2005 Ct. Sup. 6363 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Meggan R.

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Rockville Child Protection Session at Middletown

Apr 13, 2005

2005 Ct. Sup. 6363 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

Opinion

No. T11-CP02-008599-B

April 13, 2005

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

TAYLOR, JUDGE.

This memorandum of decision addresses termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions brought to terminate the parental rights (TPR) of Renee N. (Renee) and David R. (David), the biological mother and father of Meggan R. (Meggan), born 3/8/95, Nancy R. (Nancy), born 11/19/99 and Elizabeth R. (Elizabeth), born 11/19/99.

The court finds the following by clear and convicting evidence:

The history of the file reflects that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has been involved with immediate members of this family since 1996, for issues including physical abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, sexual abuse allegations, inadequate supervision, inappropriate caretakers, inadequate food, substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of parenting skills and unresolved mental health problems. Other evidence presented indicates that DCF and its predecessor incarnation, the Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS) had dealings with the respondent father David since he was a child. David was committed to DCYS custody at age 12 and was placed in various facilities throughout the years including Riverview Hospital on two occasions, Children's Home of Cromwell, State Receiving Home, CREC, Altobello Residential Treatment program and VTAM.

As a result of Public Act 93-91, the agency changed its name to DCF.

In her affidavit of 8/2/02, DCF social work investigator Jessica Fitzgerald made the following accusations concerning the care and situation of the children:

On 7/31/02, a report was received by [DCF], from an anonymous source, alleging neglect, and physical abuse of [Meggan, Elizabeth and Nancy] by [Renee] and [Renee]'s paramour, [Edward]. The report also alleged substance abuse by [Renee] and [Edward]. The caller stated that [Renee] and [Edward] were hitting the children and throwing them around. As a result the children have bruises all over their body, mainly on their backs. The caller stated that the two younger children had diaper rashes because [Renee] doesn't change their diapers. The caller reported that there are pornographic videos near the VCR that the children use. The report stated that [Renee] sells her food stamps for drugs and alcohol, specifically marijuana and crack cocaine. The caller also stated that there is hardly any food in the home. It was further reported that [Edward] is not supposed to live in the home due to sexual abuse allegations regarding Meggan.

This case was assigned to this worker on 7/31/02. This worker reviewed DCF's case records on this family and learned that this family has a history with DCF dating back to 1996 due to physical abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, sexual abuse allegations, inadequate supervision, inappropriate caretakers, inadequate food, substance abuse, domestic violence, and poor parenting skills. DCF has substantiated physical neglect, emotional neglect, and at risk on four occasions since 10/16/96. The record further indicates that [Renee], [David], and [Edward] have a history of failing to comply with services to address the neglect of these children. They have been referred for parenting classes, counseling, and substance abuse evaluations. On 5/7/98, [Renee] was removed as guardian of her oldest child, Christopher N. (Christopher), to maternal grandmother Nancy N. (MGM) because she could no longer care for him, as he had behavioral problems.

[Edward], [Renee]'s paramour, who resides in the home, has a significant criminal history dating back to 1984. The record includes charges of assault, breach of peace, possession of narcotics, sale of narcotics, criminal trespassing, criminal mischief, larceny, burglary, failure to appear, and escape. [Edward] was the subject of both a criminal investigation and DCF investigation for allegations of sexual abuse against [Meggan]. Although Meggan did not disclose sexual abuse to DCF or the police, the Department has new information that Meggan has disclosed to other people, including her [Renee] and [Edward]'s nephew.

[David] has a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues. He has not had contact with the children in approximately one year.

On 7/31/02, Fitzgerald reported to members of the East Hartford Police Department (EHPD) that, during a home visit on 7/30/02, she observed that the twins, Nancy and Elizabeth, had bruises on their bodies. Jessica went on to say that she observed several pornographic videotapes intermingled with the children's Disney tapes next to the television, well within reach of the children. Jessica said that Meggan told her that she has watched the pornographic tapes in the past. Jessica also advised me there was a BB-gun type rifle lying on the floor in the mother's bedroom where it was accessible to the children.

On 7/31/02, Fitzgerald and members of EHPD went to Renee's residence. Sgt. William Spragg of EHPD testified that, inside the residence, he observed that the children's videotapes were mixed in with pornographic videotapes. He also testified that Nancy and Elizabeth had bruises on their bodies and that EHPD took pictures of them.

Spragg's report, which was admitted into evidence, and his testimony, indicated that he found a loaded BB gun on the bedroom floor. Nancy and Elizabeth were asleep in that bedroom at the time.

Spragg testified that Renee admitted striking her children for discipline. His report stated the following:

While at the residence I inspected the twins for evidence of the bruising which the DCF worker had mentioned seeing the previous day. On both twins {Nancy and Elizabeth} I found multiple bruises. A couple of the marks are located in areas you would expect a toddler to have bruising, such as the knees and elbows, but there were bruises on the small of the back and on the biceps and forearms which based on my training and experience are not areas where children fall and injure themselves. I questioned mom, [Renee], about the bruises and she initially said the kids fall down all the time and that is why the marks are there, but she admitted to me that she hits her children as a form of discipline and that it was possible she may have hit them other than on their bottom. Mother went on to say that if she did hit them it was not intentional.

As a result of the DCF investigation, a 96-hour hold was invoked on the children on 7/31/02 at 4:37 PM.

On 8/2/02 in Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, Twelfth District, Hartford (SCJM H12th), DCF filed a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody and a neglect/uncared for petition on behalf of the children. The OTC was granted by the court (Fuger, J.). The neglect/uncared for petition alleged that;

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

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

DCF also alleged that Meggan had been abused and had a condition which was the result of maltreatment such as, but not limited to, malnutrition, sexual molestation, deprivation of necessities, emotional maltreatment or cruel punishment.

Finally, DCF alleged that Nancy and Elizabeth (the twins) were uncared for, in that;

their home could not provide the specialized care which the physical, emotional or mental condition of the twins required.

At the time of the issuance of the OTC, 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 court issued ex parte specific steps for the respondent parents.

On 8/9/02 in SCJM H12th (Brenneman, JTR.), the OTC was sustained. At that time, service was confirmed, David waived defects in service and the respondent parents entered pro forma denials of the neglect/uncared for allegations. Renee and David were also advised of their rights and were represented by counsel. Additionally, the respondent parents also signed the preliminary specific steps on 8/9/02.

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12th (Dannehy, J.), the respondent parents appeared with counsel before the court. Renee entered a nolo contendre plea as to the children on the neglect allegation that the children had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being, while David stood silent. The court accepted the nolo contendre plea and committed the children to the custody of DCF until further order of the court.

Judge Dannehy issued final specific steps for both parents. The memorandum noted that David objected to the step requiring him to take all prescribed medication, and that he also refused to sign the specific steps.

The court also found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home.

On 3/4/03 in SCJM H12th, DCF filed its Motion to Maintain Commitment (MMC) and its Motion to Review Permanency Plan (MRP). The permanency plan (PP) called for the children to be reunified with the respondent mother and for a finding of no further efforts towards reunification with David.

On 6/12/03 in SCJM H12th (Wollenberg, JTR), the court granted the State's MMC. It also approved of the PP and found that continued efforts towards reunification with Renee were appropriate. The court also found that continued efforts towards reunification with David were not appropriate. The court issued new final steps for Renee and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP. The court also granted respondent father's motion to change venue to Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, Eleventh District, Rockville (SCJM T11th).

On 1/29/04 in SCJM T11th, this court granted David's counsel's oral motion for hair testing of the respondent mother Renee.

On 2/5/04 in SCJM T11th, counsel for David filed a motion for hair testing of the respondent mother Renee, following up on his oral motion of 01/29/04.

On 2/23/04 in SCJM, DCF filed its MMC and its MRP. The PP called for TPR and adoption.

On 5/13/04 in SCJM T11th, this court granted the MMC and approved of the PP, which called for TPR and adoption. The court also vacated David's counsel's oral motion for hair testing of the respondent mother Renee, found that continued efforts towards reunification with Renee were not appropriate and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.

On 7/2/04 in SCJM T11, DCF filed the TPR petitions as to the children. DCF alleged failure to rehabilitate as to each child as grounds for both Renee and David.

On 7/30/04 in SCJM T11th, the respondent parents appeared before this court with counsel in reference to the TPR. They waived the advisement of rights and any defects in service and entered pro forma denials. The court-ordered evaluations of the parents and the children, as well as an interactional evaluation.

On 9/1/04 in SCJM T11, DCF filed an ex parte motion for emergency relief requesting that visitation between the children and David be suspended.

On 9/2/04 in SCJM T11, the court (Graziani, J.) granted the ex parte motion for emergency relief and ordered that a copy of the motion and attached documentation be released to Dr. Kelly F. Rogers, Ph.D, the court-ordered evaluator.

Subsequently, this case was ordered referred to Superior Court for Juvenile Matters-Child Protection Session, located in Middletown (CPS) for trial.

On 11/22/04 in CPS, counsel for David filed a motion for continuance of the TPR trial and a motion to withdraw his appearance. On the same date, both motions were granted.

On 01/27/05 in CPS, DCF filed a motion for judicial notice.

On 1/31/05 in CPS, the court granted the State's motion to take judicial notice of the court file, limited to pleadings, petitions, motions, summaries of facts, specific steps, transcripts and court memorandum not related to any judicial pretrials or case status conferences, then commenced trial on the TPR petitions. The trial was concluding on the following day.

At various points throughout the trial, David requested and was granted permission to leave the courtroom due to the upsetting nature of the evidence.

For the reasons stated below, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the TPR issues against Renee and David 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 and its addendum. The court has also reviewed the various motions 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.

In addition to the items mentioned above that the court took judicial notice of in response to the granting of the State's motion, 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.

"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).

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

Renee was born to Nancy N. (MGM) and Michael N. (MGF) on 5/20/74 in Rockville, Ct. She states that her parents were divorced when she was 3 months old. Renee indicated that she had a good relationship with MGM while growing up, that her mother is a support for her and her family as an adult and that they have a close relationship. She stated that MGF did not have a relationship with her until 7 years of age, and then, they did not have regular contact. Renee states that she has a closer relationship with her father as an adult. Renee has one brother and two half-brothers, but she does not have a close relationship with her siblings. Renee indicated that MGM suffers from a substance abuse problem.

