Opinion
H12CP17017219A H12CP17017220A H12CP17017221A
03-18-2019
IN RE YOLANDA V.[1] In re Jennessy V. In re Hailey V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
C. Taylor, J.
This memorandum of decision addresses issues raised by the petition filed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF or the Department) for Yolanda V. (Yolanda), Jennessy V. (Jennessy), and Hailey V. (Hailey), seeking to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of the children’s mother, Iris O. (Iris) and the children’s father, Martin V. (Martin).
In accordance with the spirit and intent of § 46b-124(b) and Practice Book § 32a-7, the full names of the parties are not disclosed. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the court.
The court has jurisdiction over the proceedings; notice of all hearings were provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book; and no evidence or pleadings indicate the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), as contemplated by Practice Book § 32a-3(c), is applicable in this litigation.
DCF alone bears the burden of proving each essential allegation of the TPR petition by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to the applicable provisions of General Statutes § 17a-112(j).
See § 17a-112(j); In re Dylan C., 126 Conn.App. 71, 87-88, 10 A.3d 100 (2011); Practice Book § 32a-3(b).
After considering the verified petitions, the parties’ motions, the facts as found by clear and convincing evidence, and applying the relevant standards and law to those facts, the court resolves all issues in favor of DCF. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the court orders termination of parental rights.
In deciding the TPR issues, the court had adhered to § 17a-112(q) providing that related legislative "provisions shall be liberally construed [by the court] in the best interests of any child for whom a petition under this section has been filed."
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND INITIAL FACTUAL FINDINGS
The parties’ procedural interaction is relevant to the TPR issues. See In re Paul O., 141 Conn.App. 477, 480, 62 A.3d 637, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 933, 64 A.3d 332 (2013). The court has used appropriate standards for assessing the weight of the evidence as a whole. Upon consideration of the verified pleadings and the evidence in its entirety, the court finds the facts set forth in this memorandum of decision to have been proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The history of the file and the evidence produced at trial reflects that DCF has been involved with this family since 2002, due to issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, parenting issues, physical neglect, and physical abuse.
Iris has an extensive history with DCF dating back to 2002, with two substantiated reports and seven unsubstantiated reports. Iris has not had custody of two of her older children, Malaysha R. (Malaysha) (DOB: August 14, 2002), and Damion B. (Damion) (DOB: September 19, 2005), since 2002, when they were removed from her care. Iris was not successful in reunifying with them and they remain in relative care under guardianship orders. The three children listed in the current petition had legal involvement and a previous adjudication of neglect. The children were removed in the past and placed in their current relative foster home, from March 25, 2011, until July 27, 2012, at which time they returned to their mother’s care with an order of six months of Protective Supervision.
On August 21, 2002, DCF received a referral from the University of Massachusetts Hospital in Worcester. Iris had been visiting relatives and went into labor. At the time of the delivery of Malaysha, she admitted that she had used marijuana during the pregnancy. Iris and Malaysha tested negative for marijuana at the time of delivery. The allegations were unsubstantiated and the case was closed with no further intervention by DCF at that time.
On November 2, 2002, DCF received a referral from the maternal grandmother, Maria G. (MGM) (DOB: June 24, 1959), who reported that Iris had been arrested for drug-related charges. An aunt who had been caring for the children, due to Iris’ incarceration, called MGM and stated that she could not continue to care for them. A child protection referral was made. The subsequent investigation revealed that there was sufficient evidence to substantiate physical neglect due to inadequate supervision of Malaysha and Damion by Iris.
On November 6, 2002, Malaysha and Damion were removed under an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC). They remained in foster care until August 24, 2006, at which time there was a transfer of guardianship to a relative in regards to both of the children.
On February 9, 2009, Iris filed a petition in probate court to be reinstated as guardian for Malaysha and Damion. Iris cooperated with the assessment, which included a hair test. The probate summary indicates that she had also completed parenting at Klingberg and substance abuse treatment at ADRC. DCF did not recommend that Iris be reinstated as the guardian, as it was felt that such would be detrimental to the children as they had resided for such a period of time with prospective relatives. It was recommended that visitation be re-established. At the time of probate involvement, Iris had three children in her care: Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. She was involved in a relationship with Martin at the time.
On September 21, 2009, Head Start reported to DCF that Yolanda presented with bruising to the face. The bruises were determined to be birth marks. Martin tested positive at the methadone clinic for heroin, and Iris tested positive at ABH for marijuana. The allegations of physical neglect were substantiated and the case was transferred to ongoing services.
On January 25, 2010, DCF received a report as Iris phoned 911 after Hailey received a cut to the forehead. The treating EMTs reported that they did not feel that the coffee table, that Iris reported the child had hit, had sharp enough edges to inflict such injury. A Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation occurred and found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. However, the case remained open in ongoing services.
On May 24, 2010, DCF received a report from a teacher with concerns because Yolanda had red sores on her hands, and because Yolanda had made statements accusing Iris hitting her. The allegations were unsubstantiated and remained open with ongoing services.
On August 11, 2010, DCF received a report of domestic violence between Iris and Martin. The children were not in the home during the incident. The report was unsubstantiated and remained open with ongoing services.
On February 16, 2011, a report was received with allegations of emotional neglect of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey by Iris and Martin. The caller stated that police went to the home and learned that Iris and Martin had a physical and verbal altercation. According to the caller, this occurred quiet often. The caller stated that there were holes all over the walls and the caller was unsure if they were from both parties. There was spaghetti splattered over the wall. There were numerous items broken in the home from past fights which were never reported. Martin had injuries. According to the caller, both parties were hitting each other. However, Iris did not have any visible injuries. The children were present but not injured. The caller stated that the children were "scared out of their minds." The caller stated that neighbors heard the children screaming. The two older children told the caller that "mommy and daddy fight all the time." Both parents were arrested. Iris was charged with assault in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and interfering. Martin was charged with disorderly conduct and interfering. Both parties remained in police custody. The children remained at the home with a relative. The allegations were substantiated and the case was transferred to ongoing services. The children entered care at this time.
On March 25, 2011, DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. On March 29, 2011, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 12th District, Hartford, (SCJM), DCF filed neglect petitions on behalf of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. On the same day, in SCJM (Dyer, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents.
On April 8, 2011, in SCJM, the court (Keller, J.) sustained the OTCs and entered pro forma denials as to the neglect allegations.
On November 10, 2011, in SCJM, the court (Cofield, J.) committed Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to the respondent parents.
On December 21, 2011, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) concerning Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The permanency plan (PP) called for reunification with Iris or Martin, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On February 2, 2012, in SCJM, the court (Frazzini, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved the PP calling for reunification with Iris, with a concurrent plan of transfer of guardianship. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.
On September 4, 2012, in SCJM, DCF filed its MRP concerning Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The PP called for reunification with Iris, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan. The PP also called for returning the children to Iris’ custody within six months of Protective Supervision. On the same date, DCF filed its Motion to Reopen and Modify Disposition.
On September 18, 2012, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) granted DCF’s Motion to Reopen and Modify Disposition. The court found that cause for commitment no longer existed and that revocation of the commitment was in the best interests of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The court returned custody of the children to Iris under six months of Protective Supervision. The court reaffirmed the specific steps and also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP. On March 18, 2013, the Protective Supervision expired and the case was closed.
On June 23, 2014, DCF received a report from CHC, alleging reported physical neglect of the children by Iris. The caller reported that Iris had three older children that were placed with relatives. The caller, who had done an intake, expressed concerns regarding Iris’ substance abuse issues. Iris tested positive for phencyclidine (PCP), marijuana, and cocaine. The caller confronted Iris with the results. Iris did not deny using illicit substances, so the caller told her that she could not do medication management until Iris’ substance abuse issues were resolved. A CPS investigation occurred and found that there was not sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. The case was closed. Iris was awarded custody of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey through Hartford Family Court in January 2015.
On January 15, 2016, DCF received a report from Wheeler Clinic (WC), stating that Hailey had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pica. Yolanda had been previously diagnosed with autism and ADHD and Jennessy had been previously diagnosed with ADHD.
IICAPS had been working with the family since September 2015. The caller indicated that IICAPS had difficulty in reaching Iris for six weeks and had difficulty in meeting with the family to provide necessary clinical services. The program was supposed to meet with Hailey three times per week, but Iris had failed to make her available for at least three weeks.
In 2016, the family moved to Rocky Hill. Hailey and Hennessy were not promptly enrolled in school there. A CPS investigation found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. During this investigation, DCF was able to meet with Iris and all three children. DCF found that Iris had primary custody of her children and was no longer in a romantic relationship with Martin. Iris was able to meet her children’s basic care needs at this time through Section 8 and state assistance. Iris and her children were involved in services and the children were in school and attending regularly. Iris and the children had service referrals and involvement from providers through the Chrysalis Center, Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC), the Village for Families and Children (VCF), and WC for ongoing services. Iris’ Chrysalis Center case manager continued to assist Iris by ensuring that all mental health services remained in place for her and for her children, and assisted Iris by maintaining these services going forward. The case was closed.
On March 4, 2016, DCF received a report from Stevens Elementary School alleging physical neglect of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey by Iris. The caller reported that the children had chronic lice since starting at the school in January 2016. After DCF investigated, the lice issue with the children was resolved and the case was submitted for closure with the children engaged in services at VCF and WC Care Coordination.
