On 9/19/01, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) was called on to investigate allegations of physical abuse concerning Jelani. It was determined that Jelani had been beaten by Kenneth, Andrea's then boyfriend, and that Kenneth employed a belt to beat the child. It was further determined that Andrea had requested that Kenneth administer corporal punishment to Jelani. Jelani was taken to William W. Backus Hospital (WWB) for treatment and documentation of his injuries. His siblings were also taken to WWB for an assessment. Andrea admitted to DCF personnel that she had asked Kenneth to spank Jelani.

Kenneth indicated to members of the Ledyard Police Department (LPD) that he struck Jelani not more than 10 times on the legs and buttocks with a leather belt, and that he believed that this discipline was reasonable. He also admitted to having washed out Jelani's mouth with soap in the past. Kenneth asked LPD personnel if his "nosy neighbor" had called them.

All three children were assessed at the WWB Emergency Room, where medical personnel determined that Jelani and Jaelen W., (DOB: 5/12/95), (Jaelen) had old and new bruises, which the doctor concluded were a result of on-going physical abuse. Initially, Andrea refused to consent to allowing WWB medical personnel to examine and treat her children, but eventually changed her mind and consented.

Jaelen was also taken into custody pursuant to the 96-hour hold and subsequent OTC and a neglect petition was filed in Superior Court for juvenile Matters, 9th District, Waterford, (SGJM) as to him. He is not involved in this litigation as a party.

DCF invoked a 96-hour administrative hold on all 3 children as a result of allegations of physical abuse. DCF subsequently obtained an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) as to Jelani and D'Ambra from Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 9th District, Waterford, (SCJM), (Driscoll, J.). This OTC was filed in SCJM on 9/21/01. On the same day, DCF also filed a petition alleging that the children were neglected and uncared for.

*Editor's Note:Text does not appear in original, not able obtain to reproduce herein.

DCF alleged that Jelani was neglected, in that:

1. he had been denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally;

2. he had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being; or

3. he had been abused and had physical injury or injuries inflicted by other than accidental means.

DCF alleged that D'Ambra was neglected, in that:

1. she had been denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally;

2. she had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being.

At the time of the issuance of the OTC, the court found that DCF had been unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from the home.

The court issued ex parte preliminary specific steps for the respondent parents.

On 9/28/01, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the respondent mother Andrea appeared, with counsel, and was advised of her rights. The respondent fathers, Roger, Sr. and George, did not appear. The matter was then referred to Superior Court for Juvenile Matters-Child Protection Session, located in Middletown (CPS), for trial on the OTC.

On 10/4/01, in CPS, (Jongbleod, J.), Andrea appeared with counsel, while Roger, Sr. and George did not appear. The OTC was sustained by agreement, and the court ordered specific steps for Andrea.

On 10/9/01, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion to Vacate Order.

On 11/23/01, in SCJM, counsel for Jelani filed a Motion For An In Court Review.

On 12/3/01, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Visitation.

On 12/31/01, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion To Withdraw.

On 1/8/02, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court denied Andrea's Motion For Visitation, and granted her counsel's Motion To Withdraw.

On 1/29/02, in SCJM, counsel for the children filed a Motion For Supplemental Evaluations.

On 2/11/02, in SCJM, counsel for the children filed a Motion For Continuing Payment of Attorneys Fees.

On 2/14/02, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court granted counsel for the children's Motion For Supplemental Evaluations.

On 2/25/02, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court granted counsel for the children's Motion For Continuing Payment of Attorneys Fees.

On 4/12/02, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records and to Permit Subsequent Testimony. On the same date, DCF also filed a Motion To Release Transcript.

On 4/15/02, in CPS, (Levin, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and its Motion To Release Transcript.

On 4/17/02, in CPS, DCF filed a Petitioner's Response to Respondent-Mother's Motion For Revocation.

On 4/22/02, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Revocation.

There is a date stamp on this motion indicating that it was originally filed in SCJM on 14/12/02.

On 4/23/02, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), counsel for the children filed an Order In Aid Of Attorney For Minor Child. On the same date, the court issued the order.

On 4/23/02, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Disclose Confidential Records and to Permit Subsequent Testimony.

On 5/17/02, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Release of Evaluation to Dr. Nancy Randall.

On 5/22/02, in SCJM, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion to Intervene (MTI).

On 5/23/02, in SCJM, counsel for the children filed an Objection to Motion to Intervene.

On 5/29/02, this Objection to Motion to Intervene was also filed in CPS.

On 5/28/02, in CPS, DCF filed an Objection to Motion to Intervene.

On 5/29/02, in CPS, (Levin, J.), the court denied the MTI, and sustained DCF's Objection to Motion to Intervene.

On 6/4/02, in CPS, (Levin, J.), the respondent parents appeared with their counsel before the court. Andrea entered a written plea of nolo contendre to the neglect allegations concerning Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen. The court canvassed Andrea, accepted the plea, adjudicated the children as neglected, and committed them to the custody of DCF. The court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home.

The parties also filed an agreement with the clerk as part of their disposition.

On 6/28/02, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Revocation of Commitment.

On 7/1/02, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Revocation of Commitment.

On 7/9/02, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court issued final specific steps for George, which he signed that day.

On 8/4/02, Andrea gave birth to Xavier at Lawrence and Memorial Hospital in New London.

On 8/5/02, in SCJM, (Handy, J.), DCF applied for and received an OTC concerning Xavier. The court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Xavier from his home. The court issued preliminary specific steps for the respondent parents.

On the same day, DCF also filed a petition alleging that Xavier was neglected, in that he had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being.

On 8/9/02, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the respondent parents appeared. Andrea appeared with counsel, while Kenneth appeared pro se. They were advised of their rights, and entered denials as to the neglect petition. The matter was then referred to CPS for trial on the OTC.

On 8/15/02, in SCJM, (Rubinow, J.), counsel for Andrea filed a Motion to Suppress. The court denied the motion without prejudice. The court also denied an oral motion by counsel for Kenneth to disqualify the counsel for the children.

On 8/16/02, in CPS, (Rubinow, J.), trial commenced on the OTC. Later that day, the parties reached an agreement concerning the OTC and filed a written stipulation, which the court accepted and ordered. The court then sustained the OTC by agreement, and ordered that the existing specific steps remain in effect.

On 12/10/02, in SCJM, counsel for the children filed a Motion For Evaluation of Sexual Abuse concerning D'Ambra. On 12/19/02 in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court granted counsel for the children's Motion For Evaluation of Sexual Abuse concerning D'Ambra, noting that it was "absent objection."

On 2/25/03, in SCJM, counsel for the children filed a Motion To Release Psychological Evaluation and Medical Records.

On 3/11/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court granted counsel for the children's Motion To Release Psychological Evaluation and Medical Records.

On 4/10/03, in SCJM, DCF filed its Motion to Maintain Commitment (MMC) and its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP) as to Jelani and D'Ambra. The Permanency Plan (PP) recommended TPR and adoption. The PP also recommended a finding that further efforts to reunify were not appropriate as to Roger, Sr., George and Andrea.

On 4/24/03, in SCJM, counsel for Roger, Sr. filed an Objection To Permanency Plan.

On 4/30/03, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion in Objection to Release Psychological Evaluation and Medical Records And Motion For Independent Psychological Evaluation.

On 5/2/03, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed an Objection To Permanency Plan.

On 5/6/03, in SCJM, (Purtill, JTR.), the court granted the MMC as to Jelani and D'Ambra and approved of the PP as to these children, which called for TPR and adoption. The court made no findings as to continuing reasonable efforts, but the court found that DCF did make reasonable efforts to effectuate the PP On the same date, the court revoked the commitment of Jaelen, and returned custody and guardianship to his father, Dwight S., (Dwight).

On the same date, counsel for the children filed a Motion For Continuance And Transfer To Child Protection Session.

On 5/12/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court denied Andrea's Motion in Objection to Release Psychological Evaluation and Medical Records And Motion For Independent Psychological Evaluation.

On 5/16/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court granted the children's Motion For Continuance And Transfer To Child Protection Session. In 6/5/03, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion to Withdraw.

In 6/17/03, in CPS, the court granted counsel for Kenneth's Motion to Withdraw.

On 6/20/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), DCF filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 6/24/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 7/16/03, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Updated Psychological Evaluation.

On 7/21/03, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion in Objection to Petitioner's Motion For Updated Psychological Evaluation.

On 7/30/03, in CPS, (Lopez, J.), the court granted the Motion To Disclose Confidential Records, and the Motion For Updated Psychological Evaluation. The court also overruled Andrea's Motion in Objection to Petitioner's Motion For Updated Psychological Evaluation.

On 8/1/03, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Qualified Protective Order.

On 8/5/03, in CPS, (Lopez, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion For Qualified Protective Order.

On 8/6/03, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion to Revoke/Vacate Commitment.

On 8/15/03, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion to Compel.

On 8/19/03, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion to Consolidate.

On 8/22/03, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed an Objection To Permanency Plan.

On the same date in SCJM, DCF filed a MRP concerning Xavier. The PP recommended TPR and adoption. The PP also recommended a finding that further efforts to reunify were not appropriate as to Andrea and Kenneth.

On or about 9/5/03, in CPS, (Rubinow, J.), DCF filed a Motion to Release Transcript. On the same date, the court granted the motion.

On 9/8/03, in CPS, DCF filed an Amended Motion to Release Transcript.

On 9/10/03, in CPS, (Rubinow, J.), the court granted the Amended Motion to Release Transcript.

On the same date, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed an Objection To Permanency Plan.

On 9/16/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court ordered that the MRP would be heard at CPS.

On 9/18/03, in CPS, DCF filed an Objection To Respondent's Motion to Compel.

On 9/19/03, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed an Objection To Petitioner's Attempt to Introduce Hearsay Evidence.

On 9/22/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the respondent parents appeared with their counsel before the court. Both Andrea and Kenneth entered a written plea of nolo contendre to the neglect allegation that Xavier had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well-being. The court accepted the plea, adjudicated Xavier as neglected, and committed him to the custody of DCF until further order of the court. The court also issued final specific steps for Andrea and Kenneth, and both parents signed the final steps.

The court vacated the OTC, and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the PP The court also ordered updated psychological evaluations.

On 10/28/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), DCF filed a Motion to Release Transcript. On the same date, the court granted the motion.

On 11/7/03, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion For Sexual Offender Evaluation.

This motion was also filed in CPS on 11/9/03.

On 11/18/03, in SCJM, DCF filed TPR petitions concerning Jelani and D'Ambra, which alleged the following:

Roger, Sr.: abandonment, failure to rehabilitate and no on-going relationship;

George : abandonment, failure to rehabilitate and no on-going relationship;

Andrea : failure to rehabilitate, acts of commission/omission, and failure to rehabilitate with a prior termination (Jelani only).

On 11/28/03, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion to Quash.

On 12/1/03, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed an Objection To Motion For Sexual Offender Evaluation.

On 12/2/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the hearing concerning the PP commenced.

The parties later reached an agreement concerning the PP

The court ordered the PP and the reasonable efforts findings consolidated into the TPR trial, and sent the Motion to Compel, the Motion For Sexual Offender Evaluation, and the Objection To Motion For Sexual Offender Evaluation to SCJM for consideration. DCF withdrew its Motion to Quash.

On 12/16/03, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), Andrea appeared in court with counsel, and entered pro forma denials as to the TPR petitions. Counsel for Roger, Sr. and George, appeared, but neither respondent father appeared.

On the same date, in SCJM, counsel for Kenneth filed a Respondent Father's Motion For Increased Supervised Visitation.

This motion was also filed in SCJM on 12/18/03.

On 12/19/03, in SCJM, counsel for Kenneth filed a Respondent Father's Motion For Increased Supervised Visitation.

On 12/22/03, in SCJM, DCF filed a TPR petition concerning Xavier, alleging failure to rehabilitate as to both respondent parents.

On 12/29/03, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion To Restore Visitation, and a Motion For Extended Visitation.

On 1/2/04, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion To Release of Psychological Evaluation, and a Motion For Independent Psychological Evaluation.

On 1/15/04, in SCJM, (Burke, J.), DCF filed a Motion For Expedited Transcript, which the court granted on the sane date. The court also granted Andrea's Motion To Release of Psychological Evaluation. On 1/23/04, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion For Continuance.

On 1/27/04, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion Objecting to Continuance.

On the same date, in SCJM, counsel for Kenneth filed an Objection to Petition For Termination of Parental Rights.

This motion also requested that Xavier's guardianship be transferred to his paternal grandparents.

On 2/2/04, in SCJM, (Burke, J.), the court, after an evidentiary hearing, denied Andrea's Motion To Restore Visitation, her Motion For Extended Visitation, her Motion For Independent Psychological Evaluation, and Kenneth's Respondent Father's Motion For Increased Supervised Visitation. However, the parties did reach an agreement for Andrea and Kenneth to visit with Xavier.

On 2/11/04, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion To Consolidate.

On 2/17/04, in SCJM, counsel for Kenneth filed an Objection to Petition For Termination of Parental Rights And In The Alternative Respondent's Motion For Revocation of Commitment.

On 2/23/04, in SCJM, counsel for Andrea filed an Objection To Permanency Plan, and a Motion Objecting Consolidation.

On 2/25/04, in SCJM, counsel for Kenneth filed an Objection to Consolidation, while counsel for Andrea filed a Motion to Bifurcate.

On 2/26/04, in SCJM, (Jongbloed, J.), the court denied Andrea's Motion to Bifurcate, and granted DCF's Motion to Consolidate. The court also overruled Kenneth's Objection to Consolidation.

On 4/27/04, in SCJM, DCF filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records, and a Motion For Qualified Protective Order.

On 4/30/04, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Revocation, and an Objection to TPR and Permanency Plan.

On 5/4/04, in CPS, DCF filed its MMC/MRP as to Jelani and D'Ambra, which recommended TPR and adoption. The PP also recommended a finding that further efforts to reunify were not appropriate as to Roger, Sr., George and Andrea.

On 5/18/04, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion To Consolidate. On 6/8/04, in CPS, (Lopez, J.), the court granted DCF's Motion To Consolidate.

On or about 6/26/04, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Notice of Respondent's Request For Disclosure and Production.

On 6/30/04, in CPS, counsel for the children filed a Motion to Withdraw.

On 7/27/04, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed the following motions:

Respondent's Motion For In Camera Interview of Jelani;

Respondent's Motion For In Camera Interview of D'Ambra;

Respondent's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Suggesting Shaken Baby Syndrome;

Motion to Increase and/or Maintain Visitation.

Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a

Motion To Disclose Confidential Records;

Respondent's Request For Disclosure and Production.

On the same date, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 8/5/04, in CPS, DCF filed an Objection to Respondent's Motion For In Camera Interview of Jelani. On the same date, DCF also filed its Objection to Respondent's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Suggesting Shaken Baby Syndrome.

The court notes that, although the objection's title refers to Jelani, the objection actually concerns D'Ambra.

On 8/9/04, in CPS, DCF filed its response to Andrea's Notice of Respondent's Request For Disclosure and Production, as well as its Objection to Respondent's Notice of Request For Disclosure and Production.

On 8/10/04, in CPS, counsel for Roger, Sr. filed an Objection to Respondent's Motion For In Camera Interview of Jelani.

On the same date, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Discovery.

On 8/11/04, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the court granted the following motions:

Respondent's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Suggesting Shaken Baby Syndrome;

Motion to Increase and/or Maintain Visitation; and,

Motion to Withdraw.

The court appointed individual counsel for each child, as well as a guardian ad litem for Jelani and D'Ambra.

On 8/17/04, in CPS, DCF filed its MMC/MRP as to Xavier, which recommended TPR and adoption. The PP also recommended a finding that further efforts to reunify were not appropriate as to Andrea and Kenneth.

On 9/22/04, in CPS, (Crawford, J.), DCF filed an Objection to Respondent Father's Motion of Disclosure on Confidential Records.

On the same date, the court granted Andrea's Motion To Disclose Confidential Records, and Kenneth's Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 9/29/04, in CPS, DCF filed a Statement of Agreement Between Respondent Mother and Petitioner Regarding Motions For Discovery and Motions For Disclosure.

On 10/6/04, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion to Remove Counsel.

On or about 10/8/04, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

This court denied the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 10/12/04, in CPS, counsel for George filed an Objection To Petitioner's Motion to Remove Counsel. On 10/25/04, in CPS, this court commenced trial in this matter. Prior to the commencement of evidence, this court denied Andrea's Respondent's Motion For In Camera Interview of D'Ambra, and sustained DCF's and Roger, Sr.'s Objections to Respondent's Motion For In Camera Interview of Jelani.

This court also denied DCF's Motion to Remove Counsel, and sustained George's Objection To Petitioner's Motion to Remove Counsel.

This court granted counsel for Kenneth's Motion For Disclosure and Motion to Unseal Records.

At the request of DCF, the court defaulted George, and excused his counsel at her request.

The court took judicial notice of Andrea's specific steps from 10/4/01, as well as Andrea and Kenneth's specific steps from 9/22/03.

The trial continued on 10/26/04. The court took judicial notice of the agreement filed in CPS on 6/4/02.

On 10/27/04, in CPS, this court, at the request of DCF, defaulted Roger, Sr. The court indicated that Roger, Sr.'s counsel would be allowed to be heard concerning Jelani's best interests.

This trial required 62 trial days. The evidentiary portion of this trial was concluded on 9/6/06.

On 10/29/04, in CPS, counsel for D'Ambra filed a Motion For Court Ordered Visitation Re: Respondent Mother and Sibling Visit.

On 11/4/04, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 11/5/04, in CPS, this court denied the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 11/30/04, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed an Objection To Petitioner's Attempt to Introduce Hearsay Evidence. On the same date, this court granted the motion in part, and denied it in part.

On 1/20/05, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 2/8/05, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed an Motion For Court Ordered Evaluation.

On 2/24/05, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records. On the same date, in CPS, this court denied the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, without prejudice.

On 2/24/05, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 2/25/05, in CPS, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records in part and denied it in part.

On the same date, in CPS, this court denied Kenneth's Motion For Court Ordered Evaluation.

On 3/30/05, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion in Limine, and a Second Motion in Limine.

On 3/31/05, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 4/1/05, in CPS, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 4/7/05, in CPS, this court granted DCF's MMC as to Jelani and D'Ambra.

On 5/3/05, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records. On the same date, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 5/17/05, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 5/18/05, in CPS, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 6/30/05, in CPS, DCF filed its MMC/MRP as to Jelani and D'Ambra, which recommended TPR and adoption. The PP also recommended a finding that further efforts to reunify were not appropriate as to Roger, Sr., George and Andrea.

On 8/3/05, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion to Compel/Preclude.

On 8/4/05, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Release of Sexual Abuse Evaluation.

On 8/15/05, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed an Objection To Petitioner's Motion For Release of Sexual Abuse Evaluation. On the same date, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion Objecting to the Motion to Compel/Preclude.

On 8/22/05, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed an Objection To Disclosure of Bowen 4/03 Report.

On 8/23/05, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court granted DCF's MMC as to Jelani and D'Ambra, and found that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Jelani and D'Ambra.

On 8/24/05, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion For Continuance. The court granted this motion of the same date.

On 8/26/05, in CPS, this court granted DCF's Motion For Release of Sexual Abuse Evaluation, and its Motion to Compel/Preclude. The court overruled Andrea's Objection To Petitioner's Motion For Release of Sexual Abuse Evaluation, her Motion Objecting to the Motion to Compel/Preclude and Kenneth's Objection To Disclosure of Bowen 4/03 Report.

On 9/22/05, in CPS, DCF filed its MMC/MRP as to Xavier, which recommended TPR and adoption. The PP also recommended a finding that further efforts to reunify were not appropriate as to Andrea and Kenneth.

