Opinion
H12CP15016141
07-27-2017
In re Hailee N
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mary-Margaret D. Burgdorff, J.
In accordance with General Statutes § 46b-124 and Practice Book § 32a-7, the names of the parties involved in this case are not to be disclosed, and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.
Before this court is the termination of parental rights (TPR) petition filed by the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), on November 1, 2016, in the interest of Hailee N., a minor child born on June 19, 2007, to Michelle T. (" Mother") and Carlos N. (" Father"). The petition alleges that the parental rights of Mother and Father should be terminated on the grounds that Hailee has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and mother and father have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. As to Father, the petition also alleges that Hailee has been abandoned by Father in the sense that Father has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of his child. The petition also alleges that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate Mother and Father and made reasonable efforts to reunify Hailee with Mother and Father. It further alleges that reasonable efforts to reunify are not required for Mother or Father because the court has approved a permanency plan other than reunification.
The respondent parents were properly served. Mother appeared, was advised and appointed counsel. A default judgment entered against Father on December 7, 2016 for his failure to appear. The child was appointed an attorney. Paternity has been established. The Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable. The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction and there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child. This matter was tried to the court June 15, 2017, and June 16, 2017. Mother was present in court prior to the commencement of the trial but she abruptly left the court room after her attorney's motion to withdraw as her counsel was denied by the court. Mother's attorney and the child's attorney were present during the trial. DCF was represented by an assistant attorney general.
The court heard testimony from four witnesses who included the two DCF social workers, an employee from the Village for Children and Families, and a therapist from InterCommunity Health Services. Exhibits offered by DCF were entered into evidence as full exhibits. These included the court's memorandum of decision dated October 14, 2015, the social study in support of the permanency plan, the social study in support of the termination of parental rights petitions, and Mother's amended specific steps. Mother offered ten exhibits, all of which were admitted as full exhibits. These included a student information data sheet, an identity theft complaint, three letters from Intercommunity, a letter from Wheeler Clinic, a letter from The Village for Children and Families, a certification of completion from and, a certificate from a parenting class. The representations in the social studies, status reports and affidavits will be considered for dispositional purposes.
The court takes judicial notice of the entire court record including the chronology of the proceedings, the filings or submissions of pleadings, petitions, social studies, statements of facts, affidavits, status reports, evaluations, court hearing memoranda and the court's findings, orders, rulings and judgments including the court's decision as to the neglect petition dated. October 14, 2015, and the court's approval of the permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption on May 16, 2017. The court takes judicial notice of the chronology of the case as well as the court memoranda.
All counsel participated in the examination of the witnesses and closing arguments. The court has carefully considered the petition, the criteria as set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes, the applicable case law as well as all of the evidence and testimony presented, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the evaluation of their testimony with all other testimony and documentary evidence, and the arguments of counsel according to the standards required by law. The court was able to clearly listen to and observe all of the witnesses and determine the validity, cohesion, and the credibility of their testimony. The court thoroughly reviewed the documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence presented and for the reasons stated below, the court finds in favor of the petition and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent Mother and the respondent Father as to their child, Hailee N.
The court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.
FACTS
Mother
Mother was born on February 3, 1982. Mother did not graduate from high school. She reports that she is currently pursuing her GED. She reports that she has worked as numerous jobs in the past with her most recent employment in Hartford. Mother quit that job and has refused to identify that employer. She reports that her current sources of income are SSI benefits and SSD benefits of $1, 400.00 per month.
Mother has struggled with housing and was evicted from her last home in May 2015 for failure to pay rent. She stayed in multiple shelters and was asked to leave the shelters for breaking their rules. She reports that she is currently staying with friends. DCF has offered Mother housing assistance through various agencies. In July 2015, Mother was deemed no longer eligible for supportive housing due to her addiction issues. In June 2016, Mother reported that she was able to receive security deposit assistance from Community Renewal Team (CRT) but subsequently lost the funding. She continues to face barriers due to her prior evictions and income limitations. She has consistently refused to provide DCF with the location of her current addresses. As of June 2017, Mother reported that she continued to be homeless.
Mother's criminal history, dating back to 1995, includes convictions for robbery 2nd, robbery 3rd, sale of hallucinogen/narcotics, criminal trespass, possession of narcotics, and violation of probation.
Mother reported that she was in a relationship with Father for 15 years and resided with him in Rhode Island and Connecticut. She reported that he was abusive to her, which resulted in domestic violence incidents in Rhode Island. Mother reports that her relationship with Father ended in November 2015.
Mother's history with DCF dates back to 2009 due to unstable housing, mental health issues, domestic violence and parenting concerns.