On May 10, 2016, DCF received a report from VCF stating that the family appeared that evening for their medication management appointment. Iris reported that her ex-boyfriend broke into the home and strangled Yolanda the night before. None of the children awoke Iris. Iris learned of this right before the appointment that night. Yolanda told Iris that Anthony "choked" her. Jennessy told Iris she heard her sister screaming and saw the man choking her sister. Jennessy also reported she heard glass breaking. Iris’ car window was in fact broken. Iris did not report this to police. The caller indicated that he/she encouraged Iris to call the police. The children stated they did not go to Iris because they were scared and they were sleeping. The allegations of physical neglect regarding Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey were substantiated against Iris due to circumstances injurious to the children’s well-being.
DCF concluded that Iris was actively using PCP and marijuana while caring for her children. She presented with erratic thoughts and paranoia, which appeared to be a direct result of her PCP usage and unaddressed mental health. The children did not appear to be aware of Iris’ substance abuse, however, her usage and unaddressed mental health impacted her ability to parent and protect the children appropriately. The allegation of emotional neglect was substantiated on behalf of the children as the children reported being scared of burglaries to their home. Iris’ erratic and paranoid behavior created an emotional impact on the children, as they became fearful to reside in their home and were noted to have difficulty sleeping. The case was transferred for ongoing services. Iris continued to work with WC to address her substance abuse and mental health, as well as the children’s mental health services at VCF. Martin was expected to completed relapse prevention services at WC. IFP services were put in place to assist Iris and Martin in improving and strengthening family functioning.
On May 30, 2017, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 12th District, Hartford, (SCJM), Iris filed a Motion to Reinstate Guardianship of Malaysha. On October 19, 2017, in SCJM (Dannehy, J.), Iris’ Motion to Reinstate Guardianship of Malaysha was denied.
On October 19, 2017, DCF received a same day report from Saint Francis Hospital with allegations of physical neglect of Hailey, Jennessy, and Yolanda by Iris. The reporter indicated that Iris came into Saint Francis emergency room by ambulance with Yolanda, after Iris attempted suicide. DCF substantiated these allegations after an investigation.
On October 20, 2017, DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on the children. On October 24, 2017, in SCJM, DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The petition alleged that the children:
1. had been abandoned;
2. were being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally; and
3. were being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, or associations injurious to well-being.
On the previous day, in SCJM (Westbrook, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC, for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. DCF claimed that the children were in immediate physical danger from their surroundings, and, as a result of said conditions, the children’s safety was endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings was necessary to ensure the children’s safety, and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home were made. The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents.
On October 27, 2017, in SCJM (Dannehy, J.), Iris and Martin, who were represented by counsel, appeared in court and were advised of their rights. Iris and Martin agreed to sustain the OTC and entered pro forma denials as to the neglect allegations. The court also issued specific steps for each respondent parent.
On January 25, 2018, in SCJM, Iris entered written pleas of nolo contendre to the conditions injurious section of the neglect petitions. She was canvassed by the court (Dannehy, J.). The court then committed Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to both respondent parents. The court also ordered a hair test for Iris. Martin stood silent. On March 29, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) ordered that Iris undergo another hair test scheduled for the beginning of May if the final segment of Iris’ previously ordered hair test was positive, or if it was not tested.
The court memorandum for March 29, 2018, indicates that the previously ordered hair test was positive for PCP.
On July 6, 2018, in SCJM, DCF filed its MRP as to all three children. The PP called for TPR and adoption, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan. On August 6, 2018, in SCJM, Iris, through her counsel, filed an Objection to Permanency Plan and Proposed Findings.
On August 13, 2018, in SCJM, DCF filed a TPR petition concerning Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. DCF alleged failure to rehabilitate as to Iris and Martin concerning all three children.
On August 30, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for TPR and adoption as to Martin. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Martin.
On September 13, 2018, in SCJM, Iris appeared in court. The court (Dannehy, J.) confirmed service, and advised Iris of her rights. Iris entered pro forma denials as to the TPR.
On September 14, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) confirmed service as to Martin and ordered him defaulted for failing to appear.
On October 4, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) granted Iris’ Motion to End RSVP service.
On October 17, 2018, in SCJM, Iris, through her counsel, withdrew her Objection to Permanency Plan and Proposed Findings. The court (Dannehy, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for TPR and adoption as to Iris. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Iris.
On January 7, 2019, the TPR trial commenced before this court. Martin failed to attend the trial. On January 14, 2019, the TPR trial concluded. For the reasons stated below, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the TPR issues against the respondent parents and in favor of the petitioner DCF.
This court has jurisdiction over the pending case. Notice of this proceeding has been provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Practice Book. No action is pending in any other court affecting custody of the child.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
The court has reviewed the Neglect and TPR petitions and the exhibits, which include the TPR social study and the addendum to same. The court has taken judicial notice of the record.
The court also took judicial notice of the pleadings, petitions, motions, summaries of facts, specific steps, transcripts, and court memorandum not related to any judicial pre-trials or case status conferences. The court did not review any status reports, social studies, or evaluations not otherwise entered into evidence as full exhibits in this case. See In re Stacy G., 94 Conn.App. 348, 354-55, 892 A.2d 1034 (2006).
Relevant to default judgments in child protection cases, Practice Book § 35a-8 provides in pertinent part: "(a) ... All parties except the child or youth shall be present at trial unless excused for good cause shown. Failure of any party to appear in person or by their statutorily permitted designee may result in a default ... for failure to appear for trial, as the case may be, and evidence may be introduced and judgment rendered. (b) If a parent fails to appear at the initial hearing and no military affidavit has been filed, the judicial authority shall continue the proceedings prior to entering a default for failure to appear until such time as the military affidavit is filed ..."
Further, General Statutes § 46b-121(a)(1) and Practice Book § 32a-2(a) provide that child protection proceedings, including termination of parental rights trials, are civil matters. As in other civil matters, "[t]he entry of a default constitutes an admission by the defendant of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint." DeBlasio v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 186 Conn. 398, 400, 441 A.2d 838 (1982); see also Bank of America, FSB v. Franco, 57 Conn.App. 688, 693, 751 A.2d 394 (2000) ("[a] default admits the material facts that constitute a cause of action ... and entry of default, when appropriately made, conclusively determines the liability of a defendant" [internal quotation marks omitted]). Where a default entered against a non-appearing respondent-parent in a TPR case is supported by a military affidavit, as contemplated by Practice Book § 17-21, the party’s absence establishes his or her admission each of the material facts supporting the petitioner’s adjudicatory and dispositional claims. See Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723, 732-33, 830 A.2d 228 (2003) (respondent in child support proceeding who fails to respond to pleadings "is deemed to have judicially admitted the underlying facts of the support petition"). Thus, as in other civil matters, it correspondingly follows that a default against a TPR respondent enables a finding that the petitioner has prevailed on all issues, although evidence may be introduced before judgment is rendered, as provided by Practice Book § 35a-8(a). See In re Kamal R., 142 Conn.App. 66, 68, 62 A.3d 1177 (2013) (respondent failed to attend trial, was defaulted, trial proceeded in his absence).
Despite the default against the respondent father, the court did take the evidence in the case in chief against the respondent father and rendered judgment as if he had not been defaulted.
The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering the evidence and the testimony of trial witnesses. Upon deliberation, the court finds that the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence at trial.
"It is well established that in cases tried before courts, trial judges are the sole arbiters of the credibility of witnesses and it is they who determine the weight to be given specific testimony." In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000); see also In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 366, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). "The probative force of conflicting evidence is for the trier to determine ..." In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528, 777 A.2d 695 (2001).
Respondent Parents
1. Iris (includes physical, mental, social, and financial condition) (DOB: September 28, 1985)
Iris was born on February 13, 1979, in Worcester, MA., the daughter of MGM and the late Sylvester O. She reported to DCF that she was raised by MGM and stepfather Rafael G. in Worcester. Iris stated that she and Sylvester O. never had a relationship. She reported that her relationship with her mother and brother, Zachary G., are good but that her relationship with her stepfather is currently rocky because he argues with her about her life choices and not having custody of her children. Iris reported no mental health or substance abuse issues regarding her mother or stepfather. Iris reported that her mother "beat" her often as a child, from the ages of seven to thirteen.
Iris stated that she suffered emotional and physical neglect as a child. Iris reported that she started running away from home around the age of thirteen. She stated that her mother had her placed in foster homes, but due to her constant decampment, she was eventually placed into group homes until age seventeen. Iris reported that she lived in seven different foster homes and two group homes. At age seventeen, she moved in with one of her girlfriends, then moved to Hartford at age eighteen.
At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, Iris resided in a four-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment where all of her utilities were included in her rent. She had Section 8 benefits and did not pay any portion of her rent because she was unemployed. Iris received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and had no additional income.
In addition to the three children who are the subject of this TPR, Iris has three other children:
1. Tyeisha B. (Tyeisha) (DOB: October 12, 1999), Tyeisha was raised by MGM and moved to live with Iris within the past year of the writing of the TPR study;
2. Malaysha, who lived with a maternal cousin; and
3. Damion, who lived with a maternal great aunt.
The court incorporates, by reference, its previous findings concerning Iris’ past child protection history.
Iris attended Forest Gore Middle School and Doridy Memorial High School in Worcester. Iris reported that she dropped out of school in the ninth grade and has not obtained her GED or high school diploma.
Iris was married to Martin for five years. They were divorced on January 15, 2015. They had been in a relationship for ten years. Their relationship was marked by domestic violence and Martin’s substance abuse. Iris reported that there was domestic violence in other relationships also. She indicated that, during her relationship with Angel T., he was very abusive and broke her jaw in 2004.
Iris commenced attending a women’s trauma group on January 9, 2018, at Project S.A.V.E. through Hartford Behavioral Health and completed this group on January 17, 2018. A search of the Connecticut Protection Order Registry revealed that Iris was the protected person of three expired protection orders: two with Martin, in 2011 and 2014, and one with a different ex-boyfriend, in 2004. Additionally, she was the subject of two expired protective orders naming Martin as the protected person.