Renee stated that she resided in Rhode Island until age 13, and completed most of her elementary education there. She indicated that she then returned to Vernon and attended Vernon Center Middle School and Rockville Regional Adult High School. Renee stated that she attended CNA classes and graduated with a certificate in nursing. She stated that she also began classes at New England Tractor Trailer Training School to get her Class A license but has not completed the program. Renee stated that, prior to her incarceration, she supported herself through employment at Wendy's, state benefits and through the efforts of her paramour, Edward F. (Edward).

Renee reported that she was married to David until 6/00.

Renee stated that she met Edward though mutual friends. She has indicated to DCF that she is no longer in a relationship with him.

Renee testified that she was involved in a conspiracy with other individuals to rob another person. As a result, she was arrested by the Vernon Police Department (VPD) on 2/8/04 and was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the 1st Degree. On 9/24/04, she was convicted of the charge of Accessory To Robbery in the Second Degree and was sentenced to a jail term of 5 years, execution suspended after the service of 2 years, and was placed on probation for 3 years afterwards. Renee has been incarcerated since 2/8/04 and was still incarcerated at the time of the TPR trial at York Correctional Institution(YCI). Her maximum release date is 2/7/06.

At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, Renee stated that she consumed alcohol once per week, drinking approximately a 1/2 pint of Jack Daniels and Coca Cola in a single sitting. Renee admitted to daily cocaine use from 9/03 through 2/04 when she was arrested and incarcerated.

The court assumes the reference to Jack Daniels is to Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey, which is distilled and bottled by Jack Daniel Distillery in Lynchburg, Tenn.

Renee indicated to DCF that she does not believe that she has a problem with anger management. She stated that if she is angry with Edward, she leaves the room and if she is angry with the children, she takes a moment and then deals with the situation. Renee and Edward had a domestic violence altercation in 8/21/03 which resulted in Edward's arrest and subsequent conviction for Breach of Peace in the Second Degree. As a result, a protective order was put in place. On 1/23/04, Edward was arrested for Violation of a Protective Order and was eventually convicted of this charge.

Renee was involved in counseling services at Hockanum Valley Community Council, Inc. (HVCC). During her counseling there, her clinician, who had past dealings with her, informed her that DCF would remain in her life and that she would not be reunified with her children if she was unable to separate from her paramour, Edward.

Renee stated to DCF that her family strengths include a strong bond between the children and herself. She indicated that her favorite thing about her children is that they are extremely intelligent. Renee reported that she feels badly that the children are in placement and that she misses them. She also stated that she is taking this time to work and complete the court-ordered steps.

DCF had assisted Renee in obtaining Section 8 housing and provided her with a security deposit. Renee lost her Section 8 voucher and her housing as a result of her violations of the Section 8 rules and her incarceration.

DCF referred Renee to Genesis and HVCC for substance abuse assessment treatment and random drug screens. She initially complied with the assessment, recommended relapse prevention programs and random drug screens. When DCF re-referred her for drug screens due to a change in her behavior, she failed to comply and to submit to random drug screens. Once incarcerated, Renee admitted to abusing cocaine daily from 9/03-2/04.

Renee participated and successfully completed group and individual parent education through Kidsafe. Renee was able to initially demonstrate appropriate boundaries, parenting, disciplining and limit setting during visitation. However, visits prior to her incarceration were not as successful.

DCF referred Renee to individual counseling and anger management at HVCC. The clinician that facilitated anger management and individual counseling encouraged Renee to prioritize her services to work towards reunification with her children.

Renee has verbalized to DCF that she was untruthful with DCF about her relationship with her paramour, Edward. She told Dr. Rogers, the court-appointed evaluator, that she thought she could continue with her behaviors and still regain custody of her children.

DCF had found Edward residing in her apartment on a number of occasions. This was a violation of her Section 8 program rules. Other concerns included substance abuse, alleged sexual abuse of Meggan by Edward and domestic violence.

On 10/29/03, Renee signed a service agreement (SA) that she would have no contact with Edward. Renee agreed to be consistent and appropriate during visitation, to comply with court-ordered specific steps, and to maintain safe and stable housing. The SA also stated that DCF would continue the regularly scheduled visit on Mondays, which were supervised by Kidsafe, and that DCF would supervise the second visit until 12/29/03. On 12/29/03, the Monday visit would become unsupervised and DCF would continue to supervise the Tuesday visit. DCF further agreed that if Renee continued to comply with the SA, the Tuesday visit would also become unsupervised beginning on 2/15/03. The SA stated that if Renee did not comply with the SA, the Tuesday visit would be eliminated and DCF would file TPR petitions and the second visit would continue to be supervised.

Renee did not comply with the SA and continued to have contact with Edward. She refused to participate in a substance abuse screen. On 7/2/04, DCF filed TPR petitions. As a result of her incarceration, visitation was also reduced to one visit per month.

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

David was born to Pauline R. (PGM) and Gilman R. (PGF) on 8/14/67 in Hartford. The clear and convincing evidence showed that aspects of his childhood home life were horrific. He was removed from his home by DCYS at age 10 and was placed in foster care. Eventually, he was returned home for a brief period of time. As a child, David had many behavioral problems and his parents were not consistent with his treatment. David was committed to the custody of DCYS at age 12. He was placed in numerous state facilities over many years, including Riverview Hospital on two occasions, Children's Home of Cromwell, State Receiving Home, CREC, Altobello Residential treatment program and VTAM.

Ann Tuller, the director of AMPS, testified that, as a result of her previous employment with DCF as a social worker, she was familiar with David and his childhood situation. She testified that, as a child, David was exposed to savage and bestial conduct by PGF, which manifested itself in PGF sexually assaulting PGM on the living room floor of the home with the children present. Tuller testified that this behavior by PGF continued until PGM had to be hospitalized in a mute state.

David has three brothers and one sister, who lives in Maine. He stated that he is very close with all of his siblings.

David received his education in various residential facilities and completed the 11th grade. He indicated that he had been employed at Pizza Hut for 7 months until he had car problems. David is currently employed at Shaw's supermarket.

David stated that his children are good children and that Meggan is very responsible and listens well.

David reported that he did have a criminal history, having been arrested 16-17 years ago.

The court noted that no indication of any convictions were produced by any party.

David stated that he does not drink alcohol. David states his last use of alcohol was 3 months ago and he only had one beer. David denied any current substance abuse.

At the time of the writing of the TPR social study, David indicated a past history of substance abuse, having last used marijuana in 10/01 and having last used cocaine over 10 years ago.

David admitted that he has a problem with authority figures and bureaucracies. Officer David Champagne of the Vernon Police Department (VPD) testified that he was familiar with David from both police contact and from having grown up in Rockville with him. He indicated that David tended to be an angry individual who appeared to look for trouble.

On 8/2/02, DCF referred David to Manchester Behavioral Health for anger management and individual counseling. David's treatment goal was to express his anger and frustration without threatening or losing his composure. While there, he learned strategies to control his anger and frustration. He successfully completed the anger management program and was successfully discharged from counseling services in 2003.

David has stated, throughout DCF's involvement, that he is not a placement resource for his children. David continues to reside in an overcrowded apartment with his brother and his brother's 3 children.

David is very bonded to his children and they enjoy visitation with him.

As a result of physical acting out during the transportation after visitation, the children's therapist recommended that visitation be at the North Central Safe home to reduce the time the children were in the car. David did not approve of this decision. He would continually talk about inappropriate topics such as terminating his parental rights, child support, criminal court, and Renee's incarceration in the presence of the children.

On 9/1/04 in SCJM T11, DCF filed an ex parte motion for emergency relief, requesting that visitation between the children and David be suspended.

On 9/2/04 in SCJM T11, the court (Graziani, J.) granted the ex parte motion for emergency relief and ordered that a copy of the motion and attached documentation by released to Dr. Rogers. DCF offered David biweekly supervised visitation at a public location. On 10/18/04, David left a message requesting visitation with his children. DCF made a referral to AMPS for supervised visitation service.

David has expressed to DCF, service providers, and the court, on a number of occasions, that he was not a reunification resource for said children but that he would like continued visitation with his children.

On 8/2/02, DCF referred David to Manchester Behavioral Health for anger management and individual counseling. David's treatment goal was to express his anger and frustration without threatening or losing his composure. David was successfully discharged from counseling services in 2003 as his treatment goals were reached.

On 8/2/02, DCF referred David to Kidsafe and AMPS for parent education and visitation services. David completed Kidsafe parent education in 2/03 and the facilitator, Lynn Weber, reported that he was an asset to the group. David also received supervised visitation and parent education at AMPS visitation service. AMPS reported that David was very appropriate during visitation and that he set good limits, demonstrated appropriate parenting skills and discipline. AMPS and Kidsafe recommended unsupervised visitation for David. On 3/26/04, David began two-hour unsupervised visitation at his home each week.

On 5/1/04, Meggan was placed in a pre-adoptive placement. On 6/18/04, Nancy and Elizabeth were placed in the pre-adoptive home with Meggan. On 7/9/04, the pre-adoptive placement disrupted and the three children were removed. Nancy and Elizabeth were placed in the North Central Safe Home and Meggan was placed separately in a foster home.

On 7/22/04, Nancy's and Elizabeth's clinician, Lisa Hardcastle, recommended that visitation be decreased as termination of parental rights and adoption was the PP goal. The clinician further recommended that the visitation be moved to the safe home as transportation was a difficult transition for Nancy.

On 8/16/04, David was visiting with the children at the Safe Home and was redirected by the Safe Home staff because he was talking to the children about his dissatisfaction with being ordered to participate in the court-ordered evaluation. David continued to discuss court matters and adult conversation with the children. A staff member informed David that if he continued to speak inappropriately the visit would be ended. David became upset and began pacing in the kitchen. He argued with the staff and stated that they cannot tell him how to interact with his children and cannot decide what is appropriate to tell his children. Staff continued to urge David to calm down but he continued to escalate. David then told Meggan that it was going to be his last visit. He stated that he was going to court and going to sign away his rights. David then left the visit.

On 8/25/04, DCF supervised David's visit at the Safe Home due to his inappropriate behavior the previous week. Elizabeth was not at this scheduled visit as David reported the previous week that he did not wish to continue visitation and she was with a prospective therapeutic foster placement. David was having difficulty engaging with Nancy and Meggan and appeared angry that DCF was supervising his visit. The children engaged David and he began to interact with the children playing on the playscape for approximately 45 minutes. David engaged with the children appropriately and the children responded positively towards his attention. David took continual breaks from playing with the children and paced the edge of the playground and mumbled under his breath.