On 10/13/05, in CPS, (Crawford, J.), the court issued its decision as to DCF's Motion to Disclose Confidential Records.

On 11/14/05, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion For Continuance. On the same date, this court granted the Motion For Continuance.

On 12/15/05, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion For Permission to Call Witness Out of Order.

On 12/16/05, in CPS, the court granted Kenneth's Motion For Permission to Call Witness Out of Order.

On 1/9/06, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Stipulation to Video Exhibits.

On 1/11/06, in CPS, counsel for D'Ambra filed a Motion in Aid Of Attorney For the Child. On the same date, this court granted this motion.

On 1/11/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records. On the same date, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 1/31/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records. On the same date, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 3/14/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records. On the same date, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 3/21/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 3/23/06, in CPS, this court granted the Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 6/8/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion To Strike and Correct the Record, and a Motion to Release Confidential Records.

On 6/14/06, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion For Emergency Relief.

On 6/16/06, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Request For Change of Visitation Location.

On 6/27/06, in CPS, DCF filed a Motion To Consolidate.

On 7/3/06, in CPS, counsel for Kenneth filed a Motion For Family Therapy, and a Motion For Family Therapy and Visitation.

On 7/13/06, in CPS, DCF filed an Objection to Oral Argument Request For Evidentiary Hearing.

On 7/17/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 7/18/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records, and a Motion To Disclose Confidential Records.

On 7/20/06, in CPS, counsel for Andrea filed a Motion in Opposition to the State's Motion to Allow Relocation.

On 8/17/06, in CPS, counsel for Roger, Sr. filed an objection to Andrea's Motion For Ex Parte Order To Subpoena and Surrender Confidential Records.

On 9/6/06, the trial concluded.

On 9/26/06, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court granted DCF's MMC as to Jelani and D'Ambra, and found that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Jelani and D'Ambra.

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 State of Connecticut and 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 these children.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

The court has reviewed the neglect and TPR petitions and the exhibits, which included the TPR social study. The court has also reviewed the various motions and objections to same which are the subject of this trial and has taken judicial notice of the record. 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.

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 pretrials 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, 892 A.2d 1034 (2006).

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).

Both Roger, Sr. and George have been found in default for failing to appear and participate in the TPR proceedings. The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that these respondent fathers were given notice pursuant to the Practice Book. Pursuant to Practice Book § 32a-2, establishing that juvenile hearings are essentially civil proceedings, the defaults against both Roger, Sr. and George effectively admit the truth of the petitioner's material allegations against each father individually. 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"); see also Bank of America, FSB v. Franco, 57 Conn.App. 688, 693, 751 A.2d 394 (2000). This admission satisfies the petitioner's obligations concerning Roger, Sr. and George.

The court notes that, on 10/27/04, it indicated that Roger, Sr.'s counsel would be allowed to be heard concerning Jelani's best interests.

ANDREA (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

Andrea was born on 4/22/67 in Hartford to Dorothy F., (MGM), and MGF. She had a brother, James W., who died at the age of 31 after returning from Desert Storm, according to Paulette Chambers, Jelani's therapist from Ledyard Youth Services. She has a maternal half-sister, Dorian F., (Dorian) who lives in Philadelphia. Andrea also has 2 foster siblings who were adopted by her father.

Andrea's parents were never married, and she told DCF that she did not know if they were together when she was born. Andrea grew up in the home of MGM and her maternal grandmother, and she didn't see MGF very often. She was resentful towards MGF, believing that he felt that his foster children were more important than his biological children. She stated that her mother kept her father away from their children. According to Andrea, her parents had a conflicted relationship. She referred to it as "distance fighting," and indicated that MGM kept the children away from MGF.

Andrea reported that MGM worked 2 jobs and was frequently away from the home, thus she was raised primarily by her maternal grandmother, who had problems with both alcohol and gambling. Andrea described MGM as a complaining and negative person, who physically disciplined her by spanking her with a belt, an extension cord or with her hand, and indicated that MGM left bruises and marks on her body as a result of the physical discipline.

Andrea reported that she and MGM have differing opinions, but she still respects her mother. Despite her past problems with MGM, Andrea still allowed her to see her grandchildren.

Andrea reported that she had a normal relationship with her siblings. She indicated that she took care of her sister, because MGM worked 2 jobs.

Andrea reported that MGF was extremely supportive of her, that they talk on the phone and that he is always there for her.

Andrea described herself as a quiet child who attended the Manchester school system. She attended Norfolk State College in Virginia for 3 years, but left without graduating. While there, she played center for the basketball team. She indicated that she was a quiet student with few friends who preferred to be by herself.

In 1989, Andrea joined the Army National Guard where she served for 4 years. She was an Administration Specialist, and was discharged honorably as a Specialist 4th Class.

Andrea reported that she was employed during the summers while she was a student. She worked as an assistant manager at a gas station in Hartford. She was employed at Foxwoods Resort Casino from 1993 though 8/4/04 as a dealer and a dealer supervisor.

At the time of the writing of Xavier's TPR social study, Andrea was unemployed due to depression.

Andrea reported that in 1987 or 1988, she was married for the first time. Three months later, she discovered that this man was already married and left him. Andrea was married for the second time to Kenneth on 3/9/02.

Andrea reported that she was diagnosed with vertigo in 2001. She was prescribed medication for this, but she stated that it has continued intermittently. Andrea also reported that she had a hereditary bone and bunion problem with her feet that made walking and standing painful. She had elective surgery to correct this condition on 9/17/01, and was recovering from this condition when the children were removed.

Andrea reported to DCF that, after the surgery, she was taking Celebrex and Lamisil. She was prescribed Tylenol with codeine, but reported that she did not take this medication.

However, at the time of the TPR trial, Andrea testified that she was under the influence of painkillers at time that Kenneth struck Jelani with the belt, and was groggy. She further stated that she was unable to say if the medication affected her judgment.

Andrea met Roger, Sr. in 1991, and reported that she met him while she was out with her cousin in the community. Roger was then employed as a police officer in Hartford. She stated that they saw each other sporadically and that they never lived together.

Jelani was born on 12/17/92.

Approximately one year after Jelani was born, Roger, Sr. left Connecticut and relocated to Birmingham, Alabama, where he joined that city's police department.

Andrea reported that Jelani has seen Roger, Sr. on approximately 3 occasions, prior to Jelani's removal by DCF on 9/19/01.

Andrea met Dwight in 1993, while out in the community with her cousin. He was a truck driver at the time. Andrea saw him intermittently, but they never made a commitment to each other. She became pregnant with Jaelen, who was born on 5/12/95.

Andrea described Dwight as a substance abuser who was possessive of her and was physically aggressive towards her.

Andrea told Dr. Randall that Roger, Sr. and George had engaged in domestic violence with her as well.

While pregnant with Jaelen, Andrea indicated that she ended her relationship with Dwight and commenced a relationship with George. Subsequently, she resumed her relationship with Dwight, who lived with her and her children for 6 months. According to Andrea, she ended their relationship by throwing Dwight's possessions out of the window and the door.

In 5/01, Andrea indicated that Dwight came to her home while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and had to be removed through the intervention of local law enforcement. She described him as "irate, and unruly" and stated that he wouldn't leave.

Andrea eventually resumed her relationship with George. The sole issue of this relationship, D'Ambra, was born on 9/5/96. Andrea indicated that her relationship with George was troubled and had ended by the time of D'Ambra's birth. Andrea told DCF that George was a substance abuser who stole her car, her television and her food stamps. She pressed charges against him as a result, and George was arrested. At this time, Andrea indicated that she discovered that he was a parolee.

Andrea told DCF that George gave her $150.00 and a pair of sneakers for D'Ambra. In 7/01, Andrea requested that George assist her financially, but he failed to do so.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea and Kenneth met while Andrea and Debbie C. (Debbie), Kenneth's mother, were working together at Foxwoods. They began dating in approximately 1999.

Kenneth moved in with Andrea and her children in 12/00.

Andrea became pregnant with the couple's child, Xavier, who was born on 8/4/02 in New London.

Andrea and Kenneth were subsequently married in 3/9/02.

As a result of the 9/19/01 incident, Andrea was arrested on 1/15/02 for Risk of Injury to a Minor and Assault in the 2nd Degree.

On 10/30/02, in Superior Court, Geographical Area Twenty-one, Norwich, Andrea was convicted of Risk of Injury to a Minor and Reckless Endangerment in the 2nd Degree. She received a total effective sentence of 5 years, execution suspended, and was placed on probation for 3 years. She testified that her probation was completed in 8/05.

At the TPR trial, Andrea testified that she had been in therapy with Randi Hammond since 10/01.

According to Ms. Hammond, as reported by Dr. Nancy Randall, the court-appointed evaluator, on 9/12/03, Andrea has severe depression, and her anger towards DCF is so polarized that she has no trust in the therapists working with her children. Ms. Hammond further indicated to Dr. Randall that she doesn't know if Andrea believes the allegations made by her children and does not know what it would take for mother to believe the children's allegations of physical and sexual abuse. In December 2002, Randi Hammond reported to DCF during a provider meeting that it would take Andrea many years of therapy to work through the issues involving her own trauma and the issues regarding her children.

At trial, Hammond testified that she initially diagnosed Andrea as suffering from an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety. She indicated that Andrea's present diagnosis is major depression disorder, in partial remission, but that she was still suffering symptoms of depression in 2005.

At trial, Andrea admitted that she was not open and honest with Hammond until after her criminal case had been disposed of.

At trial, Andrea admitted that she suffered from depression.

At trial, Hammond testified that Andrea should continue her individual therapy on a long-term basis.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that, throughout the pendency of this case, Andrea had issues with some of her service providers.

On 11/26/01, Andrea was discharged from OIC's 26-week anger management program for being disrespectful to the other group members and to the group facilitator, and for nonparticipation.

On 6/1/03, during an awards ceremony in which Jelani participated, DCF social worker Marrero touched Andrea on the shoulder and asked her if she wanted to take pictures with her son. Andrea responded, "Take your hands off, you f . . ., I have my own camera."

On 6/1/04, during a visit with Xavier at DCF, Andrea called DCF social worker Marrero "a bitch."

At trial, she admitted that she had called DCF social worker Marrero "a bitch."

On 2/4/05, during a telephone call with DCF social worker Marrero, Andrea called her "a fuckin' bitch," then hung up the telephone.

Andrea also admitted that she refused to talk to then DCF social worker Monique Mooney. Mooney, who testified at the TPR trial, indicated that on 4/3/02, Andrea threatened her during a court appearance at CPS, telling her that she "could run, but she couldn't hide," and referred to her by saying, "There's the bitch now." Mooney also indicated that Andrea became more difficult to deal with as the case progressed, and described her as being quite hostile. She testified that she was fearful of being harmed by Andrea.

Marrero indicated that Andrea referred to Mooney as a "fuckin' bitch."

Doreen Clement, Andrea's probation officer from approximately 3/03 through 3/04, described her as difficult and angry. Clement indicated that Andrea's attitude persisted throughout her supervision, and that she did not find Andrea to be honest in their dealings. Clement testified that, during a 5/8/03 home visit Andrea allowed aggressive dogs out of her house, forcing Clement and an intern to seek safety in her automobile.

Andrea was referred to Madonna Place for visitation and parenting classes. Initially, she refused to cooperate with the parenting classes. As a result of this failure, as well as inappropriate conduct during the visits, Madonna Place suspended her visits.

On 11/26/02, during a meeting with Madonna Place personnel and DCF social worker Marrero, Andrea became abusive and profane, and caused a disturbance. She subsequently left a voicemail for Madonna Place Program Director Peg Getchell which Getchell considered threatening.

Andrea also complained that her Madonna Place facilitator, Kristan Green, was biased against her due to her race and her height.

The respondent mother is African-American, and, according to a full exhibit that her attorney placed into evidence, (Mothers' E57), is 63" tall.
Peg Getchell, Madonna Place's executive director, testified that Kristan Green was married to an African-American, and was the mother of biracial children.

Eventually, Madonna Place personnel agreed to resume supervising visits at DCF, but DCF had to have a security guard present.

On 3/13/03, Madonna Place discharged Andrea for her attitude during visitation, as well as violating Madonna Place visitation guidelines. During a meeting with Madonna Place personnel, in 3/03, Andrea again used profanity.

At the TPR trial, Andrea testified that she was employed part-time at the Mystic Aquarium. She also indicated that she started taking computer and administration classes at OIC in 10/05, and that she was training to be an administrative assistant. She also indicated that she received financial assistance from MGM, Debbie, and other relatives. She indicated that she was still seeing Randi Hammond for individual therapy.

Andrea testified that she also worked for Bob's, but was fired due to absences for court appearances. In 2003, Andrea was receiving disability payments.

GEORGE (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

George was born on 7/30/64 in Hartford. He indicated that he was raised by both parents. His father died of cancer in 1995. At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, his mother resided in Hartford. George had 4 siblings, 2 of whom have died.

George reported that as a child, he was disciplined verbally, or was grounded. He was occasionally slapped on his hand, but did not receive abusive treatment.

George stated that his relationship with his mother was very good and that they are close. He reported that he was close to his siblings and that they assisted each other with their children. George stated that, of all his siblings, he was closest to his late sister, who died in 2001.

George indicated that he completed the 10th grade, but then left school because he was living in the "fast life" and selling marijuana. He was 18 years old in the 11th grade and did not want to continue in school. He said that he deceived his parents concerning his school attendance. He received special education services in math, but was generally a good student and received As and Bs.

He has since earned his G.E.D.

Prior to his incarceration, George had worked as a roofer for approximately 6 months. Previously, he worked at a car wash for approximately 11 months. His longest period of employment was at the Hartford Civic Center from 1986 through 1990, where he was a facility worker.

In approximately 1990, George was incarcerated for 4 1/2 years.

George reported no concerns with his health and stated that he does not take medications of any kind. He denied having any problems with depression or anxiety.

George has never been married, but was engaged. His fiancée was pregnant with their 1st child, a son. He indicated that they planned to marry in 12/03. Subsequently, George's fiancée gave birth to his son, Isaiah.

George has a son, Zavon, who was 8 or 9 years old at the time of the TPR society study. Zavon lived with his mother in Waterbury. George stated he does not get along with Zavon's mother, but said that they have a civil relationship. They were in a relationship for 3 or 4 years, but broke up, according to George, due to her stubbornness. He indicated that she was selfish.

George reported that he attempted to see Zavon every 2 weeks, but was unable to do so at times due to transportation difficulties. When he was incarcerated in the late 1990s, Zavon's mother brought Zavon to visit George in jail weekly.

George stated that he met Andrea in 5/94, when Jelani was 2 years old, and he had just been released from prison. He reported that Andrea and Dwight had a relationship in the past.

George indicated that he and Andrea frequently argued, and, when they argued, Andrea would break things. He reported that once, while living with MGF and Andrea, Jaelen was in a walker on the floor. Andrea took a beer bottle and smashed it on the floor near the child, scaring Jaelen and causing him to cry.

George stated that Andrea would frequently kick him out when she was angry.

George related that Andrea told him that he was Jaelen's father, and that his name was on Jaelen's birth certificate.

In 1996, Andrea and George's relationship terminated due to his incarceration. George indicated that Andrea sent him a letter while in jail indicating that he was not Jaelen's father, which was subsequently confirmed through paternity testing.

George was incarcerated when D'Ambra was born. He stated that Andrea brought D'Ambra to jail for visitation weekly. From 1996 to 1999, George reported that he saw D'Ambra about twice per year, and also had telephone contact with her. From 1999 through 4/01, George reported that he saw his daughter twice per month, and that Andrea would leave D'Ambra at his mother's house for visitation.

George stated that in 4/01, Andrea stopped letting him see his daughter, because "Andrea was stressed out and with Ken," indicating that Kenneth did not want Andrea or D'Ambra to see George.

According to George, his paternity of D'Ambra was confirmed through testing for child support purposes.

George admitted using marijuana and drinking alcohol when not incarcerated. He indicated that he drank a 40 oz. beer after work every day, but, as of 4/02, had not used marijuana in 7 years. He reported that he has never been involved in counseling.

George admitted to Dr. Randall that he was aware that alcohol use causes him to be angry and violent. He also indicated that he had a problem with his temper.

George has an extensive past criminal record dating back to 1986, and has been incarcerated several times. By his own admission, he has been convicted of Violation of Probation, robbery, larceny and failure to appear. He was last released from incarceration at Corrigan Correctional Institution in 12/02, after having served a 1-year jail sentence for domestic violence charges.

In 1/03, George requested visitation with D'Ambra. DCF informed George that his daughter was not stable enough to have visitation at that time, due to on-going evaluations and disclosures of sexual and physical abuse. In 6/03, George again requested visitation with D'Ambra. DCF scheduled an appointment with George to discuss this issue on 7/10/03. However, George failed to appear for his appointment, failed to subsequently contact DCF, and failed to again request visitation.

On 10/25/04, in CPS, this court defaulted George for failing to appear for the TPR trial.

George failed to appear throughout the TPR trial.

ROGER, SR. (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

Roger, Sr. was born on 9/24/64 in Hartford and raised by both parents. His mother is disabled and is in a nursing home. Roger, Sr. reported having a good relationship with his mother and told DCF that he visited her 2-3 times per year. His father died in 1999 of cancer. Roger, Sr. also reported that he had a good relationship with his sister.

Roger, Sr. indicated that his parents employed physical discipline with him until he was in the 2nd grade, in the form of spankings, and hitting him on his hands. They sometimes employed a belt.

Roger, Sr. did not believe that the paternal grandparents' physical discipline was abusive. They also took his privileges away or sent him to his room.

Roger, Sr. graduated from East Catholic High School in Manchester in 1982. He has taken some college courses in liberal arts and fire sciences.

After high school, Roger, Sr. enlisted in the Navy in 1982 and rose to the rank of E6 before being honorably discharged in 1988. He indicated to DCF that he enjoyed the Navy, but left because the Navy conditioned his promotion to E7 on his reenlistment. According to Roger, Sr., he never received any discipline or had any problems during his time in the Navy.

Petty Officer 1st Class.

Chief Petty Officer.

Roger, Sr. was employed by the Hartford Police Department from 1987 through 1993, but left for a law enforcement job with better promotional opportunities.

Roger, Sr. reported to DCF that he received an offer to join the Atlanta police department, but the offer was rescinded due to a hiring freeze.

In 1995, Roger, Sr. became a police officer in Birmingham, Alabama. He told DCF that he has had 2 suspensions while with the Birmingham police department (BPD) due to his failure to follow procedures.

On 10/27/04, in CPS, this court, at the request of DCF, defaulted Roger, Sr. The court indicated that Roger, Sr.'s counsel would be allowed to be heard concerning Jelani's best interests.

On 3/23/05, Roger, Sr. testified that he had been employed by BPD for 10 years, and was a traffic/homicide investigator. He also indicated that he served as an instructor at the BPD academy.

Roger, Sr. reported to DCF that he was in good health, with no past psychiatric problems.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Roger, Sr. has little idea of Jelani's issues. During his testimony, Roger, Sr. admitted that:

He did not know what Jelani's diagnoses were;

He had not had contact with Jelani for almost 1 year prior to Jelani's removal by DCF;

From 1995 until the psychological evaluation in 4/02, Roger, Sr. had not seen Jelani. That he was not prevented from having contact with Jelani by anyone.

At trial, Roger, Sr. attributed his failure to remain in touch with Jelani to losing Andrea's telephone number as a result of a fire in 1996. He also indicated that Andrea did nothing to contact him during this time.