Martin was released from incarceration on April 18, 2018. Since his release, DCF personnel have seen Martin and Iris together on more than one occasion. When asked about her relationship with Martin, Iris denied having any relationship with Martin.
Physical Health History
At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, Iris reported that she was previously diagnosed with stage three cervical cancer and has been in remission for one year. She has a family history of cancer and hypertension. Iris reported that she was seen in October of 2017 by her primary care doctor at Community Health Services with no health conditions to report. Iris reported that she attended her physical appointment and there were no issues.
Mental Health History
Iris has a history of trauma, witnessing family violence during childhood, experiencing domestic violence, and burglaries of her home.
Iris stated that she received some individual counseling as a teenager while living in foster care but was unable to give details concerning this treatment. She indicated that the first time that she received mental health services as an adult was in 2017, through VCF. Iris reported that she had been diagnosed with depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, mood disorder, and bipolar disorder. Iris was hospitalized due to suicidal ideation on October 20, 2017.
In November 2017, Iris was evaluated by WC APRN Laurie Kennedy. She diagnosed Iris as follows:
1. ADHD (by self-report);
2. PTSD;
3. Bipolar disorder; and
4. History of PCP use.
At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, Iris was prescribed the following medications:
1. Gabapentin— 400mg 1 tablet 4 times per day.
2. Trazodone— 150mg as needed for insomnia.
3. Seroque— 100mg 1 tablet daily.
4. Prazosin— 1mg 3 tablets daily.
5. Escitalopram— 10mg 1 tablet daily.
Iris is currently receiving medication management from WC. Iris’ recommendations from her APRN that sees her for medication management is for Iris to attend monthly medication management appointments. Iris attended a medication management appointment on January 10, 2018, and did not attend any other medication management appointments until May 3, 2018. Iris has not been consistent with attending her medication management appointments. Iris stated that she has not experienced any side effects from any of her medications.
Although, Iris completed the intake for a mental health evaluation she has not been consistent with attending all of her therapy appointments, missing appointments for the months of February 2018 and March 2018 and only attending one session in April 2018.
DCF has had concerns regarding Iris taking her medication as prescribed, resulting in her presenting with some erratic behaviors. Iris is currently enrolled in one-on-one therapy weekly sessions, since July of 2018 at WC. Iris started attending her therapy appointments consistently in June of 2018 and her medication management appointments in May of 2018.
Substance Abuse
Iris reported a history of substance abuse issues which included PCP and marijuana abuse. Iris reported that she started smoking marijuana at age thirteen and began to use PCP around the age of twenty-nine or thirty. She stated that she only used PCP three times, until age thirty-six. Iris reported that when she was thirty-six, a friend laced her marijuana with PCP without her knowledge. She stated that after this incident, she began to occasionally lace her own marijuana with PCP, then stopped the PCP and just continued to smoke marijuana. Iris reported that her last relapse with PCP was prior to October 9, 2017. She reported that a different friend laced her marijuana with PCP without her knowledge, again causing her to relapse. She reported that the October 2017 relapse lasted approximately three weeks and that she has been drug free since October 9, 2017. Iris has been inconsistent since that time, with participating in random toxicology screens. She was referred on March 16, 2018, for testing, however, she did not attend a random toxicology screen at WC until June 18, 2018. Iris missed random toxicology screens the week of January 27, 2018, and July 31, 2018. On August 17, 2018, Iris tested negative for substances. Iris completed the WC Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) for substance abuse on November 28, 2017.
Iris completed a hair test on February 6, 2018, which was positive for PCP in all three segments. A subsequent hair test was completed on May 30, 2018, and was negative for substances. Iris did not comply with any random toxicology screens between March 16, 2018, and June 18, 2018.
Employment
Iris reported she obtained her first job in her twenties at a factory where she worked for six months. Between the ages of twenty-three through twenty-four, she worked at McDonald’s for eighteen months. Iris reported working at Wendy’s for a few months after working for McDonald’s. Her last place of employment was at Walmart, approximately five years ago. Iris reported that she does not work due to her mood disorder.
Criminal History
Iris reported that she has been arrested "a couple of times" for assaults when she was younger. She stated that she was last arrested in Massachusetts in 2011 for an outstanding warrant for assault. Iris reported that she served nine months in jail as a result.
Iris is a convicted felon and drug trafficker. In Connecticut, she has been convicted of the following:
Date of incident: October 17, 2002
Date of disposition: November 7, 2002
Conviction: Sale of Controlled Substance
Date of incident: April 20, 2007
Date of disposition: August 28, 2007
Conviction: Failure to Appear in the Second Degree
Date of incident: August 9, 2018
Date of disposition: November 28, 2018
Convictions: Possession of Controlled Substance
Interfering with a Police Officer
Criminal Trespass in the First Degree
As of the time of the TPR trial, Iris was engaged in services at WC for individual therapy, medication management, and random toxicology analysis. DCF continues to be concerned about her mental health and history of substance abuse. Iris has been attending individual therapy sessions with clinician Jordan Wasik since May of 2018.
Formerly known as Jordan Sileo.
During her testimony at the TPR trial, Wasik testified that Iris was not candid about the circumstances surrounding her arrest in August of 2018 and that it was concerning to her. Wasik was also concerned about Iris’ involvement in a domestic violence incident on Thanksgiving and her failure to disclose this during therapy.
The credible evidence shows that Iris failed to consistently attend medication management meetings with the WC APRN.
As of January 3, 2019, Iris had been prescribed the following:
At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, Iris was prescribed the following medications:
1. Gabapentin— 600mg one tablet three times per day for mood stabilization and anxiety.
2. Lexapro— 20mg daily for depression and anxiety.
3. Hydroxyzine— 50mg as needed for panic attacks and anxiety.
4. Seroquel— at bedtime for insomnia, racing thoughts, anxiety, and adjunctive antidepressants effect.
The credible evidence shows that Iris failed to consistently attend substance abuse testing. She failed to attend on October 15, 2018, November 5, 2018, November 7, 2018, November 13, 2018, November 16, 2018, and November 27, 2018. She did appear at WC for testing on November 8, 2018, and the results were negative.
The credible evidence shows that Iris failed to visit her children on August 15, 2018, September 5, 2018, and September 26, 2018. She also appeared late for her visit on September 19, 2018.
2. Martin (includes physical, mental, social, and financial condition) (DOB: February 1, 1981)
Martin was born on February 1, 1981, to Yolanda R. (PGM) and Chamberlin V. (PGF) in Hartford, CT. He disclosed that PGM was an alcoholic who died of liver cancer in 2004. Martin reported that he entered DCF care when he was five years old. He stated that he was raised by his maternal grandmother, Rosa P., in East Hartford and that he visited with his mother on the weekends. Martin reported that his father was addicted to heroin and cocaine and passed away from a terminal illness (year unknown). He reported that he never had a relationship with his father.
Martin reported that he had a great relationship with his stepfather, Angel N., while growing up. Martin stated that he was a good child and that he stayed out of trouble when he was young. Martin stated that he lived with his maternal grandmother until age sixteen, at which time he moved in with a girlfriend in Hartford. Martin reported that he has a good relationship with his grandmother. He reported that he never experienced any physical, mental, or emotional abuse as a child.
Martin has three siblings; two sisters and one brother, Angel N., age twenty-five, Carmen N., age thirty, and Inez N., age twenty-eight. Martin reported that he has not spoken to Carmen in approximately one year and Inez in two years. He reported having a good relationship with his brother Angel.
Education and Employment History
Martin reported that he attended O’Brian Elementary School and East Hartford Middle School. He indicated that he dropped out of East Hartford High School in the ninth grade. He then started employment at McDonald’s and moved in with his girlfriend in Hartford, CT. Martin was employed at Home Goods but was dismissed due to his past criminal record. He stated that he is skilled in carpentry and has employment as a carpenter and at McDonald’s and D’Angelo’s.
Marital/Relationship History
Martin told DCF that he was married to Iris for five years. They were divorced on January 11, 2015. Martin and Iris had a history of domestic violence. Martin attributed his substance abuse to the domestic violence.
Martin admitted burglarizing Iris’ apartment so he could steal her property to resell for drugs.
At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, Martin denies being currently involved in a relationship.
DCF referred Martin for Intimate Partner Violence counseling services at Radiance. He failed to complete this program because he was incarcerated from December 25, 2017, through April 18, 2018. After his release, on April 27, 2018, DCF again referred Martin to Radiance for domestic violence and parenting counseling. However, as of the time of the TPR trial, Martin failed to participate in this program.
Martin and Iris continue to have a relationship. DCF personnel have observed them together on several occasions in the community. However, they both deny having any interaction or relationship.
Criminal History
Martin is a convicted felon, with the following convictions:
Date of incident: September 29, 2005
Date of disposition: November 3, 2005
Conviction: Possession of Narcotics
Date of incident: October 16, 2010
Date of disposition: November 18, 2010
Conviction: Burglary in the Third Degree
Date of incident: May 11, 2011
Date of disposition: September 9, 2011
Conviction: Violation of Probation
Date of incident: May 1, 2012
Date of disposition: May 29, 2012
Conviction: Violation of Probation
Date of incident: July 1, 2014
Date of disposition: September 22, 2014
Conviction: Burglary in the Third Degree
Date of incident: January 21, 2015
Date of disposition: August 6, 2015
Conviction: Violation of Probation
Date of incident: May 12, 2015
Date of disposition: August 6, 2015
Conviction: Possession of Narcotics
Date of incident: November 16, 2015
Date of disposition: February 17, 2016
Conviction: Violation of Probation
Date of incident: June 17, 2016
Date of disposition: August 8, 2016
Conviction: Violation of Probation
Date of incident: October 5, 2016
Date of disposition: January 3, 2017
Conviction: Violation of Probation
Date of incident: December 9, 2016
Date of disposition: June 15, 2017
Conviction: Burglary in the Third Degree
As of the time of the TPR trial, Martin had failed to maintain contact with DCF. On October 9, 2018, DCF made contact with Martin through a cousin. He told DCF that he was still transient and he did not have a working phone. He reported he was going to call the Radiance program to engage in services and attend the substance abuse and mental health evaluation at VCF. Martin claimed he wanted to continue to have supervised visits with his children. Martin scheduled an appointment with DCF on October 17, 2018, but failed to appear.
