-10.)

4. As an adolescent, the mother had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment for approximately two years. In August and September 2004, the mother again was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment Id. 13. From November 10, 2004, through February 17, 2005, when, because of her attitude, behavior and her inability to benefit from treatment the psychiatrist refused to continue to treat her, the mother received out-patient psychiatric services. Id. On March 10, 2005, DCF received an oral report from the psychiatrist, including the following:

A. The mother was seen for a total of eleven appointments;

B. She suffers from "some anxiety and occasional panic attacks";

C. She refused recommended medications;

D. She has a "significant personality disorder;"

E. Although the mother may have "neurologic damage," her "personality disorder is more problematic than any neurological damage;"

F. The mother "is contentious, pushes everyone away and then gets upset when they leave;"

G. The mother does not "take responsibility for how she provokes people;" and

CT Page 14930

H. The mother does not "have the ability to work on her issues." (Exhibit 20, 13.)

5. During Stacey's childhood, the mother had chronic, severe alcoholism and other behavioral issues, which the mother minimized or denied:

A. On March 27, 2000, the mother was admitted to a hospital for detoxification, but she was discharged to the hospital's emergency room because "she was medically unstable." Id. "According to the attending physician . . . [the mother] entered the emergency room with a blood alcohol level of (0.471 and many bruises. She had been drinking one pint of Vodka daily. [The mother] did have a positive history for blackouts. On 3/23/00, [the mother] was involved in a car accident and was seen at the emergency room and released." (Emphasis supplied).

B. On April 4, 2000, the mother completed an advanced behavioral health evaluation. She claimed not to be "100% sure" why she was having the evaluation, but she claimed to believe that it was "because she had an accident and DCF probably assume[d] that [she] ha[d] a drinking problem." Later, the mother stated that the accident "`possibly' had to do with alcohol." The mother admitted to use of alcohol beginning at age 14. "At the time of the evaluation, she was drinking 1 pint daily [of vodka] at least 5 nights a week . . . Further, [the mother] had been attending AA off and on for three years." She reported to the evaluator that she drank "so she doesn't have to feel anything." She admitted to having blackouts and relational difficulties when she drinks.

"[She] denied that she had ever been the perpetrator of domestic violence or violence toward others. [The mother] reported that her children have overheard fights between her and her husband, but she denied that the children have ever seen her drink."

When the evaluator recommended treatment, the mother "became very angry" and left. The evaluator concluded that the mother "had no motivation . . ." and that she needed a program "that would address her denial of her need for support."

The evaluator suspected that the mother might have "a delusional disorder of persecutory type" in part because of her report "to a nurse at detox time that her bruises were the result of her husband abusing her when in fact she had been in a car accident . . ." and that she "may also be exhibiting behaviors consistent with borderline personality disorder. She was angry during the urine screen, maintained normal range of affect with friendly mood during the evaluation until she was told she would benefit from treatment to support her recovery. At that point, [the mother] went from being friendly to being angry . . ." Id., 13-15.

C. On November 5, 2001, the mother again presented herself at the facility for a substance abuse evaluation: "At the time of the appointment [the mother] appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. When confronted by the . . . staff, [the mother] became irate and stormed out of the facility." Id., 15.

D. On November 20, 2001, the mother was involved in another automobile accident when the children were with her in the vehicle. Her breathalyser alcohol level test results were 0.238 and 0.239. The mother was arrested for the offenses of two counts of risk of injury in the second degree, driving while intoxicated, and reckless driving. On that day the mother agreed to complete detoxification and out-patient substance abuse programs, and to follow each program recommendation. She agreed that she would not have unsupervised contact with Stacy and her brother. Id.

E. On November 26, 2001, the mother arrived at the recommended substance abuse program smelling of alcohol. Id. She was asked to leave. Id.

F. On November 29, 2001, the mother again arrived at the recommended substance abuse program smelling of alcohol. Id., 16. The result of a breathalyzer test was a blood alcohol level of 0.158. Id. She was again asked to leave. Id.

G. On December 3, 2001, she was able to start the program. Id.; and

H. On January 14, 2002, she stopped attending the program because she had relapsed. Id.

6. By April 22, 2004, if not before that date, at a supervised visitation session when the mother raised with Stacy the issue of parent-child counseling, Stacy told her that she did not want to be in counseling with her and that she did not want to return home. Id., 20. Stacy gave the following reasons to her mother why she did not want to return home:

A. The mother and the father fought all the time.

B. When her younger brother and she were living in the parental home, because of their deficiencies and issues, Stacy had to take care of or parent him, and "she shouldn't have to do that."

C. She had to call the police because her mother's behavior and drinking.

D. She had to see her mother in handcuffs.

E. She and her brother had to hide in a closet to protect themselves.

F. She was fearful of her mother relapsing and resuming drinking.

G. The house where they had lived and where they would again live if they returned to the mother, whose marriage to the father had been dissolved, contained too many painful memories; and

H. "Other things." Id.

The supervised visitation and parent instructional worker stated to DCF that while the mother "was able to acknowledge being an alcoholic and showed some empathy, her focus continued on what she wanted and not what would make her children trust her, feel safe or be happy with her." Id., 21.

7. There were numerous issues relating to visitation:

A. Such supervised visitation ended on December 15, 2004, and on January 24, 2005 the supervised visitation and parent instructional worker wrote to DCF to summarize the visits. Id. She reported that the mother "was frequently argumentative about the ending time of the visit and . . . about limits set on her during visits." Id. Stacy and her brother "attempted to set limits on her attempt to draw the supervisor into an argument . . ." Id. They recognized that the "mother's behavior was problematic while she could not accept ownership of it . . ." CT Page 14933 Id. These factors were indicators that "emotionally the children are in a more positive place than is their mother. It is an indicator . . . that [the mother] should not parent her children." Id. The supervised visitation and parent instructional worker recommended that the children should remain with the maternal grandmother. Id.

B. After the court granted the mother visitation on one day's notice during specific times on Stacy's birthday which was taking place the next day, the mother refused to comply with the time period and claimed to the children that DCF was "kicking her out" of the party. Id., 22.

C. The mother made numerous other attempts to have visitation on her, rather than the court's or DCF's terms, on numerous occasions she inappropriately communicated matters to the children, she argued with DCF workers and she engaged in additional behavior not in the children's best interests. Id., 22-33.