Mother has a significant history of mental health issues. Her past diagnoses include major depression, post traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia. In 2009, Mother was hospitalized at the Institute of Living due to placing herself in unsafe situations. In February 2015, while in Rhode Island, Mother ingested a bottle of Tylenol while in the presence of her children and was placed in the ICU unit at the hospital. On April 20, 2015, Mother arrived at DCF in Connecticut and reported that she was not taking her prescribed medications due to her concerns about the medication. Mother reported to DCF she left Rhode Island due to feeling threatened by people she believed were going to cut off her hands and legs. Mother also reported experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations. On May 4, 2015, she reported that she did not feel safe in her home. In July 2015
In 2008, mother's clinician at Capitol Region Mental Health Center contacted DCF to report that mother was reporting physical abuse by father, Carlos N. The clinician further reported that mother was diagnosed with Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Schizophrenia. In addition, mother had not been participating in services and was not taking her prescribed medication. The case was substantiated for physical neglect of the children and the case was transferred for ongoing services. In September 2008, concerns were raised regarding Jorge's behaviors. In October 2008, DCF was notified that mother brought Jorge to the hospital due to his out of control behaviors which included aggressive physical and sexual behaviors towards his siblings, lighting fires and suicidal ideation.
In 2009, mother reported that she was not consistently taking her prescribed medication and not attending her mental health appointments. On April 30, 2009, a 96-hour hold was invoked by DCF on all three children due to mother's out of control behaviors. On April 30, 2009, mother was hospitalized at the Institute of Living due to placing herself in unsafe situations. The children were subsequently committed to DCF on August 19, 2009. The children were then returned to mother's care under an order of protective supervision on January 19, 2010 with the commitment ending on May 18, 2010.
Mother recently relocated to Connecticut from Rhode Island. In February 2015 while in Rhode Island, mother ingested a bottle of Tylenol while with the children and was placed in the ICU unit at the hospital. Mother failed to engage in mental health services thereafter. Mother subsequently abruptly returned to Connecticut with the children. Rhode Island Child Protection Services reported to DCF that mother was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and advised that she was not addressing her mental health issues and was not on medication.
In April 2015, DCF was contacted by the Domestic Violence Crisis Center who reported that mother had left a domestic violence shelter with Hailee on April 19, 2015. On April 20, 2015, mother arrived at the DCF office with the children and confirmed she was not taking her prescribed medications due to her health concerns regarding the medication. Mother reported that she left Rhode Island due to feeling threatened by people who were going to cut her hands and legs off. In July 2015, Mother walked into a Hartford police station with Hailee to report that she was being threatened. She reported that her water in her home had been tampered with and that it contained gas. Mother testified that people in cars were following her and that they intended to harm her. The police officer who met with mother called the Mobile Crisis Unit and mother was transported by ambulance to the hospital. Mother presented as paranoid. Mother reported that she had a microchip in her that had been placed in her coffee and that it was reading her thoughts and was tracking her. She believed the federal and state governments are trying to kill her. She reported PCP and marijuana use several days prior to her admission as well as four prior suicide attempts. Mother's behavior in the hospital escalated and she became physically and verbally combative requiring the use of restraints while refusing medication. Mother was transferred to Mt. Sinai Hospital for further evaluation. Mother was discharged from the hospital on August 25, 2015 with diagnoses of paranoid behavior, anxiety bipolar affective disorder currently manic and severe with psychotic features and PCP abuse. Mother was prescribed medications including Fluoxetine and Lurasidone HCI. She has not been compliant with taking her medication. Most recently, Mother reports that she has no mental health issues and does not need any mental health services.
Mother has been marginally compliant with her mental health services and has not fully cooperated with her service providers. She failed to engage in individual counseling with CRT and was discharged for non-compliance in December 2015. After multiple unsuccessful discharges from CRT, she was successfully discharged in July 2016. She attended an appointment with the psychiatrist at CRT but informed the psychiatrist that she would not be taking any medications.
Mother was referred to Community Health Resources (CHR) for substance abuse and mental health services in February 2016. Mother then informed DCF that she would not participate in services referred by DCF. She did engage in individual counseling with Intercommunity Health and Wheeler Clinic but was minimally compliant with those services. She reported that she has not benefitted from the services and reiterated that she does not have any mental health issues.