On October 25, 2018, the children’s foster mother (FM) told DCF that the New Britain Police had contacted her regarding Martin. She reported that the police contacted her pursuant to an investigation concerning a claim that Martin had stolen money from his cousin.
As of the date of the TPR trial, Martin had not contacted DCF or any service providers. He failed to attend visits with his children and failed to contact Radiance.
On November 15, 2018, DCF contacted Charles Frazier of Radiance to get an update regarding Martin. Frazier reported he had not made any contact with Martin since June 2018. As of the date of the writing of TPR social study, Martin had not completed the evaluations, attended supervised visits with his children, and had not engaged with the Radiance program to address his history of intimate partner violence and parenting deficits. He continues to be homeless and has failed to maintain contact with DCF.
Children for Whom Petition was Filed
1. Yolanda (DOB: April 19, 2006)
Yolanda was born on April 19, 2006, and is the eldest child of the marriage of Iris and Martin. Yolanda has significant special needs. She has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum and also suffering from ADHD. Yolanda attends weekly individual therapy and receives medication management at VCF.
Yolanda is currently taking the following medication:
1. Methylphenidate— 10mg 1.5 tabs and 36mg 1 tab.
2. Trazadone— 150mg.
3. Melatonin— 10mg.
4. Risperidone— 1mg tid.
DCF made a referral for Yolanda to receive a Neuropsychological and Autism spectrum disorder evaluation with Dr. Silva. Yolanda completed the evaluation with Dr. Silva on January 31, 2018, and her results were the following:
1. Autism Spectrum Disorder, level 1 with accompanying intellectual impairments;
2. ADHD.
A PPT meeting was held on April 23, 2018.
The school psychologist reported that Yolanda was given the WISC-V test and she was assessed on performance across five areas of cognitive ability. Overall, she performed in the extremely low range for overall cognitive functioning by scoring a 58 and she performed extremely low in almost all areas of processing. In addition, on the ABAS-3, her overall adaptive functioning was in the low range, 74, as rated by both FM and her teacher. Overall, low cognitive functioning as well as low adaptive functioning are characteristics of intellectual disability.
Yolanda is currently living in a relative foster home with FM.
She is attending the sixth grade at Two Rivers Magnet School and receives special education services under intellectual disability. She receives the following services:
1. 4 hours each for reading and math weekly;
2. 2 hours for writing weekly;
3. 1 hour for speech weekly;
4. 30 minutes a week for social;
5. 12 hours for adult support; and
6. door-to-door transportation.
Yolanda’s special education teacher, Mrs. Seals, reported that Yolanda has behavior issues and noticed that Yolanda misbehaved after visits with Iris. Mrs. Seals indicated that she and other teachers have worked with Yolanda to develop strategies to help her stay on task, not run out the classroom, and for when she does not listen or follow directions. Mrs. Seals reported that FM is involved and makes herself available to address any questions or discussions regarding Yolanda’s behavioral and needs.
Yolanda was not recommended for summer school in 2018. FM enrolled Yolanda in summer camp at the YMCA.
Yolanda is up to date medically and dentally.
FM reported that Yolanda has behavioral issues sometimes, but her behaviors are easy to manage.
FM stated that when she talked to Yolanda about her negative behaviors, Yolanda did her best to improve. FM reported that Yolanda does well at home and enjoys spending time with her baby cousins. FM reports that Yolanda gets along with her siblings and sometimes has arguments with her sisters, but these interactions are normal, given their ages and relationships.
Clinician Samantha St-Aubin reported she was recently assigned to Yolanda and is building a rapport with her and is seeing her bi-weekly. She reports Yolanda avoids discussing her mother during sessions and reports it makes her feel sad because she misses her. Mrs. St-Aubin reports she will continue to explore how Yolanda feels about her relationship with Iris and possible adoption. Mrs. St-Aubin reports she cannot recommend Iris participate in the family sessions because she is in the process of getting to know Yolanda.
2. Jennessy (DOB: January 06, 2008)
Jennessy was born on January 6, 2008, and is the middle child of the marriage of Iris and Martin.
DCF made a referral for Jennessy to receive a Neuropsychological and Autism spectrum disorder evaluation with Dr. Silva. Jennessy completed the evaluation with Dr. Silva on February 14, 2018, and her results were the following:
1. ADHD;
2. specific learning disorder with impairment with reading;
3. specific learning disorder, and language disorder with impairment in mathematics; and
4. PTSD.
Jennessy receives individual therapy and medication management treatment at the VCF. Karrie Ellis (APRN) prescribes her medication. Jennessy is currently taking the following medications:
1. Dexmethylphenidate— 10mg qid.
2. Clonodine— 0.2mg tid.
3. Focalin— 35mg qid.
Jennessy is medically and dentally up to date. She wears glasses.
Jennessy is currently living in a relative foster home with her paternal cousin, FM, and her sisters.
Jennessy is a fourth grader at Global Communications Academy. She receives special education services.
A PPT meeting was held on May 03, 2018, and her IEP was reviewed. The following issues were noted. Jennessy had difficulty with reading and arithmetic and functioned very low academically. The school reports Jennessy was below grade level and struggled with her academics. Her special education teacher reported that Jennessy is taken out of class for social studies once a week in a large group, and that she saw the speech pathologist for one hour per week.
The school psychologist reported that Jennessy had substantial cognitive deficits and also showed psych-emotional symptoms that significantly impacted her academics and her overall functioning. Because of the cognitive deficits, the psychologist opined that Jennessy would struggle academically and would find school difficult. The psychologist further opined that Jennessy’s inflexibility would cause difficulty with problem solving.
The school psychologist stated that the neuropsychological evaluation confirmed Jennessy’s ADHD diagnosis and did not indicate an autism diagnosis. Also, the evaluations showed that Jennessy has emotional indications that are worth rating in anger, trauma, and PTSD, as well as significant anxiety.
Jennessy attended summer school in 2018.
FM reported that Jennessy periodically exhibited behavioral issues at home. FM indicated that Jennessy responded to having a discussion about her behaviors. When the negative behaviors are brought to her attention, Jennessy tried to improve them. FM reported that Jennessy’s aggressiveness decreased at school and at home. FM reported that Jennessy got along well with her sisters but when she became upset, she could be physically aggressive with her sisters.
FM stated that overall, Jennessy’s aggressiveness has decreased since she first came to live with them. The school reported Jennessy struggled with her behavior since the beginning of the year and they implemented a behavioral management chart.
Jennessy’s clinician, Catherine Reckmeyer, LSW, testified that she commenced therapy with Jennessy on April 30, 2018. Reckmeyer indicated that she addressed Jennessy’s hyperactivity and aggression. She opined that Jennesey’s presentation was consistent with a history of trauma. Reckmeyer stated that FM participated in Jennessy’s therapy and was very engaged. She further opined that it was not in the best interests of Jennessy for Iris to participate in Jennessy’s therapy at this time.
3. Hailey (DOB: January 9, 2009)
Hailey is currently living in a relative foster home with her paternal cousin.
Hailey is currently attending the third grade at Global Communications Academy, receives special education services, and has an IEP. A triennial evaluation meeting was held on May 3, 2018, for Hailey. It was discussed in the PPT whether or not Hailey should be retained, but after a discussion, the team agreed that Hailey would benefit moving up a grade because if she is retained, it would not be beneficial because of her age and maturity, and retention would not increase her growth to be on grade level by a cognizable amount.
Hailey will continue to receive the following:
1. 5 hours of academics weekly;
2. 30 minutes of speech weekly;
3. 2 hours of occupational therapy;
4. 1.50 social group a month.
Hailey attended summer school in 2018. The school indicated that Hailey’s behavior has improved since the beginning of the school year.
Hailey is medically and dentally up to date.
Hailey has a mental health diagnosis of ADHD and pica. She receives weekly individual therapy and medication management treatment at VCF. Karrie Ellis (APRN) prescribes her medication.
Hailey is currently on medication management and on the following medication:
1. Methylphenidate— 2 tabs qid.
2. Melatonin— 10mg every evening.
3. Resperidone— 0.5mg 1 tab tid.
4. Trazodone— 100mg at bedtime.
5. Clonidine— 0.2mg at bedtime.
DCF made a referral for Hailey to receive a Neuropsychological and Autism spectrum disorder evaluation with Dr. Silva. Hailey completed the evaluation with Dr. Silva on February 21, 2018, and her results were as follows:
1. ADHD;
2. specific learning disorder; and
3. impairment with reading and language disorder.
FM reported that Hailey’s behavior can be a handful when she does not get her way, but that she can manage Hailey’s behavioral issues. FM reported that Hailey’s behavior has improved since the beginning of the placement. FM reports that Hailey gets along with her sisters fairly well.
All of the children are receiving individual therapy and medication management through VCF. All three children continue to have weekly supervised visits with Iris in the community.
Hailey’s clinician, Catherine Reckmeyer, reported she continues to work with Hailey on group coping skills and problem solving. She is also discussing adoption and being separated from Iris with Hailey. The therapist reports Hailey is doing a great job and has utilized her coping skills.