David became upset that the Safe Home staff offered Meggan and Nancy dinner and they accepted. David typically provided dinner during visitation as the visit was scheduled from 5-7pm. David refused to enter the Safe Home while the children were eating and paced the sidewalk in front of the Safe Home until the children were done eating.

Following dinner, David rejoined the children in the back yard. David immediately complained that he pays child support and has to visit at the Safe Home and the children get brought to Renee in jail. He made negative comments about her incarceration in the presence of the children. David then told Meggan that he has not called her at her foster home because he does not have anything nice to say. DCF intervened and stated that this time is to visit with his children and that if he has concerns we can discuss them at a later time. Despite numerous requestes to discontinue the inappropriate conversations, he continued complaining about the court-ordered psychological evaluation and he stated that he will attend but that he refuses to participate in the evaluation. David was pacing the yard and was getting increasingly agitated. David stated that he was going to be at the DCF Commissioner's office the following day and that he was going to call his attorney. DCF reminded David again that this was not the time nor place for this discussion. David continued to yell about the Court and Department's expectations in the presence of the children. The visit was terminated and children were brought into the Safe Home. As David left the driveway he spun his tires.

As a result of this incident, Meggan was very upset and was crying.

On 9/1/04 in SCJM T11, DCF filed an ex parte motion for emergency relief, requesting that visitation between the children and David be suspended.

On 9/2/04 in SCJM T11, the court (Graziani, J.) granted the ex parte motion for emergency relief and ordered that a copy of the motion and attached documentation be released to Dr. Rogers.

David was upset and initially refused to visit said children if the visit was to be supervised by DCF. On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. He was referred to AMPS.

On 1/14/05, David informed AMPS visitation service that this was going to be his final visit with the children. DCF left a letter for David to contact DCF regarding this matter as there was a visit scheduled for 2/23/05, but he failed to contact DCF regarding this matter.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that David's relationship with DCF in reference to his daughters has been a difficult one.

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

Meggan was born to Renee and David on 3/8/95 in Rockville. She is in regular education and has no known educational problems. Presently, she is in the 4th grade. Meggan does well in school but tends to socialize too much during class.

Meggan was in her first placement from 7/31/02-5/1/04. On 5/1/04, she was placed in a pre-adoptive home. Her sisters Nancy and Elizabeth joined her there on 6/18/04. On 7/7/04, the foster mother stated that she was unable to keep all three children in the home due to extreme behavioral issues and requested their removal. She reported that Meggan and Nancy were particularly aggressive towards each other, that Nancy would have tantrums and during these tantrums, she would harm others that came near her. Nancy and Elizabeth were placed in the North Central Safe Home where they currently remain. Meggan was placed separately in a foster home.

Meggan has stated that she is happy in her current placement.

Meggan is a very intelligent child. She will often attempt to discipline her siblings during visits.

Meggan asks very sophisticated questions about what needs to be done for family reunification. She does not understand the reasons she was placed in foster care but she does understand the purpose of child protection.

Meggan is a very active young girl. She has stated that she enjoys swimming, riding her bikes, singing, and playing outside. Meggan has recently joined a cheerleading squad and participates in weekly games.

Meggan had a physical exam on 10/5/04 and there were no concerns noted.

Meggan has a very close relationship with her siblings. She gets very excited to spend time together during the visits. Meggan attempts to take responsibility to care for Elizabeth and Nancy. If they are arguing or doing something they should not be doing, Meggan will attempt to punish them. She gets frustrated easily when her siblings refuse to engage in role-play when she wants and will tantrum when she feels that her siblings are receiving more attention.

DCF referred all three children to Connecticut Children's Hospital for an evaluation to determine if the children should be placed together and to see what services would be needed for a successful placement.

DCF sought a therapeutic placement for the three children to be placed together but was unsuccessful, due to the behavioral issues and the size of the sibling group. On 8/9/04, the children were presented at a meeting attended by various therapeutic foster care providers.

Nancy and Elizabeth were in the care of their first foster placement from 7/31/02-6/18/04. This foster family learned of the pre-adoptive placement disruption and has offered themselves as a pre-adoptive placement for Nancy and Elizabeth. DCF has been facilitating visits in the home of the foster mother to transition the children back to her home.

The foster family informed DCF that they are willing to send pictures and letters to Renee and David through DCF. They have also agreed to maintain monthly visitation and telephone contact between Meggan, Elizabeth, and Nancy. The pre-adoptive family has also agreed to maintain contact with Christopher, to participate in visitation while he is in DCF's care and to send letters and pictures if he is returned to Renee's care.

On 7/20/04, the children's behavior after visitation with David was unsafe during their transportation back to their respective placements. Meggan and Nancy were hitting and threatening harm on each other. The clinician recommended that the visitation be moved to the safe home as transportation was a difficult transition for Nancy. Visitation was held at the Safe Home. Unfortunately, issues arose during visitation there as a result of inappropriate behavior by David in the presence of the children. The clear and convincing evidence indicated that Meggan was particularly affected by David's behaviors.

The clear and convincing evidence showed that, as a result of the 8/25/04 incident, Meggan was very upset and was crying.

On 7/22/04, Nancy's and Elizabeth's clinician, Lisa Hardcastle, recommended that visitation be decreased as termination of parental rights and adoption was the PP goal.

As a result of David's behaviors during visitation, on 9/1/04 in SCJM T11, DCF filed an ex parte motion for emergency relief, requesting that visitation between the children and David be suspended.

On 9/2/04 in SCJM T11, the court (Graziani, J.) granted the ex parte motion for emergency relief and ordered that a copy of the motion and attached documentation be released to Dr. Rogers.

David was upset and initially refused to visit said children if the visit was to be supervised by DCF. On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. He was referred to AMPS.

After his evaluation of 9/04, Dr. Rogers reported the following:

On the surface, Meggan is a notably agreeable child of even mood and behavior. Psychometric data, bolstered by clinical observations, suggest marked cautiousness and substantial constraint of her feelings in order to maintain this illusion of stability. Underlying this facade appears a troubled child considerably worried about who will provide for her emotionally and practically. Like many children in her circumstances, she seems to feel some role in her situation, and feels that she must maintain her equilibrium in order to garner the support she craves. This constraint inevitably removes her from many of the emotionally formative interchanges in childhood and, ultimately, will make it difficult for her to face the emotional challenges of adulthood.

In his testimony, Dr. Rogers testified that Meggan needed a permanent placement now. He also recommended that Meggan be in counseling.

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

Nancy was born to Renee and David on 11/19/99 in Rockville, Connecticut. Nancy and Elizabeth are twins. Renee stated that Nancy was a quiet baby. Her birth weight was 6 pounds 10 ounces. She began rolling at three months old, walking at eleven months old and speaking at 2 years old.

Nancy is aggressive and more physical than Elizabeth.

Nancy has not had any serious illnesses.

Nancy was at her first placement from 7/31/02-6/18/04. On 6/18/04, Nancy was placed in a pre-adoptive home with Meggan and Elizabeth. On 7/7/04, the foster mother stated that she was unable to keep all three children in the home due to extreme behavioral issues and requested their removal. She reported that Meggan and Nancy were particularly aggressive towards each other, that Nancy would have tantrums and during these tantrums, she would harm others that came near her. Nancy and Elizabeth were placed in the North Central Safe Home where they currently remain. Meggan was placed separately in a foster home.

Nancy's last medical exam was 3/26/04. Nancy is up to date on all immunizations. There were no medical concerns noted. Nancy was diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder by the clinician at the North Central Safe Home and was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by Dr. Davidoff during a psychological evaluation. Nancy currently receives .025 mg of Risperidol. Since she has begun these medications, the frequency of her tantrums has reduced.

Nancy has begun morning kindergarten at Center Road School in Vernon. She is receiving special education services for speech, language and behavior.

DCF referred all three children to Connecticut Children's Hospital for an evaluation to determine if the children should be placed together and what services would be needed for a successful placement.

On 10/22/04, Nancy's behaviors escalated and she began harming staff and other children and was throwing herself on the floor and toys and received bruises from her tantrums. Nancy was hospitalized at St. Raphael's hospital from 10/22/04-11/24/04. Since her release from the hospital the Safe Home has provided one to one support services to Nancy to maintain her safety within their program. Nancy continues to have tantrums but tends to be less impulsive and more easily redirected.

Nancy and Elizabeth were in the care of their first foster placement from 7/31/02-6/18/04. This foster family learned of the pre-adoptive placement disruption and offered themselves as a pre-adoptive placement for Nancy and Elizabeth. DCF has been facilitating visits in the home of the foster mother to transition the children back to her home.

On 7/22/04, Nancy's and Elizabeth's clinician, Lisa Hardcastle, recommended that visitation be decreased as termination of parental rights and adoption was the PP goal.

As a result of David's behaviors during visitation, on 9/1/04 in SCJM T11, DCF filed an ex parte motion for emergency relief, requesting that visitation between the children and David be suspended.

On 9/2/04 in SCJM T11, the court (Graziani, J.) granted the ex parte motion for emergency relief and ordered that a copy of the motion and attached documentation be released to Dr. Rogers.

David was upset and initially refused to visit said children if the visit was to be supervised by DCF. On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. He was referred to AMPS.

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

Elizabeth was born to Renee and David on 11/19/99 in Rockville, Connecticut. Nancy and Elizabeth are twins. Renee stated that Elizabeth was a very interactive infant and babbled a lot. Her birth weight was 6 pounds 2 ounces. She began rolling at 3 months, walking at one year old and speaking at 11 months. Elizabeth speaks more clearly and has a wider vocabulary than Nancy.

Elizabeth has not had any serious illnesses.

Nancy is aggressive and more physical than Elizabeth.

Elizabeth was at her first placement from 7/31/02-6/18/04. On 6/18/04, she was placed in a pre-adoptive home with Meggan and Nancy. On 7/7/04, the foster mother stated that she was unable to keep all three children in the home due to extreme behavioral issues and requested their removal. She reported that Meggan and Nancy were particularly aggressive towards each other, that Nancy would have tantrums and during these tantrums, she would harm others that came near her. Nancy and Elizabeth were placed in the North Central Safe Home where they currently remain. Meggan was placed separately in a foster home.

Elizabeth has begun morning kindergarten at Center Road School in Vernon. She is receiving special education services for speech, language and behavior.