Roger, Sr. told Dr. Randall that he had not seen Jelani for approximately 2 or 3 years, prior to 5/02. He said that he lost contact with Andrea and that he had not seen Jelani on previous trips to Connecticut. He was aware that Jelani had some medical problems since birth. He stated that he kept in touch with Jelani until his mother moved. He said that Andrea used to call him and complain that Jelani was a problem and that she needed his help. Roger, Sr. asked Andrea to send Jelani to Alabama, but she would not do so.

Roger, Sr. stated to Dr. Randall that he was notified by DCF that Jelani was placed in foster care and that he had no information about Andrea's paramour. Roger, Sr. denied that he had left the State of Connecticut without telling Andrea. He reported that he informed her of his move approximately 3 to 6 months prior to leaving. He stated that he had seen Jelani numerous times as an infant.

Roger, Sr. lives in a 4-bedroom apartment in a residence provided to him by the Birmingham Housing Authority.

In addition to Jelani, Roger, Sr. has 2 other children. Veronica C. (Veronica), (DOB: 1/13/88), has lived with Roger, Sr. and/or with his parents for most of her life. Veronica was removed from Roger, Sr.'s care for approximately 1 year, and was returned to his care on 9/19/02. There was no information indicating that the allegations that resulted in Veronica's removal had any merit.

Roger, Sr. also has a son, Roger Jr., (DOB: 1/9/94), who resides in New Britain, with his mother. Roger, Sr. testified that he last saw Roger Jr. in 12/04. Roger, Sr. also told Dr. Randall that he spoke to Roger Jr. approximately once per week.

KENNETH (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION) Kenneth was born on 9/9/76 in Norwich. His parents separated when he was 12 years old, and he told DCF that he remained in the custody of his mother, Debbie. He reported that he stayed in close contact with his father, and he continues to be close both his mother and his father, Lyman S. (Lyman). Kenneth told APO that, after his parents' marriage dissolved, he lived with Debbie for 3 years, and then resided with Lyman.

Kenneth reported no violence in his home when he was growing up, and denied any abusive treatment. He indicated that he was spanked a couple of times, and that his father hit him with a belt a couple of times.

Kenneth reported that he has a brother in New Mexico with whom he gets along well.

Kenneth stated to DCF that he graduated from Grasso Technical High School in 1995, and attended Three Rivers Community College for 1 year. He stopped attending college for financial reasons. Kenneth worked as a plumbing apprentice until 2001. Kenneth testified at trial that he had not completed his apprenticeship or the licensing requirements for plumbing.

Kenneth told DCF that he stopped due to problems with his back and knees. However, at trial, he indicated that he left the profession due to other health concerns, specifically Erythropoietic ProtoPorphyria, (EPP).

Kenneth took a casino dealer's class in the summer of 2001, and went to work for the Mohegan Sun casino in 10/01. He worked as a dealer at the Mohegan Sun Casino until his incarceration in August 2002.

After his release, Kenneth found employment at Shag Bark, a hardware/ building supply store, and eventually rose to be an assistant manager.

Kenneth met Andrea in approximately 1997-98 through Debbie, who worked with Andrea at Foxwoods. They began dating and, in 12/00, Kenneth moved into Andrea's home with her children.

On 9/19/01, Kenneth was arrested by Ledyard Police Department (LPD) for Risk of Injury to a Child and Assault in the 2nd Degree relating to his use of inappropriate physical discipline on Jelani. The credible evidence indicates that, at the request of Andrea, Kenneth administered physical discipline. That physical discipline turned out to be inappropriate, with Kenneth using a belt to strike Jelani. A neighbor, who was a former police officer, contacted law enforcement after hearing Kenneth strike Jelani approximately 29 times, and hearing Jelani cry. Kenneth admitted to police and DCF that he struck Jelani with a belt, although he indicated that he hit Jelani with the belt less than 10 times. Kenneth also admitted that he had struck Jelani with the belt in the past, and had previously washed out Jelani's mouth with soap.

At the TPR trial, Kenneth testified that he could not remember how many times that he hit Jelani.

Kenneth was eventually convicted of Risk of Injury to a Child, and, on 8/29/02, was sentenced to a jail term of 5 years execution suspended after 1 year, and was placed on 5 years probation.

Andrea visited Kenneth in prison several times until probation officer Clement notified DOC that she was a convicted felon who was on probation.

After his release from jail on 8/23/03, Kenneth resided apart from Andrea. He lived with his mother and her husband, and then he lived in his own residence.

The court vacated the OTC, and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the PP The court also ordered updated psychological evaluations.

Kenneth reported that he briefly experimented with drugs in high school one or two times, did not have a substance abuse problem.

At the time of the TPR social study, Kenneth reported that he was in good health and did not take any medications at that time. He said that he had problems sleeping due to the stress of his situation, and that he had headaches several times per week. He indicated that he felt somewhat depressed about the situation and had been told by his psychologist that he was suffering from depression. At the time of the TPR trial, Kenneth testified that he was not presently involved in individual therapy. Previously, he had been in therapy with a variety of therapists, including Dr. Christopher Carlson, Mark Johnson, and Lynne Cadett.

On 5/23/02, Kenneth was evaluated by Dr. Randall. The clear and convincing evidence indicated that he made various statements to Dr. Randall that conflicted with later statements that he made.

Dr. Randall wrote:

[Kenneth] said that he grabbed a belt and gave Jelani "a couple of whacks on the butt." Jelani screamed and a neighbor called the police. [Kenneth] said that he never lost control and did not hurt Jelani at all. [Kenneth] said that Jelani's bruises at the emergency room may have been from self mutilation. Also, he had a rash on his chest. When the police came to the house, they looked all over [Jelani] and only found one small red mark on him.

However, at the TPR trial, Kenneth testified that he found out, shortly after the children's removal, that Jelani had marks on his body.

Dr. Randall testified that, at his evaluation, Kenneth refused to acknowledge his problems and gave unrealistic answers to her testings. She indicated that he was at risk for aggressive behavior, that he lacked insight, that he failed to see the need for services, and that his prognosis for change was not good.

Since the fall of 2002, D'Ambra has made disclosures to various providers about Kenneth sexually and physically abusing her, physically abusing her siblings and her mother, being afraid for her mother's life due to Kenneth having a gun and threatening to kill her if she discloses the abuse, going hungry at times, and other disclosures.

Jelani has made disclosures of physical abuse by Kenneth towards himself, that Kenneth watched pornographic movies in front of the children, that Kenneth sexually abused Jaelen and himself, and that Kenneth regularly entered D'Ambra's room naked. Furthermore, Jelani also reported that Kenneth threatened the children if they said anything to anyone about the abuse.

In 2002, Jelani, Jaelen and D'Ambra made various disclosures concerning the conduct of both Andrea and Kenneth.

At this time, Jelani reported that he was beaten with extension cords by both Andrea and Kenneth, and that D'Ambra was occasionally beaten by both Andrea and Kenneth with both a belt and with their hands. He denied seeing pornographic literature or videos in the home, or that Kenneth had any inappropriate sexual contact with him.

At other times, Jelani indicated that there were pornographic materials in the home. Later, Jelani accused Kenneth of sexually abusing him.

Jaelen indicated that he was hit by Kenneth, and that Andrea used a belt when she spanked him. He denied seeing pornographic literature in the home, or that anyone in the home had any inappropriate sexual contact with him.

D'Ambra indicated that she was spanked by Kenneth for wetting herself and once for stealing candy. She confirmed that both Andrea and Kenneth spanked both her brothers for lying and stealing. D'Ambra denied that anyone had inappropriately touched her, including Kenneth, or that Kenneth or her brothers ever exposed themselves to her. D'Ambra also indicated that she had not seen anyone in her home naked.

At this time, all 3 children indicated that they did not wish to see Kenneth again. Subsequently, D'Ambra made additional disclosures concerning Kenneth.

In 2003, D'Ambra made disclosures to the effect that she kissed Kenneth's breasts and penis, and that she had spit out a substance consistent with ejaculate. She also stated that Kenneth had kissed her breasts and vaginal areas.

On 4/9/03, LPD and the Connecticut State Police (CSP) initiated an investigation into D'Ambra's claims that Kenneth sexually abused her. On 4/26/03, LPD and CSP suspended the investigation pending further investigations and evaluations of D'Ambra.

On 6/29/05, LPD and CSP received information from DCF social worker Marrero indicating that Jelani disclosed to his foster mother that Kenneth had sexually abused him, D'Ambra and Jaelen. After conducting an investigation and interviewing Jelani and Jaelen, LPD sought and obtained an arrest warrant for Kenneth, and charged him with multiple counts of Risk of Injury to a Child and sexual assault.

At the end of 8/05, Kenneth was arrested on this warrant. He posted bond and was released.

Kenneth's criminal case was still pending at the conclusion of the TPR trial.

At the TPR trial, Kenneth denied sexually abusing any of the children.

Kenneth testified that he was laid off his job at Shag Bark shortly after his arrest. He indicated that he was doing odd jobs for his family members, and was attempting to become a home improvement contractor.

JELANI (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

Jelani was born in Hartford on 12/17/92, the sole issue of the relationship between Andrea and Roger, Sr. Andrea told DCF that she had a normal pregnancy with Jelani, but that he was born with complications after being 1 month overdue. Andrea reported to DCF that, subsequently, Jelani began to have seizures and was diagnosed with a subdural hematoma. Jelani was also diagnosed as suffering from hydrocephalus at this time.

Jelani was hospitalized for approximately 6 months. He had 2 surgeries to implant a shunt in his skull and to reshape his skull, which was unusually large for his age.

At trial, Andrea attributed J.'s subdural hematoma to the use of forceps during birth. Andrea described Jelani as having been an active child who met his developmental milestones.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Jelani began manifesting problematic behaviors when he was approximately 4 years old. These behaviors included self-destructive behaviors, including injuring his fingers, headbanging, and tantrums. Additionally, Jelani had difficulties in school. He fought peers and teachers, engaged in vandalism, and lied and stole in both school and in his home. Jelani also engaged in encopretic behavior prior to removal, and after removal.

As a result of threats that Jelani made to classmates, Andrea consulted with Jelani's pediatrician, Dr. Rosenthal. Dr. Rosenthal referred Jelani to Dr. Willie J. Coleman, Ph.D, a psychologist.

On 3/27/00 and 4/3/00, Jelani was evaluated by Dr. Coleman, who diagnosed him with disruptive behavior disorder, and recommenced counseling. Coleman also opined that there was a good chance that Jelani's problems might be neurological in their basis, due to his medical history. At trial, Andrea denied that Coleman told her that Jelani's problems might be neurological in their basis.

Coleman conducted approximately 10 counseling sessions with Jelani.

Andrea next sought services for Jelani through Ledyard Youth Services, where he was seen by Paulette L. Chambers, M.S., M.A. Chambers conducted 14 individual sessions with Jelani and 6 family therapy sessions with both Jelani and Andrea.

At the time of the removal, Jelani was still involved in counseling with Chambers.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Jelani also received services for his issues through the schools that he attended prior to removal.

Andrea took Jelani to Dr. Henry F. Crabbe, Ph.D, M.D., in approximately 5/01. After an evaluation, Dr. Crabbe diagnosed Jelani with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiance Disorder, and prescribed Risperdal and Concerta.

Crabbe also prescribed Zoloft for Jelani, but later took him off this medication.

WWB records indicate that, as of 9/19/01, Jelani had been prescribed Zoloft and Concerta.

While in foster care, Jelani has continued to exhibit behavioral issues. These behavioral issues have resulted a number of changes of placement, due to disruption.

In addition to foster homes and therapeutic foster homes, Jelani has also been placed at the Waterford Country School on several occasions.

Jelani attended the Clinical Day School at the Joshua Center in Montville from 12/3/01 to 6/02, and was a patient at the Joshua Center from 11/30/01 through 2/1/02.

Henry Mann, M.D., evaluated Jelani upon admission and diagnosed him as follows:

Axis I: Major Depressive Disorder

ADHD

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Rule out PTSD

Axis II: N/A

Axis III: None

Axis IV: Failure of primary support group

Axis V: GAF=35; highest past year unknown

Upon his discharge on 2/1/02, Jelani received the following diagnosis:

Axis I: Major Depressive Disorder

ADHD

PTSD

Axis II: None

Axis III: None

Axis IV: Failure of primary support group

Axis V: GAF=55

Dr. Mann indicated that Jelani's prognosis was fair to good. He indicated that Jelani needed continued psychiatric care and referred him to New London Child Guidance Clinic. Jelani remained in the Clinic Day Treatment Program at Joshua Center.

At the time of his discharge from Joshua Center, Jelani was prescribed Concerta and Risperdal. Jelani also attended counseling at TEAMWORKS.

Subsequently, Jelani attended individual therapy with Joan Prior at North Central Counseling (NCC) from 1/9/03 through approximately 8/05. Prior testified at the trial that she initially diagnosed Jelani as follows:

PTSD, chronic;

CT Page 23679

dysthymic disorder;

disruptive behavior disorder;

rule out ADHD; physical abuse of child, and; parent-child problem.

She indicated that Jelani functioned at a lower level than his chronological age.

Prior testified that, throughout her therapy, Jelani feared that Kenneth would hurt him. Prior also reported that Jelani said that Andrea told him that he had to forgive Kenneth for the inappropriate physical discipline because Kenneth had purchased things for Jelani. She also opined that Jelani was parentified.

Prior opined that Jelani's problematic behaviors were consistent those of a child who had been physically abused.

On 3/5/03, Jelani was seen for a psychiatric evaluation by Ronald Davidoff, M.D., who diagnosed him as suffering from the following:

ADHD, and;

dysthymic disorder.

Jelani's foster mother testified on 3/14/06 through 3/15/06. She indicated that, in 6/05, Jelani disclosed that he, Jaelen and D'Ambra were beaten with a belt by Kenneth, and that, in the past, he was beaten until he bled. He further revealed that Andrea was present for these beatings. Jelani also disclosed that he and his siblings had been sexually abused by Kenneth. He denied that Andrea was aware of the sexual abuse.

Jelani has demonstrated problematic behaviors in his various foster care placements.

As of 3/15/06, Jelani had been in his therapeutic foster home (TFH) since 5/11/05. His foster mother testified that, upon placement, Jelani had been encopretic, and destructive. She indicated that, although his behavior had improved, there were still outbursts connected to visitation with Andrea. Despite having behavioral problems and being placed in special education as a result, Jelani was a honor roll student.

In 9/05, Jelani began seeing Dr. Dell at the Wheeler Clinic for individual counseling and family therapy. Dr. Dell handles matters related to sexual abuse.

Jelani remains on Risperdal and Concerta, and sees Dr. Neill for medication management. In the summer of 2006, Jelani attended a 21-day wilderness camp.

Jelani is medically and dentally up to date. He is presently in the 9th grade.

Prior described Jelani as "an extremely damaged child." She endorsed the TPR as being in Jelani's best interests.

D'AMBRA (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF TUE CHILD AS REQUIRED By CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

D'Ambra was born in Hartford on 9/5/96, the sole issue of the relationship between Andrea and George.

Andrea reported that D'Ambra was a colicky baby who achieved her developmental milestones early.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that D'Ambra had issues with enuresis that predated her placement in DCF custody.

Upon placement, D'Ambra disclosed that her brothers were physically disciplined by Andrea and Kenneth through the use of kicks, bent knee stands and by putting soap in their mouths.

D'Ambra further disclosed that Andrea and Kenneth frequently beat her with a belt or with their hands as punishment for enuresis.

While in foster care, D'Ambra made disclosures of both physical and sexual abuse in her home, as well as inappropriate sexual contact. On 11/14/02, D'Ambra disclosed that she had been involved in inappropriate sexual contact with a maternal cousin, and with a child in her foster home, and that Kenneth had sexually abused her. In 2003, she indicated that Kenneth had sexually abused her. She also admitted being involved in inappropriate sexual contact with a maternal cousin.

D'Ambra was a patient at the Joshua Center from 8/21/02 through 11/20/02. Henry Mann, M.D., evaluated her upon admission and diagnosed her as follows:

Axis I: PTSD

ADHD

Major Depressive Disorder, in partial remission.

Axis II: Deferred

Axis III: None reported

Axis IV: Failure of primary support group History of abuse and neglect

Axis V: GAF=35; highest past year unknown

D'Ambra received a similar diagnosis upon discharge. Dr. Mann indicated that her prognosis was poor to fair. He indicated that she needed a continued high level of structure and support, as well as a referral for a sub-acute hospital stay, a TFH, a specialized school placement, and intensive therapy around abuse and neglect issues.

At the time of her discharge from Joshua Center, D'Ambra had been prescribed Risperdal, Depakote, Colace and Zoloft.

While in foster care on 5/5/02, D'Ambra was involved in sexually inappropriate behavior with a 6-year-old child who was in her foster home.

While in foster care, D'Ambra psychologically decompensated, resulting in various hospitalizations. She made a number of self-injurious statements and gestures, and was, at times, aggressive and out of control. D'Ambra was placed at the Hospital of St. Rafael for psychiatric reasons from 6/27/02 to 7/15/02, from 7/18/02 to 8/20/02, from 9/19/02 to 10/4/02, and again in 11/02. In 10/02, she was brought by ambulance to Manchester Hospital for an emergency psychiatric evaluation due to out of control behaviors following a sibling visit.

D'Ambra was hospitalized at Riverview Hospital (RVH) from 2/4/03 through 4/5/04. Her admitting diagnosis was:

Axis I Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 309.81

Encopresis 307.7

Enuresis Nocturnal and Diurnal 307.6

Axis II No Diagnosis V71.09

Axis II None

Axis IV Physical and sexual abuse, neglect, failure of primary support group.

Axis V GAP 33

While at RVH, D'Ambra continued to manifest problematic behavior. She was encopretic and enuretic, and physically assaultive to RVH staff and clients. She would smear feces, attempt to eat it, and attempt to smear feces on RVH staff and herself. She engaged in self-destructive acts such as attempting to swallow small items, scratching herself, pulling out her hair and attempting to put it in her mouth, attempting to put other items in her mouth, and attempting to strangle herself.

D'Ambra also engaged in self-depreciating and suicidal ideations. She suffered from nightmares, and intrusive thoughts. She was afraid of the bathroom, because of the abuse that she indicated took place there. She had issues with boundaries.

RVH personnel also noted D'Ambra's reactive sexualized behaviors as evidenced by grunting, hip thrusting, sexual play with toys, inserting her finger in her rectum, and frequent and forceful masturbation. While at RVH in 8/03, D'Ambra also engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with another child.

At the time of her admission to RVH, D'Ambra had previously been prescribed Risperdal, Depakote, Colace and Zoloft. During her hospitalization, she had been restrained on occasion.

While at RVH, D'Ambra discussed her prior abuse to a limited extent. She indicated to RVH staff that her mother had physically abused her. In her testimony, Dr. Gallenstein, D'Ambra's principal therapist at RVH, reported that D'Ambra said Andrea whipped her with a belt. It was also reported that she disclosed that she had soap put in her mouth, and that she was not allowed to fall asleep. She also revealed she was required to stand in a corner, and was physically disciplined if she moved.

D'Ambra's view of Andrea was, and remains, ambivalent: She manifested extreme fear of meeting Andrea, and feared that Andrea would hurt D'Ambra, yet she also expressed a wish to see Andrea, and indicated that she missed her mother.

In addition to Kenneth's sexual assault on her, D'Ambra indicated that he also beat her.

Dr. Gallenstein, who was found to be an expert in child psychology, testified that she found D'Ambra's behavior consistent with sexual abuse by a person who was an ejaculator. Dr. Gallenstein testified that D'Ambra consistently accused only 1 person of sexual abuse-Kenneth.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that D'Ambra's behaviors improved somewhat during her hospitalization at RVH.

D'Ambra was discharged to a therapeutic foster home through the Institute of Professional Practice.