D. Stacy's trust of and visitation with her father have become more problematic as she has grown older. Id., 32-38.

E. As of August 12, 2005, the date of the filing of the social study, the current worker reported that the mother "continues not to cooperate with the Department regarding visits. She is often combative and confrontational, often in front of the children. Stacy does not like visiting with her mother and prefers to be in another room altogether . . ." Id., 45. The worker reported that the father "continues to align himself with [the mother] as evidenced by his [April 12, 2005] remarriage to her. He continues to negate his responsibility in what had occurred in the past and has little insight as to how his children have been affected . . ." Id. The worker also noted that the father "continues to attempt to make Stacy feel guilty regarding her reluctance to communicate with her mother, something that has greatly upset Stacy." Id.

F. On April 13, 2005, when the mother unexpectedly missed a visit, Stacy and her brother became concerned "that their mother was drinking again and was possibly dead." Id. The worker commented: "It is telling that after being in care since 2/12/02, both children continue to have this fear." Id.; and

G. On April 24, 2006, DCF received another report from the supervised visitation and parent instructional worker. Such worker reported that "[n]either of the children talks of wanting to go home and neither talks of wanting to be in counseling with their parents. Family counseling is a consistent topic for mother." (Exhibit 21, 5.)

8. On April 23, 2003, the parents' marriage was dissolved. Id., 47. On April 12, 2005, the parents remarried. (Exhibit 20, 48.)

9. As of a May 24, 2006, social study, the parents were refusing to provide their current address to DCF. (Exhibit 21, 3.)

10. The mother has enormous unresolved issues with the maternal grandmother that primarily are of the mother's own making and causation. The mother is unable or unwilling to face these issues and her responsibility for them. The mother is unable or unwilling to see that before Stacy can begin to resolve her issues with the mother, the mother must show Stacy that she can do that with her mother, the maternal grandmother. The mother is unable or unwilling to make that happen.

11. The position of each of the parties was set forth in the most recent social study: "Stacy continues to be clear in her desire to remain in the care of her grandmother. [The mother and the father] have informed the Department, through their counsel, that they do not oppose Stacy remaining in the care of the Department. However, they do object to the termination of parental rights and are requesting that guardianship of Stacy be transferred to [the maternal grandmother]. However the Department is fearful, as is Stacy, that should the Court approve the transfer of guardianship, then the parents will bring the case back to court requesting custody of Stacy. Stacy has been clear that she does not want her parents bringing her or her grandmother back into court. As such, the Department is proceeding with the Termination of Parental Rights petition on behalf of Stacy . . ." Id., 11-12; see also exhibit A. Connecticut General Statutes 46b-129(in) permits a parent to file a motion to revoke a commitment "once every six months."

3. Testimony at trial: A. Stacy: Stacy was the last witness to testify at the trial. She wanted to testify. She wants her views and positions to be heard. At the time of her testimony, she was approximately fourteen years, nine months old. She wants her parents' rights to her terminated. She wants to have a "regular lifestyle" without DCF and court involvement in planning, and her requirement to attend visitation and she wants to protect her grandmother from her parents, especially from her mother. She does want the option to visit with and to have contact with her family on her terms. Stacy readily admitted that she does not want to see her parents. She is angry with them and she has been avoiding them. She feels very safe in her grandmother's home, and she is not going to leave there. Her mother, and her father on her mother's behalf, have been pressuring her to attend family therapy. She does not wish to attend sessions with her parents. She will never forgive her parents for what they did to her and her brother, and for the way they, especially the mother, have treated the maternal grandmother. Her ideal family would be and is her grandmother, her brother and their two cats.

A year ago she was unsure about whether she wanted her parents' rights terminated. She met and spoke with her therapist and her attorney and came to her conclusion about such termination. She remembers a lot of the issues that led to the breakdown of her relationship with her parents, including the domestic violence, her mother's behavior when she was "a major alcoholic," the car accidents, the time she thought her mother was dead, having to take care of her younger brother, her parents' smoking, her father accidentally pushing her into the kitchen table, and other issues, including a series of interactions concerning a stuffed animal with great sentimental and emotional meaning, that destroyed her ability to trust her parents.

B. Stacy's therapist:

Stacy's therapist testified. She has been certified by the National Board of Certified Counselors. She was accepted as an expert in child and adolescent counseling. It is very clear to her that Stacy wishes to live with her grandmother rather than her parents. One of Stacy's priorities is a home that is safe. Because of their past history, she does not trust or respect her mother, she has safety issues, and she has a lot of anger toward each of her parents. She wants to make sure that her mother cannot interfere with what she and her grandmother have decided, and that her mother cannot impose her views and ideas of what Stacy should be doing or not doing.^_ Stacy wants her removal from her parents that occurred more than four years ago to be finalized to confirm that she will be living with her grandmother and moving ahead with her life. If it is on her terms, Stacy may be willing to speak with her mother even after a termination of parental rights.

_ The mother does not seem to realize that each of her verbal attacks on and criticisms of the maternal grandmother has been and is currently perceived by Stacy as an attack on her, and each of those incidents has had the effect of driving Stacy further away from the mother.

The therapist stated that as with any adolescent, permanency is important for Stacy. It is one less thing for her to worry about as she develops. She wants to be secure in where she lives, and where her room is. She wants to know that her parents cannot take her away from her home. She needs to know that she will be able to stay with the maternal grandmother so that she can move on with her life. The maternal grandmother is Stacy's psychological parent.

The therapist believes that Stacy has a lot of work to do on her own issues before she would be able to participate in family therapy in a meaningful way. Stacy has a lot of past memories that are not going to be erased. She has to accept them, come to terms with them, and move on. To date, she has not been able to do this.

C. The maternal grandmother:

The maternal grandmother testified about the mother, Stacy and some of the mother's behavior that has been problematic both for her and for Stacy. She discussed the stuffed animal history and an incident concerning the mother's request that the children attend a viewing of the body of the paternal grandmother. The mother's behavior in each of those, and in connection with other incidents, deeply offended and hurt Stacy. Attempts at mediation between the mother and the maternal grandmother failed when the mother became offensive and abusive. The mother's sobriety did not help her behavior or their relationship.

The maternal grandmother stated that Stacy currently rejects each of her parents, and she remains afraid of their home because it has too many bad memories for her. Stacy was very upset that her parents remarried because she saw it as ignoring their past behavior, emotions and other reasons for the dissolution of their marriage.