Mother successfully engaged in The Women's Wellness Group in February 2016. She successfully completed the Women's Trauma Group at Wheeler Clinic in June 22, 2016. She also successfully completed a parenting class on March 23, 2016, through Catholic Charities at the Rambuh Family Center. Mother failed to attend a psychological evaluation scheduled for June 3, 2016 and June 21, 2016. Mother reported to DCF in July 2016, that she was participating in counseling at Intercommunity Health (ICMH). She provided DCF with a letter from ICMH which stated that she participated in " a full mental health and substance abuse evaluation" on July 1, 2016, and that she had been recommended to participate in individual counseling. The letter also noted that medication management was not recommended as part of her initial treatment but she might progress to medication if her symptoms did not decrease with therapy. She was diagnosed with severe major depression, personality disorder, provisional post traumatic stress disorder, mild alcohol use disorder in remission, and provisional borderline personality disorder. Mother attended her scheduled appointments at ICMH on July 7, 2016, and August 4, 2016, but did not attend her scheduled appointments on July 21, 2016, and August 24, 2016.
As of October 25, 2016, Wheeler Clinic reported that Mother had not completed a psychological evaluation or any other appointments. In December 2016, Mother reported that she had not reengaged in mental health services and again stated that she did not have any mental health issues. In February 2017, Mother reported to DCF that she was scheduled for an intake at Hartford Behavioral Health (HBH) and that she had reengaged in services with ICMH for mental health services. Mother did reengage in mental health services at ICMH but missed several appointments and was unsuccessfully discharged in May 2017. Mother tore up her release of information form for ICMH at a June 6, 2017 meeting with DCF. A new intake appointment was scheduled for Mother at ICMH on June 12, 2017. Mother failed to appear for that appointment.
Mother has a past history of smoking marijuana and alcohol consumption but has maintained her sobriety since DCF involvement. She was referred to an intensive outpatient program by CRT and a co-occurring group but Mother did not feel it was necessary. She was discharged for noncompliance on January 8, 2016. She was inconsistent in attending services at ABH. Mother has provided clean urines since 2015. Random urine screens taken at Wheeler Clinic were negative for all substances through June 2016.
Mother has been inconsistent in attending supervised visits with Hailee. She has struggled with arriving on time for the visits which resulted in cancellations of some of the visits. Mother has exhibited some positive parenting skills during the visits including setting appropriate limits and boundaries with Hailee when she misbehaves. Some concerns noted during the visits included Mother telling Hailee to lie about her foster parent and the social worker. She was observed providing Hailee with unhealthy eating choices during the visits and have inappropriate conversations with her. Mother threatened the social worker and his family during one of the supervised visits and, as a result, DCF contracted with an agency to provide the supervised visits. On February 27, 2017, Mother requested two members of the community to confront the social worker which resulted in an altercation. Notably, Hailee reported that she was " very scared" and has refused visitation with Mother.
Father
Father, Carlos N., was born on January 27, 1975. Father has a 15-year relationship with Mother that ended in November 2015 at which time Father moved out of Mother's home. Father is a convicted felon with a criminal history dating back to 1995.
Father's presenting issues included substance abuse, lack of stable housing, and domestic violence with Mother. Father has not provided DCF with any information with regard to his employment status, housing situation or medical history, Father reported that he has struggles with substance abuse for years. He was referred to CRT for services but failed to attend any of his appointments. He was discharged for noncompliance. He failed to render any urine screens at Advanced Behavioral Health. Father requested that he would like his addiction issues addressed. However, he disengaged with DCF as of November 2015. In May 2017, DCF made contact with Father who reported that he was residing in Massachusetts. At that time, he expressed the desire to visit Hailee and discussed attending court. DCF offered to make travel arrangements for Father and proposed a visit with Hailee on June 5, 2016. Father failed to respond to DCF's follow-up calls and letters. As noted, above, Father was not present during the trial of this matter. Father has not visited with Hailee since November 2015.
Hailee N
Hailee was born on August 19, 2007. Hailee has been in her current therapeutic foster home since September 2015. Prior to her current placement, she was in three, different foster placements. Hailee was placed with her psychological aunt in September 2015, but was removed from that home on September 9, 2015 due to safety concerns stemming from a shooting at that residence.
Hailee continues to have some physical health concerns including obesity with enuresis which requires her to use a diaper at night. She experiences urine leakage during the day for which she is being medically monitored. She continues to have voiding and elimination issues which require her to have access to the bathroom and regular intake of water while at school. She is up to date with her medical appointments including vision, dental, and immunizations.
Hailee continues to struggle with trying to please everyone. She has had issues with adaptability and poor social skills, especially with children. She has been exposed to several traumatic events including the death of her grandmother, witnessing violence, separation from her father, and bullying. She has been exposed to substance abuse and mental health issues, has been parentified.