At her discharge from RVH, her diagnosis was:

Axis I Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 309.81

Psychotic Disorder NOS 298.9

Axis II No Diagnosis V71.09

Axis III None

Axis IV Physical and sexual abuse, multiple placements and hospitalizations.

Axis V GAF = 50

Dr. Gallenstein testified that, at the time of her discharge from RVH, D'Ambra was fragile, had low self-esteem, and was overwhelmed. She indicated that, as of the date of D'Ambra's discharge from RVH, D'Ambra was still in fear of Andrea, and believed that Kenneth would hurt her. Gallenstein opined that to return D'Ambra to Andrea would put her at a high risk for re-abuse due to Andrea's refusal to believe D'Ambra's claim that she was being sexually abused by Kenneth. Andrea's visits with D'Ambra had been suspended prior to the RVH hospitalization.

During an evidentiary hearing in SCJM on 2/2/04, (Burke, J.), Gallenstein testified that resuming visits between Andrea and D'Ambra would be harmful to D'Ambra.

Gallenstein also testified that Andrea's marriage to Kenneth indicated that Andrea did not believe the children's claims of abuse by Kenneth.

Lisa Griffiths, D'Ambra's therapist through the Institute of Professional Practice, (IPP), testified that she had been D'Ambra's therapist since her release from RVH. She diagnosed D'Ambra with PTSD and R/O Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) when D'Ambra began therapy, and testified that D'Ambra still carried that diagnosis as of 5/17/06.

Previously, Griffiths had diagnosed D'Ambra as suffering from PTSD and Psychotic Disorder NOS.

D'Ambra also sees a psychiatrist and a therapist at her school, as well as a IPP behaviorist.

Griffiths testified that D'Ambra disclosed to her that Andrea used physical discipline on her. She indicated that D'Ambra is extremely fragile and very unstable, and that one of her tasks, as D'Ambra's therapist, was to keep D'Ambra out of the hospital and in the community. She recommended that there be no change in D'Ambra's routine, as it was not in her best interests and that it destabilized her. This included recommendations against reintroducing either Andrea or Jelani into D'Ambra's life at this time. She also recommended against family therapy with Andrea at this time.

D'Ambra has had emotional "meltdowns" since being in foster care, as well as enuretic behavior. She also made a false accusation that her foster mother struck her. She later recanted that accusation. Griffiths testified that D'Ambra has made some behavioral gains, though she still suffered from low self-esteem. D'Ambra has also engaged in vandalism in her foster home.

Griffiths opined that D'Ambra's behaviors were not related to the lack of visitation with Andrea.

Griffiths also opined that D'Ambra was sexualized, and that her behaviors were indicative of sexual abuse by an adult, and of physical abuse. She indicated that this sexual abuse did not include sexually inappropriate conduct with peers.

While in foster care, D'Ambra made sexual propositions and comments to children while in the state of Florida in 3/05. She has made inappropriate comments to male teachers. Her school also reported that D'Ambra engaged in sexualized behavior there.

On 5/17/06, Griffiths testified that D'Ambra's tantrums had decreased, and her self-esteem had increased, although there were current hygiene issues. Griffiths reported that D'Ambra felt ambivalent concerning Andrea, indicating that sometimes D'Ambra wanted to see Andrea, and that sometimes D'Ambra was angry with Andrea due to Andrea's physical discipline of the children, D'Ambra's perception that Andrea did not care for them, and her marriage to Kenneth. Griffiths testified that, in D'Ambra's view, letting Kenneth into their family and marrying him equated failing to care for D'Ambra and her siblings.

On 5/17/06, Griffiths also testified that D'Ambra was not yet ready to discuss Kenneth and Andrea in therapy, and that she was not ready to visit with Andrea.

XAVIER (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

Xavier was born in New London on 8/4/02, the sole issue of the relationship between Andrea and Kenneth. He weighed 8 lbs., 9 oz. at the time of delivery.

At the time of his birth, Andrea and Kenneth asked that Xavier be tested for EPP At that the results were inconclusive.

On the same day, DCF also filed a petition alleging that Xavier was neglected, in that he had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to well-being.

On 8/6/02, Xavier was placed in DCF foster care, where he has remained.

On 8/15/02, in CPS, (Rubinow, J.), counsel for Andrea filed a Motion to Suppress. The court denied the motion without prejudice. The court also denied an oral motion by counsel for Kenneth to disqualify the counsel for the children.

Xavier has been seen by Dr. Rosenthal from Gales Ferry Pediatrics. He had a history of ear infections, common colds, eczema, and asthma. His foster mother administered breathing treatments to Xavier when necessary. Xavier was taking medications such as Amoxicilyn and Zytliromax for ear infections and bronchitis, Hydrocortizone Valerate for eczema, and Albuterol Sulfate for asthma.

On 12/10/02, Xavier was again tested for EEP, with negative results.

Xavier is developmentally on target.

While in DCF custody, Xavier's parents have had regular supervised visitation with him, through DCF and various agencies.

When he was 25 months old, Xavier was placed in a legal risk adoptive home.

The clear and convincing evidence elicited through the TPR trial indicates that the respondent parents have conducted themselves appropriately with Xavier during the visitations.

RELATIVE RESOURCES

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that there are no viable relative resources for Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier.

Debbie and her husband expressed interest in being a placement resource for Xavier, but the clear and convincing evidence indicated that they were ineligible for licensure. CT Page 23687

SIBLINGS

The court will incorporate, by reference, all previous remarks concerning the children's siblings.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Jelani, D'Ambra, and Jaelen had substantial relationships with each other.

Jaelen was born on 5/12/95, the sole issue of the relationship between Andrea and Dwight.

At age 2, he tested positive for lead, but did not receive treatment.

Andrea reported that Jaelen was slow to reach his developmental milestones, and did not talk until he was 24 to 30 months old.

While attending Gallup Hill School, Jaelen received speech therapy for stuttering. His speechimproved to the point that, when he attended Gales Ferry Elementary, he no longer required speech services.

While in foster care, Jaelen had issues with theft, and oppositional behavior. He also suffered from enuresis.

At the time of his removal from his mother's home on 9/19/01, Jaelen had several marks on his body that he indicated were the result of being hit with an extension cord and a belt. He reported that he was last struck in his home on 9/17/01, when he wasn't getting ready for school fast enough. He reported seeing a scar behind his leg after the incident and indicated that his leg did bleed.

Jaelen indicated that he liked staying at the Safe Home, and that he did not want to return home. When asked why, he stated, "Because I'm safe here." He also stated that he did not want to visit with his mother. After learning that D'Ambra visited with Andrea and MGF, Jaelen stated that he would visit with Andrea only if MGF was also there.

Jaelen was reunified with his father on 8/28/02, in whose custody he remains.

On 5/6/03, in SCJM, (Purtill, JTR.), the court revoked the commitment of Jaelen, and returned custody and guardianship to his father, Dwight.

Jaelen has received individual therapy at United Community Family Services with Heather McNeil. He was diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed Adderall.

After his removal, Jaelen visited weekly with his mother and siblings before his reunification with Dwight. Jaelen's visits with Andrea were suspended in 3/03, prior to Dwight receiving Jaelen's guardianship through SCJM.

At the TPR trial, Andrea testified that Dwight does not allow her to see Jaelen.

ADJUDICATION

On 6/4/02, in CPS, (Levin, J.), and 9/22/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the children in this case were adjudicated neglected, pursuant to written pleas of nolo contendre. They were then committed to the custody of DCF until further order of the court.

The court is next called upon to determine whether the petitioner has met its burden of proving the allegations presented by the pending TPR petitions. 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 [under § 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 Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 827, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005).

In the adjudicatory phase of these proceedings, the court has considered the evidence related to circumstances and events prior to 11/18/03, the date upon which DCF filed the TPR petitions in SCJM concerning Jelani and D'Ambra, and on 12/22/03, in SCJM, as to Xavier. With regard to the allegations of failure to achieve rehabilitation and no on-going relation brought against Roger, Sr. and George, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony related 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.

"Under § 17a-112, a hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases: the adjudicatory phase and the dispositional phase. During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court, must determine whether one or more of the four grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in [ § 17a-112(j)] exists by clear and convincing evidence. The commissioner in petitioning to terminate those rights, must allege and prove one or more of the statutory grounds." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Quantra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 102, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000).

Practice Book § 35a-7(a) generally provides that "[i]n the adjudicatory phase, the judicial authority is limited to evidence of events preceding the filing of the petition or the latest amendment . . ."

"Despite Practice Book [ § 35a-7(a)] and case law regarding termination proceedings generally, we have determined that with regard to termination petitions brought under § 17a-112(c)(3)(B), the trial court may, in the adjudicatory phase, properly consider facts and events that occur after the filing date of the petition in determining whether a respondent has achieved a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of that statute. See In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000)." In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002). Events occurring after the date of the filing of the TPR petition are particularly relevant to the issue of, "whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time." (Emphasis in original.) In re Stanley D., supra, 61 Conn.App. 230.

LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION EFFORTS In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts provided such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing that such efforts are not appropriate." C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). In this context, "[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 Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 547, 744 A.2d 915 (2000); see also In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 362, 776 A.2d 487 (2001). In this case, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the respondent parents and to maintain contact with them. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that the respondent fathers Roger, Sr. and George failed to maintain consistent contact with DCF.

DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Andrea, or that the following services were provided to her:

AMPS: supervised visitation

Catholic Charities: anger management classes, couples' counseling, parenting education, support group

Child and Family Agency (CFA): parent education and supervised visitation

DCF: case management services, payment for Randi Hammond, referrals to treatment programs, and supervised visitation

Randi Hammond: individual therapy

Kidsafe: supervised visitation

Madonna Place: anger management classes, parent education and supervised visitation

Nauchaug Hospital, Joshua Center Partial Hospitalization Program: family therapy

OIC: anger management classes

Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA)-evaluation for domestic violence treatment program and counseling

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall

TEAMWORKS: interactional assessment

Waterford Country School: visitation

Wheeler Clinic: anger management group

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea eventually completed anger management classes, and parenting education. She was discharged unsuccessfully from several programs.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent mother Andrea with her children. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Brendan C., 89 Conn.App. 511, 524, 874 A.2d 826, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 917, 879 A.2d 893, and 275 Conn. 910, 882 A.2d 669 (2005).

At final argument, counsel for Andrea argued that DCF failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts because they failed to provide family therapy.

In the case of In re Shaiesha O., 93 Conn.App. 42, 46-49, 827 A.2d 415 (2006), the Appellate Court discussed the issue of reasonable efforts extensively:

In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under § 17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); (2) termination is in the best interest of the child; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2); and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a-112(i)(3)." In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004).

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 [under 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 Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 827.

As this court has noted, "[t]here is a distinction between a finding on reasonable reunification efforts under § 17a-112(j) and consideration of the same under § 17a-112(k). Section 17a-112(g)(1) requires the court to make a finding by clear and convincing evidence in the adjudicatory phase concerning the reasonable efforts made by the department of children and families . . . to reunify the child with the parent as a prerequisite to terminating parental rights . . . A court need not make that finding, however, if the evidence establishes that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts or if the court determines at a hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-110(b) or General Statutes § 17a-111b that such efforts are inappropriate . . ." By contrast, [§ 117a-112(k) requires the court in the dispositional phase to make written findings regarding seven statutory factors, including [t]he 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 and whether the department has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 257-58, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).

The standard for reviewing reasonable efforts has been well established by the Appellate Court. Turning to the statutory scheme encompassing the termination of the parental rights of a child committed to the department, [§ 17a-112] imposes on the department the duty, inter alia, to make reasonable efforts to reunite 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 from which the requirement was drawn . . . [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible . . . The trial court's determination of this issue will not be overturned on appeal unless, in light of all of the evidence in. the record, it is clearly erroneous." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Samantha C., supra, 268 Conn. 632.

As noted, in 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 events preceding the date on which the termination petition was filed. See also Practice Book § 35a-7(a).

This court, in assessing DCF's reasonable efforts prior to the filing date of the TPRs, finds that DCF did make reasonable efforts to reunify Andrea with her children.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Jelani and D'Ambra's psychotherapists did not recommend family therapy for their clients. Lisa Griffiths, D'Ambra's psychotherapist, testified that she was strongly against family therapy because of the fragile psychological condition of her client. Dr. Gallenstein of RVH, D'Ambra previous therapist, was also against family therapy at the time that D'Ambra was her patient, due to the child's fragility.

Joan Prior, Jelani's therapist at NCC, testified that Jelani would not have benefitted from family therapy, and that his PTSD symptoms needed to be addressed prior to family therapy. She opined that family therapy with Andrea would not have been helpful.

Even Andrea's own therapist, Randi Hammond, admitted on cross-examination by Jelani's counsel that her recommendation for family therapy did not encompass the children's needs, and, that she never discussed family therapy with either Gallenstein or Prior.

The court finds that the clear and convincing evidence shows that the absence of family therapy was reasonable under the circumstances of this case and was based upon Jelani and D'Ambra's needs and special needs. Furthermore, there was no credible showing by clear and convincing evidence that the presence of family therapy would have affected the course of reunification with Jelani and D'Ambra, due to the nature of Andrea's own issues.

Additionally, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that DCF did make other reasonable efforts towards reunification, such as providing Andrea with anger management classes, parenting education, psychological evaluations and supervised visitation. The court notes that family therapy would have constituted only part of the spectrum of what are considered reasonable efforts. The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF did make reasonable efforts to reunify Andrea and the children at issue.

This court finds that, based upon the totality of the situation established by clear and convincing evidence, the efforts that DCF made, both concerning visitation and concerning other services, were reasonable. This case is clearly distinguishable from In re Shaiesha O., supra, 93 Conn.App. 42, where the clear and convincing evidence showed that DCF made no efforts to reunify the child with that respondent.

DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Kenneth, or that the following services were provided to him:

Dr. Christopher Carlson: individual therapy

Catholic Charities: anger management classes, couples' counseling, individual counseling, parenting education, parent support group

CFA: parent education and supervised visitation

DCF: case management services, supervised visitation and referrals to treatment programs

Groton Youth Service Bureau: anger management program

Madonna Place: anger management classes, parent education and supervised visitation

OIC: anger management classes

Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA)-evaluation for domestic violence treatment program

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall

Wheeler Clinic: anger management group

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth complied with most of the services to which he was referred.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent father Kenneth with his child. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Brendan C., supra, 89 Conn.App. 524.

DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Roger, Sr., or that the following services were provided to him:

DCF: case management services, interstate compact study, and supervised visitation

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall

The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to provide additional services to Roger, Sr. due to his failure to maintain contact with DCF and his failure to have contact with Jelani.

DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father George, or that the following services were provided to him:

APO: Substance abuse testing and treatment

DCF: case management services

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall

The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to provide additional services to George due to his failure to maintain contact with DCF.

Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that the respondent parents are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Amelia W., 62 Conn.App. 500, 504-05, 772 A.2d 619 (2001); see In re Ebony H., 68 Conn.App. 342, 350, 789 A.2d 1158 (2002).

The court finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that the respondent parents were aware of their individual issues and deficits and that they had received specific steps addressing said issues. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite this notification, each respondent parent 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 remain not appropriate for each of the respondent parents with regard to each of his or her respective children.

On 9/21/01, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Jelani and D'Ambra from their home.

On 6/4/02, in CPS, (Levin, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Jelani and D'Ambra from their home.

On 8/5/02, SCJM, (Handy, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove Xavier from his home.

On 5/6/03, in SCJM, (Purtill, JTR.), the court found that DCF did make reasonable efforts to effectuate the PP as to Jelani and D'Ambra.

On 9/22/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the court found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to effectuate the PP as to Xavier.

On 8/23/05, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court found that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Jelani and D'Ambra.

On 9/26/06, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), the court found that DCF made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP as to Jelani and D'Ambra.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO ANDREA PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE-CGS § 17A-112(j)(3)(B)

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Andrea's parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier have been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether this respondent has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render her able to care for them. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.

CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) provides that parental rights may be terminated by the Superior Court as to the parent of a child who "(I) has been found by the . . . Court to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding, or (ii) is found to be neglected or uncared for and has been in the custody of the commissioner for at least fifteen months and the parent of such child has been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the child to the parent pursuant to section 46b-129 and has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . ."

"Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [The statute] requires the trial court . . . to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [she] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in [her] child's life. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Eden F., [ 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999)] . . . [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001); In re Alejandro L., 91, Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).

CGS § 17a-112(q) establishes that the provisions of CGS § 17a-112 "shall be liberally construed in the best interests of any child for whom a petition under this section has been filed."

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Andrea 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 children's lives]." (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, 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 witnesses' testimony, clearly and convincingly establishes that Andrea has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which show that Andrea has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea's issues are those of mental health, gross parenting deficits, physical abuse, inappropriate physical discipline, poor judgment, an inability to cooperate with service providers and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Andrea has been placed on notice to address her issues in the past.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 9/21/01, in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), on 10/4/01, in CPS, (Jongbloed, J.), on 8/5/02, in SCJM, (Handy, J.), on 8/16/02, in CPS, (Rubinow, J.), on 9/22/03, in CPS, (Trombley, J.), the court ordered specific steps for Andrea.

The court notes that the specific steps that were issued on 8/5/02, 8/16/02 end 9/22/03, were issued concerning Xavier.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the children's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea has generally complied with this step. She did fail to attend a court-ordered psychological evaluation on 12/20/01.

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea has generally complied with this step.

Participate in individual, parenting, family and anger management counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea's compliance with this step has been problematic.

DCF referred Andrea to OIC for an anger management group. However, she was discharged unsuccessfully on 11/26/01 for being disrespectful to the facilitator and other group members, and for non-participation.

Andrea has attended individual counseling with Randi Hammond since 10/25/01. However, Andrea failed to schedule and attend sessions with Hammond in 2/02 and 3/02.

Additionally, Andrea attended sporadically in 8/02.

Andrea was referred to NOVA in 6/02 for anger management classes. She attended 6 sessions, from 6/11/02 to 7/22/02 and was then discharged as not needing treatment.

Andrea completed a 6-week anger management class at Madonna Place in 5/02. She also completed a parenting program there on 1/28/02.

In 6/02, DCF referred Andrea for further parent education at Madonna Place. Andrea failed to comply with the parent education program, and failed to comply with Madonna Place visitation guidelines, and was unsuccessfully discharged in 3/03.

Andrea completed parenting classes at Catholic Charities on 8/6/02, and an 11-session anger management course at Catholic Charities on 4/14/03. She was also involved in a parent support group there.

Andrea completed a parent education and supervised visitation program at CFA.

Andrea completed an anger management group at Wheeler Clinic in 2004.

Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by the Department.

There was no evidence that in-home support services were ever referred for Andrea.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

After failing to appear for an evaluation with Dr. Randall on 12/20/01, Andrea attended subsequent evaluations with Dr. Randall.

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

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea did cooperate with the protective order issued against her on 2/14/02 after her arrest for Risk of Injury to a Child.

Sign releases authorizing the Department and Dr. Randall to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this court.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea failed to comply with this condition. Andrea refused to sign releases for DCF until 7/9/02, in SCJM, when she was ordered to do by the court, (Driscoll, J.).

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea has complied with this condition.

Andrea owns her own home.

Presently, Andrea is employed at Mystic Aquarium.

During the pendency of this case, Andrea has been employed by Bob's, and by Foxwoods. She has also received disability benefits.

At trial, Andrea testified that she received some financial assistance from her family members.

No substance abuse.

No evidence has been presented that would indicate that substance abuse is an issue for Andrea.

Do not violate the laws of this state, any other state or the United States.

There is no indication that Andrea has violated any laws since this step was ordered in CPS on 9/22/03 (Trombley, J.).

No further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office; of Adult Probation or Parole Officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea failed to fully comply with this condition.