D. The supervised visitation worker: CT Page 14937

The supervised visitation worker testified about the mother's difficulties in following the rules established by the supervised visitation facility, and about the issues dividing the mother and Stacy. A number of reports from the supervised visitation worker to the current social worker were admitted as exhibit 22. The January 24, 2005, letter report contains the following:

"This letter is in response to your undated letter faxed . . . on January 4, 2005, requesting a termination of services summary in which you wanted specific information addressed."

". . . We ceased providing parenting education which we started at your request on January 14, 2004, to [the mother] on August 25, 2004 because of her denial that she needed parenting education, her refusal to connect her parenting to the emotional issues of the children, her non-integration of our parenting education and her consistent attempts to draw the parenting educator into arguments . . ."

". . . While this mother rarely missed a visitation appointment, she was frequently argumentative about the conclusion time of the visit and argumentative about limits set on her during a visit . . ." (Exhibit 22, 1-2.)

The supervised visitation worker also reported:

"With regard to on-going concerns, they are as they have been since our initial involvement with [the mother]. The primary concerns are that [the mother] does not understand the emotional needs of her children and does not believe she has a need for parenting education . . ." Id., 4.

However, supervised visitation eventually resumed. In a January 3, 2006, letter report, the supervised visitation worker wrote the following: "I have talked with you about the visitation interaction and my concern for Stacy. She presents with indicators that she has not grown in her ability to verbalize her feelings to her mother. She has grown in her ability to understand how to manipulate a situation to avoid discussing feelings and/or to emotionally hurt her mother. I recognize that to share feelings with anyone, especially a parent, there need to be feelings of trust. That is a missing ingredient in the relationship of the children with their mother . . ."

"[The mother] was cooperative with our procedures and was not problematic. She was not argumentative nor was she verbally aggressive which are two behaviors we have experienced with her previous to these visits. [The mother] continues her pattern of not responding to the children's emotions when it is her behavior which is what is bothering the children. As we have observed in the past, [the mother] can provide excellent parenting, but she is not consistent. Consistency might come into balance if she was able to respond emotionally to her children's emotional challenges of her as their response to behaviors of hers that are problematic for them." Id., 11.

On April 22, 2006, the supervised visitation worker submitted another letter report. It included the following: "[The mother] continues her pattern of bringing inconsistent parenting skills to her relationship with her children. She is consistent in telling the children she wants a relationship with them and that she loves them. She is not consistent in problem solving when confronted with the emotions of the children with which she is not in agreement. She is not consistent in teaching the children to respect others as well as the rules of others and is inconsistent in her expectation that the children not hurt her and treat her with respect.

"The relationship between the children and her mother continues as we have previously documented. Neither of the children talks of wanting to go home and neither talks of wanting to be in counseling with their parents. Family counseling is a consistent topic for mother." Id., 15.

The supervised visitation worker also reported:

"Stacy's interaction with her mother continues to be problematic to their relationship. That is not to say that Stacy does not have reason for the feelings she has for her mother. Stacy can be pleasant to her mother, but also can be rude and continues to confront her mother regarding behaviors Stacy [f]eels are inappropriate, i.e. mother smoking when pregnant. Stacy can also be pleasant with staff, enter the visitation room where mother is waiting and immediately become negative. She can also be rude with staff. In this regard, Stacy is replicating her mother's behavior from multiple previous visits, but there are no indicators that Stacy is aware of the copied behavior." Id., 16.

The supervised visitation worker further reported:

". . . There continue to be indicators that the children and their mother are not emotionally and physically safe when visiting the other:

*The permission the children have from mother and which they give each other, to emotionally and physically hurt their mother is an indicator that any unsupervised access could deteriorate to the point that the children and/or their mother might not be safe.

*[The mother] continues to struggle with being a parent who commands the respect of her children.

*[The mother] continues to not acknowledge, and therefore not take responsibility for, inappropriate parenting, i.e. smoking when pregnant, not being consistent in setting limits on negative behavior of the children including disrespect of our staff. This parenting teaches inappropriate problem solving skills.

*The children continue to struggle with control over themselves v. control over their mother and their environment when visiting with her.

*All continue to struggle with how to positively express emotions."

Id., 20.

E. The marriage and family therapist:

The licensed marriage and family therapist who has been counseling the family testified. She said that Stacy had attended only one session since May 8, 2006. Shortly before that May 8 session, Stacy had learned that she would not be receiving the stuffed animal, that had great emotional and sentimental significance for her, from her mother because the mother claimed that it had been destroyed several months earlier by the mother's dog. The mother had been evading and avoiding addressing with Stacy such destruction and "coming clean" with Stacy for at least several months. In that May 8 session, Stacy left prior to its end because she was upset with and was having trouble believing her mother's version of what happened to the stuffed animal. Stacy told the therapist: "Everyone's been saying that my mom didn't tell the truth."

At the May 15 session, which Stacy did not attend, the father admitted that he had known for a long time that the mother's dog destroyed the stuffed animal, but he did not feel like saying anything. He understood that Stacy was upset but he was unsure why the stuffed animal was so important to her. According to the therapist, the father underestimates the positive influence he could have on the family dynamics.

On May 16, the therapist pointed out to Stacy that her hiatus from the therapy sessions could deprive her of the ability to hold her parents accountable.

The therapist described some of Stacy's issues. She said that Stacy was not ready to deal with the family issues and responsibilities of family members to each other. She believed that for Stacy and her parents the termination of parental rights is an emotionally symbolic action. She stated that even if the termination of parental rights were granted, it was possible for Stacy to be able to heal through family therapy. She said that Stacy believes that the termination of parental rights will alleviate some of her emotional pain and distress. To some extent, Stacy's emotional issues are based on her memories.

The mother's position has been that Stacy and her younger brother must attend family therapy. The mother told the younger brother that Stacy should not have a choice not to attend. The mother told Stacy that she could not visit her newborn brother unless she attended family therapy. The family therapist stated that Stacy should not be forced or ordered to go to family therapy.

On June 5, 2006, the mother, in the context of lack of trust, pointed out that Stacy and the maternal grandmother were not informing her about all of Stacy's school events. On June 19, the father mentioned that Stacy had not sent him a Father's Day card.

On July 10, 2006, Stacy confirmed to the therapist that she wanted the termination of her parents' rights, and that she wanted to sue her parents for depriving her of her property, e.g., the stuffed animal. While the family therapist supports Stacy's right to have input into the decision, she disagrees that the termination of parental rights is an appropriate solution. The stuffed animal issue, however, is symbolic of Stacy still not getting from her mother what she needs.