DCF sought therapeutic placements for the three children to be placed together but without success, due to the behavioral issues exhibited and the size of the sibling group. On 8/9/04, the children were presented at a meeting with various therapeutic foster care providers.

The foster family informed DCF that they are willing to send pictures and letters to Renee and David through DCF. They have also agreed to maintain monthly visitation and telephone contact between Meggan, Elizabeth, and Nancy. The pre-adoptive family has also agreed to maintain contact with Christopher and participate in visitation while he is in DCF's care and letters and pictures if he returns to Renee's care.

On 7/20/04, the children's behavior after visitation with David was unsafe during their transportation back to their respective placements. Meggan and Nancy were hitting and threatening harm of each other. The clinician recommended that the visitation be moved to the safe home as transportation was a difficult transition for Nancy. Visitation was held at the Safe Home. Unfortunately, issues arose during visitation there as a result of inappropriate behavior by David in the presence of the children.

On 7/22/04, Nancy's and Elizabeth's clinician, Lisa Hardcastle, recommended that visitation be decreased as termination of parental rights and adoption was the PP goal.

As a result of David's behaviors during visitation, on 9/1/04 in SCJM T11, DCF filed an ex parte motion for emergency relief, requesting that visitation between the children and David be suspended.

On 9/2/04 in SCJM T11, the court (Graziani, J.) granted the ex parte motion for emergency relief and ordered that a copy of the motion and attached documentation be released to Dr. Rogers.

David was upset and initially refused to visit said children if the visit was to be supervised by DCF. On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. He was referred to AMPS.

RELATIVE RESOURCES

The clear and convincing evidence shows that there are no relative resources for placement of the children.

SIBLINGS

The children have an older brother, Christopher, who was born on 4/19/91. He was in the custody of MGM as a result of action in Ellington Probate Court. Prior to 6/29/04, Christopher was in the custody of DCF and was placed in High Meadow.

In the past, DCF has facilitated sibling visits between Christopher and his sisters.

ADJUDICATION

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12 (Dannehy, J.), the court found, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the children had been neglected. After having adjudicated them neglected, the court then committed them to the custody of DCF. 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. "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 . . . grounds for termination of parental rights . . . exists by clear and convincing evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 102, 758 A.2d 863; cert. denied, 254 Conn. 903 (2000); see also In re Brea B., 75 Conn.App. 466, 469-70, 816 A.2d 707 (2003).

In the adjudicatory phase of these proceedings, the court has considered the evidence related to circumstances and events prior to 7/2/04, the date upon which the TPR petitions were filed. With regard to the allegations of failure to achieve rehabilitation brought against the respondent parents, the court has also considered the evidence and testimony 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 both 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." (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 96, 102, 758 A.2d 863, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 903, 762 A.2d 909 (2000).

Practice Book Sec. 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 § 33-3(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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 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." § 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).

"Although [n]either the word reasonable nor the word efforts is . . . 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Mariah S., 61 Conn.App. 248, 255, 763 A.2d 71 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934, 767 A.2d 105 (2001). "[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 Hector L., 53 Conn.App. 359, 372, 730 A.2d 106 (1999). Only "reasonable" efforts are required as "[i]t is axiomatic that the law does not require a useless and futile act." In re Antony R., 54 Conn.App. 463, 476, 735 A.2d 893(1999).

In this case, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate the respondent parents and to maintain contact with the respondent parents.

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF provided the following services to the respondent mother Renee or that the following services were provided to her:

HVCC: domestic violence and substance abuse screening;

Intercommunity Mental Health: counseling;

Genesis Center: substance abuse testing and treatment;

KidSafe: reunification and visitation services and parenting skills classes;

Section 8: housing resources;

DCF: Case management services, including visitation and psychological evaluation

Security deposit for Section 8 housing

Transportation;

DOC: Substance abuse treatment. While in the custody of DOC, Renee completed the Tier I substance abuse treatment program. As of the time of the trial, she was involved in the Marilyn Baker substance abuse program at YCI.

Pursuant to C.G.S. § 18-81, the Commissioner of Correction, not DCF, is responsible for providing "treatment, vocational and academic education" programs to individuals such as Renee when they are incarcerated.

The respondent has offered no basis, in law or reason, for requiring DCF to duplicate counseling or rehabilitation services that are offered to inmates through DOC.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent mother Renee with the children. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 480-82, 771 A.2d 244 (2001).

DCF fulfilled its post-incarceration obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify Renee with her children by providing practicable and appropriate visitation at her place of incarceration. See In re Roshawn R., supra, 51 Conn.App. 56-57.

Generally, while a respondent parent is imprisoned, DCF is effectively excused from providing reunification services other than visitation. See In re Roshawn B., 51 Conn.App. 44, 56-57, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998). For a review of Superior Court cases applying this rule, see In re Destiny Q., Superior Court, Juvenile Matters, Child Protection Session, Docket No. U06-CP98-002230-A (November 19, 2001, Levin, J.).

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

Manchester Behavioral Health: anger management and individual counseling;

HVCC: substance abuse evaluation;

KidSafe: parent education;

AMPS: visitation services;

DCF: case management.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent father David with the children. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 480-82, 771 A.2d 244 (2001).

Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that both Renee and David are still 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. 506; see In re Ebony H., supra, 68 Conn.App. 350.

The court further finds that the clear and convincing evidence presented in this case indicates that both respondent parents were aware of their issues and deficits and had received specific steps. However, the clear and convincing evidence also shows that, despite this notification, the respondent parents remained unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification services.

The 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 the children.

At the time of the issuance of the OTC, on 8/2/02 in SCJM H12 (Fuger, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home.

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12th (Dannehy, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home.

On 6/12/03 in SCJM12th (Wollenberg, JTR.), the court approved of the PP and found that continued efforts towards reunification with Renee were appropriate. The court further found that continued efforts towards reunification with David were not appropriate The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.

On 5/13/04 in SCJM T11th, this court found that continued efforts towards reunification with Renee were not appropriate and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.

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

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that Renee's parental rights should be terminated because she has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As the children 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 the children. Applying the requisite legal standards and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(p), 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 useful role as parent . . . [The statute] requires the trial . . . to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [he] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he] can assume a responsible position in [his] child's life." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 573 (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 (2001); In re Amneris P., 66 Conn.App. 377, 384-85, 784 A.2d 457 (2000).

Section 17a-112(q) establishes that the provisions of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) "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 Renee 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]." In re Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448. See In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 354, 776 A.2d 487 (2001); In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 665. First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study and witnesses' testimony at the TPR trial and prior proceedings, clearly and convincingly establishes that Renee has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which showed that Renee has been unable to achieve her rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee's issues are those of criminal conduct, substance abuse, anger management, physical abuse, domestic violence, and parenting deficits.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that specific steps were originally ordered for Renee ex parte, at the time of the issuance of the OTC on 8/2/02. (Fuger, J.)

On 8/9/02 in SCJM H12th (Brenneman, JTR.), the respondent parents also signed the preliminary specific steps on 8/9/02.

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12th (Dannehy, J.), the court issued final specific steps for both parents. On 6/12/03 in SCJM12th (Wollenberg, JTR.), the court issued new final steps for Renee.

Keep all appointments set by or with the Department. 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 Renee has essentially complied with visitation, missing a supervised visit with the children on 1/14/03.

Renee attended the Treatment Planning Conference (TPC) on 9/13/02 and an Administrative Case Review (ACR) on 3/13/03. She did not attend the ACR on 9/24/03. She participated by teleconference to the ACR on 3/13/04.

Renee did not attend or participate in the ACR on 9/24/04 due to the failure of her correctional counselor to provide her with access to a telephone.

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

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

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee did complete the parent education group through Kidsafe.

Renee participated in an intake for anger management and group counseling at HVCC on 1/9/03. She completed 7 anger management sessions from 9/18/03 through 11/20/03. HVCC reported that Renee had successfully completed the group sessions and recommended individual counseling.

Renee failed to participate in or engage with individual counseling as recommended following her domestic violence altercation with Edward in 8/03.

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

The children have been in placement since 7/31/01; therefore, no in-home services have been offered to Renee. Additionally, Renee has been incarcerated since 2/8/04.

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

Renee participated in a substance abuse evaluation and a segmented hair test at Genesis Center on 8/29/02. The hair test proved negative for substances. The evaluation recommended that Renee participate in a substance abuse early intervention group. She completed the substance abuse treatment group on 12/10/02 and was successfully discharged from Genesis Center on 8/18/03.

On 1/7/04, Renee refused to submit to a hair test but agreed to submit to random urine screens. A referral was made to HVCC for this purpose. HVCC later indicated to DCF that they had contacted Renee for random screens and she had stated that she was unable to attend on the dates requested. On 1/13/04, Renee's telephone was out of service and they were unable to schedule random urines. Prior to her arrest by VPD on 2/8/04, Renee failed to submit to substance abuse screening as required by DCF.

On 2/8/04, Renee was arrested and was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the 1st Degree. Subsequently, she admitted to abusing cocaine from 8/03 up to the time of her arrest.

While in the custody of DOC, Renee completed the Tier I substance abuse treatment program. As of the time of the trial, she was involved in the Marilyn Baker substance abuse program at YCI.

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

Renee attended all requested random drug screens at Genesis Center from 8/29/02 to 8/18/03. She participated in a substance abuse evaluation and a segmented hair test at Genesis Center on 8/29/02. The hair test proved negative for substances. Renee participated in a random urine screen on 12/12/02 that was negative and atypical. Renee participated in a random drug screen on 2/4/03 that was positive for cocaine. A hair test performed on 5/23/03 tested negative for substances. Renee was discharged by the Genesis Center on 8/18/03 as having successfully completed the recommended group and having been randomly screened with multiple negative screens.

On 1/7/04, Renee refused to submit to a hair test but agreed to submit to random urine screens. A referral was made to HVCC for this purpose. HVCC later indicated to DCF that they had contacted Renee for random screens and she had stated that she was unable to attend on the dates requested. On 1/13/04, Renee's telephone was out of service and they were unable to schedule random urines. Prior to her arrest by VPD on 2/8/04, Renee failed to submit to substance abuse screening as required by DCF.

Subsequently, Renee admitted to abusing cocaine from 8/03 up to the time of her arrest.

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

Renee engaged in parenting classes on 9/26/02. Renee attended all scheduled parenting classes at Kidsafe. Kidsafe stated that Renee actively participated in the group sessions and asked appropriate questions.