As established by the clear and convincing evidence, Andrea was uncooperative with Probation Officer Clement. Andrea claimed to Clement that she had not seen Kenneth, and minimized their relationship, but the records of DOC indicated that she regularly visited Kenneth at the Enfield Correctional Institution.

On 5/8/03, Andrea disrupted a home visit by Clement by turning vicious dogs loose. The dogs pursued Clement and her intern, and forced them to seek shelter inside a motor vehicle.

Andrea engaged in babysitting, against Clement's instructions.

Clement's successor, Robert Amonti, indicated that Andrea cooperated with him and completed her probation.

Immediately advise the Department of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea failed to fully comply with this condition.

In a report dated 9/12/03, Dr. Nancy Randall reported that Andrea stated that her stepmother and sister are currently staying with her. Andrea failed to notify DCF of this change.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Andrea did attend family therapy with D'Ambra at the Joshua Center.

Visit the children as often as the Department permits.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea failed to fully comply with this step.

Although Andrea did visit her children, the clear and convincing shows that Andrea's failure to fully comply with parent education, her failure to comply with guidelines and her improper conduct while at Madonna Place affected the quality of her visitation.

Comply with all of the physician's recommendations regarding medication.

There was no evidence presented that indicated that Andrea failed to cooperate with this step.

Follow recommendation of Dr. Randall or immediately seek relief from the court

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Andrea failed to fully comply with this step.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea has yet to accept responsibility for her part in the physical abuse of her children, demonstrate an appropriate understanding of her children's needs, or demonstrate an understanding of the abuse issues and how they affect her children.

Additionally, Andrea has failed to appropriately deal with the issues related to Kenneth's role in her family.

Finally, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea has not adequately handled her stress/anger management issues, and has not improved her interpersonal relationship issues.

This court concludes that Andrea has not corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment of Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, from the date of commitment through the date of the filing of the TPR petitions, and continuing through the time of trial, Andrea has not been effectively available to take part in her children's lives, and, based on her mental health issues, gross parenting deficits, physical abuse issues, inappropriate physical discipline, poor judgment, inability to cooperate with service providers and her failure to complete and benefit from counseling, she will never be consistently available for them.

This case is different from many other TPR cases. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea has attended the various referrals and programs for counseling, and has completed at least 1 course in each of the various areas that the court ordered. She has completed multiple courses in some areas, such as parenting at Catholic Charities. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Andrea has failed to show any consistent 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 Andrea cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier safe. The most telling indicator of this failure was her continuation of the relationship with Kenneth.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that both Andrea and Kenneth had physically abused Jelani, Jaelen, and D'Ambra through inappropriate discipline. Kenneth's conduct was egregious enough to merit a jail sentence, despite having no prior criminal record. Yet, Andrea did not promptly end her relationship with him, as any reflective and thoughtful parent would have done. Andrea continued her relationship with him, became pregnant by him, and married him. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea continued to maintain a relationship of some nature with Kenneth through the pendency of this case. In fact, Andrea did not file for divorce until 1/06, after a blistering cross-examination by D'Ambra's counsel on this issue.

The claim by the respondent parents that DCF did not forbid their marriage is insufficient, as far as Andrea is concerned. The danger posed by Kenneth though his inappropriate physical discipline is not something that DCF should have to tell any parent, much less Andrea.

Based upon the nature of the physical abuse that Kenneth inflicted upon the children, especially Jelani, a reasonable and rational parent would be hard pressed to justify one's children to such a person.

Additionally, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that Andrea herself engaged in inappropriate physical discipline with her children, by employing belts and extension cords on them, putting soap in their mouths, and forcing them to stand in uncomfortable positions. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Andrea employed other means of inappropriate physical discipline with her children, including putting soap and hot sauce in their mouths. She also made Jelani stand in the corner in awkward, and physically uncomfortable positions. If Jelani did not maintain this position, Andrea or Kenneth would kick him. Additionally, the clear and convincing evidence shows that D'Ambra was subjected to inappropriate physical discipline. D'Ambra had soap put in her mouth, and was subjected to corporal punishment. However, throughout the pendency of this case, and, at the TPR trial, Andrea denied any involvement in this conduct. Her inability and/or unwillingness to admit this failing, and to adequately address it, clearly and convincingly shows that Andrea has failed to benefit from the myriad of referrals that she has undertaken.

Andrea's negative conduct towards DCF and certain service providers also provides clear and convincing evidence as to her failure to rehabilitate. Andrea cannot be relied upon to accurately report her children's situation to DCF and services providers, or to allow them full and unfettered access to monitor any children returned to her.

Randi Hammond testified that Andrea had met her treatment goals, and was progressing well in therapy. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea cannot conduct herself appropriately with DCF and with service providers.

The court incorporates, by reference, the previous references to Andrea's conduct with DCF and with service providers.

Andrea's handling of the sexual abuse allegations made by her children against Kenneth is also clear and convincing evidence of her failure to rehabilitate. Although the court is not assessing the credibility of the allegations made by Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen against Kenneth, and is not considering the nature of those allegations in its decision as to the TPR, the manner in which the respondent mother handled those allegations and her failure to validate them, in her children's eyes, is quite germane as to whether Andrea has rehabilitated.

The court would also note that, the clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 11/6/03, despite the sexual abuse claims that D'Ambra made concerning Kenneth, Andrea told Karen Cushing of CFA that she and Kenneth "decided that they were a family and that is how they were going to present themselves . . ."

At the TPR trial, Dr. Randall testified that, if D'Ambra felt that she was not believed concerning her claims of sexual abuse, it would leave her vulnerable to abuse and would cause trust issues. It would also increase her risk of becoming a sexual abuser herself.

The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincing shows that, despite DCF's efforts on her behalf and her own efforts, Andrea remains incapable of providing a safe and nurturing environment for Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier. When one considers the level of care, patience and discipline that children require from their caregivers, it is patently clear that Andrea is not in a better position to parent Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier now than she was at any other time during these proceedings, and that she remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. Effectively, she was 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). In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658, 670, 783 A.2d 534 (2001), the Appellate Court held; "[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 the department." See also In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 125, 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).

Finally, the clear and convincing evidence showed that Andrea failed to clearly acknowledge her parental responsibility for her children's inadequate care.

Dr. Randall testified that Andrea had a pattern of non-disclosure that she displayed during her evaluation with Dr. Randall, and which Dr. Randall opined was consistent with Andrea's refusal to be open.

Dr. Randall testified that Andrea didn't see the need for services other than for Jelani, and that Andrea minimized the abuse to Jelani.

Randi Hammond, Andrea's therapist testified that Andrea told her that spanking Jelani on 9/19/01 had been an act of last resort. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea and Kenneth had employed inappropriate physical discipline of Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelan prior to 9/19/01.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea has not benefitted from the referrals and counseling that she has attended, and still remains unable and/or unwilling to provide a safe, responsible and nurturing environment for Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier. She still lacks the ability to exercise sound and responsible judgment on behalf of these children. Her inability to benefit from such rehabilitative services in a timely manner has, unfortunately, condemned her to failure in terms of being a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier.

Despite the services that were made available to Andrea and the services that she utilized, the clear and convincing evidence shows that she has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier's ages, needs and special needs, she could assume a responsible position in their lives.

Continued foster care is detrimental to the children's development; Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier all require permanent homes that are safe and nurturing.

Based upon the above, it would be exceedingly rash to expect Andrea to be able to parent her children at any time in the near future, if at all. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that the children's need for permanence and stability would not allow for them to spend more time in foster care on the slim hope that Andrea might overcome her issues and be able to be a safe, responsible and nurturing parent.

Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the children involved, and given Andrea's failure and/or inabilities to correct her deviancies in a timely manner, it would be unreasonable to conclude that she will be able to achieve rehabilitation from her various issues and her failure to engage in and benefit from counseling in a timely manner so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent within a reasonable time.

Despite the services that were offered to her, Andrea has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering each child's age, needs and special needs, she could assume a responsible position in any of the children's lives so as to make reunification in their best interests.

Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier need parents who are able to effectively care for them now. Jelani and D'Ambra have been in DCF custody since 9/19/01, and Xavier has been in DCF custody since 8/5/02. These children cannot wait for the possibility that Andrea might address her mental health issues, gross parenting deficits, physical abuse issues, inappropriate physical discipline issues, poor judgment, inability to cooperate with service providers and her failure to complete and benefit from counseling, and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day. They cannot wait for Andrea to show that she has rehabilitated herself and is ready to assume her parental role. They cannot wait for Andrea to show that she is capable of putting their needs and safety before those of herself and of others. They cannot live with the fear that someone be allowed to abuse them, unfettered by Andrea's denials, and her refusal to face and confront some unpleasant and unseemly truths. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the [children] at issue. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384, 784 A.2d 457 (2000).

In making this assessment the court must review the past and present status of the children at issue and assess the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective. In re Tabitha P., 39 Conn.App. 353, 361, 664 A.2d 1168 (1995).

In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning the children.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea is capable of providing the material necessities and luxuries that a child would need or want. The respondent mother has a home which appears quite appropriate for her children. Unfortunately, with those things has come exposure to an inappropriate person, Kenneth, who has brutalized Andrea's children in the past. Unfortunately, the significance of the detrimental aspects of this relationship appears to have been lost upon the respondent mother.

If one were to attempt to reunify Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier with their mother, it would first prove necessary for Andrea to demonstrate that she can be a safe, responsible and nurturing parent while living the community, without supervision by social service agencies. Based upon her past history, it would be foolhardy to place Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier with Andrea without having previously appraised her ability to raise these children in the community, and most importantly, keep them safe from others and from herself.

Dr. Randall testified that the assistance of DCF would be essential in any plan to reunify Xavier with Andrea. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea would not cooperate with DCF, and thus, DCF could not monitor Xavier's safety or any other child's safety in Andrea's home.

Unfortunately, Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier cannot wait for Andrea. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea is unable and/or unwilling to be a safe, responsible and nurturing parent for Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea will not be able to protect Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier from abusers, and that she has failed to address her own issues in reference to the physical abuse of her children.

Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has proved that Andrea has failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Andrea is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed Andrea's past failures at personal rehabilitation and her gross parenting deficits and deviancies as they relate to the children's individual needs for a safe, responsible and nurturing parent who can meet their individual requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency. The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow Andrea further time to rehabilitate herself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the children's lives would not be in the best interests of either Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION-Acts OF PARENTAL COMMISSION/OMISSION-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(c)

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Andrea's parental rights should be terminated because she has committed acts of commission/omission which have denied Jelani and D'Ambra the care, guidance or control necessary for their physical, educational, moral, or emotional well-being within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(c). Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.

CGS § 17-112(j)(3)(c) provides that parental rights may be terminated by the Superior Court as to the parent of a child who "has been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission including, but not limited to, sexual molestation or exploitation, severe physical abuse or a pattern of abuse, the care, guidance or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being. Nonaccidental or inadequately explained serious physical injury to a child shall constitute prima facie evidence of acts of parental commission or omission sufficient for the termination of parental rights . . ."

The petitioner DCF have alleged that Andrea's conduct prior to the removal of her children on 9/19/01 rendered her unavailable to provide her children with the care, guidance or control necessary for the children's physical, educational, moral, or emotional well-being.

The credible evidence produced at trial clearly and convincingly indicates that on diverse dates prior to the removal of the children on 9/19/01, Andrea did employ inappropriate physical discipline on Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen in the home. The children were aware of the inappropriate discipline of their siblings.

Additionally, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth was allowed to use inappropriate physical discipline on Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen.

The inappropriate physical discipline consisted of the use of belts and extension cords on these young children, as well as washing their mouths out with soap.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, on 9/19/01, Andrea requested that Kenneth physically disciplined Jelani. Kenneth used inappropriate physical discipline on Jelani, by the use of a belt numerous times.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, at the time that Kenneth administered the in-appropriate physical discipline on Jelani on 9/19/01, Jaelen was in the home, and was exposed to the inappropriate physical discipline, but D'Ambra was not there.

The weight of the case law in this area indicates that the parent's commissions or omissions must be towards the child who is the party in the TPR and they must result in serious physical or emotional abuse. In In re Cheyenne A., 59 Conn.App. 151, 157-59, 756 A.2d 303, cert. denied, CT Page 23708 254 Conn. 940, 761 A.2d 762 (2000), then Chief Judge Lavery wrote:

The essence of the respondents' claim is that the language of § 17a-112(c)(3)(C), [now § 17a-112(g)(3)(c)] stating that "nonaccidental or inadequately explained serious physical injury to a child shall constitute prima facie evidence of acts of parental commission or omission sufficient for the termination of parental rights' applies to the state's burden of production and not to its burden of persuasion. The respondents argue that the statute permits the termination of parental rights on less than clear and convincing evidence in the presence of serious unexplained injuries. The respondents' argument is misguided.

General Statutes (Rev, to 1997) § 17a-112(c) provides in relevant part that the court may grant a petition to terminate parental rights "if it finds by clear and convincing evidence . . . (3) that . . . (C) the child has been denied, by reason of an act or acts or parental commission or omission, the care, guidance or control necessary for his physical well-being. Nonaccidental or inadequately explained serious physical injury to a child shall constitute prima facie evidence of acts of parental commission or omission sufficient for the termination of parental rights." Here, the court stated in its memorandum of decision that it was satisfied, by clear and convincing evidence, that Cheyenne had been "denied by reason of an act or acts of commission or omission of the parents, the care, guidance or control necessary for her physical well-being in that Cheyenne has sustained serious, life-threatening injuries that have been inadequately explained."

"The phrase prima facie evidence means evidence which, if credited, is sufficient to establish the fact or facts which it is adduced to prove." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Watson, 165 Conn. 577, 595-96, 345 A.2d 532 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1977, 40 L.Ed.2d 311 (1974). This court has previously dealt with a similar challenge to the termination of parental rights in In re Juvenile Appeal (85-2), 3 Conn.App. 184,485 A.2d 1362 (1985), in which we stated, "The respondent's final claim is that the court erred in finding that the petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the children had been denied by reason of acts of parental commission or omission the care necessary for their general well-being . . . The essence of the respondent's claim in this regard is that direct evidence as to any acts of commission or omission was lacking and that the judgment rested upon speculation and inference.

"While it is true that evidence of the respondent's acts of omission was largely circumstantial, that evidence was sufficient. The law does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative force is concerned. State v. Cimino, 194 Conn. 210, 211, 478 A.2d 1005 (1984). The standard of clear and convincing proof used in this case denotes a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the issuable fact in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution. Dacey v. Connecticut Bar Ass'n., 170 Conn. 520, 536-37, 368 A.2d 125 (1976). In a criminal case, the jury may draw reasonable, logical inferences from the facts proven as long as they do not resort to speculation and conjecture. State v. Festo, 181 Conn. 254, 259, 435 A.2d 38 (1980). In a case involving substantial circumstantial evidence, the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts, and not any one fact, may establish guilt. State v. Bember, 183 Conn. 394, 397, 439 A.2d 387 (1981). Insofar as circumstantial evidence can be and is routinely used to meet the higher standard of proof in a criminal prosecution, so can it be used in a case such as this where the applicable standard is that of clear and convincing proof." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Juvenile Appeal (85-2), supra, 3 Conn.App. 192-93.

In this case, as previously set forth in detail, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Cheyenne suffered severe physical injuries in the form of seventeen rib fractures that occurred at different times. The respondents could not explain her injuries and, after a period of time and reflection, attributed them to Cheyenne's grandmother. "It is not our function to retry the case or to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses; Johnson v. Flammia, 169 Conn. 491, 497, 363 A.2d 1048 (1975) . . ." In re Juvenile Appeal (85-2), supra, 3 Conn.App. 193. On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the court's conclusion that the respondents, by acts of omission or commission, denied Cheyenne the care necessary for her physical well-being.

In this case, the injuries that Jelani and D'Ambra suffered as a result of the inappropriate physical discipline, did not, by themselves, rise to the level of serious physical injury. So, the remaining issue is whether Andrea's acts of commission/omission constituted serious emotional abuse.

In In re Nelmarie O., 97 Conn.App. 624, 628-29, 905 A.2d 706 (2006), the Appellate Court held as follows:

The respondent next claims that the court improperly found that she had failed to provide for the emotional well-being of N and Y pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(c).

In support of her claim, the respondent points out that she did not physically abuse N and Y and that she was not the biological mother or legal guardian of E. Section 17a-112(j) however, provides in relevant part that the court "may grant a petition [for termination of parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence . . . (3) that . . . (c) the child has been denied, by reason of an act or acts of parental commission or omission including, but not limited to . . . the care, guidance or control necessary for the child's physical, educational, moral or emotional well-being . . ." That statute does not require that the children who are the subjects of the termination petition be abused physically. See In re Sean H., 24 Conn.App. 135, 144,586 A.2d 1171, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1078 (1991). Furthermore, the respondent's relationship with E is not relevant to her claim. See id., 143-46. We conclude that the court properly found that the respondent had failed to provide for the emotional well-being of N and Y by abusing E in their presence and ordering them to participate in the abuse.

The clear and convincing evidence show that, although Jelani and D'Ambra were physically abused through the use of inappropriate physical discipline, that the physical injuries that they suffered were not serious physical injuries.

The terms, "serious physical injury" and "physical injury" are not defined in the juvenile statutes. The court will make reference to the criminal statutes, specifically §§ 53a-3(3) and (4).

This leaves failure to provide for the emotional well-being of Jelani and D'Ambra as the remaining area of allegation in the ground of acts of commission/omission. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the petitioner.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that both Jelani and D'Ambra suffer from serious mental health afflictions and emotional difficulties, and that their mental health issues have a basis in their physical abuse.

Joan Prior, who served as Jelani's therapist from 1/9/03 through approximately 8/05, opined that Jelani's PTSD symptoms was caused by his having been physically abused with belts and extension cords. She further indicated that Jelani's behaviors were indicative of physical abuse.

Lisa Griffiths, D'Ambra's therapist, testified that D'Ambra's behaviors were indicative of sexual abuse, and of physical abuse. The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that acts of both parental commission and omission on the part of Andrea combined to deny these children the care, guidance, and control necessary for their physical, educational, moral and emotional well-being. Andrea's inability and/or unwillingness to protect Jelani and D'Ambra from physical abuse by herself and by Kenneth constituted an act of parental commission/omission that denied Jelani and D'Ambra the care, guidance and control necessary for their individual well-being.

Based on the credible evidence produced at trial, the court finds that the petitioner has proved this ground against Andrea by clear and convincing evidence

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO KENNETH

PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF allege that Kenneth's parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Xavier has been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether this respondent has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for him. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Kenneth 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 children's lives]." (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 witnesses' testimony, clearly and convincingly establishes that Kenneth has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which show that Kenneth has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth's issues are those of gross parenting deficits, poor judgment, and a failure to complete and benefit from counseling in a timely manner. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Kenneth has been placed on notice to address his issues in the past. The clear and convincing evidence shows that in SCJM, (Handy, J.), on 8/25/03 and in CPS, (Trombley, J.), on 9/22/03, the court ordered specific steps for Kenneth.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the children's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth has failed to fully comply with this step.

Kenneth failed to attend, via teleconferencing, a Treatment Planning Conference on 9/24/02 and failed to attend Administrative Case Review (ACR) meetings at DCF on 11/1/02 and on 4/30/03.

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth has failed to fully comply with this step.

When Kenneth was incarcerated on 8/29/02, he failed to notify DCF where he was incarcerated.

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth has failed to fully comply with this step.

DCF referred Kenneth to OIC for an anger management group. However, he was discharged unsuccessfully in 2/03 for failing to notify the program concerning absences and for being disrespectful towards facilitators. Patricia Pierce from OIC reported that Kenneth took no responsibility for his past abusive behavior and remained in denial. She also indicated that he continued to minimize his abuse, and when confronted with these issues, became very angry, defensive and rude.