F. DCF case aide:

The DCF case aide testified. She has been involved with the family since February 9, 2006. The case aide overheard Stacy say that her parents had ruined her life. Stacy is agitated and/or depressed after the visits she chooses to attend.

G. Current DCF social worker:

The current DCF social worker testified about the mother's failure to follow through with services, including but not limited to a neuropsychological evaluation, an adult ADD evaluation and parenting classes, and she testified about the father's failure to attend Al-Anon and parenting classes. After the recent birth of another son, the parents refused to disclose where they were residing.

She confirmed that Stacy does not feel safe with either parent. She does not want to return home to their care. She gets upset when the parents pressure her or her grandmother by filing court motions to force Stacy or the grandmother to do things that the parents want to impose on them. These motions remind her that she cannot move on with her life. She wants to end her involvement in the court process. Stacy also gets upset when she believes that her mother is not behaving as an adult.

While DCF supports family therapy and would like Stacy to participate, DCF will not force Stacy to attend over her objection.

The worker acknowledged that the mother seems to react negatively to persons with authority or power over her.

DCF believes that it is in Stacy's best interest to have her parents' rights terminated.

H. The court-appointed psychological evaluator:

The court-appointed psychological evaluator testified. She was qualified as an expert in child psychology and adolescent psychology. Over approximately four years she performed four psychological evaluations. Her last evaluation report was dated December 30, 2005.

The psychological evaluator testified that Stacy has a lot of anger, underlying anxiety, defensiveness, and outbursts of anger, all of which are similar to the mother's behavior. Because the mother is a major source of her anger, it is very important for Stacy to punish her mother.

The psychological evaluator opined that family therapy is in Stacy's best interest. Over the years since she began to evaluate Stacy, Stacy has become more angry. How damaging her relationship with her mother has been should be addressed in Stacy's individual therapy.

Because she believes that family therapy is in Stacy's best interest, she does not believe that termination of parental rights is currently in Stacy's best interest. However, she was not aware that family therapy had been instituted and that several sessions had occurred. She was also not aware of the revelation concerning the stuffed animal allegedly being destroyed by the mother's dog, and how the mother and the father had covered that up for a long period of time. She has not seen Stacy, her younger brother, or the parents since this revelation.

The psychologist discussed the harm that could be caused by termination even if Stacy remains with the maternal grandmother. First it empowers Stacy to believe that there is no reason for her to make repairs to the relationship with her parents, and it will allow her to believe that her parents are the sole reason for the breakdown. The court notes that even in the absence of any legal termination of parental rights, this seems to be the position of the mother with respect to the maternal grandmother, e.g., that the grandmother is the sole cause of the mother's estrangement from her. The mother has been stuck on childhood-based issues with the grandmother for her entire adult life. With or without any legal termination of parental rights, Stacy seems determined to repeat with her mother, the mother's estrangement from the maternal grandmother. The mother has not assumed responsibility for Stacy's repetition of her behavior, nor has she made any real effort to bridge the chasm in her relationship with the maternal grandmother, on whom she depended for many things, including child care, until the children were removed from her.

The psychologist was also qualified as an expert in clinical psychology, forensic psychology, and personality assessment. She testified that Stacy currently should not be reunified with her parents, and she said that she would be surprised if there ever were a time when Stacy should be reunified. At this point in her life, Stacy has not received anything positive from her parents. The relationship between Stacy and her mother is neither positive nor healthy. Her relationship with her father is ambivalent, but Stacy has tried to make it more negative.

The psychologist testified that through 1999 "the father threw the mother all over the house." He "grabbed the mother's throat and shoved her around." The mother had bruises everywhere but her face. Because of the children and despite the abuse, the mother stayed in the relationship. The psychologist opined that the mother's inability to stop the father's domestic violence had a material impact on the mother's self-esteem. She could not protect, defend or rely upon herself. This was negative for the children, who witnessed the domestic violence and were also hurt occasionally by it. It has been reported that the last time the father was abusive was September 11, 2001. The mother reported that she had also experienced domestic violence in a previous relationship. The mother still does not see abusive relationships as out of the ordinary.

In 2000 the mother believed that more abuse would occur, but she was not going to leave the relationship. In 2002 the father left the relationship because of the mother's alcoholism and the mother's consequent extremely negative behavior. The mother worked toward reunification with the father which culminated in their 2005 remarriage. The parents have a general lack of interest in putting other people's needs, including the children's needs, above their own. In 2005, however, the mother acknowledged that, because of her alcoholism, she was responsible for the children being removed from her and the father. She acknowledged that it was right that the children were removed from her. The psychologist stated that children repeat their parents' patterns of domestic violence and lack of respect. By 2000, for example, the younger brother was showing signs of physical aggression. Because Stacy has witnessed domestic violence, and because there was an emotionally damaging impact on Stacy from each domestic violence incident she witnessed, this increases her likelihood of being a future victim of domestic violence.

Also, when the mother passed out and Stacy could not wake her, although the mother denied being angry with Stacy because she called 911, this was a damaging incident for Stacy.

The psychologist also noted that in 2000 the mother did not think her alcohol abuse had any effect on the children. She was in denial. This continued in 2001. When her stepdaughter and stepson did not speak to or visit her or the children, the mother blamed them instead of herself. In 2001, the mother was not a reliable self-reporter of information, including how the children saw her alcohol abuse. In 2001, however, the mother realized that it was life-threatening for her to consume alcohol, but she did not seek help or treatment.

Although the mother has made some progress, anger is still a strong emotion and an issue for her. She is easily resentful, and she uses her anger to push people her way. She still does not understand how her anger interferes with her relationships. Her alcoholism enhanced her problems, but even with sobriety, anger-related issues are still a problem for her. She also has a significant problem of impulse control. The mother is still capable of filing motions after each six-month period to transfer Stacy's guardianship from the maternal grandmother to her. She continues to have a great deal of anger and resentment toward DCF, and continues to have difficulty in dealing with them. The mother still is "her own worst enemy," and reunification with Stacy is not a reasonable plan for her. It is not in Stacy's best interest to seek or attempt reunification with the mother. However, the psychologist believes that only after it is seen that the mother's behavior, including her use of the court process to attempt to control Stacy, is not changed by individual and family therapy, would termination of parental rights be viable.