Renee attended the substance abuse evaluation at Genesis Center. Renee completed her substance abuse evaluation and segmented hair test on 8/29/02. Renee attended her substance abuse classes as recommended by Genesis Center and was discharged by the Genesis Center on 8/18/03 as having successfully completed the recommended group and having been randomly screened with multiple negative screens.

In January 2003, Renee contacted Intercommunity Mental Health for counseling services. They stated that they could not accept Renee at this time, as her children were not in her care. Renee contacted HVCC in Vernon and began counseling services on 1/9/03. HVCC had indicated that Renee participated in 7 group sessions from 9/18/03-11/20/03. Further, they reported that she was able to recognize the mistakes that led up to the removal of her children. HVCC recommended additional individual counseling and Renee requested services. DCF received approval for payment for these services but Renee failed to attend individual counseling.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing.

Renee did submit to an evaluation with Dr. Rogers in 9/04.

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

Renee has complied with this specific step.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee failed to comply with this step. At trial, she testified that she stopped working at Dunkin' Donuts in 1/04.

Additionally, Renee lost her Section 8 housing as a result of her incarceration. Prior to her incarceration, Renee had violated Section 8 regulations by having Edward and other individuals reside with her.

No substance abuse.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee failed to comply with this step. On 2/4/03, Renee tested positive for cocaine. At trial, she testified that she was abusing both alcohol and cocaine from 9/03 through the time of her arrest.

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

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Renee did not comply with this step.

On 2/4/03, Renee tested positive for cocaine.

Renee has admitted to possessing and consuming cocaine on a regular basis between 9/03 and her arrest.

Renee has admitted to conspiring with others to rob another person. Additionally, she testified that she engaged in at least 1 act in furtherance of the conspiracy. She also admitted to conduct making her an accessory to the crime.

Renee was arrested by the Vernon Police Department (VPD) on 2/8/04 and was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the 1st Degree. On 9/24/04, she was convicted of the charge of Accessory To Robbery in the Second Degree and was sentenced to a jail term of 5 years, execution suspended after the service of 2 years and was placed on probation for 3 years afterwards. Renee has been incarcerated since 2/8/04 and was still incarcerated at the time of the TPR trial at York Correctional Institution(YCI). Her maximum release date is 2/7/06.

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 indicates that Renee did not comply with this step. She represented to DCF that she was residing alone, when in actuality, she was living with Edward and with several other persons in her apartment.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Renee complied with this step.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Renee did not comp]y with this step.

Renee has had regular visitation with the children, 2 days per week, 2 hours per visit until 2/2/04. Her visitation was reduced to 1 visit per week as she violated a service agreement by having Edward in her home, not participating in individual counseling, and not participating in substance abuse screens.

Presently, Renee visits with the children 1 time per month at YCI.

This court concludes that Renee has not corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment of Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that, from 11/12/02 and continuing through the time of trial, Renee has not been effectively available to take part in her children's lives, and, based on her criminal conduct, substance abuse, anger management issues, inappropriate choice of paramours, physical abuse, domestic violence, parenting deficits and her failure to engage in and benefit from counseling, she will never be consistently available for these children. When one considers the level of care, patience and discipline that young children require from their caregivers, it is patently clear that Renee is not in a better position to parent her children 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., supra, 53 Conn.App. 367. See In re Vincent D., 65 Conn.App. 658, 670, 783 A.2d 534 (2001) ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by 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. 908, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).

Even if Renee was finally capable of realizing and correcting her problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect her to be able to parent her children at any time in the near future. She has a jail term and a period of probation that she must complete, as well as various referrals and programs that she would need to successfully complete. She would need to establish herself in the community and show, over a substantial period of time, that she has, in fact, conquered the demons which have plagued her. She would have to obtain appropriate housing, adequate employment, and an appreciation of safe, responsible and nurturing parenting skills before reunification could be contemplated. She would need to show that she could stay away from substance abuse and inappropriate paramours. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth's needs for permanence and stability would not allow for this time.

Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the children involved, and given Renee's failure to correct her deviancies, 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 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, Renee has failed to demonstrate that within a reasonable time, considering Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth's ages, needs and special needs, she could assume a responsible position in the children's lives within a reasonable period of time so as to make reunification in the children's best interests.

Another aspect of the clear and convincing evidence as to the issue of rehabilitation concerns Renee's previous substance abuse treatment. On 2/4/03, Renee tested positive for cocaine. Subsequently, she completed a substance abuse program at Genesis Center and was discharged on 8/18/03 as having successfully completed the recommended group and having been randomly screened with multiple negative screens. Shortly after this discharge, Renee resumed substance abuse.

Renee's inability to remain free of illegal substances after having just completed a substance abuse program bodes ill for her chances of remaining substance-free.

The court takes note of Renee's substance abuse treatment while incarcerated and concludes that this treatment, although appropriate and necessary as a beginning step to her personal rehabilitation, is insufficient to show the rehabilitation necessary to safely and responsibly parent her children.

Given the age, sensibility, needs and special needs of the children involved, and given Renee's past failure and present failure to correct her deviancies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that she will be able to achieve rehabilitation from her various issues so as to be able to serve as a safe, responsible and nurturing parent within a reasonable time.

Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth need parents who are able to effectively care for them now. They cannot wait for the remote possibility that Renee might eschew criminal conduct, substance abuse, anger management issues, inappropriate choice of paramours, physical abuse, domestic violence, parenting deficits and her failure to engage in and benefit from counseling and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day. These children cannot wait for their mother to show that she has rehabilitated herself and is ready to assume her parental role. It is fundamental that "in assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent 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." (Citations omitted. 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 Renee has failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112 (j)(3)(B).

Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth are 10 years old, 5 years old and 5 years old, respectively. They have been in foster care since 7/31/02. Meggan shows signs of parentification and may have been a victim of sexual abuse. The twins receive special education services. Nancy's behaviors grew so aggressive and alarming that she was hospitalized at the Hospital of St. Raphael from 10/22/04 through 11/24/04. All are in counseling.

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that ascertaining whether Renee is capable of rehabilitating is not foreseeable within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 353. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed Renee's past failures at personal rehabilitation and her parenting deficits as they relate to her children's need for a safe, responsible and nurturing parent who can meet their requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow Renee further time to rehabilitate herself if that were possible, and to assume a responsible position in the lives of the children would not be in the best interests of Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth.

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

The petitioner State of Connecticut and DCF alleges that David's parental rights should be terminated because he has failed to achieve rehabilitation within the meaning of CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B). As the children have 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 children. Applying the requisite legal standards, and construing the statute in compliance with the mandate of CGS § 17a-112(p), the court finds this issue in favor of the petitioner.

Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion David 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]." In re Sarah Ann K., supra, 57 Conn.App. 448. See In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 354, 776 A.2d 487 (2001); In re Ashley S., supra, 61 Conn.App. 665. First, the credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study and witnesses' testimony at the TPR trial and prior proceedings, clearly and convincingly establishes that David has not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports and the testimony which showed that David has been unable to achieve his rehabilitation.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that David's issues are those of oppositional behavior, anger management, mental health, housing and parenting deficits.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that specific steps were originally ordered for David ex parte, at the time of the issuance of the OTC on 8/2/02 (Fuger, J.).

On 8/9/02 in SCJM H12th (Brenneman, JTR.), the respondent parents also signed the preliminary specific steps on 8/9/02.

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12th (Dannehy, J.), the court issued final specific steps for both parents. David objected to the requirement that he take all prescribed medications and refused to sign the specific steps.

Keep all appointments set by or with the Department. 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, until recently, David had been cooperative with DCF in keeping all scheduled visits. He consistently visited with his children until 9/04, when his visitation was modified by court order. David then indicated that he would not visit his children if the visits were supervised by DCF.

On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. DCF referred him to AMPS for this purpose.

On 1/14/05, David informed AMPS visitation service that this was going to be his final visit with the children. DCF left a letter for David to contact DCF regarding this matter as there was a visit scheduled for 2/23/05, but he failed to contact DCF regarding this matter.

David attended the TPC on 9/13/02 and ACRs on 3/13/03, 9/24/03 and 3/13/04. David did not attend or participate in the ACR on 9/24/04.

David has informed DCF that he refuses to talk to them and will not accept letters sent to his home. DCF has made efforts to contact David to provide him with updates regarding his children, but he has failed to return telephone calls or respond to written correspondence.

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

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

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

On 8/21/02, DCF provided David with the name and telephone number of parenting classes at Manchester Family Development and Kidsafe. David completed an intake with Manchester Family Development on 10/15/02. David stated that he did not have reliable transportation and that he did not want to attend classes in Manchester. DCF provided David with the telephone number for Kidsafe parent education. On 1/9/03, David began parenting classes at Kidsafe and successfully completed the program.

DCF referred David to HVCC for anger management. David attended an evaluation on 9/18/02 at HVCC; however, HVCC indicated that David was not appropriate for their program and referred David to RiverEast. On 10/2/02, DCF provided David with the telephone number to RiverEast and Manchester Behavioral Health for anger management and individual counseling. On 12/23/02 David completed an intake at Manchester Behavioral Health with Robert Sehi. David began the 7-week anger management group on 1/14/03 and successfully completed the program. David began individual counseling with Robert Sehi on 2/3/03. Robert Sehi reports that David was cooperative and actively participated. Robert stated that David has a problem with the court and DCF ordering services.

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

David was involved in supervised visitation through AMPS from 8/28/02 through 3/19/03 and from 11/18/04 through 1/14/05. David was cooperative with AMPS and attended all scheduled visitation until 1/14/05. David also implemented parenting instructions provided by the AMPS staff. AMPS recommended that David transition to unsupervised visitation in 3/03.

Manchester Behavioral Health assisted David with obtaining state medical insurance. Robert Sehi, David's clinician stated that David completed the anger management and then began individual treatment. David requested to return to the anger management group a second time. David's treatment goal was to express his anger and frustration without threatening or losing his composure.

David was successfully discharged from counseling services when this goal was reached. David completed parent education classes at Kidsafe. Lynn Weber, the group facilitator, stated that David provides good insight into the group's conversations and asks appropriate questions. Kidsafe further stated that David was an asset to the group.

On 1/14/05, David informed AMPS visitation service that this was going to be his final visit with the children. DCF left a letter for David to contact DCF regarding this matter as there was a visit scheduled for 2/23/05, but he failed to contact DCF regarding this matter.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing.