Reckmeyer opined that it is not in Hailey’s best interest for Iris to participate in the family sessions with her. She expressed it may pose an unforeseeable impact on Hailey due to the unknown disclosures that could occur during sessions.
RELATIVE RESOURCES
Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey are currently living with their paternal cousin FM. The children were previously placed in the care of FM by DCF from March 25, 2011, to July 27, 2012.
FM is willing be a permanent resource for all three girls. The clear and convincing evidence shows that there are no other viable relative resources for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey.
ADJUDICATION
On March 25, 2011, DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey.
On March 29, 2011, in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 12th District, Hartford, (SCJM), DCF filed neglect petitions on behalf of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. On the same day, in SCJM (Dyer, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents.
Docket numbers H12-CP11-013800-A (Yolanda); H12-CP11-013801-A (Jennessy); and, H12-CP11-013802-A (Hailey).
On April 8, 2011, in SCJM, the court (Keller, J.) sustained the OTCs and entered pro forma denials as to the neglect allegations
On November 10, 2011, in SCJM, the court (Cofield, J.) committed Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to the respondent parents.
On December 21, 2011, in SCJM, DCF filed its MRP concerning Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The PP called for reunification with Iris or Martin, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On February 2, 2012, in SCJM, the court (Frazzini, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved the PP calling for reunification with Iris, with a concurrent plan of transfer of guardianship. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.
On September 4, 2012, in SCJM, DCF filed its MRP concerning Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The PP called for reunification with Iris, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan. The PP also called for returning the children to Iris’ custody with six months of Protective Supervision. On the same date, DCF filed its Motion to Reopen and Modify Disposition.
On September 18, 2012, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) granted DCF’s Motion to Reopen and Modify Disposition. The court found that cause for commitment no longer existed and that revocation of the commitment was in the best interests of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The court returned custody of the children to Iris under six months of Protective Supervision. The court reaffirmed the specific steps and also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.
On March 18, 2013, the Protective Supervision expired and the case was closed.
On October 20, 2017, DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on the children.
On October 24, 2017, in SCJM, DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. On the previous day, in SCJM (Westbrook, J.), DCF sought and obtained an OTC, for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The court also issued specific steps for the respondent parents. On October 27, 2017, in SCJM (Dannehy, J.), the OTC was sustained. The court also issued specific steps for each respondent parent.
On January 25, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) committed Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey to the care and custody of DCF until further order of court. The court also issued final steps as to both respondent parents.
On July 6, 2018, in SCJM, DCF filed its motion to review MRP as to all three children. The PP called for TPR and adoption, as well as a finding that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.
On August 6, 2018, in SCJM, Iris, through her counsel, filed an Objection to Permanency Plan and Proposed Findings.
On August 13, 2018, in SCJM, DCF filed a TPR petition concerning Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey.
On August 30, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for TPR and adoption as to Martin. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Martin.
On September 14, 2018, in SCJM, the court (Dannehy, J.) confirmed service as to Martin and ordered him defaulted for failing to appear.
On October 17, 2018, in SCJM, Iris, through her counsel, withdrew her Objection to Permanency Plan and Proposed Findings. The court (Dannehy, J.) granted DCF’s MRP and approved of the PP calling for TPR and adoption as to Iris. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Iris.
On January 7, 2019, the TPR trial commenced before this court. Martin failed to attend the trial. On January 14, 2019, the TPR trial concluded.
The court is next called upon to determine whether DCF has met its burden of proving the allegations presented by the pending TPR petition concerning these children. Practice Book § 35a-3.
"A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition ... In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights [in General Statutes § 17a-112(j) ] exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Rafael S., 125 Conn.App. 605, 610-11, 9 A.3d 417 (2010). "While there are two phases to a hearing on a termination of parental rights petition, adjudicatory and dispositional ... the two phases may be combined in a single, nonbifurcated proceeding." (Citations omitted.) In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 226, 15 A.3d 194 (2011). In such a nonbifurcated proceeding, "disposition may not be considered until the adjudicatory phase has concluded." Practice Book § 35a-7(b).
In the adjudicatory phase of these proceedings, the court has considered the evidence related to circumstances and events prior to August 7, 2017, the date upon which the TPR petition was filed. With regard to the allegations of failure to achieve rehabilitation brought against the respondent parents, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony relating to circumstances occurring through the close of trial. Upon review, the court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist as to the respondent parents.
LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION EFFORTS
The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial establishes that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate and maintain contact with the respondent parents throughout this litigation, as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(1). Iris has maintained some contact with DCF. This contact has been, at times, sporadic. Martin has not maintained contact with DCF. The clear and convincing evidence shows that the failure of the respondent parents to maintain contact with DCF is solely the responsibility of the respondent parents.
A. Reunification Efforts
The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial establishes that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondents with their children during the adjudicatory period. The clear and convincing evidence brought forth at the trial also establishes that the respondent mother was "unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts ..." Section 17a-112(j)(1). See In re Paul O., supra, 141 Conn.App. 483-85; In re Chevol G., 125 Conn.App. 618, 621, 9 A.2d 413 (2010); In re Alison M., supra, 127 Conn.App. 205.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the following services were offered to or provided to Iris: (1) DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, supervised visitation, transportation assistance; (2) Hartford Behavioral Health: Project S.A.V.E.— women’s trauma group; (3) Village For Children and Families: Therapeutic Family Time program (TFT) for supervised visitation and parenting coaching; (4) Wheeler Clinic: ABH evaluation, IOP, individual therapy, medication management, substance abuse testing and treatment.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the following services were offered to or provided to Martin: (1) DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, considered removal meeting, supervised visitation, transportation assistance; (2) Radiance Innovative Services: domestic violence counseling, Fatherhood Engagement Services (FES), and parenting education; (3)Village For Children and Families: mental health evaluation and ABH substance abuse evaluation.
The credible evidence put forth in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes both that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts for the respondent mother and the respondent father, and that they are unable or unwilling to benefit from § 17a-112(j)(1) efforts.
STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO IRIS
A. Parental Failure to Rehabilitate— General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
DCF alleges that Iris’ parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As the children have been adjudicated neglected and Iris was provided with specific steps, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent mother has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render her able to care for her children. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Iris has yet to achieve a sufficient "level of rehabilitation ... which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child’s life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000); see In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005); In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001).
First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent mother has not achieved § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports, the exhibits, and the testimony, which showed that Iris has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris’ issues are related to mental health, substance abuse, parenting deficits, criminal activity, domestic violence, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Iris has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM (Westbrook, J.), on October 23, 2017, and again on October 27, 2017, the court (Dannehy, J.) ordered preliminary specific steps for Iris. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM, on January 25, 2018, the court (Dannehy, J.) ordered final specific steps for Iris. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Iris failed to fully comply with the majority of those steps, which, as enumerated below, were intended to facilitate the return of the children to Iris’ care.
A. Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step since the neglect adjudication.
B. Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and the children are at all times .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step since the neglect adjudication.
C. Take part in parenting, and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to fully comply with this step by the time of the filing of the TPR petition.
Iris completed an ABH evaluation on October 25, 2017, at WC. She tested positive for marijuana and PCP on this date. WC recommended that Iris attend the IOP treatment. She successfully completed the IOP program on November 28, 2017. WC recommended that Iris attend individual weekly therapy. In January 2018, Iris was recommended for therapy on a bi-weekly basis. As she continued to test negative during toxicology screens and was attending groups for trauma, in February of 2018, she was recommended to attend individual monthly therapy. Iris began individual therapy on December 8, 2017. She consistently attended individual therapy at WC until February 2018. Iris then began failing to attend sessions. Iris then attended a session on April 10, 2018, but did not attend another session until May 10, 2018. She is currently recommended to attend bi-weekly sessions. Iris cancelled her session on May 24, 2018. Iris next attended individual therapy on June 18, 2018.
Since then, Iris became more consistent in attending individual therapy. Iris was diagnosed with depression, PTSD, anxiety, mood disorder, and bi-polar disorder.
Iris completed the intake for medication management on November 6, 2017. She was prescribed Gabapentin 400mgs, one tablet, four times a day; Trazadone 150mgs, as needed for insomnia; Seroquel 1000mgs once a day; Prazosin 1mg, three tablets a day. She was required to attend monthly medication management sessions. However, Iris did not attend her next medication management appointment until January 10, 2018. Iris cancelled her medication management appointment at the end of January 2018. Additionally Iris cancelled medication management appointments in February, March, and April of 2018. Iris next attended a medication management appointment on May 3, 2018.
It should be noted that although Iris did not attend her scheduled medication management appointments, she did have refills for her medication during that time. DCF, as well as her therapist, have had concerns that Iris was not taking her medication as prescribed, as there was a noted change in her demeanor and behavior at the end of March of 2018-mid April of 2018.
During this time, Iris was observed as being easily agitated, overwhelmed, impatient, and was not making sense at times. Iris scheduled her medication management appointment for June 18, 2018, and attended the appointment.
On January 17, 2018, Iris successfully completed a Women and Healing Outpatient Group at WC. Iris completed all six sessions of group therapy. WC reported that Iris worked on identifying her main triggers for trauma symptoms, mood disturbance, and substance use. Iris worked on developing healthy internal and external coping skills to reduce mood disturbances, prevent substance use from occurring, and achieved greater emotional well-being and stability.
On February 6, 2018, Iris successfully completed a trauma group at Hartford Behavioral Health Project S.A.V.E. with Valerie Barred. Iris attended the trauma group sessions weekly. Mrs. Barred stated that she had been working with Iris on healthy relationships and safety and that when Iris first started treatment with her that Iris touched up on healthy coping skills to refrain from using any substances.