In 2001, the father was highly defensive, unresponsive and he minimized flaws and weaknesses. In 2005 he was more willing to admit responsibility for his past actions.

In 2001, Stacy denied to herself and others that there were any family problems. It was only after she was removed from her parents and placed with her maternal grandmother that she was able to acknowledge that there were serious problems. Since Stacy felt safe and nurtured in her new home, she was able to acknowledge and start to work on the problems in her parents' home. In 2005, Stacy wanted to protect herself. She was less interested in the problems other parents, and thus less parentified. The psychologist, however, could not say that Stacy's individual therapy ultimately will resolve Stacy's issues with her parents.

The mother needs long-term individual therapy to deal with her issues. While family therapy may provide a venue for the mother and Stacy to talk, it is the psychologist's opinion that the mother will never be able to parent Stacy. Also, as long as the father is married to the mother, the psychologist opined that he will never be able to parent Stacy or be able to assume a responsible role in her life. The father continues to minimize the effect of some of his comments that are emotionally damaging to Stacy.

Thus, the parents have failed to rehabilitate sufficiently, and they will not be able in the reasonable future to rehabilitate sufficiently, to have Stacy reunify with them.

The psychologist agreed that the stuffed animal was a significant symbol in the family and a proxy for whose needs are going to be met, e.g., the mother's needs or Stacy's needs. By keeping the stuffed animal and refusing to return it to Stacy after her removal from the parents' home, the mother chose to meet her needs rather than those of her daughter, something that Stacy clearly understands.

Stacy had been asking for years for the return of her stuffed animal. The mother's very belated story that her dog destroyed the stuffed animal was infuriating to Stacy, and Stacy does not believe that story.

Stacy currently has a nurturing, loving relationship with the maternal grandmother, including love, security, a stronger emotional base and less conflict than with her parents. After four and one-half years, Stacy needs the assurance of permanency in her life.

If the mother were capable of a positive relationship with the maternal grandmother, that would be beneficial to Stacy. The current conflicted relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother is very difficult for Stacy. When the mother says mean or abusive things to the maternal grandmother, it is logical that Stacy would not want to have contact with her. The mother is attacking Stacy's current main source of support, her one reliable source of nurture and security.

I. The mother:

The mother voluntarily testified. She explained that she had to miss a day of the trial because she had a problem with her dog. The father came to court on that day.

The mother said that if the court denied the termination of her parental rights and transferred guardianship to the maternal grandmother, she would not file any more motions.

She also agreed with the psychologist that the anger inside of her is negatively affecting her own life. She understands that her anger has contributed to the current impasse between her, Stacy and the maternal grandmother. She wants Stacy to grow up less angry than she has been. Although the family therapist said that it was the mother who declined to have the maternal grandmother attend the family therapy sessions, the mother blamed the maternal grandmother for not going to family therapy.

The mother also claimed that she "forgave" the maternal grandmother on Mother's Day in 2006. She did not communicate this in any way to the maternal grandmother, nor was it important for her to do so, because she did it for herself. She released rage and a "huge weight" was lifted. She claimed to feel much better.

The mother claimed that there was no evidence that she was not telling the truth about her dog destroying the stuffed animal, despite a court finding to the contrary and the mother being found in contempt. (Exhibits 29 and 30.)

She does not understand why Stacy is not being forced to go to family therapy. Despite Stacy living with the maternal grandmother for approximately four and one-half years, the mother feels that she has the right to force Stacy to go to family therapy and to religious school at her church, although Stacy and the grandmother attend a different church.

The mother acknowledged that she does not speak directly to DCF. Nor does she speak to her sister.

The mother wrote a January 2006, letter to Attorney General Blumenthal (exhibit 11) that contained the following, in part:

". . . I know that you investigate corruption [and] this is the WORST case of it I have ever heard of. Everyone who knows the parties involved [and] the situation agree [and] encouraged me to write to you. I am an alcoholic who has been sober for 3+ years. In Nov. 2001 I was not [sober] and my children . . . were taken from me by D.C.F. (understandably) after I drank and picked them up from school. There had been a domestic violence incident of September 11, 2001 that opened this case and my husband was not allowed in the home. There had been a case opened before this because of domestic violence [and] my drinking but was quickly closed because I spent much of 2000 sober . . . I only drank at night when my husband . . . was home [and] my children were in bed [and] even though I was intoxicated almost every night I still thought things were fine . . .

"These DCF workers can't stand me [and] what has occurred in my case is due to their personal feelings toward me only. I'll be the first to admit that I was a horrible, nasty person when I was drinking [and] I was very disrespectful to them to say the least . . . [complaints about maternal grandmother and religious education] . . .

"There have been so many cases so much worse than mine where children were allowed to go home. Our children haven't seen their home in all this time. At this point due to the horrible things my daughter has been told about me (I was also accused of trying to have them kidnapped [and] the charges were dismissed) she now suffers from Parent Alienation Syndrome [and] does not want much to do with me at all . . . [The children, after they left her care] were taken out of therapy with a wonderful therapist and sent to a "psychotherapist" who lets them swear [and] set things on fire as part of their therapy . . .¹

1 The mother did not refer to this claim during her testimony or otherwise as part of her case.

"P.S. I am enclosing an article of a woman whos[e] case was so much worse than mine who was reunified with her child after being straight for a year. I have seen so many like this when somebody was in compliance for a year and had their child returned to them. I feel that it's just cruel to me [and] to my children that after 3 years of compliance my situation has not changed . . ."

4. The petition for termination of parental rights:

In its July 15, 2005, petition, DCF alleged that it had made reasonable efforts to reunify Stacy with both the mother and the father, but that reasonable efforts were no longer required for each such parent because the court determined at a hearing that such efforts were no longer appropriate. DCF also alleged that the mother and the father were unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. DCF alleged that Stacy had been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and each parent had failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, each or either could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. ("Ground B(i)") In its summary of adjudicatory facts, DCF alleged:

1. On March 26, 2002, Stacy was adjudicated neglected and committed to the care, custody and guardianship of DCF.

2. Neither parent is willing to consent to the termination of parental rights.

3. On more than one occasion, the mother was informed by the court and by DCF that in order to be successfully reunified with Stacy, she needed to enhance her parenting skills, participate in substance abuse treatment, and participate in individual, parenting and family counseling and demonstrate that she had benefitted from those services, including parent education and instruction. The mother did not always keep her whereabouts known to DCF, and she did not immediately tell DCF that the father had moved back into the home. The mother did not continue with individual counseling for a period of time. The mother did not cooperate with a psychiatrist. The mother did not participate in a relapse prevention program. The mother did not participate in random drug screens. The mother was argumentative and disruptive during visits. The mother refuses to accept responsibility for her behavior and its consequences. She has unresolved mental health issues that make it unlikely that the children could be safely reunified with her. As of June 27, 2005, the mother had not acknowledged to Stacy how her past actions had adversely affected her life. The mother has failed to change her circumstances to enable Stacy safely to be reunified with her.