David did submit to an evaluation with Dr. Rogers in 9/04.

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

David has complied with this specific step.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

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

He is presently residing in an overcrowded apartment with his brother and his brother's 3 children.

David has previously indicated that he could not be a reunification resource for his children.

David is employed at a local grocery store.

No substance abuse.

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

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

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that David did comply with this step.

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 indicates that David did comply with this step.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that David did not comply with this step.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, until recently, David had been cooperative with DCF in keeping all scheduled visits. He consistently visited with his children until 9/04, when his visitation was modified by court order. David then indicated that he would not visit his children if the visits were supervised by DCF.

On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. DCF referred him to AMPS for this purpose.

On 1/14/05, David informed AMPS visitation service that this was going to be his final visit with the children. DCF left a letter for David to contact DCF regarding this matter as there was a visit scheduled for 2/23/05, but he failed to contact DCF regarding this matter.

David has informed DCF that he refuses to talk to them and will not accept letters sent to his home. DCF has made efforts to contact David to provide him with updates regarding his children, but he has failed to return telephone calls or respond to written correspondence.

This court concludes that David has not corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment of Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth. The clear and convincing evidence reveals that from 11/12/02 and continuing through the time of trial, David has not been effectively available to take part in his children's lives, and, based on his oppositional behavior, anger management issues, inappropriate behaviors during visitation, housing issues, parenting deficits and his failure to engage in and benefit from counseling, he will never be consistently available for these children. When one considers the level of care, patience and discipline that young children require from their caregivers, it is patently clear that David is not in a better position to parent his children now than he was at any other time during these proceedings and that he remains without the qualities necessary to successfully parent them. 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., 65 Conn.App. 658, 670, 783 A.2d 534 (2001) ("[i]n determining whether a parent has achieved sufficient personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in specific expectations ordered by the court or imposed by 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. 908, 508 A.2d 770 (1986).

Although David did complete counseling, the clear and convincing evidence shows that he was unable or unwilling to gain any benefit from it. Despite having undertaken anger management counseling, it is obvious that David still cannot deal with his anger appropriately. His failure or inability to do so results in outbursts in the presence of the children, with attendant adverse affects to them.

The clear and convincing evidence is replete with incidents resulting from David's inability to control himself. During visitation at the safe house in 8/04, David was unable to control his conduct in an appropriate manner. DCF social worker Karen Gorman reported the following in her addendum to the TPR social study, dated 1/27/05:

On 8/16/04, [David] was visiting with the children at the Safe Home and was redirected by the Safe Home staff because he was talking to the children about his dissatisfaction with being ordered to participate in the court-ordered evaluation. [David] continued to discuss court matters and adult conversation with the children. A staff member informed [David] that if he continued to speak inappropriately the visit would be ended. [David] became upset and began pacing in the kitchen. He argued with the staff and stated that they cannot tell him how to interact with his children and cannot decide what is appropriate to tell his children. Staff continued to urge [David] to calm down but he continued to escalate. [David] then told Meggan that it was going to be his last visit. He stated that he was going to court and going to sign away his rights. [David] then left the visit.

On 8/25/04, the Department supervised [David]'s visit at the Safe Home due to his inappropriate behavior the previous week. Elizabeth was not at this scheduled visit as [David] reported the previous week that he did not wish to continue visitation and she was with a prospective therapeutic foster placement. [David] was having difficulty engaging with Nancy and Meggan and appeared angry that the Department was supervising his visit. The children engaged [David] and he began to interact with the children playing on the playscape for approximately 45 minutes. [David] engaged with the children appropriately and the children responded positively towards his attention. [David] took continual breaks from playing with the children and paced the edge of the playground and mumbled under his breath.

[David] became upset that the Safe Home staff offered Meggan and Nancy dinner and they accepted. [David] typically provided dinner during visitation as the visit was scheduled from 5-7pm. [David] refused to enter the Safe Home while the children were eating and paced the sidewalk in front of the Safe Home until the children were done eating.

Following dinner, [David] rejoined the children in the back yard. [David] immediately complained that he pays child support and has to visit at the Safe Home and the children get brought to mother in jail. He made negative comments about Mother's incarceration in the presence of the children. [David] then told Meggan that he has not called her at her foster home because he does not have anything nice to say. The Department intervened and stated that this time is to visit with his children and that if he has concerns we can discuss them at a later time. Despite numerous requested to discontinue [David]'s inappropriate conversations, he continued complaining about the court-ordered psychological evaluation, he stated that he will attend but that he refuses to participate in the evaluation. [David] was pacing the yard and was getting increasingly agitated. [David] stated that he was going to be at the DCF Commissioner's office the following day and that he was going to call his attorney. The Department reminded [David] again that this was not the time nor place for this discussion.

[David] continued to yell about the Court and Department's expectations in the presence of the children. The visit was terminated and children were brought into the Safe Home. As [David] left the driveway he spun his tires. Meggan was very upset and was crying.

David's history of relations with DCF is another source of clear and convincing evidence that he cannot manage his behavior appropriately and put the best interests of the children first, despite having successfully completed counseling and referrals.

In her testimony, Gorman indicated that David was hostile towards and uncooperative with DCF. The clear and convincing evidence shows that, during visitation, he is resistant to redirection from areas which are clearly harmful to the children's best interests. Rather than submit to redirection, David has chosen to forego visits with his children.

In the selected DCF narratives, which were entered into evidence, Gorman reported receiving a telephone call from David on 8/30/02.

[David] stated that he is very frustrated at [DCF] that they put the specific steps in place.[David] was yelling into the voice mail system.[David] stated that his car was not working and he needs to find a new job.[David] stated that with all the services ordered by the court he will have a difficult time finding a job.[David] got angrier throughout the message stating that with the court dates, parenting classes, individual counseling and visits he will not be able to get a job. Then [David] stated that he would love to hear any suggestions the department could offer and hung up.

On 11/1/02, Gorman recorded the following:

SW Investigator, Jessica Fitzgerald received a voicemail message from [David]. He was very angry and stated that he will see her in court on 11/12/02. [David] was yelling and using profanity. He stated that he "doesn't give a fuck what happens to him." He stated that the SWI should step up at court to prove that he does not care about his children. Then he hung up.

On 8/28/03, Gorman recorded the following:

SW received a message left from [David] at 8:30 p.m on 8/28/03. Father was very angry while leaving this message:

"Karen, this is [David]. I'm calling [because] I no longer want unsupervised visits with my kids I want supervised visits [because] I don't trust DCF and don't trust none of you people that work for the god damn state. If you don't like it that's too damn bad. I already called Matt (LaRock) and told him about my decision. You can not force me to have unsupervised visits with my kids and you can not tell me what I can say to my kids or what I can't. If you don't like it is too bad. Ya know, I ain't done nothing and I'm tired of this sh**. I'm waiting for the editor to call me in the [morning] for the Journal Inquirer and if they won't publish my story I will call the Hartford Courant. I'll find someone that will. You can bet on that. I'm real tired of this sh** and I'm not taking it no more. I'm so sick and tired of you people. I'm so sick and tired of the state. You know. Screw This! I don't know what else to say. If you get this message I could care less really. I'm not endangering my kids and I'm not a threat to my kids. Y'all people want to rule my life. What the Fu** did I do wrong. I ain't done nothing wrong. But you know I could understand maybe you people would feel more like helping me and doing something about the program if I was the one that was bitch slapping my kids, right. Whatever. I'm very pissed off and I'm gonna stay pissed off. Don't like it? Too bad. I'm tired of playing fu**ing games with people. This has been going on for over a year and I'm tired of it already. Maybe I better tell them why people are running away from the freakin' state receiving home, probally [because] they are getting beat just like me and my brother were when we were there, yeah, maybe I should call the editor of Windsor."

The message cut off at this time.

On 8/20/04, Gorman recorded the following:

I had a telephone discussion with [David]. I told [David] that I have concerns about the visitation on 8/18/04. [David] stated that he will talk to his children however he wanted and that people cannot tell him how to have his visit. I reminded [David] that it is not appropriate to discuss adult matters in front of the children (such as court, child support, evaluations). I informed [David] that it is not appropriate to tell the children that he will never see them again because he is signing his rights away. I further explained that the children do not completely understand that and that they were upset by his outburst. This worker stated that if [David] is upset about something that he should contact this worker or his attorney. This worker explained that the visitation is not at his home due to safety concerns with the children during transportation and was not meant as a punishment to him. This worker also explained that it was therapeutically recommended to have the visitation in the safe home to reduce transition. [David] stated that he did not care what the therapist thought. [David] stated that no one thinks about him and that he has a car and that he needs to work to pay for his car. He stated that he cannot work because he has to go to court for the evaluation. This worker explained that it is not going to be an ongoing expectation, just two dates at the court. This worker stated that if he continues to be inappropriate that the Department will request that the court suspend visitation.[David] stated that he did not care and continued to be upset stated that he is upset that he has to cooperate with a psychological evaluation. I explained that the purpose is to make service recommendations for that children based on their interactions and family history. [David] continued to yell and stated that his father fought in the war for constitutional rights and he is going to exercise his right to remain silent. I asked [David] if he was going to the visit on 8/25/04. [David] stated that he would and then hung up on this worker.

On 9/7/04, Gorman recorded the following:

SW received a call from [David]. This worker informed Father that the court has granted the visitation to be reduced to one visit per month supervised in a public location. Father stated that he would not visit under those conditions. Father stated that this working relationship (between [him] and this worker) is over and that he has nothing more to say to this worker. He stated that he refuses visitation at this time. Father hung up the telephone without giving this worker an opportunity to offer father a good-bye visit for closure with the children.

SW called [David]'s attorney Matt LaRock to inform him that Father is refusing visitation at this time and that if Father changes his mind that the Department will schedule a visit.

On 9/14/04, Gorman recorded the following:

"This is [David] calling. I enjoyed your little letter. I just wanted to make one thing perfectly clear. I am not refusing to see my daughters or visit them I am refusing to see you people. Ok. So forget about more letters that's not gonna change. Ok. That's it. that's all I have to say. Don't send me more mail or I'm gonna put it return to sender."

On 9/20/04, Gorman recorded the following:

SW received a call from [David]. He stated "Karen, I'm telling you that nothing changed, It's [David]. I guess I'll see you in court, don't forget to thank your Nazi pig friends up there for harassing me again when I go, because I'm still gonna have an attitude when I get there and there is nothing they can do about it because I'm not a criminal, I'm not a hoodlum, I'm not shackled and I got rights so when they harass me like they did last time don't forget to thank them again." Then [David] hung up.