On December 14, 2018, Iris completed the intake with VCF for TFT to address parenting concerns. She completed the TFT program successfully on July 25, 2018. The TFT case worker, Sol Rivera, worked with Iris on managing her children when they were misbehaving and also being available for their emotional needs. Although Iris completed the TFT program successfully, DCF continued to supervise the visits and noticed that she stills struggles to manage all three children when they are not behaving.
D. Accept in-home support services and cooperate with them .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris was referred for in-home services.
E. Submit to substance abuse evaluation and follow recommendations regarding treatment .
The court notes that this condition was not ordered on the final specific steps. However, the clear and convincing evidence shows that substance abuse screening and services were ordered as part of another final specific step.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to fully comply with this step.
The court incorporates its comments in the previous sections, "Take part in parenting, and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals," and "Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment," by reference.
F. Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of [which] will be up to DCF to decide .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to fully comply with this step.
On February 20, 2018, Iris submitted to a hair test. The hair test results were positive for PCP in all three segmented areas. On May 30, 2018, Iris submitted to a second hair test. The hair test results were negative.
On March 16, 2018, a referral was made to WC for random toxicology screens. Between March 2018 and May 2018, Iris did not comply with any screens. On May 15, 2018, another referral was made to WC for random toxicology screens. As of June 19, 2018, Iris has not complied with any random screens. Iris attends bi-weekly sessions with her clinician at WC and toxicology screens are conducted during some of the sessions. These screens have been negative. It should be noted that Iris is aware of when these screens will be taken. There have also been times, during her therapy sessions, when she has been asked to provide a toxicology screen and has refused, stating that she is unable to use the bathroom. DCF’s understanding is that Iris only provides toxicology screens during her scheduled therapy appointments, but does not comply with the unscheduled random toxicology screenings.
G. Not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to comply with this step.
On February 20, 2018, Iris submitted to a hair test. The hair test results were positive for PCP in all three segmented areas.
Between March 2018 and June 2018, Iris failed to submit to substance abuse testing at WC.
H. Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to comply with this step.
The court incorporates its comments in the previous sections, "Take part in parenting, and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals," "Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment," and "Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of [which] will be up to DCF to decide" by reference.
I. Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
J. Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check on your attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings with this court. Sign the release within 30 days .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
K. Sign releases allowing your child’s attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child’s medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
*20 No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
L. Get and/or maintain adequate housing and a legal income .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to fully comply with this step.
At the time of the filing of the TPR petition, Iris was unemployed and failed to document any legitimate sources of income for DCF.
M. Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
N. Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
O. Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
P. Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to comply with this step.
On August 9, 2018, Iris was arrested for Possession of Narcotics with Intent to Sell and Possession of Controlled Substance.
During the trial, evidence was elicited that indicated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Iris sold a narcotic substance to an undercover officer.
On November 28, 2018, Iris was convicted of Possession of Controlled Substance, Interfering with a Police Officer, and Criminal Trespass in the First Degree.
Q. Cooperate with the child(ren)’s therapy .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris was asked to participate in her children’s therapy.
R. Keep the child(ren) in the state of Connecticut while this case is going on unless you get permission from the DCF or the court to take them out of state. You must get permission first .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
S. Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF permits .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
T. Within thirty (30) days of this order, and at any time after that, tell DCF in writing the name, address, family relationship and birth date of any person(s) who you would like the department to investigate and consider as a placement resource for the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
U. Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Iris failed to comply with this step.
This court concludes that Iris has been unable to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of her children, insofar as she is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from the date of commitment through the date of the filing of the TPR petition and continuing through the time of trial, Iris has not been available to take part in her children’s lives in a safe, nurturing, and positive manner, and, based on her issues of mental health, parenting deficits, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling and services, she will never be consistently available to Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey.
*21 The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Iris has undertaken some rehabilitative services. It has also been clearly and convincingly shown that she has completed some services. However, it has also been clearly and convincingly shown that Iris, as shown by her conduct, has failed to benefit from such services.
Jordan Wasik, Iris’ former therapist, testified that Iris commenced individual therapy on December 8, 2017. Wasik indicated that she normally took at face value whatever her patients told her. However, Wasik testified that Iris did not tell her that she maintained a relationship with Martin.
Wasik testified that she was aware of Iris’ failure to participate in medication management appointments as required. Wasik admitted that she failed to follow up with Laurie Kennedy on this issue and that it would be important to Wasik to be aware of Iris’ compliance.
Wasik also testified that Iris was not candid with her about her involvement in drug trafficking and with the nature of her arrest by Hartford Police on August 9, 2018. Under direct examination by the Assistant Attorney General, Wasik indicated that Iris did not disclose to her that she was maintaining a relationship with Martin and that Iris was in a relationship with another abuser.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Iris has failed to show any consistent and adequate benefit from these referrals. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that she has failed to improve her parenting ability to acceptable standards as far as her children’s safety and emotional needs are concerned.
DCF has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Iris cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey safe and healthy and to maximize their abilities to achieve.
When one also considers the high level of care, patience, and discipline that the children’s needs will require from their caregiver, it is patently clear that Iris is not in a better position to parent her children than she was at the time of their commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, Iris is no better able "to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than [she] had been at the time of the children’s commitment." In re Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 367, 730 A.2d 106 (1999); see In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658, 670, 783 A.2d 534 (2001) ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by [DCF]"); see also In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 124-25, 614 A.2d 832 (1992); In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 206, 504 A.2d 533, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).
Even if Iris was finally capable of realizing and correcting her problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect her to be able to parent her children at any time in the near future, if ever.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey’s needs for permanence and stability do not allow for the time necessary for Iris to attempt rehabilitation. Given this respondent’s history of mental health and parenting issues, it is reasonable to infer that she will remain besieged by those issues for some extensive time, and that she will not be physically available to serve as a custodial resource for any of her children during the time frame for rehabilitation contemplated in § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii). See In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 670-72, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010). Thus, the evidence related to the effectiveness of her treatment supports the conclusion that DCF has met the burden of proof on this TPR element. See In re Elvin G., 310 Conn. 485, 515, 78 A.3d 797 (2013); In re Cheila R., 112 Conn.App. 582, 591-92, 963 A.2d 1014 (2009).
*22 Given the age, sensibilities, needs, and special needs of the children involved, and given Iris’ failure and/or inability to correct her issues, it would be unreasonable to conclude that she would be able to achieve rehabilitation from her various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for her children within a reasonable time.
Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey need a parent who is able to effectively care for them now. None of these children can wait for the remote possibility that their biological mother might overcome her mental health and parenting issues, her failure to appropriately comply with referrals and services, and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day in the future. Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey are unable to wait for Iris to show that she has rehabilitated herself and is ready to assume her parental role. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384, 784 A.2d 457 (2001). Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that DCF has proved that Iris failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).
In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the children at issue, assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, and reached its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 361-63, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995).
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Iris and her daughters. Continued foster care is detrimental to the children’s development. These children require a permanent home that is safe and nurturing, along with a caregiver that is capable and up to the challenging task of raising them.
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Iris is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. See In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 354, 776 A.2d 487 (2001). In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent mother’s parenting deficits as they relate to her daughters’ need for a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent who can meet their requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Iris further time to rehabilitate herself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of her children, would not be in the best interests of Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey. In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 507-08; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO MARTIN
A. Parental Failure to Rehabilitate— General Statues § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)
DCF alleges that Martin’s parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey have been adjudicated neglected and Martin was provided with specific steps, the critical issue for this court is whether the respondent father has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for his daughters. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
*23 Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Martin has yet to achieve a sufficient "level of rehabilitation ... which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he] can assume a responsible position in [his] child’s life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448; see In re Alejandro L., supra, 91 Conn.App. 259; In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 665.
First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study, exhibits, and the witnesses’ testimony at the TPR trial, clearly and convincingly establishes that the respondent father has not achieved § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports, the exhibits, and the testimony, which showed that Martin has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin’s issues are those of substance abuse, mental health, parenting deficits, criminal recidivism, and a failure to attempt and benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Martin has been placed on notice to address his issues in the past.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM (Westbrook, J.), on October 23, 2017, and again on October 27, 2017, the court (Dannehy, J.) ordered preliminary specific steps for Martin. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM, on January 25, 2018, the court (Dannehy, J.) ordered final specific steps for Martin. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Martin failed to fully comply with the majority of those steps, which, as enumerated below, were intended to facilitate the return of the children to Martin’s care.
A. Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
While Martin was incarcerated between December 2017 and April 2018, he maintained monthly contact with DCF. He continued to maintain contact with the DCF social worker following his release, up until June 2018. Subsequently, Martin failed to maintain contact with DCF and his whereabouts remain unknown to DCF and the court.
On October 9, 2018, DCF made contact with Martin through a cousin. Martin reported he was transient and that he did not have a working phone. He reported he would call the Radiance program to engage in services and attend the substance abuse and mental health evaluation at VCF. He failed to follow up on this promise.
Martin reported he wanted to continue to have supervised visits with his children. Martin scheduled an appointment with DCF on October 17, 2018, at the DCF office, but he failed to appear.
Martin attended and participated in Administrative Case Reviews (ACRs) on December 12, 2017, and June 6, 2018.
B. Let DCF, your attorney and the attorney for the child(ren) know where you and the children are at all times .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
The court incorporates its comments in the previous section, "Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the child’s court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem," by reference.
*24 C. Take part in parenting, and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
Martin failed to attend any referrals for services that DCF made for him.
In November 2017, Martin was referred to Radiance FES to help engage him in services and with DCF. FES staff met with Martin twice while he was incarcerated. Since his release from incarceration, Martin failed to engage with FES staff.