4. The father failed to attend parenting education and instruction. He failed to demonstrate an appropriate knowledge of child development, thus upsetting Stacy. He failed to keep his whereabouts known to DCF because he did not inform the worker that he had moved back with the mother and into her home. He failed to demonstrate that he placed Stacy's needs above his needs. He has sided with the mother against Stacy. He has pressured Stacy to contact her when Stacy did not want to do so. He directed Stacy not to discuss his comments with her therapist. He refused to participate in substance abuse programs. He failed to secure appropriate housing for himself and the children. Despite his knowledge that the mother was a barrier to his reunification with the children, on April 12, 2005, he remarried the mother.

5. Stacy is in need of permanency in an environment with consistent structure and stability. She has stated more than once that she wants to continue to reside with her grandmother and does not want to reside with her parents.

APPLICABLE LAW: 1. Adjudication and disposition standards, and the requirement of "personal rehabilitation":

Connecticut Practice Book section 35a-7 provides that

"(a) in the adjudicatory phase, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events preceding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment, except where the judicial authority must consider subsequent events as part of its determination as to the existence of a ground for termination of parental rights."

"(b) In the discretion of the judicial authority, evidence on adjudication and disposition may be heard in a non-bifurcated hearing, provided disposition may not be considered until the adjudicatory phase has concluded."

In In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002), the Appellate Court explained the language of Conn. Practice Book section 33-3(a), the predecessor of section 35a-7, as follows: "`A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 52, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998). `In the adjudicatory phase of termination proceedings, the court determines the validity of the grounds alleged in the petition, and therefore is limited to events preceding the filing date of the petition. In the disposition phase, the court is concerned with what action should be taken in the best interests of the child, and in that phase the court is entitled to consider facts occurring until the end of the trial.' In re Romance IN., 30 Conn.App. 839, 859, 622 A.2d 1047 (1993), appeal dismissed, 229 Conn. 345, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).

"Despite Practice Book [section] 33-3(a) and case law regarding termination proceedings generally, we have determined that with regard to termination petitions brought under [section] 17a-112(c)(3)(B), the trial court may, in the adjudicatory phase, properly consider facts and events that occur after the filing date of the petition in determining whether a respondent has achieved a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of that statute. See In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000). In In re Stanley D., we addressed a claim that the trial court improperly found that the respondent had not achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation within the meaning of [section] 17a-112(c)(3)(B). Id., 225, 763 A.2d 83. In our explanation of the requirements of [section] 17a-112(c)(3)(B) and the hearing process for petitions to terminate parental rights based on that section, we stated that "`[p]ersonal rehabilitation' refers to the reasonable foreseeability of the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent, not merely the ability to manage his or her own life . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.) The respondent, therefore, cannot prevail on his claim that the court could not consider whether he had achieved personal rehabilitation during the eighteen months subsequent to the filing of the petitions." Id., 748-49.

2. Post-petition events:

In Ground (B)(i) cases, a court may consider events subsequent to the filing date of the petitions, but it does not have to do so: "This court has expanded that rule [set forth in section 35a-7(a)] to allow courts to consider events subsequent to the filing date of the petitions in the adjudicatory phase of termination proceedings. `Practice Book [section] 33-3(a) [now section 35a-7] limits the time period reviewable by the court in the adjudicatory phase to the events preceding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the court may rely on events occurring after the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights when considering the issue of whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life `within a reasonable time.' (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Stanley D., supra, 61 Conn.App. at 230, 763 A.2d 83; see In re Amber B., 56 Conn.App. at 776, 785, 746 A.2d 222 (2000).

"The respondent's appeal challenges the evidence that a court must consider during the adjudicatory phase of the proceedings. The respondent argues that because this court has stated that trial courts may, in their discretion, consider such evidence, fundamental fairness requires the trial court to consider those events that take place up until the hearing. We do not agree with the respondent." In re Jennifer W., 75 Conn.App. 485, 494-95, 816 A.2d 697 (2003).

3. The meaning of "personal rehabilitation":

To be rehabilitated within the meaning of our applicable statutes, rules and case law "does not require that a parent be able to assume the full responsibility for a child without the use of available support programs such as those provided by the petitioner . . . The respondent argues that the court ignored the significant strides that she has made in her drug rehabilitation efforts in the year prior to the termination proceedings and the positive interactions she had with her children during supervised visits. The court, however, makes an inquiry into the full history of the respondent's parenting abilities . . ." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Id., 75 Conn.App. at 499.

As used in C.G.S. Section 17a-112, personal rehabilitation "`. . . refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . In conducting this inquiry, the trial court must analyze the respondent's rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child . . . The trial court must also determine whether the prospects for rehabilitation can be realized `within a reasonable time' given the age and needs of the child. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. at 360-61, 664 A.2d 1168." Id., 75 Conn.App. at 499-500.

4. The relationship between a respondent's compliance with the "specific steps" and whether there is "sufficient rehabilitation":

The Appellate Court explained that while the applicable standard is more than "any rehabilitation," it is not "full rehabilitation." Id., 75 Conn.App. at 500. The Appellate Court also explained that successful completion of the specific steps, e.g., "petitioner's expressly articulated expectations," is, presumably standing alone, "not sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation. In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. at 670, 783 A.2d 534." Id. In Vincent D., the Appellate Court explained: "In determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by the department . . . Accordingly, successful completion of expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat a department claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation . . ." (Citations omitted.) In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658, 670, 783 A.2d 534 (2001).

Additionally, "[a]lthough the respondent has made successful strides in her ability to manage her life, the court had reasonable concerns that such rehabilitation was not enough to assume a responsible position in her children's lives, especially given the special needs of her children . . ." In re Jennifer W., supra, 75 Conn.App. at 500.