DCF referred Kenneth to NOVA for anger management counseling. He attended for 3 sessions, but was deemed inappropriate for NOVA.

DCF referred Kenneth to Wheeler Clinic for an anger management group. Initially, Kenneth attended an interview on 10/21/03 and denied any need for the program. However, he was re-assessed and eventually entered the anger management group. He completed that group successfully on 4/20/04.

Kenneth participated in parenting classes at Catholic Charities on 2002.

Kenneth received additional parenting education as part of visitation with Xavier at CFA.

Kenneth completed a 6-week anger management class at Madonna Place.

Kenneth undertook individual therapy with Hannah Dunham at Catholic Charities in 10/03. He also saw Dr. Carlson for individual therapy as well.

Kenneth also engaged in individual therapy with Lynn Cadett at Catholic Charities

From 5/6/02 until his incarceration in 8/02, Kenneth engaged in couples' counseling with Bridget Jackson at Catholic Charities.

Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Kenneth was not referred for any in-home support services.

Submit to recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth failed to fully comply with this step.

DCF referred Kenneth to NOVA for anger management counseling. He attended for 3 sessions, but was deemed inappropriate for NOVA.

Kenneth participated in parenting classes and a parent support group at Catholic Charities.

Kenneth received additional parenting education as part of visitation with Xavier at CFA.

Kenneth completed a 6-week anger management class at Madonna Place.

Kenneth undertook individual therapy with Hannah Dunham at Catholic Charities in 10/03. He also saw Dr. Carlson and Lynn Cadett for individual therapy as well.

From 5/6/02 until his incarceration in 8/02, Kenneth engaged in couples' counseling with Bridget Jackson at Catholic Charities.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth complied with this step.

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

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Kenneth did cooperate with the protective order issued against him on 9/20/01 after his arrest for Risk of Injury to a Child and Assault 2nd Degree.

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth complied with this step.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Kenneth has complied with this condition.

Kenneth owns his own home.

Presently, Kenneth is attempting to start his own business as a home contractor. Previously, Kenneth had been employed at Shag Bark and by Mohegan Sun.

No substance abuse.

No evidence has been presented that would indicate that substance abuse is an issue for Kenneth.

Do not violate the laws of this state, any other state or the United States.

There is no indication that Kenneth has violated any laws since this step was ordered in CPS on 9/22/03 (Trombley, J.).

No further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.

There was no evidence submitted that indicated Kenneth had not complied with this specific step since it was ordered in SCJM on 9/22/03 (Trombley, J.).

Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the children.

There was no evidence submitted that indicated Kenneth had not complied with this specific step since it was ordered.

Cooperate with child's therapy.

There was no evidence indicating that Xavier had been sent to therapy.

Visit the child as often as DCF permits.

There was no evidence submitted that indicated Kenneth had not complied with this specific step since it was ordered.

Follow recommendation of Dr. Randall or immediately seek relief from the court.

There was no evidence submitted that indicated Kenneth had not complied with this specific step since it was ordered.

This court concludes that Kenneth has not corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment of Xavier. 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, Kenneth has not been effectively available to take part in his son's life, and, based on his judgment issues, and a failure to benefit from counseling, he will never be consistently available for Xavier.

Like Andrea, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth has attended the various referrals and programs for counseling, and has completed at least 1 course in each of the various areas that the court ordered. He has completed multiple courses in some areas, such as parenting at Catholic Charities. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that Kenneth has failed to show sufficient consistent benefit from these referrals. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that he failed to improve his parenting ability to acceptable standards, as far as Xavier's safety and emotional needs are concerned, in a timely manner.

DCF has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kenneth cannot exercise the appropriate judgment necessary to keep Xavier safe. The most telling indicators of this failure was his inappropriate physical discipline of Andrea's children, and his continuation of the relationship with Andrea.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that both Andrea and Kenneth had physically abused Jelani, Jaelen, and D'Ambra through inappropriate discipline. Kenneth's conduct was egregious enough to merit a jail sentence, despite having no prior criminal record. Andrea was also convicted of a felony concerning this abuse and was given a suspended sentence and probation. Yet, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth and Andrea maintained a relationship after their arrests. In fact, Kenneth impregnated Andrea, they married and had Xavier after he was arrested for abusing Jelani. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea continued to maintain a relationship of some nature with Kenneth through the pendency of this case. In fact, Andrea did not file for divorce until 1/06, after a blistering cross-examination by D'Ambra's counsel on this issue during the course of this trial.

The claim by the respondent parents that DCF did not forbid their marriage is insufficient, as far as Kenneth is concerned. The danger posed by Andrea through her inappropriate physical discipline is not something that DCF should have to tell any parent, much less Kenneth. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite completing various referrals, Kenneth has failed to show any consistent benefit from any of these referrals. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that he has failed to improve his parenting ability to acceptable standards. The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincing shows that, despite DCF's efforts on his behalf and his own efforts, Kenneth remains incapable of providing a safe and nurturing environment for his child. When one considers the level of care, patience and discipline that children require from their caregivers, it is patently clear that Kenneth is not in a better position to parent Xavier now than he was at any other time during these proceedings, and that he remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent Xavier. Effectively, he was 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 child]'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 the department"); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 125; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.

The clear and convincing evidence put forth also indicates that Kenneth, like Andrea, has been less than forthcoming about the amount of inappropriate physical discipline he inflicted on Andrea's children. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that he engaged in inappropriate physical discipline in excess of what he admitted to, and what he testified to.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth has not benefitted from the referrals and counseling that he has attended, and still remains unable and/or unwilling to provide a safe, responsible and nurturing environment for Xavier. He still lacks the ability to exercise sound and responsible judgment on behalf of this child.

Despite the services that were made available to Kenneth and the services that he utilized, the clear and convincing evidence shows that he has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering his child's ages, needs and special needs, he could assume a responsible position in Xavier's life. Continued foster care is detrimental to Xavier's development; he requires a permanent home that is safe and nurturing.

Sadly, the clear and convincing evidence shows that there is no amount of time that Kenneth could be given that would allow him to realize and correct his problems, much less that he could accomplish this in a reasonable period of time.

Based upon the above, it would be exceedingly rash to expect Kenneth to be able to parent his child at any time in the near future, if at all. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Xavier's need for permanence and stability would not allow for him to spend more time in foster care on the slim hope that Kenneth might overcome his issues and to be able to be a safe, responsive and nurturing parent.

Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the child involved, and given Kenneth's failure and/or inabilities to correct his deviancies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he will be able to achieve rehabilitation from his various issues and his failure to engage in and benefit from counseling so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent within a reasonable time.

Despite the services that were offered to him, Kenneth has failed to demonstrate that, within a reasonable time considering his child's age, needs and special needs, he could assume a responsible position in Xavier's life so as to make reunification in the child's best interests.

Additionally, the clear and convincing evidence shows that, based on Kenneth's prior malfeasance with Andrea's children concerning inappropriate physical discipline, reuniting him with Xavier would be a difficult and time consuming task, fraught with concerns and perils. No reasonable person would contemplate reunifying Xavier and Kenneth unless they were quite confident that Xavier would be safe in Kenneth's care. Although there is no question that Kenneth has behaved appropriately during visitation with Xavier, the concept of leaving this young child in Kenneth's callous hands is a sobering one.

Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Xavier's need for permanence and stability would not allow for the time necessary for Kenneth to complete rehabilitation, and reunification.

Xavier needs parents who are able to effectively care for him now. He cannot wait for Kenneth to address issues, and demonstrate that he has acquired sufficient parenting ability to care for his son one day. Xavier cannot wait for Kenneth 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 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.

In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the child at issue and assess the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective. In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361.

Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has proved that Kenneth has failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Kenneth is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed Kenneth's inadequacies at personal rehabilitation and his parenting deficits and deviancies as they relate to Xavier's individual needs 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 Kenneth further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in Xavier's life would not be in the best interests of Xavier.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO ROGER, SR. ABANDONMENT — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)

The petitioner first alleges that Roger, Sr. abandoned Jelani, within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A). In the absence of evidence to the contrary, applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the petitioner.

CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) provides for the termination of parental rights where "[t]he child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . ."

"Abandonment focuses on the parent's conduct . . . General Statutes [ § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)] defines abandonment as the fail[ure] to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . . Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts, and financial support are indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child . . . 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 . . . Section 17a-112[(1)(3)(A)] does not contemplate a sporadic showing of the indicia of interest, concern or responsibility for the welfare of a child . . . The commonly understood obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes; (1) express love and affection for the child; (2) exprqjyiess personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child; (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care: (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 839-40.

The clear and convincing evidence related to Roger, Sr.'s conduct reveals that, from 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, Roger, Sr. failed "to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) CT Page 23721 In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 839.

Since 6/4/02, when Jelani was committed in the care and custody of DCF, Roger, Sr. failed to maintain consistent contact with his child, his child's foster parents or with DCF. Throughout the pendency of this case, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Roger, Sr. failed to maintain consistent contact with DCF.

From 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, Roger, Sr. had minimal communications with his child, and failed to maintain regular contact with DCF to inquire about the well-being of his child. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that, from 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, Roger, Sr. did not visit his son.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that, from 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, Roger, Sr. failed to send Jelani any cards, gifts or letters, despite having promised to send him gifts.

Roger, Sr. sent Jelani a card in approximately 6/05.

From 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, Roger, Sr. failed to attend ACRs.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Roger, Sr. has paid child support on behalf of Jelani.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Roger, Sr. has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of his child as evidenced by his lack of consistent involvement in Jelani's circumstances, and by his failure to inquire and follow up on the child's situation during the period between the commitment and the filing of the TPR.

Based upon all of the above, it is clear that Roger, Sr. has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of his son.

When the adjudicatory date of 6/4/02 is applied, the evidence in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes that Roger, Sr. has failed the test of meeting "[t]he commonly understood obligations of parenthood" identified by In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 840. Accordingly, based on clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that Roger, Sr. has abandoned Jelani, within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).

PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Roger, Sr.'s parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As Jelani has been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether this respondent has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for the child. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner. Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Roger, Sr. 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 son'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 witnesses' testimony, clearly and convincingly establishes that Roger, Sr. has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which show that Roger, Sr. has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Roger, Sr.'s issues are those of an abject lack of interest and involvement in Jelani's life, gross parenting deficits, and poor judgment. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Roger, Sr. has been placed on notice to address his issues in the past.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), on 9/21/01, the court ordered specific steps for Roger, Sr.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the children's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Roger, Sr. has failed to fully comply with this step.

Roger, Sr. failed to attend ACRs on 11/1/02, 4/30/03 and 11/22/03.

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Roger, Sr. complied with this step.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Roger, Sr. complied with this step, and attended psychological evaluations on 4/8/02 and 4/9/02.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Roger, Sr. complied with this step.

This court concludes that Roger, Sr. failed to correct the factors that led to the initial commitment of his child, in as far 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, Roger, Sr. has not been available to take part in his son's life, and, based on his history of non-involvement in Jelani's life, he will never be consistently available to Jelani.

The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincing shows that Roger, Sr. has consistently failed to be available for Jelani. He failed to maintain contact with DCF or consistently inquire about Jelani's well-being though DCF. He failed to visit his son consistently or to even call him on the telephone. He failed to send him cards, gifts and letters.

Roger, Sr.'s efforts to remain in contact with Jelani have been abysmally poor. Roger, Sr. failed to remain in consistent contact with his son, despite knowing where Jelani was, and how to keep in touch with him.

At trial, Roger, Sr. testified that he was unable to maintain contact with Jelani while Jelani was in Andrea's care and custody, and admitted that he had not visited Jelani from 1994 though 2000. He indicated that he lost Andrea's address and telephone number in a fire in 1996.

Under cross-examination by the Assistant Attorney General on 3/23/05, Roger, Sr. testified that he last spoke to Jelani at the end of 2003/beginning of 2004. However, Roger, Sr. stated that he had visited his son Roger Jr., who lives in New Britain with his mother, in the previous October and in December.

The Assistant Attorney General's cross-examination also yielded an admission that Roger, Sr. was unaware of any of Jelani's diagnoses, although he knew that Jelani had special needs and that he was capable of handling those special needs.

Dr. Randall, who conducted an evaluation of Roger, Sr., opined that he was not motivated to reunify with Jelani.

When one also considers the high level of care, patience and discipline that Jelani's needs and special needs will require from his caregiver, it is patently clear that Roger, Sr. is not in a better position to parent his child than he was at the time of Jelani's commitment, and still remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent him. Effectively, Roger, Sr. 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 child'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 the department"); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 125; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.

Even if Roger, Sr. was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his child at any time in the near future, if ever.

Clearly, before Roger, Sr. could be considered as a placement resource for his son, he would have to successfully complete various referrals and programs designed to aid in his rehabilitation. He would need to show, over a substantial period of time, that he has conquered the demons which have plagued him and resolved his outstanding issues. He would have to demonstrate that he has overcome an abject lack of interest and involvement in Jelani's life, gross parenting deficits, and poor judgment, as well as show an appreciation of safe, responsible and nurturing parenting skills before reunification could be contemplated.

Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Jelani's need for permanence and stability would not allow for the time necessary for Roger, Sr. to attempt rehabilitation. Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the child involved, and given Roger, Sr.'s failure and/or inability to correct his deviancies, 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 within a reasonable time.

Jelani needs parents who are able to effectively care for him now. He cannot wait for the remote possibility that his biological father might overcome his issues and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for him one day. Jelani is unable to wait for Roger, Sr. 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 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 the petitioner has proved that Roger, Sr. failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

In making this assessment, the court has reviewed the past and present status of the child at issue and assessed the parenting abilities of the parent from a historical perspective, in reaching its conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. In re Tabitha P., supra, 39 Conn.App. 361.

In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning Roger, Sr. and his son.

Continued foster care is detrimental to Jelani's development; he requires a permanent home which is safe and nurturing.

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that Roger, Sr. is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. 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 child's 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 Roger, Sr. further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of his son, would not be in the best interests of Jelani.

LACK OF ON-GOING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)

DCF has alleged that there is no on-going parent/child relationship between Roger, Sr. and Jelani. This means that, based on the evidence produced, the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met, on a day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child has not been established and to allow further time for the establishment of such parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. CGS § 17a-112(1)(3)(D). Applying the requisite legal standards, and complying with § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the respondent father.

CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) provides for the termination of parental rights where "there is no on-going parent-child relationship, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child . . ."

CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) "requires the trial court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists, and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop . . . In considering whether an on-going parent-child relationship exists, the feelings of the child are of paramount importance . . . The ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent . . . Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 470, 816 A.2d 707 (2003).

The court incorporates, by reference, the abandonment findings as to Roger, Sr. set forth in previous parts of this decision.

The clear and convincing evidence presented indicates the following:

Roger, Sr. has never provided care for his son.

Roger, Sr. has played little, if any, role in his child's life.

He has been unable and/or unwilling to adjust his circumstances to allow for his child to be returned to his care in that he failed to maintain contact with his son throughout the years Roger, Sr. has been personally unavailable for Jelani.

Jelani last visited with Roger, Sr. on approximately 3/23/05.

However, there was clear and convincing evidence elicited during the trial, which indicated that Jelani still has positive feelings for Roger, Sr., despite the respondent father's failure to maintain any relationship with his son.

In In re Megan M., 24 Conn.App. 338, 340-41, 588 A.2d 239 (1991), the Appellate Court set forth the test for no on-going relationship:

The statutory criteria set forth in [CGS] § 17-43a [now § 17a-112] must be satisfied before a termination of parental rights can be accomplished. In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 163, 554 A.2d 722 (1989). [CGS] § 17-43a(b)(4) [now § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)] provided for the termination of parental rights if, upon clear and convincing evidence, it is proven that no on-going parent-child relationship has existed in excess of one year, and requires the court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. "First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists; and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interests to allow time for such a relationship to develop." In re Juvenile Appeal (84-3), 1 Conn.App. 463, 479, 473 A.2d 795, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 802, 474 A.2d 1259 (1984).

The statutory term "no on-going parent-child relationship" has been interpreted "to contemplate a situation in which, regardless of fault, a child either has never known his or her parents, so that no relationship has ever developed between them, or has definitely lost that relationship, so that despite its former existence it has now been completely displaced." In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), [ 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979)]. In addition, the mere fact that there has been some minimal contact between the parent and the child does not require a determination that an on-going parent-child relationship has existed in excess of one year. In re Juvenile Appeal, [ 181 Conn. 646, 436 A.2d 290 (1980)]. In determining whether there is an on-going parent-child relationship, the court should consider the feelings of the child toward the parent, especially if those feelings are positive rather than negative. See In re Juvenile Appeal (84-6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101 (1984), cert. denied, 175 Conn. 801, 487 A.2d 564 (1985).

The court finds that DCF has failed to prove that Jelani has no present and positive memories of his father.

Because DCF has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no parent-child relationship exists between Roger, Sr. and Jelani, the court need not address the 2nd prong of the required analysis.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO GEORGE ABANDONMENT — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)

The petitioner first alleges that George abandoned D'Ambra, within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A). In the absence of evidence to the contrary, applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the petitioner.

The clear and convincing evidence related to George's conduct reveals that, from 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, George failed "to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of the child . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 839.

Since 6/4/02, when D'Ambra was committed in the care and custody of DCF, George failed to maintain consistent contact with his child, his child's foster parents or with DCF. Throughout the pendency of this case, the clear and convincing evidence shows that George failed to maintain consistent contact with DCF.

From 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, George had minimal communications with his child, and failed to maintain regular contact with DCF to inquire about the well-being of his child. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that, from 6/4/02 through 11/18/03, George did not visit his daughter.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that George failed to send D'Ambra any cards, gifts or letters.

George failed to attend ACRs on 5/7/02, 4/30/03 and 11/22/03. He participated in an ACR on 11/1/02.

On 7/10/03, George failed to attend a meeting with DCF to discussion D'Ambra's situation and to discuss visitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of his child as evidenced by his lack of consistent involvement in D'Ambra's circumstances, and by his failure to inquire and follow up on the child's situation during the period between the commitment and the filing of the TPR.

Based upon all of the above, it is clear that George has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of his daughter.

When the adjudicatory date of 6/4/02 is applied, the evidence in this matter clearly and convincingly establishes that George has failed the test of meeting "[t]he commonly understood obligations of parenthood" identified by In re Jermaine S., supra, 86 Conn.App. 840. Accordingly, based on clear and convincing evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden of proving that George has abandoned D'Ambra, within the meaning of § 17a-112(j)(3)(A).

PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that George's parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As D'Ambra has been adjudicated neglected, the critical issue for this court is whether this respondent has achieved rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for her. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(q), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that George 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 daughter'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 witnesses' testimony, clearly and convincingly establishes that George has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which show that George has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George's issues are those of an abject lack of interest and involvement in D'Ambra's life, substance abuse, criminal recidivism, gross parenting deficits, and poor judgment. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that George has been placed on notice to address his issues in the past.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM, on 9/21/01, and on 7/9/02, (Driscoll, J.), the court ordered specific steps for George.

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced and unannounced, and visits by the children's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to fully comply with this step.

George failed to attend ACRs on 5/7/02, 4/30/03 and 11/22/03. He did participate in an ACR on 11/1/02.

On 7/10/03, George failed to attend a meeting with DCF to discussion D'Ambra's situation and to discuss visitation.

Upon his release from DOC on 12/02, George did notify DCF by telephone.

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George complied with this step.

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to fully comply with this step.

George failed to utilize any rehabilitative services while he was in the custody of DOC.

George has undertaken substance abuse services through APO.

George has failed to make himself available to DCF for any other referrals.