In April of 2018, Martin was referred to Radiance Innovative Services for their Domestic Violence Offenders program and their parenting program. As of the date of the TPR trial, Martin failed to respond to efforts to engage him in services. On April 25, 2018, Martin was referred for an ABH evaluation at VCF. VCF attempted to contact Martin to schedule an appointment, without success. On October 9, 2018, DCF made contact with Martin through a cousin. Martin reported he was transient and that he did not have a working phone. He reported he would call the Radiance program to engage in services and attend the substance abuse and mental health evaluation at VCF. He failed to follow up on this promise.
Martin reported he wanted to continue to have supervised visits with his children. Martin scheduled an appointment with DCF on October 17, 2018, at the DCF office, but he failed to appear.
D. Accept in-home support services referred by DCF and cooperate with them .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin was ever referred to in-home support services.
E. Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
On April 25, 2018, Martin was referred for an ABH evaluation at VCF. VCF attempted to contact Martin to schedule an appointment, without success.
F. Submit to random drug testing, the time and method of [which] will be up to DCF to decide .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
The court incorporates its comments in the previous section, "Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment," by reference.
G. Not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin failed to comply with this step.
H. Cooperate with service providers recommended for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
The court incorporates its comments in the previous sections, "Take part in parenting, and individual counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals," and "Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment," by reference.
I. Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the court did not specifically order any evaluations for Martin.
*25 J. Sign releases allowing DCF to communicate with service providers to check on your attendance, cooperation, and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings with this court. Sign the release within 30 days .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin failed to comply with this step.
K. Sign releases allowing your child’s attorney and guardian ad litem to review your child’s medical, psychological, psychiatric and/or educational records .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin failed to comply with this step.
L. Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin was transient.
M. Immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household to make sure that the change does not hurt the health and safety of the child(ren) .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
Martin failed to maintain contact with DCF following his release from incarceration.
N. Get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
Martin failed to maintain contact with DCF following his release from incarceration.
O. Attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
Martin has failed to comply with all referrals made by DCF.
P. Not get involved with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow your conditions of probation or parole .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin failed to comply with this step.
Q. Learn to take care of the child(ren)’s physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including keeping the child(ren)’s appointments with his/her/their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
Martin has failed to comply with all referrals made by DCF.
R. Cooperate with the child(ren)’s therapy .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated that Martin was asked to cooperate with the children’s therapy.
S. Make all necessary child-care arrangements to make sure the child(ren) is/are properly supervised and cared for by appropriate caretaker(s) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin was ever requested to comply with this step.
T. Visit the child(ren) as often as DCF permits .
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to fully comply with this step.
Martin failed to visit his children subsequent to June 4, 2018.
U. Within thirty (30) days of this order, and at any time after that, tell DCF in writing the name, address, family relationship and birth date of any person(s) who you would like DCF to investigate and consider as a placement resource for the child(ren).
*26 No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin failed to comply with this step.
V. Tell DCF the names and addresses of the grandparents of the child(ren) .
No credible evidence was produced that indicated Martin failed to comply with this step.
This court concludes that Martin has been unable to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of his children, insofar as he is concerned. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from the date of commitment through the date of the filing of the TPR petition and continuing through the time of trial, Martin has not been available to take part in his daughters’ lives in a safe, nurturing, and positive manner, and, based on his issues of parenting deficits, and a failure to undertake and benefit from counseling and services, he will never be consistently available to Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey.
The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincingly shows that Martin has consistently failed to be available for his daughters by virtue of his failure to address his issues appropriately and in a timely manner. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to improve his parenting ability to acceptable standards as far as his children’s safety and emotional needs are concerned. DCF has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Martin cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey safe and healthy and to maximize his abilities to achieve.
When one also considers the high level of care, patience, and discipline that Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey’s needs will require from their caregiver, it is patently clear that Martin is not in a better position to parent his children than he was at the time of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey’s commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, Martin is no better able "to resume the responsibilities of parenting at the time of filing the termination petition than he had been at the time of the children’s commitment." In re Hector L., supra, 53 Conn.App. 367; see In re Vincent D., supra, 65 Conn.App. 670 ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by [DCF]"); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 124-25; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.
Even if Martin was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his daughters at any time in the near future, if ever.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey’s needs for permanence and stability do not allow for the time necessary for Martin to attempt rehabilitation. Given this respondent’s failure to progress in his parenting abilities, it is reasonable to infer that he will remain besieged by those issues for some extensive time, and that he will not be physically available to serve as a custodial resource for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey during the time frame for rehabilitation contemplated in § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I). See In re Katia M., supra, 124 Conn.App. 670-72. Thus, the evidence related to the ineffectiveness of his rehabilitation supports the conclusion that DCF has met the burden of proof on this TPR element. See In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 515; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
*27 Given the age, sensibilities, needs, and special needs of the children involved, and given Martin’s failure and/or inability to correct his issues, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he would be able to achieve rehabilitation from his various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey within a reasonable time.
Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey need a parent who is able to effectively care for them now. They cannot wait for the remote possibility that their biological father might address his issues and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day in the future. Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey are unable to wait for Martin to show that he has rehabilitated himself and is ready to assume his parental role. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [his] ability to manage [his] own life, but rather whether [he] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384. Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that DCF has proved that Martin failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I).
In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the children at issue, assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, and reached its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361-63.
In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Martin and his daughters. Continued foster care is detrimental to the children’s development; Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey require a permanent home that is safe and nurturing, along with a caregiver that is capable and up to the task of raising them.
Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Martin is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. See In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed the respondent father’s parenting deficits as they relate to his daughters’ need for a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent who can meet his requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow Martin further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the lives of his daughters, would not be in the best interests of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. In re Elvin G., supra, 310 Conn. 507-08; In re Cheila R., supra, 112 Conn.App. 591-92.
DISPOSITION
As the court has concluded that statutory grounds for termination exist, it next must determine "whether termination is in the best interests of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 827, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005); see also In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511 n.15, 613 A.2d 748 (1992). In this dispositional phase the court has considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances and events through the close of evidence. Practice Book § 35a-9.
The best interest element of § 17a-112(j)(2) has been defined as follows: "The best interests of the child include the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of [his or her] environment ... In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent’s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child ... In re Sarah O., 128 Conn.App. 323, 340, 16 A.3d 1250, [cert. denied, 301 Conn. 928, 22 A.3d 1275] (2011)." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 766 n.15, 23 A.3d 18 (2011), aff’d, 306 Conn. 438, 51 A.3d 334 (2012). "In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k) ] ... The seven factors serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered ... There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence ... In re Alison M., [supra, 127 Conn.App. 211]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Etta H., 146 Conn.App. 751, 762, 78 A.3d 295 (2013).
SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS
*28 The court has made each of the seven written factual findings required by § 17a-112(k) based upon the clear and convincing evidence presented at trial, and has considered the evidence relevant to each of these findings in deciding whether to terminate the respondent parents’ individual parental rights. See In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 835; see In re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 734, 994 A.2d 233 (2010), appeal dismissed, 300 Conn. 294, 12 A.3d 566 (2011).
1. Timeliness, Nature, and Extent of Services Offered, Provided, and Made Available to the Parent And the Child By an Agency to Facilitate the Reunion of the Child with the Parent— General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(1)
DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Iris or that the following services were provided to her: (1) DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, supervised visitation, transportation assistance; (2) Hartford Behavioral Health: Project S.A.V.E— women’s trauma group; (3) Village for Families and Children’s TFT program; (4) Wheeler Clinic: IOP, individual therapy, medication management, Women and Healing Outpatient Group.
DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Martin or that the following services were provided to him: (1) DCF: administrative case reviews, casework services, supervised visitation; (2) Radiance Innovative Services: domestic violence counseling, parenting education; (3) Village for Families and Children: mental health and substance abuse evaluation.
The credible evidence put forth in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes both that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts for the respondent mother and for the respondent father and that they are unable or unwilling to benefit from § 17a-112(j)(1) efforts. Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate, and comprehensive services to the respondent parents Iris and Martin to facilitate their reunification with their children and made reasonable efforts to reunite each parent with their children. See In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Iris and Martin did utilize these services as indicated herein but failed to gain appropriate benefits from these services.
On the basis of this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Iris and Martin are each unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as their children are concerned. Section 17a-112(j)(1). Their individual serious issues clearly and convincingly made each one unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with their children in a timely manner, if at all. See In re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 542, 744 A.2d 915 (2000) (terminating parental rights where parents did not take responsibility for situation and did not benefit from services offered); see also In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004) (terminating parental rights where parent was incapable of providing for children, even when positive feelings existed).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that Iris and Martin were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite having knowledge of the nature of their individual issues, Iris and Martin remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with their children.
*29 This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for Iris and Martin with regard to their children.
2. Reunification Efforts Pursuant to Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997— General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(2)
This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that Iris and Martin are each presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as are contemplated by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as amended. Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify Iris and Martin with their children. See In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 478-79, 771 A.2d 244 (2001).
The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that each respondent parent was aware of her or his individual issues and deficits and had received specific steps addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that despite this notification, Iris and Martin remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.
This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for Iris and Martin with regard to their children.
3. Compliance with Court Orders— General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(3)
The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM on January 25, 2018, the court (Dannehy, J.) issued final steps as to the respondent parents. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Iris did comply with the majority of the specific steps ordered by the court. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to gain any lasting benefit to her ability to care for her children. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Martin failed to comply with the steps, which as enumerated above, were intended to facilitate the return of his children to the respondent parents’ care.
The court incorporates by reference its previous findings made in this decision concerning the respondent parents’ compliance with the specific steps, as well as each respondent parent’s failure to benefit from services.