Although the narratives contain exchanges between the respondent father and DCF personnel that are not tinged by David's hostility and oppositionality, the clear and convincing evidence indicates that David's counseling has not gotten him to the level where he can put his feelings aside and deal with DCF with the best interests of his children foremost.

Even if David was finally capable of realizing and correcting his problems, it would be exceedingly rash to expect him to be able to parent his children at any time in the near future. His residence is inadequate for the children's needs. He would need to establish himself in the community and show, over a substantial period of time, that he has, in fact, conquered the demons which have plagued him. He would have to obtain appropriate housing and an appreciation of the need to behave appropriately with the children and with those agencies and persons involved in the children's welfare. He would need to demonstrate safe, responsible and nurturing parenting skills before reunification could be contemplated. Unfortunately, the clear and convincing evidence shows that Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth's needs for permanence and stability would not allow for this time.

Given the age, sensibilities, needs and special needs of the children involved, and given David's failure and/or inability to correct his deviancies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he will 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.

Despite the services that were offered to him, David has failed to demonstrate that within a reasonable time, considering Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth's ages, needs and special needs he could assume a responsible position in the children's lives within a reasonable period of time so as to make reunification in the children's best interests.

Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth need parents who are able to effectively care for them now. They cannot wait for the remote possibility that David might overcome his inadequate housing, anger management issues and his failure to benefit from counseling and acquire sufficient parenting ability to care for them one day. These children cannot wait for their father 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 [children] at issue." (Quotation marks and citation 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 David has failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to C.G.S. § CT Page 6410 17a-112(j)(3)(B).

Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth are 10 years old, 5 years old and 5 years old, respectively. They have been in foster care since 7/31/02. Meggan may have been a victim of sexual abuse. The twins receive special education services. Nancy's behaviors grew so aggressive and alarming that she was hospitalized at the Hospital of St. Raphael from 10/22/04 through 11/24/04. All are in counseling.

Based on all the facts presented in this case, the court finds that ascertaining whether David is capable of rehabilitating is not foreseeable within a reasonable time. In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 353. In reaching this conclusion, the court has analyzed David's past failures at personal rehabilitation and his parenting deficits as they relate to his children's need for a safe, responsible and nurturing parent who can meet their requirements and needs for emotional stability, security, and consistency. The court also notes that David has never held himself out as a placement resource for his children at any time throughout these proceedings.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that to allow David further time to rehabilitate himself, if that were possible, and assume a responsible position in the lives of the children, would not be in the best interests of Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth.

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 Quanitra M., supra, 60 Conn.App. 103; see also In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511 and n15, 613 A.2d 478 (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 parental rights. See In re Jonathon G., supra, 63 Conn.App. 528.

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

This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has provided reasonable efforts in the past to reunify the children with the respondent parents. Those services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that DCF or other agencies provided the following services to Renee:

HVCC: domestic violence and substance abuse screening;

Intercommunity Mental Health: counseling;

Genesis Center: substance abuse testing and treatment;

KidSafe: reunification and visitation services and parenting skills classes;

Section 8: housing resources;

DCF: Case management services, including visitation and psychological evaluation;

Security deposit for Section 8 housing;

Transportation;

DOC: Substance abuse treatment. While in the custody of DOC, Renee completed the Tier I substance abuse treatment program. As of the time of the trial, she was involved in the Marilyn Baker substance abuse program at YCI.

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

Manchester Behavioral Health: anger management and individual counseling;

HVCC: substance abuse evaluation;

KidSafe: parent education;

AMPS: visitation services;

DCF: case management.

Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the respondent parents with their children. In re Antonio M., supra, 56 Conn.App. 547; see also In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 480-82, 771 A.2d 244 (2001).

The 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 the children.

At the time of the issuance of the OTC on 8/2/02 in SCJM H12 (Fuger, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home.

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12th (Dannehy, J.), the court found that DCF was unable to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the children from their home.

On 6/12/03 in SCJM12th (Wollenberg, JTR.), the court approved of the PP and found that continued efforts towards reunification with Renee were appropriate. The court further found that continued efforts towards reunification with David were not appropriate. The court also found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.

On 5/13/04 in SCJM T11th, this court found that continued efforts towards reunification with Renee were not appropriate and found that DCF had made reasonable efforts to achieve the PP.

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 both Renee and David are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as are contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence in this matter that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with the respondent parents.

Based on the clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances present in this case, the court finds that the respondent parents are both unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. § 17a-112(j)(1). In re Ebony H., supra, 68 Conn.App. 348.

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS-CGS § 17a-112(k)(3)

The clear and convincing evidence shows that specific steps were originally ordered for Renee ex parte, at the time of the issuance of the OTC on 8/2/02. (Fuger, J.)

On 8/9/02 in SCJM H12th (Brenneman, JTR.), the respondent parents also signed the preliminary specific steps on 8/9/02.

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12th (Dannehy, J.), the court issued final specific steps for both parents.

On 6/12/03 in SCJM12th (Wollenberg, JTR.), the court issued new final steps for Renee.

Keep all appointments set by or with the Department. 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 Renee has essentially complied with visitation, missing a supervised visit with the children on 1/14/03.

Renee attended the Treatment Planning Conference (TPC) on 9/13/02 and an Administrative Case Review (ACR) on 3/13/03. She did not attend the ACR on 9/24/03. She participated by teleconference to the ACR on 3/13/04.

Renee did not attend or participate the ACR on 9/24/04 due to the failure of her correctional counselor to provide her with access to a telephone.

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

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

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

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee did complete the parent education group through Kidsafe.

Renee participated in an intake for anger management and group counseling at HVCC on 1/9/03. She completed 7 anger management session from 9/18/03 through 11/20/03. HVCC reported that Renee had successfully completed the group sessions and recommended individual counseling.

Renee failed to participate in or engage with individual counseling as recommended following her domestic violence altercation with Edward in 8/03.

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

The children have been in placement since 7/31/01; therefore, no in-home services have been offered to Renee. Additionally, Renee has been incarcerated since 2/8/04.

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

Renee participated in a substance abuse evaluation and a segmented hair test at Genesis Center on 8/29/02. The hair test proved negative for substances. The evaluation recommended that Renee participate in a substance abuse early intervention group. She completed the substance abuse treatment group on 12/10/02 and was successfully discharged from Genesis Center on 8/18/03.

On 1/7/04, Renee refused to submit to a hair test but agreed to submit to random urine screens. A referral was made to HVCC for this purpose. HVCC later indicated to DCF that they had contacted Renee for random screens and she had stated that she was unable to attend on the dates requested. On 1/13/04, Renee's telephone was out of service and they were unable to schedule random urines. Prior to her arrest by VPD on 2/8/04, Renee failed to submit to substance abuse screening as required by DCF.

On 2/8/04, Renee was arrested and was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the 1st Degree. Subsequently, she admitted to abusing cocaine from 8/03 up to the time of her arrest.

While in the custody of DOC, Renee completed the Tier I substance abuse treatment program. As of the time of the trial, she was involved in the Marilyn Baker substance abuse program at YCI.

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

Renee attended all requested random drug screens at Genesis Center from 8/29/02 to 8/18/03. She participated in a substance abuse evaluation and a segmented hair test at Genesis Center on 8/29/02. The hair test proved negative for substances. Renee participated in a random urine screen on 12/12/02 that was negative and atypical. Renee participated in a random drug screen on 2/4/03 that was positive for cocaine. A hair test performed on 5/23/03 tested negative for substances. Renee was discharged by the Genesis Center on 8/18/03 as having successfully completed the recommended group and having been randomly screened with multiple negative screens.

On 1/7/04, Renee refused to submit to a hair test but agreed to submit to random urine screens. A referral was made to HVCC for this purpose. HVCC later indicated to DCF that they had contacted Renee for random screens and she had stated that she was unable to attend on the dates requested. On 1/13/04, Renee's telephone was out of service and they were unable to schedule random urines. Prior to her arrest by VPD on 2/8/04, Renee failed to submit to substance abuse screening as required by DCF.

Subsequently, Renee admitted to abusing cocaine from 9/03 up to the time of her arrest.

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

Renee engaged in parenting classes on 9/26/02. Renee attended all scheduled parenting classes at Kidsafe. Kidsafe stated that Renee actively participated in the group sessions and asked appropriate questions.

Renee attended the substance abuse evaluation at Genesis Center. Renee completed her substance abuse evaluation and segmented hair test on 8/29/02. Renee attended her substance abuse classes as recommended by Genesis Center and was discharged by the Genesis Center on 8/18/03 as having successfully completed the recommended group and having been randomly screened with multiple negative screens.

In January 2003, Renee contacted Intercommunity Mental Health for counseling services. They stated that they could not accept Renee at this time, as her children were not in her care. Renee contacted HVCC in Vernon and began counseling services on 1/9/03. HVCC had indicated that Renee participated in 7 group sessions from 9/18/03-11/20/03. Further, they reported that she was able to recognize the mistakes that led up to the removal of her children. HVCC recommended additional individual counseling and Renee requested services. DCF received approval for payment for these services but Renee failed to attend individual counseling.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing.

Renee did submit to an evaluation with Dr. Rogers in 9/04.

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

Renee has complied with this specific step.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee failed to comply with this step. At trial, she testified that she stopped working at Dunkin' Donuts in 1/04.

Additionally, Renee lost her Section 8 housing as a result of her incarceration. Prior to her incarceration, Renee had violated Section 8 regulations by having Edward and other individuals reside with her.

No substance abuse.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee failed to comply with this step. On 2/4/03, Renee tested positive for cocaine. At trial, she testified that she was abusing both alcohol and cocaine from 9/03 through the time of her arrest.

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

Renee reported to DCF that she was consuming a 1/2 pint of Jack Daniels and Cola-Cola at a single Sitting, 1 time per week.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Renee did not comply with this step.

On 2/4/03, Renee tested positive for cocaine.

Renee has admitted to possessing and consuming cocaine on a regular basis between 9/03 and her arrest.

Renee has admitted to conspiring with others to rob another person. Additionally, she testified that she engaged in at least 1 act in furtherance of the conspiracy. She also admitted to conduct making her an accessory to the crime.