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment including inpatient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to fully comply with this step.

George failed to utilize any rehabilitative services while in the custody of DOC. George has undertaken substance abuse services through APO.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has been monitored by APO concerning substance abuse.

Submit to random drug testing: time and method of the testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George complied with this step, through APO.

Submit to recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment,

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to fully comply with this step.

George failed to utilize any rehabilitative services while in the custody of DOC. George has undertaken substance abuse services through APO.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has been monitored by APO concerning substance abuse.

George has failed to maintain contact with DCF so that he can be referred to other service providers.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George complied with this step, and attended psychological evaluations on 4/8/02 and 4/9/02.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to fully comply with this step.

While incarcerated, George signed releases for DCF. After his release from DOC, George failed to maintain contact with DCF and was unavailable to sign releases.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

Due to George's failure to maintain contact with DCF, it is unknown if his housing is adequate and if he has any legal income.

No substance abuse.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George complied with this step. DCF received information from APO that he tested negative for illegal drugs since his release from DOC in 12/02.

No further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole.

There was no evidence submitted that indicated that George failed to comply with this step. DCF reported that he was cooperating with APO.

Consistently and timely meet and address the children's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including but not limited to, keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers.

This specific step was not applicable, as George did not have D'Ambra in his care and custody.

Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the children.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to fully comply with this step.

George has failed to disclose any information about his residence to DCF.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

There has been no request by any of D'Ambra's therapists that George be involved in her therapy.

Visit the children as often as the Department permits.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that George failed to fully comply with this step.

Since his release from DOC in 12/02, George has failed to contact DCF in order to initiate visitation with D'Ambra.

On 7/10/03, George failed to attend a meeting with DCF to discussion D'Ambra's situation and to discuss visitation.

This court concludes that George has not corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment of D'Ambra. 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, George has not been effectively available to take part in D'Ambra's life, and, based on his abject lack of interest and involvement in D'Ambra's life, substance abuse, criminal recidivism, gross parenting deficits, poor judgment and refusal to cooperate with DCF, he will never be consistently available for her.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has failed to maintain contact with DCF and failed to submit himself for referrals and programs for counseling. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that he has failed to improve his parenting ability to acceptable standards. The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincing shows that, despite APO's efforts and DCF's attempts to coax George into services, George remains incapable of providing a safe and nurturing environment for D'Ambra. When one considers the level of care, patience and discipline that children require from their caregivers, it is patently clear that George is not in a better position to parent D'Ambra now than he was at any other time during these proceedings, and that he remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent her. Effectively, he was 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 the department"); see also In re Michael M., supra, 29 Conn.App. 125; In re Migdalia M., supra, 6 Conn.App. 206.

The credible evidence in this case clearly and convincing shows that George has consistently failed to be available for D'Ambra. He failed to maintain contact with DCF or consistently inquire about D'Ambra's well-being though DCF. He failed to visit his daughter consistently or to even call her on the telephone. He failed to send her cards, gifts and letters.

Even if George was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his child at any time in the near future, if ever.

Clearly, before George could be considered as a placement resource for his daughter, he would have to successfully complete various referrals and programs designed to aid in his rehabilitation. He, would need to show, over a substantial period of time, that he has conquered the demons which have plagued him and resolved his outstanding issues. He would have to demonstrate that he has overcome his abject lack of interest and involvement in D'Ambra's life, substance abuse, criminal recidivism, gross parenting deficits, poor judgment and refusal to cooperate with DCF, as well as show an appreciation of safe, responsible and nurturing parenting skills before reunification could be contemplated.

Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that D'Ambra's need for permanence and stability would not allow for the time necessary for George to attempt rehabilitation.

Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the child involved, and given George's failure and/or inability to correct his deviancies, 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 within a reasonable time.

D'Ambra needs parents who are able to effectively care for her now. She cannot wait for the extremely remote possibility that her biological father might overcome his issues and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for her one day. D'Ambra is unable to wait for George 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 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 the petitioner has proved that George failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

In making this assessment, the court incorporates, by reference, the previous information in this decision concerning George and his daughter.

Continued foster care is detrimental to D'Ambra's development; she requires a permanent home which is safe and nurturing.

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that it is not foreseeable that George is capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. 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 child's 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 George further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the life of his daughter, would not be in the best interests of D'Ambra.

LACK OF ON-GOING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)

DCF has alleged that there is no on-going parent/child relationship between George and D'Ambra. This means that, based on the evidence produced, the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met, on a day-to-day basis, the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child has not been established and to allow further time for the establishment of such parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of the child. CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D). Applying the requisite legal standards, and complying with § 17a-112(q), the court finds this matter in favor of the petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF. The court incorporates, by reference, the abandonment findings set forth in previous parts of this decision.

CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) provides for the termination of parental rights where "there is no on-going parent-child relationship, which means the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time forte establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child . . ."

CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) "requires the trial court to undertake a two-pronged analysis. First there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists, and second, the court must look into the future and determine whether it would he detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop . . . In considering whether an on-going parent-child relationship exists, the feelings of the child are of paramount importance . . . The ultimate question is whether the child has no present memories or feelings for the natural parent . . . Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only. "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Brea B., supra, 75 Conn.App. 470.

The clear and convincing evidence presented indicates the following:

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that George failed to send D'Ambra any cards, gifts or letters.

George has not provided any financial or emotional support for D'Ambra.

George has never provided care for D'Ambra, nor has she been in his custody.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that D'Ambra exhibits no bond or affection toward George, although she knows him to be her father. The clear and convincing evidence shows no evidence of D'Ambra possessing any present and positive memories of her father. She would not seek comfort from George, nor go to George to have her needs met.

In 4/02, Dr. Randall performed an interactional evaluation with George and D'Ambra. She wrote the following:

D'Ambra was brought into the session with her father. She came very reluctantly and stated that she did not want to see him. She did come along, but was clearly uncomfortable with it. When she entered the room, she stayed next to the wall and was very reluctant to go anywhere near him. He tried to engage her in conversation for some time. She stated that she did not want to be there. He worked hard at trying to reassure her. At one point, he asked why she did not want to be there. She stated "I want to be with my mom." She sounded as if she was almost ready to cry at the time. Her father reassured her that she will see her mom at some point and she was reassured that the visit would not prevent her from seeing her mom. In spite of this, D'Ambra continued to be very avoidant of her father for quite some time. She resisted his attempts at engaging her in conversation. She drew pictures, and slowly began to open up a little bit in talking about the pictures. After about twenty minutes, she finally approached the table where her father was sitting and agreed to do some writing next to him. She answered direct questions from her father, but did not initiate conversation with him. At the end of their session together, he asked if he could keep a picture that she had drawn, but she said no and took it with her. She sounded angry with her father at times. She did give him a hug at the end of the session after he asked for it. She left easily, separating from her father without difficulty. It did not appear that D'Ambra has very much of a relationship with her father at this time.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that George has been unable and/or unwilling to adjust his circumstances to allow for his child to be returned to his care. He has failed to contact DCF and has failed to attend most court dates. He failed to attend the TPR trial.

D'Ambra has been in foster placement and psychiatric hospitalization since her removal on 9/19/01. She has psychiatric problems that are heartbreaking to see in anyone, but especially in a child so young. She has behavioral issues that challenge the parenting ability of the best of caretakers. She needs safe, committed, responsible and firm caretakers. The respondent father's obvious failure to involve himself in D'Ambra's life demonstrates his lack of capacity to develop an appropriate parental relationship with his daughter.

Obviously, D'Ambra needs a family now, not later. To allow further time for George to establish a parent/child relationship would be detrimental to the best interests of this child. Accordingly, based on the clear and convincing evidence presented in this matter, and applying the appropriate legal standards, the court finds that there is no on-going parent-child relationship between George and his daughter D'Ambra.

With regard to the allegations of no on-going parent/child relationship, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony related to circumstances occurring through the close of trial for adjudicatory purposes. See Practice Book § 35a-7 (commentary).

The court incorporates, by reference, all reasonable efforts findings set forth in previous parts of this decision.

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., supra, 86 Conn.App. 827; see also In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511 and 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.

SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS

The court has made each of the seven written factual findings required by CGS § 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.

TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(1)

DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Andrea, or that the following services were provided to her:

AMPS: supervised visitation

Catholic Charities: anger management classes, couples' counseling, parenting education

CPA: parent education and supervised visitation

DCF: case management services, payment for Randi Hammond, referrals to treatment programs, and supervised visitation

Randi Hammond: individual therapy

Kidsafe: supervised visitation

Madonna Place: anger management classes, parent education and supervised visitation

Nauchaug Hospital, Joshua Center Partial Hospitalization Program: family therapy

OIC: anger management classes

Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA)-evaluation for domestic violence treatment program

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall

TEAMWORKS: interactional assessment

Waterford Country School: visitation

Wheeler Clinic: anger management group

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea eventually completed anger management classes, and parenting education. She was discharged unsuccessfully from several programs.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent mother Andrea to facilitate her reunification with Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier and made reasonable efforts to reunite her with Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier. In re Victoria B., supra, 79 Conn.App. 258-60. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Andrea utilized most of these services as indicated, but failed to gain any appropriate benefit from these services.

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Andrea is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier are concerned. CGS § 17a-112(j)(1). Her serious issues clearly and convincingly made her unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with these children in a timely manner. In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004).

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that Andrea was aware of her 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 her issues, Andrea remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier.

DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Kenneth, or that the following services were provided to him:

Dr. Christopher Carlson: individual therapy

Catholic Charities: anger management classes, couples' counseling, individual counseling, parenting education

CFA: parent education and supervised visitation

CT Page 23740

DCF: case management services, supervised visitation and referrals to treatment programs

Groton Youth Service Bureau: anger management program

Madonna Place: anger management classes, parent education and supervised visitation

OIC: anger management classes

Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA)-evaluation for domestic violence treatment program

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall

Wheeler Clinic: anger management group

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth complied with most of the services to which he was referred.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent father Kenneth to facilitate his reunification with Xavier and made reasonable efforts to reunite him with Xavier. In re Victoria B., supra, 79 Conn.App. 258-60. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Kenneth utilized most of these services as indicated, but failed to gain any appropriate benefit from these services.

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Kenneth is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as Xavier is concerned. CGS § 17a-112(j)(1). His serious issues clearly and convincingly made him unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with Xavier in a timely manner. In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535-36.

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that Kenneth was aware of his 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 his issues, Kenneth remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with Xavier. DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father Roger, Sr., or that the following services were provided to him:

DCF: case management services, interstate compact study, and supervised visitation

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to provide additional services to Roger, Sr. due to his failure to maintain contact with DCF and his failure to have contact with Jelani.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent father Roger, Sr. to facilitate his reunification with Jelani and made reasonable efforts to reunite him with Jelani. In re Victoria B., supra, 79 Conn.App. 258-60. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Roger, Sr. utilized most of these services as indicated, but failed to gain any appropriate benefit from these services. He also failed to make himself available for additional services through DCF.

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Roger, Sr. is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as Jelani is concerned. CGS § 17a-112(j)(1). His serious issues clearly and convincingly made him unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with Jelani in a timely manner. In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535-36.

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that Roger, Sr. was aware of his 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 his issues, Roger, Sr. remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with Jelani.

DCF proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCF provided the following services to the respondent father George, or that the following services were provided to him:

APO: Substance abuse testing and treatment

DCF: case management services, and supervised visitation

Psychological and interactional evaluations with Dr. Randall

The clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF was unable to provide additional services to George due to his failure to maintain contact with DCF.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent father George to facilitate his reunification with D'Ambra and made reasonable efforts to reunite him with D'Ambra. In re Victoria B., supra, 79 Conn.App. 258-60. The clear and convincing evidence indicates that George utilized most of these services as indicated, but failed to gain any appropriate benefit from these services. He also failed to make himself available for additional services through DCF.

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that George is unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as D'Ambra is concerned. CGS § 17a-112(j)(1). His serious issues clearly and convincingly made him unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with D'Ambra in a timely manner. In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535-36.

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that George was aware of his 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 his issues, George remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services with D'Ambra.

Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that the respondent parents are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Amelia W., supra, 62 Conn.App. 504-05; see In re Ebony H., supra, 68 Conn.App. 350.

REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW — CGS § 17a-112(k)(2)

This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that neither Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. or George are presently able and/or willing to benefit from such reunification services as are contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify each respondent parent with their child/children. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also 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 the respondent parents were aware of their individual issues and deficits, and had received specific steps on multiple occasions addressing said issues. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite this notification, each respondent parent remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.

Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. and George are individually unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts as far as their child/children are concerned. CGS § 17a-112(j)(1). Their individual serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts with their children in a timely manner. In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535-36.

The court will incorporate, by reference, all reasonable efforts findings previously made that are listed above in this decision.

This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that further efforts at reunification are not appropriate for any of the respondent parents with regard to any of their children.

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS — CGS § 17a-112(k)(3)

The court notes that the specific steps that were issued on 8/5/02, 8/16/02 and 9/22/03, were issued concerning Xavier.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that in SCJM, (Handy, J.), on 8/25/03 and in CPS, (Trombley, J.), on 9/22/03, the court ordered specific steps for Kenneth.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that in SCJM, (Driscoll, J.), on 9/21/01, the court ordered specific steps for Roger, Sr.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, in SCJM, on 9/21/01, and on 7/9/02, (Driscoll, J.), the court ordered specific steps for George.

The court incorporates, by reference, its previous findings made in this decision concerning the respondent parents' individual with the specific steps.

THE CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(4)

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier have a relationship and a connection with Andrea. Jelani and D'Ambra have a bond with Andrea, despite her past history of having physically abused them.

Both Jelani and D'Ambra's relationships with the respondent mother are ambivalent ones. Jelani has had different positions concerning reunification with Andrea. On 3/14/06, Jelani sent a letter to court via his foster mother, in which he indicated that he loved his mother, but that he wished to remain in his foster home and be adopted.

However, at the time of final arguments, Jelani's GAL reported that Jelani was willing to return to Andrea's care and custody, even if Kenneth was there.

The GAL reported that Jelani wished to see Roger, Sr.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that D'Ambra periodically wishes to see Andrea. At other times, she doesn't want to see Andrea. She also asked why Andrea hasn't visited her.

The clear and convincing evidence also showed that Jelani and D'Ambra have a strong connection to their foster parents.

The clear and convincing evidence also showed that D'Ambra has no connection or positive feelings for George. During the interactional evaluation, Dr. Randall described D'Ambra as being angry and resentful toward George, and resisted interaction with him.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that both Andrea and Kenneth have a strong visiting relationship with Xavier, and that there is some type of bond between Xavier and the respondent parents.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Jelani is concerning about Xavier and his safety.

AGES OF THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(k)(5)

Jelani was born on 12/17/92, and is 13 years old.

D'Ambra was born on 9/5/96, and is 10 years old.

Xavier was born on 8/4/02, and is 4 years old.

PARENTS' EFFORTS TO ADJUST THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(6)

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that none of the respondent parents are able and/or willing to make realistic and sustained efforts to conform their individual conduct to acceptable parental standards.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea has undertaken various referrals and classes towards her rehabilitation. There was evidence that she had taken some of these classes more than once. Her testimony at the TPR trial indicated that she had a substantial command of the material from these classes.

Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite the welter of classes and referrals, Andrea has failed to internalize the lessons and messages necessary to keep Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier safe.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea engaged in inappropriate physical discipline with Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen, using a belt and an extension cord on very young children. However, Andrea has continued to deny this abuse. Her failure to admit her conduct is evidence of her failure to internalize her lessons, and her inability to safeguard her children.

Andrea's conduct concerning Kenneth is also disturbing. Despite Kenneth's egregious conduct towards Jelani on 9/19/01, Andrea continued to stand by him and became even closer to him. She became pregnant by Kenneth, and married him while criminal cases were pending against both of them, and while child protection cases were pending against her. Andrea indicated to her children that she had become pregnant by Kenneth and had subsequently married him, despite being told by DCF not to disclose this information.

Although the court, as previously indicated, is not considering the merits of the children's sexual abuse claims against Kenneth in its TPR decision, it is considering Andrea's reactions to these allegations.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Andrea has failed to validate Jelani and D'Ambra's feelings concerning their accusations of both physical abuse and sexual abuse at the hands of Kenneth. Andrea's conduct has been geared towards getting her children to accept Kenneth back in the home, and has given Jelani and D'Ambra's feelings and considerations concerning Kenneth short shrift.

Andrea has failed to improve her conduct and her cooperation with DCF. The clear and convincing evidence shows that she had verbally abused and threatened DCF social workers and service providers.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth has undertaken various referrals and classes towards his rehabilitation. There was evidence that he had taken some of these classes more than once. His testimony at the TPR trial indicated that he had a substantial command of the material from these classes.

Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite the welter of classes and referrals, Kenneth has failed to internalize the lessons and messages necessary to keep Xavier safe.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth engaged in inappropriate physical discipline with Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen, using a belt and an extension cord on very young children. However, Kenneth has continued to minimize this abuse. His failure to admit the full extent of his conduct in reference to inappropriate discipline is evidence of his failure to internalize his lessons, and of his inability to safeguard his child.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that both Roger, Sr. and George have made absolutely no realistic and sustained efforts to conform their individual conduct to acceptable parental standards. Neither respondent father has made any real effort to maintain contact with his child during the pendency of this case. Neither Roger, Sr. or George have made any efforts to come forward and assist their children in this time of greatest need. Neither has shown any inkling of paternal instinct in terms of assisting his child or providing resources for him/her.

The court does note that Roger, Sr. has paid child support for Jelani.

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 even attempt to become safe, nurturing and responsible parents for their child/children. They have each demonstrated that they are unable to care for any of the children appropriately and to provide them with the safety, care, permanence and stability that these children need and deserve.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that none of the respondent parents have made the changes necessary in their individual lifestyles in a timely manner that would indicate that any of them would be a safe, responsible and nurturing parent for any of their children.

The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that to allow any of the respondent parents further time to rehabilitate themselves, if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in their child/children's lives would not be in the best interests of Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier.

EXTENT TO WHICH THE PARENTS WERE PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(k)(7)

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, DOC, APO, foster parents, or third parties prevented any of the respondent parents from maintaining a relationship with their child/children, nor did their individual economic circumstances prevent such relationships, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

The court is cognizant of the fact that Andrea's visitation with Jelani and D'Ambra has been reduced or suspended during the pendency of this case. The clear and convincing evidence shows that these reductions or suspensions were due to misconduct by Andrea, or the psychological needs of the child/children.

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(j)(2)

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of the parental rights of Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. or George would be in their child/children'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 the petitioner DCF.

The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, § 17a-112(j), requires that before granting a duly noticed petition for such termination, the court must find, "by clear and convincing evidence . . . (2) that termination is in the best interest of the child . . ."

In determining whether termination of Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. or George's parental rights would be in any of the 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 parents and their biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents. 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, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).

"[T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainly a factor to consider." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999).

Under such scrutiny, the clear and convincing evidence in this matter establishes that it is not in Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier's best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with their respondent parents.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. and George have numerous issues which are clearly antithetical to safe, responsible and nurturing parenting, and are also antagonistic to their child/children's best interests.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea still has outstanding issues that have severely compromised her ability to serve as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier. Unfortunately, the welter of referrals, therapy and classes have failed to change her situation to the extent where she could be a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea used inappropriate discipline on extremely young children with implements such as belts, extension cords and soap; methods best left in the dark history of Abu Ghraib prison, or the Lubyanka. Although the Appellate Court has allowed the use of reasonable corporal punishment on children, the history of this case shows that Andrea and Kenneth clearly and convincingly exceeded that standard.