4. The Children’s Feeling and Emotional Ties— General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(4)
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Iris and Martin have a relationship and a bond with their children. The children also have a relationship and a bond with FM.
5. Age of the Children— General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(5)
Yolanda was born on April 19, 2006, and is twelve years old. Jennessy was born on January 6, 2008, and is eleven years old. Hailey was born on January 9, 2009, and is ten years old.
6. Parents’ Efforts to Adjust Their Circumstances, Conduct, or Conditions to Make It in the Best Interest of the Child to Return Such Child Home in the Foreseeable Future— General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(6)
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Iris and Martin have been unable and/or unwilling to make realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to acceptable parental standards.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Iris has attended and completed referrals to address her issues. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris failed to gain any lasting benefit to her ability to care for her children.
*30 The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Iris has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past. Despite being offered and taken opportunities to address her issues, Iris has failed to show sustained benefit to her ability to appropriately care for her daughters.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite DCF’s best efforts, Iris is unable and/or unwilling to take the steps necessary in order to attempt to become a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The evidence at the TPR trial clearly and convincingly shows that she is incapable of being a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for her daughters. Iris is obviously unable to care for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey appropriately and to provide them with the safety, care, permanence, and stability that the children need and deserve.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin made no realistic and sustained efforts to conform his individual conduct to acceptable parental standards. He has made little effort to undertake any necessary rehabilitative steps in order to be an effective and productive part of his daughters’ lives and upbringing. He has failed to undertake any services. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that his parenting abilities have not improved to the point where he could serve as a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for his children.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that despite DCF’s best efforts, the respondent parents are individually unable and/or unwilling to take the steps necessary in order to attempt to become safe, nurturing, and responsible parents for their children. They have each demonstrated that they are unable to care for their children appropriately and to provide them with the safety, care, permanence, and stability that each child needs and deserves.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent parents have not made the changes necessary in their individual lifestyles in a timely manner that would indicate that either one would be a safe, responsible, and nurturing parent for Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow the respondent parents further time to rehabilitate themselves, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the children’s lives would not be in the best interests of Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey.
7. Extent to Which the Parents Were Prevented from Maintaining a Relationship with the Children— General Statutes § 17a-112(k)(7)
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, the Department of Corrections, the foster parent, or third parties prevented Iris, or Martin from maintaining a relationship with Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey, nor did their individual economic circumstances prevent such relationships, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.
BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN
The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of the parental rights of Iris and Martin would be in Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey’s best interests. Applying the appropriate legal standards to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of DCF.
*31 In determining whether termination of Iris or Martin’s parental rights would be in their children’s best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the children’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability, and continuity of their environment; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of their relationships with their foster parent and their biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents. See In re Mia M., 127 Conn.App. 363, 374-75, 14 A.3d 1024 (2011); In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance the children’s intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 313-14, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child’s physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against interest in preserving family integrity).
Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that it is not in Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey’s best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with the respondent parents.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris and Martin have numerous issues that are clearly antithetical to safe, responsible, and nurturing parenting, and are also antagonistic to Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey’s best interests.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Iris’ issues are those of mental health, substance abuse, parenting deficits, criminal activity, domestic violence, and a failure to benefit from counseling and services. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Iris was unable to appropriately address these issues by the time of the filing of the TPR petition. Iris did comply with the majority of the services that DCF referred her to. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence showed that she failed to show lasting benefit from these services.
During the pendency of this matter, Iris did test positive for PCP on October 25, 2017, and February 20, 2018. Subsequently, she did test negative for the same at a later date. However, she did miss testing on various dates. Iris also failed to submit to random urinalysis at times.
Iris’ continued relationship with Martin is also troubling and concerning. Martin, who was released from incarceration in April 2018, has numerous issues, including substance abuse, mental health, parenting deficits, criminal recidivism, and a failure to attempt and benefit from counseling and services.
Iris did successfully complete the TFT program. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that her referrals have failed to increase her abilities to manage her children’s behaviors and their special needs. The reports from her supervised visitations and TFT indicated that, despite services, Iris had great difficulty in managing the children’s behaviors during visits.
The court is well aware and certainly sympathetic to the challenges that a caregiver faces in raising three children with significant special needs. Nevertheless, it was Iris’ responsibility to place herself in a position where she could care for these children safely, responsibly, and in a nurturing manner. Unfortunately, she has been unable to accomplish this.
Iris’ continued involvement in serious criminal behavior is also another indicator of her failure to rehabilitate. The petitioner put on evidence to clearly and convincing show that Iris did sell a quantity of narcotics, specifically heroin laced with fentanyl, to an undercover officer on August 9, 2018, in the city of Hartford. Additionally, it was further shown that, when Iris was arrested shortly thereafter, she was in possession of the buy money that she had received from the undercover officer, an additional $ 252, and twenty-seven bags of heroin laced with fentanyl, identical to the bags sold to the undercover officer.
*32 Trafficking in narcotics is an occupation fraught with danger and peril. These risks are things that Iris, a convicted drug trafficker prior to August 9, 2018, would be expected to be acquainted with. Unfortunately, these dangers and risks would have to be shared with any young and dependent children who shared Iris’ home and life.
The fact that Iris has no legal income is also a matter of concern, especially when combined with her long-term involvement in drug trafficking. Iris’ ability to care for her daughters remained as poor at the time of the TPR trial as it was at the inception of the case.
Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite her referrals and services, Iris failed to rehabilitate herself sufficiently to be a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The court also finds that too much time has already elapsed to justify giving Iris further time to show her rehabilitation.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Martin failed to rehabilitate himself to a level adequate to serve as a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent to his daughters. Despite the best intents and efforts of DCF to involve him with the children, he has been unwilling to come forward and be accountable. He has failed to offer his daughters a viable home. He has failed to demonstrate any real initiative to rehabilitate himself so as to be a part in his daughters’ lives, to successfully address his own issues, or to provide an appropriate home and suitable guidance for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. The respondent father has failed to visit Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey appropriately and has failed to maintain contact with DCF appropriately.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that neither Iris nor Martin can keep any of their daughters safe or care for them properly. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that neither Iris nor Martin have gained sufficient insight into the efforts that each needs to make in order to become a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent for their children. The clear and convincing evidence shows that each respondent parent’s individual judgment and conduct still remain questionable.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey cannot afford to wait any longer for their parents to rehabilitate themselves. Each parent has been given more than ample time to accomplish this, without success.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time that the respondent parents need to attempt to rehabilitate themselves and establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing, and responsible parents, if that were possible, is time that the children cannot spare.
Iris and Martin’s individual parental performances clearly and convincingly show that each one lacks the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill a valid parental role. Their individual failures to address their issues in a timely manner and to successfully address their individual parental deficits clearly and convincingly show that it is unlikely that they will ever be able to conform their individual behaviors to appropriate parental standards or be able to serve as a safe, nurturing, and responsible parents for Yolanda, Jennessy, or Hailey.
Based upon the individual behaviors and performances so far of Iris and Martin, this court cannot foresee any of the respondent parents in this case ever having the ability or the patience required to follow the regimen necessary for his or her children to maximize their abilities and achievements.
*33 Counsel for Iris argued against the TPR. She pointed out that Iris had successfully completed several programs, including the IOP and the Women and Healing Outpatient Group at WC. She also indicated that Iris was consistent in her individual therapy.
The court notes that, at the TPR trial, counsel for the children argued against the TPR, indicating that it was his clients’ wish to be reunified with Iris.
The court is certainly sympathetic to the position of the children and understands their wish for reunification. There is also no question that the children have a relationship and a bond with the respondent mother. Unfortunately, this court finds that reunification is clearly not in the children’s best interests. The court cannot always satisfy the children’s wishes in a child protection matter, especially when the parent has been given many opportunities to rehabilitate and has failed to do so.
Despite the arguments of the respondent mother’s and children’s counsel, the clear and convincing evidence shows that neither Iris nor Martin are in any position to assume their children’s care in a safe, nurturing, and responsible manner.
Despite having completed referrals, Iris has failed to make herself into a safe, nurturing, and responsible parent who is capable of assuming the care of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey.
This litigation marks the second removal from Iris’ home for Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey. None of Iris’ minor children remain in her care. Iris has shown few signs that she has improved herself to the point where she could be relied upon to care for her children.
Martin has addressed none of his extremely concerning issues. He has not completed any of his services, or even made an attempt to start them. His history of visitation has been inconsistent.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey can no longer wait for permanency, continuity, and stability in their lives.
Our courts have recognized that "long-term stability is critical to a child’s future health and development ..." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). Furthermore, "[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence [when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children] ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff’d, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The court is obliged to agree with DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey are entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty that each child has lived with as to the unavailability of their biological parents as caretakers.
DCF recommended the TPR. There has been absolutely no evidence to establish the unreasonableness of this request.
Having balanced the individual and intrinsic needs of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with the respondent parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that each child’s best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to the respondent parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.
*34 Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the children as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, including the testimony and evidence presented, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of the respondent parents as to Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey is in the best interests of each child in question.
ORDER OF TERMINATION
WHEREFORE, after due consideration of Yolanda, Jennessy, and Hailey’s sense of time, each child’s need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship each child has with their foster parent, and the totality of circumstances; and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights; and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in each child’s best interests, the court issues the following ORDERS:
That the parental rights of Iris O. are hereby terminated as to the children Yolanda V., Jennessy V., and Hailey V.
That the parental rights of Martin V. are hereby terminated as to the children Yolanda V., Jennessy V., and Hailey V.
That the Commissioner of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Yolanda, Jennessy and Hailey for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for each child.
That permanency plans shall be submitted within thirty days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.