Testing shows Hailee to be in the average range for cognitive skills. She was referred for mental health treatment and social activities in an effort to better her social skills and raise her self-esteem, as well as physical activity to assist her in losing weight. She was diagnosed with mood disorder, obesity/enuresis, problems with primary support group, and problems related to social environment. She underwent a multidisciplinary evaluation which recommended that she participate in individual counseling for trauma treatment. Hailee was referred to the Bridge for mental health services in April 2015, and has participated in weekly individual counsel services since that time as well as at The Village for Families and Children. Her therapist noted that she is demonstrating traits associated with bi-polar disorder. The therapist is also addressing Hailee's coping skills. Hailee is also participating in a weekly parent divorce and separation group at her school where she has opened up about her current situation.
Hailee's foster parent reports that she is a very emotional, affectionate and sensitive child. She has made improvements with telling the truth. She is bonded with her foster family. She requires a great deal of supervision and can be noncooperative and engage in temper tantrums. However, she has made significant progress with her conflict resolution and patience. She continues to do well in her foster home and is handling stressful situations more appropriately. Hailee has a strong parent-child relationship with her foster mother and calls her " Mom."
Prior to the incident on February 25, 2017, Hailee had looked forward to her visits with Mother. Hailee has reported that she does not feel safe living with Mother. She also struggled transitioning from visits with Mother and has refused to attend visits with Mother. She reported that Mother hits her when she misbehaves. She has expressed concern that Mother will take her away from her foster home.
Hailee looked forward to her visits with Father and has been saddened by her lack of contact with him since November 2015.
Concerns were raised regarding Hailee's attendance at school in Rhode Island and Connecticut including excessive absences and tardiness. She had low reading fluency and was below grade level in math. Her teachers reported issues regarding her cleanliness, poor fitting clothing, and bites observed on her arm. Hailee reported being bullied at school because of her weight and hygiene issues. She is currently a regular education student in Hartford and will be in the 5th grade in the upcoming school year. She reports enjoying school, especially science and math. She has made significant improvements in all areas of her academics.
Hailee continues to receive support from her foster parent, her therapist, DCF and school staff. She is thriving in her foster home and her foster parent has expressed the desire to adopt her in the event she becomes legally free to do so.
ADJUDICATION
The court must first determine whether DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of Mother and Father should be terminated. " A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Destiny R., 134 Conn.App. 625, 627, 39 A.3d 727, cert. denied, 304 Conn. 932, 43 A.3d 660 (2012); In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006).
Reasonable Efforts
Section 17a-112(j) provides in relevant part: " The Superior Court . . . may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] . . . if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the [department] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts . . . (Emphasis added.) " [T]he department may meet its burden concerning reunification in one of three ways: (1) by showing that it made such efforts, (2) by showing that the parent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts or (3) by a previous judicial determination that such efforts were not appropriate . . ." In re Gabriella A., 154 Conn.App. 177, 104 A.3d 805 (2014). " Thus, the department must prove [by clear and convincing evidence] either that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts. Section 17a-112(j) clearly provides that the department is not required to prove both circumstances. Rather, either showing is sufficient to satisfy this statutory element." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kylik A., 153 Conn.App. 584, 102 A.3d 141 (2014), citing In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 191, 16 A.3d 1244 (2011); see also In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 837, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005). " [I]n determining whether the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify a parent and a child or whether there is sufficient evidence that a parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, the court is required in the adjudicatory phase to make its assessment on the basis of the events preceding the date on which the termination was filed . . . [T]he court, when making its reasonable efforts determination . . . is limited to considering only those facts preceding the filing of the termination petition or the most recent amendment to the petition . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kylik A., id., citing In re Kyara H., 147 Conn.App. 855, 870-71, 83 A.3d 1264, cert. denied, 311 Conn. 923, 86 A.3d 466 (2014). See also Practice Book § 35a-7.
" [T]he statute imposes on the department the duty . . . to make reasonable efforts to unite the child or children with the parents. The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof. Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act by which the requirement was drawn . . . [R]easonable efforts mean doing everything reasonable, not everything possible . . ." (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001); In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 722 A.2d 1232 (1999). " [R]easonableness is an objective standard . . . and whether reasonable efforts have been proven depends on the careful consideration of the circumstances of each individual case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kyara H., 147 Conn.App. 855, 872-73, 83 A.3d 1264, cert. denied, 311 Conn. 923, 86 A.3d 466 (2014). See also In re Vincent B., 73 Conn.App. 637, 641, 809 A.2d 1119 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934, 815 A.2d 136 (2003). " The department has a continuing duty to make reasonable efforts." Id., 644. But " [t]he department is required only to make 'reasonable efforts.' It is axiomatic that this does not require a useless and futile act." In re Antony B., 54 Conn.App. 463, 476, 735 A.2d 893 (1999). In addition, " making no efforts to reunify a parent and his or her child may be reasonable in certain circumstances . . ." In re Vincent B., supra, 73 Conn.App. 645. The court may also determine that the respondent parents were either unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. See In re Alexander T., 81 Conn.App. 668, 676, 841 A.2d 274, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 924, 848 A.2d 472 (2004).
DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it used reasonable efforts to locate Mother and Father as contemplated by § 17a-112(j)(1). The evidence clearly establishes that Mother and Father were properly served. Mother was initially present in court on June 15, 2017, prior to the commencement of the trial.
DCF has also proven by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to reunify Hailee with Mother and Father. Both Mother and Father were offered appropriate services to facilitate reunification with their child. As discussed in detail above, Mother was offered a multitude of services which included case management services, counseling, housing referrals, substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment and services, parenting services, supervised visitation, individual therapy, bus passes and transportation. Services were offered at Wheeler Clinic, Intercommunity Services, The Connections, Inc., and The Village for Children and Families. Mother not only failed to fully engage in treatment to address her mental health issues, she also failed to make any significant progress in addressing those issues or in understanding the consequences of her actions on Hailee. She has clearly not gained sufficient insight into her issues with her significant mental health issues and substance abuse issues to the extent that Hailee can safely return to her care. She has not demonstrated any significant rehabilitation she may have gained to such an extent that she could safely care for Hailee. While Mother did successfully complete her parenting program, her trauma group, and her Women's Wellness Group, she clearly has not sufficiently benefitted from those services. For most of Hailee's young life, Mother has been unable to put her needs ahead of Hailee's. The court notes that mother does appear to love Hailee, and did engage with him an appropriate manner during her visits with her. However, her significant mental health issues continue to remain an ongoing issue as demonstrated by Mother's behavior during the last supervised visit. Any love and affection Mother has for Hailee does not arise to parental competence. See In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575, 877 A.2d 941 (2005).
Father was offered numerous services to aid in attaining reunification with Hailee including substance abuse evaluation and services, parenting education, case management, bus passes and supervised visits pursuant to his court ordered specific steps. To date, he has not completed his court-ordered services including substance abuse evaluation and treatment . . . Father has been unable to care for Hailee for the majority of her young life. Most troubling is Father's failure to visit with Hailee since November 2015.
Accordingly, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate Mother and Father and to reunify them, and further, that they are unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification efforts.
Failure to Rehabilitate (As to Mother and Father)
In the adjudicatory phase, the court must next determine whether DCF has proved the statutory ground for termination of parental rights--failure to rehabilitate. " The . . . [grounds] alleged in this petition [are] that . . . [the parents] failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I) which allows for termination if a child has found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . the [parents] of such [child have] been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the [child] to the parent pursuant to § 46b-129 and the [parents have] failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . ." Personal rehabilitation . . . refers to the restoration of the parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [and] requires the trial court to analyze the [parents'] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time . . . The statute does not require [the parents] to prove precisely when they will be able to assume a responsible position in [their child's] life. Nor does it require [them] to prove that [they] will be able to assume full responsibility for [their child], unaided by available support systems. It requires the court, to find by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [they have] achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their child's] life." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004); In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 94, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009); In re Halle T., 96 Conn.App. 815, 835, 902 A.2d 670, cert. denied. 280 Conn. 924, 908 A.2d 1087 (2006), In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). " The critical issue is not whether the [parents have] improved [their] ability to manage [their] own [lives], but rather whether [they] have gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." Id. at 835. The ultimate question [regarding each parent] is whether the parent at the time of the filing of the termination petition is more able to resume the responsibilities of a parent than he or she was at the time of the making of the commitment. In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 614 A.2d 832 (1992). In making this determination, the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time. In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000); In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002). See also In re Emerald C., 108 Conn.App. 839, 858-59, 949 A.2d 1266, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 923, 958 A.2d 150 (2008). " Terminating a parent's rights is not ordered to punish a parent who has not tried to rehabilitate; it is ordered so as not to punish a child by denying the child a safe and permanent home with proven competent caretakers because [the biological parent] . . . continues to be incapable of providing such a home for the child. In re Samantha B., 45 Conn.Supp. 468, 477, 722 A.2d 300 (1977), aff'd 51 Conn.App. 376, 721 A.2d 1255 (1998), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 902, 732 A.2d 177 (1999).
In light of the statutory elements of this ground as well as the case law interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to Mother and Father. The evidence here proves clearly and convincingly the first element under the statute that Hailee has been previously found to have been neglected. Pursuant to the court's written decision, Hailee was adjudicated neglected on October 14, 2015.
As previously discussed in detail in this decision, Mother has been unable to successfully complete the majority of her court ordered specific steps although she was given multiple opportunities to do so. The record is replete with Mother's failures to address her ongoing issues and comply with her court-ordered specific steps especially with regard to her significant mental health issues and her failure to make progress toward her identified goals.