The Lubyanka building, on Lubyanka Square in Moscow, was built in 1898 as the headquarters of the All-Russia Insurance company. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the building was taken over as the headquarters for a succession of Soviet state security agencies; the Cheka, GPU, NKVD, KGB and FSB. It has a cellblock in its basement . . .

See Lovan C. v. Department of child and Families, 86 Conn.App. 290, 860 A.2d 1283 (2004).

The respondent mother has yet to demonstrate that she has adequately dealt with her anger issues. Her conduct with DCF personnel and some service providers remains inappropriate. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, she cursed and threatened DCF personnel and Madonna Place personnel. The court will make reference to the evidence concerning Andrea's conduct with DCF social workers Marrero and Mooney, and with Madonna Place personnel.

Additionally, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea knowingly violated DCF visitation requirements concerning what she disclosed to her children during visitation. The court finds that Andrea would fail to cooperate with DCF in any type of monitoring to assure the children's safety if the present conditions of care and custody of her children were changed.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Andrea has failed to deal openly and honestly with her abuse of her children. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea employed inappropriate physical discipline on Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen; however, she has failed to acknowledge it.

Despite her claims to the contrary, Andrea has minimized the extent of the inappropriate physical discipline that was meted out to her children. At trial, Andrea testified that she could not hear Kenneth hitting Jelani with the belt, citing distance and the use of painkilling medications. She claimed that she was groggy at the time. However, the clear and convincing evidence showed that her neighbor, a retired police officer, heard it from approximately 200 yards away, and was alarmed enough to contact law enforcement.

Andrea testified that she had taken Tylenol #3.

Andrea testified that she had struck Jelani with a belt twice within the year, and had never used the belt on D'Ambra. The clear and convincing evidence shows that she did use the belt on D'Ambra. However, at her 6/11/02 evaluation at NOVA, Andrea denied using an extension cord on Jelani, and recalled that she employed an open hand only. She denied putting soap in her children's mouths as punishment; the credible evidence clearly and convincing evidence showed that she employed this method of discipline.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea had knowledge that Jelani's behavioral issues were probably not within his conscious control. She had already used alternative means of behavior modification; yet she had returned to corporal punishment by the time of the children's removal by DCF.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that Andrea has failed to acquire any real appreciation of the danger that Kenneth poses to her children. By insisting on continuing her relationship with Kenneth, Andrea effectively discounted that harm that Kenneth had caused to her children. By becoming pregnant with Kenneth's child and then marrying him, Andrea effectively told her children that her needs and Kenneth's needs were more important that their needs.

At trial, Andrea testified that she was willing to put her children's needs and wishes ahead of those of Kenneth. The clear and convincing evidence shows otherwise. Despite having knowledge that her children did not wish to return home with Kenneth there, Andrea made it clear to service providers that she and Kenneth were a family unit, and wished to reunify as such. It was not until 1/06, in the midst of a grueling cross-examination by D'Ambra's counsel, that Andrea decided that she should divorce Kenneth. Obviously, this revelation comes far too late to assure the court of Andrea's bona fide commitment to her children's best interests.

The court also notes that, on 9/2/05, Randi Hammond testified that Andrea and Kenneth continued to have a relationship, even though they lived apart, and that they were prepared to end the relationship, if necessary. On 12/16/05, under cross-examination by the Assistant Attorney General, Hammond testified that Andrea claimed that she and Kenneth live separately because of DCF.

Unfortunately, the time for ending that relationship, like the passenger pigeon, passed by in previous years.

Andrea's handling of the sexual abuse allegations made by her children against Kenneth is also clear and convincing evidence of her failure to rehabilitate. Although the court is not assessing the credibility of the sexual assault allegations made by Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen against Kenneth, and is not considering the nature of those allegations in its decision as to the TPR, the manner in which the respondent mother handled those allegations and her failure to validate the children's feelings concerning the allegations, is quite germane as to whether Andrea has rehabilitated, and as to whether Andrea will be able to safeguard her children in the future.

Even Randi Hammond, on cross-examination by the Assistant Attorney General, indicated that it was necessary for Andrea to validate her children's feelings and make them realize that they were her highest priority. The clear and convincing evidence elicited during the trial shows that she has failed to do so.

Andrea has continually denied that Kenneth sexually assaulted her children, and has claimed that D'Ambra was sexually assaulted in foster care. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, although D'Ambra was involved in inappropriate sexual contact with peers while in foster care, and while at RVH, D'Ambra has, over the years, implicated only 1 adult as having sexually abused her-Kenneth. The testimony of the respondent mother at trial clearly and convincingly shows that she still maintains that D'Ambra was sexually assaulted while in DCF custody, despite the record being devoid of any credible evidence to support this claim.

Like his wife, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth still has outstanding issues that have severely compromised his ability to serve as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for Xavier. Unfortunately, the welter of referrals, therapy and classes have failed to change his situation to the extent where he could be a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for Xavier.

Kenneth has also minimized the extent of his abuse of Andrea's children. The clear and convincing evidence shows that he has employed inappropriate physical discipline on Andrea's children in excess of what he admitted to. This compromises Kenneth's ability to safeguard his son and to be able to protect him from harm. It also makes assessing his actual rehabilitation problematic. However, it is clear that a person cannot rehabilitate from something that he will not admit to.

The savage nature of the inappropriate physical discipline inflicted upon Jelani on 9/19/01 also causes one to question any agency's ability to safeguard Xavier while he is in Kenneth's care. The inappropriate physical discipline that Kenneth inflicted on Jelani was brutal in nature, recalling unsettling and dire scenes of coercion and punishment from the antebellum South.

Another germane factor in Xavier's best interests concerns Kenneth's willingness to maintain a relationship with Andrea, an individual whose concepts of appropriate discipline includes the use of belts and extension cords on children of tender years. Kenneth lived in Andrea's home for a substantial of time prior to 9/19/01, so he would be aware of and exposed to Andrea's disciplining techniques. Even a person who had not raised children before would have justly recoiled at Andrea's techniques. To be willing to father a child with such a person, and be willing to reunify with Xavier as a couple with Andrea is a telling indictment of Kenneth's ability to keep Xavier safe.

The clear and convincing evidence indicated that both Andrea and Kenneth had physically abused Jelani, Jaelen and D'Ambra through inappropriate discipline. Kenneth's conduct was egregious enough to merit a jail sentence, despite having no prior criminal record. Andrea was also convicted of a felony concerning this abuse and was given a suspended sentence and probation. Yet, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Kenneth and Andrea maintained a relationship after their arrests. In fact, Kenneth impregnated Andrea, they married and had Xavier. The clear and convincing evidence shows that Andrea continued to maintain a relationship of some nature with Kenneth through the pendency of this case. In fact, Andrea did not file for divorce until 1/06, after a blistering cross-examination by D'Ambra's counsel on this issue during the course of this trial.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that neither Roger, Sr. or George have had much contact with his child. Despite the best intents and efforts of DCF to involve them with their children, neither has been willing to come forward and be accountable. Unfortunately, their primary contribution to Jelani and D'Ambra has been their genetic material necessary for the child's conception. Unfortunately, the successful raising of children requires far more from his or her father than that.

Neither Roger, Sr. nor George have demonstrated any real initiative to rehabilitate themselves, to be involved in their children's lives, to successfully address their own issues and to provide an appropriate home and suitable guidance for their children. Each respondent father has failed to visit his children appropriately, and has failed to maintain contact with his child and with DCF appropriately. Neither has sent any gifts or letters. Roger, Sr. sent Jelani a card in 6/05.

The performance of Roger, Sr. in reference to his son is extremely disturbing. Of all of the parents in this case, Roger, Sr. was the individual with the greatest potential to be a good parent. He had 2 parents who established a positive structure for him, and enabled him to achieve well for himself. He is a veteran of the U.S. Navy who rose to the rank of E-6 during his years there, which is an indicator of leadership, initiative and competency. He is a career police officer who has had opportunity to see the tragedy of the rudderless, unguided youth in our community. Yet, with Jelani, the clear and convincing conclusions that can be drawn are that Roger, Sr. abandoned the ship of fatherhood as it was sliding down the builders' ways after the launching, and deserted his post as Jelani's father.

Unfortunately, it has been Jelani who has had to endure the general court martial of life for his biological father's derelictions.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that none of the respondent parents can keep their child/children safe and/or care for them properly. The clear and convincing evidence also shows that none of the respondent parents has gained insight into the efforts that each needs to make in order to become a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for their child/children. The clear and convincing evidence shows that their individual judgment and conduct still remain questionable.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier cannot afford to wait any longer for their parent/parents to rehabilitate herself or himself. Each 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 to attempt to establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing and responsible parents, if that were possible, is time that the children cannot spare.

Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. and George'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 their individual failures 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 parent for Jelani, D'Ambra or Xavier.

Based upon Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. and George's individual behaviors and performances so far, this court cannot foresee any of the respondent parents in this case ever having the ability or the patience to follow the regimen necessary for their child/children to maximize his her abilities and achievements.

Counsel for Andrea argued against the TPR. She indicated that Andrea had rehabilitated herself and had internalized the changes necessary for her to resume the care and custody of her children. She pointed out the testimony of Andrea's service providers concerning Andrea's attendance at sessions, and their beliefs that Andrea did grasp the concepts being taught, including Randi Hammond's position that Andrea would not physically abuse her children or allow anyone else to physically abuse them. She indicated that Andrea had attempted to address Jelani's behavioral needs prior to the removal and sought professional assistance on his behalf. She argued that Andrea had completed the specific steps and was ready to resume her care and custody of her children. She put forth the proposition that Jelani's accusations lacked veracity.

Counsel for Andrea argued in favor of the TPR as to Roger, Sr. and George.

Counsel for Kenneth also argued against the TPR as to her client. She indicated that DCF filed the TPR prematurely, that Kenneth had completed all services, and that DCF did not give Kenneth sufficient time in which to rehabilitate. She noted that Xavier and Kenneth had a strong bond, and that Andrea and Kenneth's divorce should not be part of the child protection case, or of reunification. She recommended that the TPR be denied and that Xavier be returned to Andrea, and that Kenneth be allowed to visit.

Counsel for Roger, Sr. recommended that both Roger, Sr. and Andrea's parental rights be terminated as to Jelani. She indicated that, based in the interstate compact study, that Jelani should have been sent to live with Roger, Sr. previously, but that this placement is not possible now. She stated that Roger, Sr.'s position is that both his parental rights and Andrea's parental rights should be terminated. Counsel for Roger, Sr. argued that Andrea had failed to rehabilitate herself. She also stated that Roger, Sr. wanted Jelani to have the ability to contact Roger, Sr. in the future, should he wish it.

Counsel for Jelani argued against the TPR concerning Andrea, stating that this was Jelani's most recent position. He indicated that Jelani was confused, tired and wanted closure. He pointed out that Jelani has suffered trauma from both the abuse that he suffered in Andrea's home, and from his removal from the home. Counsel for Jelani indicated that the child was confused from having been in multiple placements and was presently willing to return to Andrea, even if Kenneth lived in the home. Counsel for Jelani acknowledged that, initially, Jelani did not wish to return to Andrea's home and that he has been ambivalent concerning reunification in the past.

Counsel for D'Ambra did not argue a position concerning TPR. She indicated that her client was ambivalent on the issue, and that her argument reflected the client's ambivalence. She was critical of DCF and D'Ambra's service providers for not answering D'Ambra's questions concerning Andrea and especially why Andrea has not visited her.

Counsel for D'Ambra was also critical of Andrea and Kenneth. She argued that the initial abuse was horrible, that Andrea and Kenneth minimized it in therapy, and that they don't get "the big picture." She also stated that Andrea's failure to divorce Kenneth earlier was unreasonable, and that Andrea has shown a lack of responsibility. Counsel for D'Ambra also expressed concern that Andrea was still swearing at DCF personnel.

Counsel for D'Ambra reported that D'Ambra was happy in her foster home and wanted to remain there. She indicated to counsel that she wanted to see her brothers, she wanted to tell Andrea that she loved her, and that she wanted a dog. D'Ambra also indicated that she did not want to be part of Kenneth's life.

Counsel for Xavier, who also served as Xavier's GAL, acknowledged that Xavier shared a bond with his biological parents, that the visits between them go well, and that they love Xavier. However, he supported the TPR, indicating that Xavier needed permanency and safety, and that he would achieve that if he were to remain in the foster home and be adopted. Counsel for Xavier argued that Xavier views the foster home as his home, and his present foster parents as his parents.

Counsel for Xavier expressed his concerns and serious reservations as to Xavier's safety should he be returned to his parents. He questioned whether Andrea and Kenneth had acquired sufficient insight to safely care for Xavier, and pointed out Dr. Randall's testimony where she opined that the risk to Xavier from his biological parents would increase as the child got older . . . He also indicated his concerns that Andrea and Kenneth minimized Jelani's injuries, and that they unfairly blamed Jelani for the family's problems.

Counsel for Xavier argued that Xavier's best interests lay in TPR and adoption. The GAL for Jelani and D'Ambra recommended TPR for his wards, and pointed out that Jelani and D'Ambra needed permanence and closure. The GAL indicated that Jelani was more stable that previously, although he still acted out at times.

The GAL pointed out that Roger, Sr. cannot handle Jelani's needs, and that Roger, Sr. had sent Jelani only 1 or 2 letters. Despite Jelani's interest in seeing his father, Roger, Sr. had failed to maintain contact with him.

The GAL indicated that Andrea had failed to gain insight as a result of her referrals, specifically as to parenting and mental health, and referenced Hammond's testimony concerning Andrea's depression. He pointed out Andrea's levels of cooperation, as well as the programs that she did complete, and the programs that she failed to complete. He recommended that Andrea not be given any further time in which to attempt rehabilitation.

The GAL questioned Andrea's judgment in marrying Kenneth while there were outstanding abuse allegations pending against him. He expressed his concern that, as a result of Andrea's belief that Kenneth did not sexually abuse Jelani, D'Ambra and Jaelen, if his wards were returned to Andrea, that she would allow Kenneth to have access to them.

The GAL opined that returning his wards to Andrea's care would be detrimental, in that it would trigger Jelani's mental health issues and acerbate his symptoms and cause D'Ambra's issues to resurface.

The GAL reported that Jelani's primary wish was to return to Andrea, even with Kenneth in the home. He stated that Jelani's next wish would be for the TPR, and his third wish was for placement with his maternal aunt Dorian F. The GAL opined that placement with Andrea was not in Jelani's best interests.

In closing, the GAL pointed out that Jelani wishes to have contact with his siblings.

The primary issue in this case, as far as Andrea and Kenneth are concerned, are whether they have, though their classes, therapy and referrals, rehabilitated themselves so that they can reunify with their child/children within a period of time so that it would be in the child/children best interests. The secondary issue is whether the child/children would be safe in the care and custody of the respondent parent/parents. The clear and convincing answer to both questions is, unfortunately, negative.

Dr. Randall, the court appointed evaluator, testified that children who are abused in their home often show impulsivity and anger, characteristics that both Jelani and D'Ambra demonstrated with other children. She also opined that ambivalence in children about their home signifies the existence of negative factors in the home.

In commenting on Andrea's self-reported history of being a domestic violence victim, Dr. Randall also testified that persons involved in domestic violence were themselves tolerant of greater levels of violence, in that they saw violence as a normal part of a relationship, and were more tolerant of domestic violence towards children and others.

At the TPR trial, Dr. Randall recommended against reunification of the children with Andrea or Kenneth. She indicated that Jelani would be subject to further abuse if returned and that he would be unable to handle reunification. She testified that reunification with Andrea would cause Jelani to deteriorate, and would worsen D'Ambra's behaviors. She also opined that, although Andrea could provide good care to Xavier when he was a young child, she would have more difficulty as Xavier grew older and his behaviors became more challenging. Consequently, the risks to Xavier in Andrea's home would increase as he grew older.

As to Andrea's claim that she would be willing to cooperate with DCF in order to reunify with Xavier, Dr. Randall opined that it was unlikely to happen.

This court agrees with Dr. Randall.

Dr. Randall acknowledged that Andrea had made some progress towards her goals, but that she would need long-term therapy, and that she lacked insight into her psychological issues. However, Dr. Randall testified that her prognosis as to whether Andrea would make adequate progress to enable her to parent was poor.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that the children have a bond with the respondent mother. It also shows that Xavier has a bond with Kenneth, and that Jelani has positive thoughts concerning Roger, Sr. However, the Appellate Court has allowed TPR in the face of a strong relationship between respondent parent and child if TPR is in the best interests of the child. In re Rachel J., 97 Conn.App. 748, 905 A.2d 1271 (2006); In re Tyqwane V., supra, 85 Conn.App. 535; In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 106, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 903, CT Page 23758 762 A.2d 909 (2000).

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier 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. 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, Xavier's attorney and the GAL and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier are entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of their biological parents as caretakers.

The petitioner DCF has recommended the TPR of Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier. There has been no credible evidence to establish the unreasonableness of this request.

Having balanced Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier's individual and intrinsic needs 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 the children's best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to the respondent parents. Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.

Accordingly, with respect to the best interests of the child 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 Andrea, Kenneth, Roger, Sr. and George as to Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier is in the best interests of the children in question.

ORDER OF TERMINATION

WHEREFORE, after due consideration of Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier's sense of time, their need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship they have with their biological parent and their foster parents, 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 the children's best interests, the court issues the following ORDERS:

That the parental rights of Andrea S. are hereby terminated as to the children Jelani C., D'Ambra W. and Xavier S.

That the parental rights of Kenneth S. are hereby terminated as to the child Xavier S.

That the parental rights of Roger C., Sr. are hereby terminated as to the child Jelani C.

That the parental rights of George M. are hereby terminated as to the child D'Ambra W.

That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Jelani, D'Ambra and Xavier for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or families, or other permanent placement for them.

That a permanency plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.

CT Page 23765

In re Jelani C.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

FACTUAL FINDINGS

ANDREA (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

GEORGE (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

ROGER, SR. (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITION)

JELANI (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

D'AMBRA (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF TUE CHILD AS REQUIRED By CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

XAVIER (INCLUDES PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STATUS OF THE CHILD AS REQUIRED BY CGS § 45a-717(e)(1).)

RELATIVE RESOURCES

SIBLINGS

ADJUDICATION

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO ANDREA PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE-CGS § 17A-112(j)(3)(B)

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

Participate in individual, parenting, family and anger management counseling and make progress toward the identified treatment goals.

Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by the Department.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

No substance abuse.

Do not violate the laws of this state, any other state or the United States.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

Visit the children as often as the Department permits.

Comply with all of the physician's recommendations regarding medication.

Follow recommendation of Dr. Randall or immediately seek relief from the court

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION-Acts OF PARENTAL COMMISSION/OMISSION-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(c)

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO KENNETH

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

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

Accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

No substance abuse.

Do not violate the laws of this state, any other state or the United States.

Cooperate with child's therapy.

Visit the child as often as DCF permits.

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO ROGER, SR. ABANDONMENT — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)

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

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

LACK OF ON-GOING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)

STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AS TO GEORGE ABANDONMENT — CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(A)

PARENTAL FAILURE TO REHABILITATE-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)

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

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

Submit to random drug testing: time and method of the testing shall be at the discretion of DCF.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

No substance abuse.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

Visit the children as often as the Department permits.

LACK OF ON-GOING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP-CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(D)

DISPOSITION

SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS

TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(1)

REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW — CGS § 17a-112(k)(2)

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS — CGS § 17a-112(k)(3)

THE CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(4)

AGES OF THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(k)(5)

PARENTS' EFFORTS TO ADJUST THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(6)

EXTENT TO WHICH THE PARENTS WERE PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(k)(7)

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN — CGS § 17a-112(j)(2)

ORDER OF TERMINATION

In re Jelani C.

In re Jelani C.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citations