5. The petitioner's standard of proof:

In termination of parental rights cases, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. C.G.S. section 17a-112(j): "The Superior Court upon hearing and notice . . . may grant a petition filed pursuant to this section if it finds by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts . . . to reunify the child with the parent . . . (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child, and (3) that: . . . (B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to be neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . and the parent of the child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent . . . and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child; . . . (D) there is no ongoing parent-child 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 . . ."

6. The best interest of the child requirements:

In determining by clear and convincing evidence whether termination is in the best interest of each child, ". . . the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding [the] seven factors [set forth in C.G.S. section 17a-112(k)]." In re Dorrell R., 64 Conn.App. 455, 467, 780 A.2d 944 (2001).

"The desire and right of a parent to maintain a familial relationship with a child cannot be separated from the desire and best interest of a child either to maintain or to abandon that relationship, or the interest of the state in safeguarding the welfare of children. The legitimate interests of parent, child and state require a balancing of the factors involved in those interests . . . in every case involving parental rights, a struggle exists between parents and the state to determine what is in the child's best interest, the child being the focus of the struggle . . ." (Citations omitted.) In re Shaquanna IN., 61 Conn.App. 592, 598-99, 767 A.2d 155 (2001).

7. The construction of C.G.S. section 17a-112: C.G.S. Section 17a-112(q) provides that the "provisions of this section shall be liberally construed in the best interest of any child for whom a petition under this section has been filed." However, "[f]amily reunification is an important social objective. As our Supreme Court recently has reminded us: `[A]n important goal of the child protection statutes, in addition to protecting children from abuse and neglect is to preserve family integrity by . . . teaching parents the skills they need to nurture and care for their children.' Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, 272 Conn. 734, 754, 865 A.2d 428 (2005)." In re Christina IN., 90 Conn.App. 565, 570-71, 877 A.2d 941 (2005), cert. granted, 276 Conn. 903 (September 28, 2005). 8. Weight to be given to testimony from court-appointed forensic psychologists: "Psychological testimony from professionals is appropriately accorded great weight in termination proceedings." In re Shyliesh H., 56 Conn.App. 167, 176, 743 A.2d 165 (1999). However, "[a]s in other areas where expert testimony is offered, a trial court is free to rely on whatever parts of an expert's opinion the court finds probative and helpful . . . In family cases in particular, it would be anomalous to require a trial court to assign particular weight to a report which is based on statements that the trial court may evaluate differently and on circumstances that may have changed." Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 281-82, 440 A.2d 899 (1981).

9. Grounds alleged by petitioner:

The prerequisite to a determination that any TPR petition should be granted is that the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) DCF "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts provided such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to subsection (b) of section 17a-110 or section 17a-111b that such efforts are not appropriate, [and] (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child . . ."

The third requirement is that the court find, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF has proved at least one of seven statutory grounds for termination. The grounds that are alleged in this case are:

". . . (B) the child (i) has been found by the Superior Court or the Probate Court to be neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child; . . . (D) there is no ongoing parent-child 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 . . ." (C.G.S. 17a-112(j)(3).)

Despite the order in section 17a-112(j) in which the statutory prerequisites to be proved are set forth, prior to any termination of parental rights, "[i]f the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, then it proceeds to the dispositional phase. During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 689, 741 A.2d 873 (1999).

C.G.S. SECTION 17A-112(k) FINDINGS: 1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and each child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of each child with the parent.

Prior to and after the date on which the court determined that such services were no longer appropriate, the services offered to the mother have included the following:

A. general DCF and social work services;

B. parenting classes with at least two separate providers;

CT Page 14956

C. individual counseling;

D. couple counseling;

E. family counseling;

F. substance abuse evaluations and treatment;

G. detoxification programs;

H. psychiatric services;

I. supervised and unsupervised visitation;

J. family mediation services;

K. neuropsychological evaluations;

L. court-ordered psychological evaluations;

IN. domestic violence victim services; and

N. administrative case reviews.

(Exhibit 20, 45-46.)

Prior to and after the date on which the court determined that such services were no longer appropriate, the services offered to the father have included the following:

A. general DCF and social work services;

B. parenting classes;

C. individual counseling;

D. family counseling;

E. supervised and unsupervised visitation;

F. anger management services;

G. court-ordered psychological evaluations;

H. domestic violence services; and

I. administrative case reviews.

Id., 46.

The services offered to Stacy have included the following:

A. general DCF and social work services;

B. relative foster care;

C. medical and dental services;

D. supervised and unsupervised visitation;

E. individual therapy;

F. court-ordered psychological evaluations;

G. family therapy; and

H. case management services.

The foregoing services amply demonstrate that prior to the filing of the termination of parental rights petition (and thereafter), DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify Stacy with each parent. C.G.S. section 17a-112(j)(1).

2. Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 as amended.

DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family. See 1. above.

3. The terms of an applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order(s).

On March 26, 2002, the following specific steps were ordered. Id., 48-54.

*Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and with visits by the child's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem. On November 18, 2003, DCF visited the mother's home. Because she was verbally abusive, prior to the filing of the TPR petition, DCF did not return to her home.

The father cooperated with these expectations.

*Keep children's whereabouts and your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney and the attorney for your children.

Neither the mother nor the father complied with this expectation.

*Participate in counseling and make progress toward identified parenting, individual and family treatment goals.

The mother did not comply with this expectation. Inter alia, the psychiatrist determined that the mother was not likely to be able to make progress toward identified goals.

Except for parenting classes, the father did generally comply with this expectation.

*Accept and cooperate with in-home services referred by DCF and make progress toward the identified goals.

DCF did not make any referrals for in-home support services.

*Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment.

The mother eventually obtained treatment and after-care relapse prevention that she reports has been successful.

DCF did not request that the father submit to any substance abuse assessment or treatment.

*Submit to random drug testing.

Since January 2003, the mother has not complied with this specific step. She has not submitted to random during testing.

The father was not required to comply with this expectation. CT Page 14959

*Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing.

Each parent complied with this expectation.

*Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents.

On the date of the social study, there were no restraining or protective orders in place. The mother had difficulty complying with previous orders.

*Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goals, and for use in further proceedings before the court.

Each parent complied with this expectation.

*Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

On the date of the social study, the parents were living together in the family home. In 2002 and 2003, when they were separated, the father was unable to provide a home for himself and his children. He was living with his mother who was ill, and who had the support of a caregiver who was unable to care for the children in addition to her responsibilities to the mother.