It is clear and convincing to the court that as of the conclusion of the trial, Mother had not rehabilitated to the extent that she could care for Hailee within a reasonable period of time given Hailee's age and need for permanency. Mother has failed to consistently engage in her court ordered services which has prevented her from successfully reunifying with Hailee. She continues to have significant mental health issues to the present time as demonstrated by her disturbed and emotional conduct while in court on the first day of trial. Giving Mother additional time to rehabilitate is not in Hailee's best interest. The court finds that Mother's failure to rehabilitate, as it has been statutorily defined, has been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Similarly, Father has been unable to fully and successfully complete his specific steps. Father's presenting problems were unaddressed substance abuse issues. He has failed to keep DCF advised as to his whereabouts. He failed to participate in services and make any progress toward his treatment goals. He has not visited with Hailee since November 2015. Father is unable to meet the developmental, emotional, educational, medical and moral needs of Hailee. He cannot provide Hailee with shelter, nurturance, safety and security. See In re Paul M. Jr., 154 Conn.App. 488, 107 A.3d 552 (2014). The court has considered the nature and quality of the relationship between Father and Hailee, the age and needs of Hailee, and his inability to meet his parental responsibilities. Of paramount consideration is the issue of stability and permanency for Hailee. See In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 666-67, 6 A.3d 86 (2010). As noted above, Father's past history of attending and completing services is dismal. Hailee's need for permanence far outweighs any remote chance that Father may rehabilitate in the far distant future. It is clear and convincing to the court that as of the conclusion of the trial, Father has not rehabilitated to the extent that he can care for Hailee. Further, it would not be in Hailee's best interests, given Father's lack of stability, to allow for more time for his rehabilitation, given Hailee's age and need for permanency.
Accordingly, the evidence is clear and convincing that as of the adjudicatory date, neither Mother nor Father have achieved such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable period of time, considering Hailee's age and needs, they could assume a responsible position in her life. Neither has demonstrated the willingness or ability to provide a competent, safe and nurturing environment for their daughter. They continue to make poor decisions and exercise poor judgment. Both Mother and Father have failed to gain the necessary insight and ability to care for Hailee given her age and needs within a reasonable period of time. See In re Eden, 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873, reargument denied, 251 Conn. 924, 742 A.2d 364 (1999). While Mother and Father may love their Hailee, their attempts to reunify with her have failed. " Motivation to parent is not enough; ability is required." In re Paul M. Jr., Id., citing In re G.S., 117 Conn.App. 710, 718, 980 A.2d 935, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919, 984 A.2d 67 (2009). See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 667, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001); In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575, 877 A.2d 941 (2007). Further, the legal obligation of a parent necessarily encompasses that fundamental right of a child to be safe-physically, psychologically and emotionally. General Statutes § § 46b-120(8) and (9) and 17a-112(j). See also In re Nelmarie O., 97 Conn.App. 624, 629, 905 A.2d 706 (2006). Of paramount consideration to the court is the issue of stability and permanency for Hailee. See In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 666-67, 6 A.3d 86 (2010). Our laws recognize that a child is legally entitled to some minimum standard of safety which should include a parent's desire to protect and keep their child safe in all ways including physically and emotionally. Hailee's need for permanence far outweighs any remote chance that Mother and Father may rehabilitate in the far-distant future. Mother and Father have, either because of lack of ability or lack of desire, failed to successfully accomplish what was needed to consider reunification as an appropriate conclusion. Hailee cannot afford to wait for her parents to rehabilitate. She has been out of her parents' care for almost two years. DCF has presented compelling evidence that she needs permanency and stability now. She needs a permanent and stable living arrangement in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner. She has made significant progress in her current foster home, which provides a structured, safe and loving environment where she is well cared for. Her foster mother loves her and wishes to adopt her if Hailee becomes legally free to do so. To return Hailee to her Mother or Father would be clearly detrimental to her physical safety and well-being. In light of the statutory elements of this ground, as well as the case law interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to Hailee.
Abandonment (As to Father)
In addition to the ground of failure to rehabilitate, the ground of abandonment has been alleged as to Father in the petition. " A parent abandons a child if the parent fails to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . . General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A). Abandonment focuses on the parent's Conduct . . . Abandonment occurs where a parent fails to visit a child, does not display love or affection for the child, does not personally interact with the child and demonstrates no concern for the child's welfare . . . General Statutes § 17a-112[(j)(3)(A)] does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of the child. A parent must maintain a reasonable degree of interest in the welfare of his or her child. Maintain implies a continuing, reasonable degree of concern." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Justice V., 111 Conn.App. 500, 513-14, 959 A.2d 1063 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 911, 964 A.2d 545 (2009).
The clear and convincing evidence does show that Father has abandoned Hailee. Father has ceased all visitation with Hailee. He has not provided her with any financial support nor has he ever sent her any cards, letters or gifts. He has never participated in her education or shown an interest in her health or welfare. The court, therefore, finds that DCF has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence on the ground of abandonment as to Father.
DISPOSITION
For all of the above reasons, the court, having found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory ground of failure to rehabilitate as alleged by the petitioner for the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights has been proven, the court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in General Statutes § 17a-112(k). In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 641 A.2d 378 (1994). " In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the interest of the child . . . [T]he trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the [respondents'] parental rights is not in the best interest of the [child]. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 97-98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009). " The best interest of the [child] includes the [child's] interest in sustained growth, development, well-being and continuity and stability in [his] environment . . . In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings delineated in [§ 17a-112(k)]." Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 794-5, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008). " [These factors] serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be determined before termination can be ordered . . . There is no requirement that each factor be proved by clear and convincing evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 47, 907 A.2d 126, aff'd 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (2008).
The seven statutory findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent
As discussed above, DCF offered timely and appropriate services to Mother and Father all in an effort to facilitate reunion with Hailee. Mother was offered multiple services including mental health and substance abuse services, housing assistance, parenting education, individual therapy and counseling, supervised visits and case management services. Father was offered parent education substance abuse services, supervised visitation, and case management services. All of the recommended services were reasonable and appropriate, and offered on a consistent, timely and sufficient basis.
2. Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as amended
As discussed in detail above, reasonable efforts to reunify Hailee with his Mother and Father were made by DCF pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as amended.
The services offered were appropriate and timely to address the issues that led to Hailee's removal. They were tailored to address Mother's and Father's specific individual needs. Mother and Father each failed to sufficiently benefit from the services offered and each failed to successfully engage in services which has prevented them from reuniting with Hailee. Each failed to adjust their individual circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of Hailee to return to either's care. Neither parent has consistently availed himself or herself of their individual services in order to improve either's circumstances to the extent that either can assume a responsible role in Hailee's life. Mother and Father each have clearly failed to demonstrate an ability to appropriately and safely parent Hailee. DCF has clearly made reasonable efforts toward family reunification pursuant to the Act.
3. The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order
Neither Mother nor Father has fulfilled their individual obligations pursuant to the specific steps ordered by the court. DCF offered the parents relevant services to assist the parents in reunification efforts. Each has failed to successfully engage or rehabilitate to a degree that would allow Hailee to either's care. Mother has failed to successfully engage in her court-ordered recommended services to address the issues that led to DCF's involvement to the extent that she can be reunified with Hailee. As discussed in detail above, Mother has not fully complied with her court ordered specific steps including participating in counseling for her significant mental health issues, nor has she consistently and successfully cooperated with her service providers. She has not gained sufficient insight into her issues. Father has failed to successfully engage in or complete his court ordered services as outlined above. He has not gained sufficient insight into his ongoing issues.
4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of such child's person, and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties
Hailee is emotionally bonded with her foster mother. She has adjusted well to her foster home which has been her primary home since September 11, 2015. She seeks out her foster mother for comfort and reports that she loves her like her " second mom." She is thriving in her foster mother's care. Hailee has at times appeared to be bonded with Mother but is emotionally distant from her at the present time due to Mother's violent behavior at their last supervised visit. Hailee does not have an emotional bond with Father due to Father's disengagement while she has been in DCF's care although has expressed her desire to visit with Father.
5. The age of the child
Hailee was born on June 19, 2007. She is presently ten years old.
6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child
Neither Mother nor Father have made sufficient efforts or adjustment to their individual circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of Hailee to return safely to either's care in the foreseeable future as discussed in detail above. Mother has failed to adequately address her mental health in an effort to gain insight into the negative impact her untreated mental health issues has on her ability to appropriately parent and meet Hailee's needs. Transiency continues to be an ongoing issue for Mother. Mother has somewhat consistently attended her supervised visitation with Hailee until her last visit at which time she exhibited violent behavior resulting in Hailee's refusal to meet with her. Mother has also failed to maintain regular contact with DCF and has failed to keep DCF apprised of her housing situation. Father has not had any contact or visits with Hailee since November 2015 at which time he disengaged with DCF. Father was offered services between August and November 2015 but he failed to engage in the services. Father was offered visitation with Hailee again in June 2017 but he failed to follow up with DCF.