Each parent has been employed, and is currently employed.

*No substance abuse.

Each parent has smoked cigarettes in the past. By her self-report to Stacy, the mother smoked cigarettes during her recent pregnancy. The mother currently smokes cigarettes. The court does not have information about whether the father still smokes cigarettes.

The mother's self-report is that she has been sober for in excess of three years.

DCF does not have any knowledge about whether the father has abused any substances. DCF's belief is that he has not done so.

*No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole. On January 23, 2005, DCF reviewed the state of Connecticut state police database. Neither the mother nor the father had a felony police record.

*Consistently and timely meet and address the children's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs, including, but not limited to, keeping the children's appointments with medical, psychological, psychiatric or educational providers. Make all necessary child-care arrangements.

These expectations were not applicable to either parent.

*Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household.

Neither parent complied with this expectation when the father returned to the family home early in 2004. The parents also refused to provide an address in 2006.

*Maintain the child in the state of Connecticut.

This specific step was not applicable to either parent.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of each child with respect to their parents, any guardian of the 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.

Stacy is estranged from her biological parents.

Stacy has a strong, very positive bond with her grandmother and wishes to continue to live with her, her younger brother and their two cats.

5. The age of each child.

At the end of the trial, Stacy was approximately fourteen years, eight months old.

6. The efforts each parent has made to adjust his or her circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the children to return home in the foreseeable future. Neither the mother nor the father has adjusted his or her circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of Stacy to return home in the foreseeable future, and both parents recognize this. They are not seeking to have Stacy return to their home.

7. The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the children, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.

There was no evidence presented that either the mother or the father has been prevented from maintaining a relationship with Stacy for any reasons other than the predictable consequences of his or her actions, omissions and behavior, and Stacy's reaction thereto.

Neither the mother nor the father provided specific information concerning his or her current or past economic circumstances.

DCF HAS PROVED, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ITS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION, AS AMENDED:

The court finds that DCF has alleged and proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) this court has jurisdiction over the matter and the parties; (2) Stacy previously was adjudicated neglected; (3) prior to filing its termination petitions (and continuing thereafter, although it had been relieved from doing so), DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the mother and the father through offers of and provision of services; and (4) the mother and the father were unable to benefit from the offers of and provision of services to the point where either could be considered to be a parental resource for reunification.

A. The mother and the father failed to rehabilitate within a reasonable time after the removal of Stacy from them on February 12, 2002:

On February 12, 2002, when Stacy was removed from the parents pursuant to a ninety-six hour hold, she was ten years old. The mother continued her active alcoholism and out-of-control behavior through December 12, 2002, when she had a grand mal seizure, "not my first from detoxing." (Exhibit 11, 2.) In January 2003, the mother relapsed into alcoholism.

After the children were removed in February 2002, the father separated from the mother. The father started dissolution proceedings, and in April 2003, the marriage of the parties was dissolved. The mother was awarded the family home, Id. During 2002 and 2003 neither parent was able to provide a safe, secure, stable home for Stacy. In 2003, the mother became sober and, according to her self-report, has remained sober. The parents reunited in 2004 and at some point before May 2004, the father moved back to the family home.

During 2004 and 2005 the parents were not able to provide a safe, secure, stable home for Stacy. She had, and has, very negative memories of the home in which the parents have lived and are currently living, so she was, and is, unwilling to return to live in that particular home.

Many of the mother's issues have continued to exist despite her sobriety. Stacy's feelings about and issues with her mother have prevented reunification through the present, and at this time there does not seem to be any likelihood of future reunification.

B. There is no current parent-child relationship, as set forth in C.G.S. section 17a-112(j)(3), between Stacy and her parents:

As set forth throughout this memorandum of decision, despite their efforts, neither the mother nor the father has been able to maintain a parent-child relationship with Stacy. Stacy is estranged from them, is unwilling to listen to them, and is unwilling to be guided or directed by them.

C. The statutory rounds for termination of parental rights:

The court finds that DCF has established, by clear and convincing evidence, as to each parent, with respect to Stacy, Ground (B)(i), failure to rehabilitate sufficiently to have Stacy reunited with either of them.

The court finds that DCF has established, by clear and convincing evidence, as to each parent, with respect to Stacy, Ground D, no parent-child relationship, as of July 28, 2006. CT Page 14963

D. The best interest of Stacy:

The court has considered the best interest of Stacy. The court has considered whether it is in the best interest of Stacy to be returned to the mother and to the father, including whether she and he reasonably could be expected and relied upon to provide the safe, secure, nurturing, violence-free, stable and permanent home and environment idealized in the statutes and case law. The court has considered the evidence presented concerning Stacy's current situation and circumstances, the length of time she has been in that situation and those circumstances, and the reports of her growth and progress.

The court has also considered the parents', the forensic psychologist's and the family therapist's opinions that termination of parental rights is premature unless and until Stacy attends family therapy, and Stacy's position that she will not attend further sessions of family therapy. The court also considers that the mother has estranged herself or been estranged from the maternal grandmother and from Stacy. Stacy and her grandmother have overcome the mother's abuse, hostility and negativity toward each of them, the grandmother is providing a safe, secure, stable, nurturing home for Stacy and her brother, and this has existed for almost four and one-half years.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of Stacy, and that it is necessary for her growth, development safety, security, stability, and permanency, that the rights of the mother and the father be terminated.

CONCLUSION AND ORDERS:

Having considered the evidence and the statutory, Practice Book and case law requirements, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, as to each parent, with respect to Stacy, that DCF has proved Ground (B)(i), failure to rehabilitate by each parent, and Ground D, no parent-child relationship.

Having considered Stacy, her age, experiences, needs, sense of time, history of, and current lack of, any positive relationship with the mother and the father, her positive history and relationship with the maternal grandmother and her younger brother, her need for safety, security, stability and permanency, the mother's and the father's lack of any reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time sufficient to enable them adequately to parent Stacy in the current circumstances, and having considered the general totality of circumstances, the court finds that it is in the best interest of Stacy to terminate the parental rights of the mother and the father.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parental rights of the mother and the father to Stacy are hereby terminated. The commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed as statutory parent of Stacy. The initial report concerning Stacy shall be submitted, as required, within thirty days hereof. Quarterly reports and annual permanency plans shall be submitted as required in accordance with statutory requirements.

Judgment shall enter accordingly.