7. The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent
There is no credible evidence that either Mother or Father has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Hailee. DCF has encouraged both Mother and Father individually to maintain a meaningful relationship with Hailee. No unreasonable act or conduct of Mother or Father, or any other person, has prevented either Mother or Father from a meaningful relationship with Hailee. The economic circumstances of neither Mother nor Father have prevented either from having a relationship or visits with Hailee. Mother and Father were each offered and provided programs and services at no cost to either to assist each with their issues. There has been no claim either Mother or Father were unable to obtain services due to lack of financial resources. Legal counsel was appointed for each of them at no cost to either. The parents have been unable to have a meaningful relationship with Hailee due to their own actions.
Best Interests of the Child
Once the court finds that the allegations of the petition have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the court must find, also by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination is in the best interests of the child. In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 52, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998). " [T]he determination of the child's best interests comes into play only after statutory grounds for termination of parental rights has been established by clear and convincing evidence." In re Zion R., 116 Conn.App. 723, 738, 977 A.2d 247 (2009). The best interest standard is inherently flexible and fact-specific to each child, giving the court broad discretion to consider all of the different and individualized factors that might affect a specific child's welfare. In determining whether terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights would be in the best interest of Hailee, the court has considered various factors, including her interest in sustained growth, developed well-being, and in the continuity and stability of her environment; Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 16, 490 A.2d 996 (1985); In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 766 n.15, 23 A.3d 18 (2011); her age and needs; the length and nature of her stage of foster care; the contact with her parents or lack thereof; the potential benefit or detriment of retaining a connection with her Mother and Father and; her genetic bond with her birth parents; In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999); and the seven statutory factors and the court's findings thereon. The court also finds that there is no disposition less restrictive than termination of parental rights that would serve Hailee's best interests. To the contrary, in deciding the best interest in this case, the court has considered the adjudicatory and dispositional evidence in its entirety, and has concluded, by the clear and convincing evidence presented, that there is no permanency plan that could have secured the best interests of Hailee that is less restrictive than termination of parental rights at issue. See In re Azareon Y. et al., 309 Conn. 626, 72 A.3d 1074 (2013). It is clear that Hailee cannot be returned to either her mother or father. Mother is unable to maintain adequate housing. She continues to struggle with substance abuse and her mental health issues. She has failed to follow through with completion of many of her court-ordered services and change her behavior and patterns to improve her life. Father continues to struggle with substance abuse and has failed to comply with his court-ordered specific steps. He has failed to visit Hailee since November 2015. Neither parent is able to effectively parent Hailee and provide her with the necessary structure for her basic needs. The court has balanced Hailee's intrinsic need for stability, sustained growth, development, well-being and permanency against the potential benefits of maintaining a connection with her biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity.) In consideration of all these factors and after weighing all of the evidence, the court finds that the clear and convincing evidence has established that it is in the best interests of Hailee N. to terminate the parental rights of the respondent Mother and the respondent Father to ensure that Hailee has a secure and safe placement so she can grow and mature to become a productive child and adult in a healthy manner. She has a strong bond with her foster family. She needs the permanency and stability her foster parent continues to provide for her. As our courts have long observed, the deleterious effects of prolonged temporary care is well known. In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). " It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents. There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty . . ." Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct., 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982). Hailee needs this closure of the uncertainty in her young life and the removal of the possibility of returning home to her mother or father. Neither Mother nor Father offer any reasonable prospect of providing any form of the stability and permanency that Hailee needs in the foreseeable future. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that neither Mother nor Father are stable and able caretakers for Hailee.
Accordingly, after considering Hailee's age and the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights is in the best interest of Hailee. The clear and convincing evidence has established that Mother and Father are in no better position today to provide for her than they were at the time of her removal. The problems that led to her removal have not been rectified and the prospects of improvement are bleak at best. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of the witnesses as well as the information contained in the exhibits presented at the time of trial. Hailee's attorney is in support of the termination of parental rights of Mother and Father in light of their failure to rehabilitate.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing findings and having considered all of the evidence, after due consideration of the child's need for a secure, permanent placement, the totality of the circumstances, having considered all statutory criteria, having found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts to locate Mother and Father were made, that efforts at reunification with Mother and Father were made, that Mother and Father have failed to rehabilitate, that Mother and Father were and continue to be unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts, the court finds that grounds exist to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights as alleged, and that it is in the child's best interest to do so. It is accordingly ORDERED:
That the parental rights of Michelle T. and Carlos N. are hereby TERMINATED as to their child, Hailee N.; That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent of Hailee N. for the purpose of securing her adoption as expeditiously as possible; That a written report of the plan as to the status of the child shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be timely filed and presented to the court as required by law. Judgment shall enter accordingly.