Renee was arrested by the Vernon Police Department (VPD) on 2/8/04 and was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the 1st Degree. On 9/24/04, she was convicted of the charge of Accessory To Robbery in the Second Degree and was sentenced to a jail term of 5 years, execution suspended after the service of 2 years and was placed on probation for 3 years afterwards. Renee has been incarcerated since 2/8/04 and was still incarcerated at the time of the TPR trial at York Correctional Institution(YCI). Her maximum release date is 2/7/06.

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 indicates that Renee did not comply with this step. She represented to DCF that she was residing alone, when in actuality, she was living with Edward and with several other persons in her apartment.

Cooperate with children's therapy.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Renee complied with this step.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Renee did not comply with this step.

Renee has had regular visitation with the children, 2 days per week, 2 hours per visit until 2/2/04. Her visitation was reduced to 1 visit per week as she violated a service agreement by having Edward in her home, not participating in individual counseling, and not participating in substance abuse screens.

Presently, Renee visits with the children 1 time per month at YCI.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that specific steps were originally ordered for David ex parte, at the time of the issuance of the OTC on 8/2/02 (Fuger, J.).

On 8/9/02 in SCJM H12th (Brenneman, JTR.), the respondent parents also signed the preliminary specific steps on 8/9/02.

On 11/12/02 in SCJM H12th (Dannehy, J.), the court issued final specific steps for both parents. David objected to the requirement that he take all prescribed medications and refused to sign the specific steps.

Keep all appointments set by or with the Department. 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, until recently, David had been cooperative with DCF in keeping all scheduled visits. He consistently visited with his children until 9/04, when his visitation was modified by court order. David then indicated that he would not visit his children if the visits were supervised by DCF.

On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. DCF referred him to AMPS for this purpose.

On 1/14/05, David informed AMPS visitation service that this was going to be his final visit with the children. DCF left a letter for David to contact DCF regarding this matter as there was a visit scheduled for 2/23/05, but he failed to contact DCF regarding this matter.

David attended the TPC on 9/13/02 and ACRs on 3/13/03, 9/24/03 and 3/13/04. David did not attend or participate in the ACR on 9/24/04.

David has informed DCF that he refuses to talk to them and will not accept letters sent to his home. DCF has made efforts to contact David to provide him with updates regarding his children, but he has failed to return telephone calls or respond to written correspondence.

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

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

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

On 8/21/02, DCF provided David with the name and telephone number of parenting classes at Manchester Family Development and Kidsafe. David completed an intake with Manchester Family Development on 10/15/02. David stated that he did not have reliable transportation and that he did not want to attend classes in Manchester. DCF provided David with the telephone number for Kidsafe parent education. On 1/9/03, David began parenting classes at Kidsafe and successfully completed the program.

DCF referred David to HVCC for anger management. David attended an evaluation on 9/18/02 at HVCC; however, HVCC indicated that David was not appropriate for their program and referred David to RiverEast. On 10/2/02, DCF provided David with the telephone number to RiverEast and Manchester Behavioral Health for anger management and individual counseling. On 12/23/02 David completed an intake at Manchester Behavioral Health with Robert Sehi. David began the 7-week anger management group on 1/14/03 and successfully completed the program. David began individual counseling with Robert Sehi on 2/3/03. Robert Sehi reports that David was cooperative and actively participated. Robert stated that David has a problem with the court and DCF ordering services.

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

David was involved in supervised visitation through AMPS from 8/28/02 through 3/19/03 and from 11/18/04 through 1/14/05. David was cooperative with AMPS and attended all scheduled visitation until 1/14/05. David also implemented parenting instructions provided by the AMPS staff. AMPS recommended that David transition to unsupervised visitation in 3/03.

Manchester Behavioral Health assisted David with obtaining state medical insurance. Robert Sehi, David's clinician stated that David completed the anger management and then began individual treatment. David requested to return to the anger management group a second time. David's treatment goal was to express his anger and frustration without threatening or losing his composure.

David was successfully discharged from counseling services when this goal was reached. David completed parent education classes at Kidsafe. Lynn Weber, the group facilitator, stated that David provides good insight into the group's conversations and asks appropriate questions. Kidsafe further stated that David was an asset to the group.

On 1/14/05, David informed AMPS visitation service that this was going to be his final visit with the children. DCF left a letter for David to contact DCF regarding this matter as there was a visit scheduled for 2/23/05, but he failed to contact DCF regarding this matter.

Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing.

David did submit to an evaluation with Dr. Rogers in 9/04.

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

David has complied with this specific step.

Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.

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

He is presently residing in an overcrowded apartment with his brother and his brother's 3 children.

David has previously indicated that he could not be a reunification resource for his children. David is employed at a local grocery store.

No substance abuse.

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

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

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that David did comply with this step.

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 indicates that David did comply with this step.

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that David did not comply with this step.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that, until recently, David had been cooperative with DCF in keeping all scheduled visits. He consistently visited with his children until 9/04, when his visitation was modified by court order. David then indicated that he would not visit his children if the visits were supervised by DCF.

On 10/18/04, David requested that visitation resume. DCF referred him to AMPS for this purpose.

On 1/14/05, David informed AMPS visitation service that this was going to be his final visit with the children. DCF left a letter for David to contact DCF regarding this matter as there was a visit scheduled for 2/23/05, but he failed to contact DCF regarding this matter.

David has informed DCF that he refuses to talk to them and will not accept letters sent to his home. DCF has made efforts to contact David to provide him with updates regarding his children, but he has failed to return telephone calls or respond to written correspondence.

THE CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES-CGS § 17a-112(k)(4)

The clear and convincing evidence produced at trial indicates that the children are strongly attached to the respondent parents. Renee and David are their psychological parents.

In his report, Dr. Rogers noted the following:

In spite of their long separation from the biological parents, the children continue to demonstrate a strong attachment to them. This is particularly true for Meggan, who relates to them as her only and true parents. The extent to which the girls' feelings for [David] and [Renee] have been influenced by the recent disruption in their placement is uncertain but, logically, this would be expected to strengthen their connection to the biological parents. Predictably, given their greater time in her care, the girls relate to [Renee] as they would a primary care giving parent. Commensurately, [Renee] demonstrates solid parenting skills and an easy relation with all of the girls. [David] has substantial difficulty separating his resentment with authorities from his interaction with the girls, but it seems clear that he is strongly emotionally attached to them. He conveys his concern and regard for them well and, when he chooses not to focus on outside issues, he can be very positive and nurturing. The girls all respond to him as a positive and valued figure in their lives, and they vie for his attention. Parents and children appear to share a mutual enthusiasm for one another.

AGE OF THE CHILDREN-CGS § 17a-112(k)(5)

Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth are 10 years old, 5 years old and 5 years old, respectively. They have been in foster care since 7/31/02.

PARENTS' EFFORTS TO ADJUST THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES — CGS § 17a-112(k)(6)

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Renee has not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform her conduct to acceptable parental standards. Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth were taken into DCF custody on 7/31/02. Since that date, Renee has still failed to adequately address her various issues. Although she undertook some classes prior to her incarceration, the clear and convincing evidence, including her own testimony, showed that she failed to make any lasting progress in addressing her issues. In fact, her situation worsened due to her substance abuse between 9/03 and her arrest date. Obviously, more treatment and counseling will be necessary before one could entertain any possibility of considering her a safe, responsible and nurturing parent.

Renee was arrested by the Vernon Police Department (VPD) on 2/8/04 and was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Robbery in the 1st Degree. On 9/24/04, she was convicted of the charge of Accessory To Robbery in the Second Degree and was sentenced to a jail term of 5 years, execution suspended after the service of 2 years and was placed on probation for 3 years afterwards. Renee has been incarcerated since 2/8/04 and was still incarcerated at the time of the TPR trial at York Correctional Institution (YCI). Her maximum release date is 2/7/06.

Unfortunately, it is clear that to allow further time for Renee to rehabilitate herself would be detrimental to the best interests of the children.

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that David has not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform his conduct to acceptable parental standards. Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth were taken into DCF custody on 7/31/02. Since that date, David has still been unable to adequately address his various issues. Although he undertook anger management courses during the pendency of this matter, it is painfully obvious that David still lacks the ability to appropriately interact with people concerning his children and that he is still unable to manage his behavior so that it does not adversely affect his children.

Furthermore, the clear and convincing evidence shows that David is not a placement resource for his children. Throughout these proceedings, he has maintained his residence in an apartment which is inadequate for his children. Additionally, he has always indicated to DCF that he would not be able to be a placement resource for his children.

Based on the clear and convincing evidence elicited, it is unreasonable to expect David to be able to make the changes necessary before one could entertain any possibility of considering him a safe, responsible and nurturing parent.

Unfortunately, it is clear that to allow further time for David to rehabilitate himself would be detrimental to the best interests of the children.

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, foster parents or third parties prevented Renee or David from maintaining a relationship with their children, nor did the economic circumstances of the respondent parents prevent such relationships, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.

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 either Renee or David would be in Meggan's, Nancy's or Elizabeth'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 State of Connecticut and 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."

"Termination of parental rights means the complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and the child's parent or parents . . . Termination of parental rights is a most serious and sensitive judicial action. In re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31, 44, 574 A.2d 203 (1990)." (Citation omitted, internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Steven N., 57 Conn.App. 629, 632, 749 A.2d 678 (2000). "[T]he question . . . to be decided in a dispositional phase is whether it is in the best interests of the child to sever the parent-child relationship. That is different from the question of who should have custody of the child if termination of parental rights is determined to be in the best interests of the child. See Practice Book § 33-5." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Carissa K., 55 Conn.App. 768, 776, 740 A.2d 896 (1999). "In making this determination, the trial court can consider all events occurring prior to the date of the dispositional hearing, including those occurring after the filing of the termination petition." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kasheema L., 56 Conn.App. 484, 488, 744 A.2d 441 (2000).

In determining whether termination of either Renee's or David's parental rights would be in Meggan's, Nancy's or Elizabeth'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 environments; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of their relationship 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., supra, 55 Conn.App. 816. In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance Meggan's, Nancy's or Elizabeth's intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their biological parent or 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 Meggan's, Nancy's or Elizabeth's best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with either Renee or David.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Renee's issues are criminal conduct, substance abuse, anger management issues, inappropriate choice of paramours, physical abuse, domestic violence, parenting deficits and her failure to engage in and benefit from counseling.

Renee engaged in parenting classes on 9/26/02. Renee attended all scheduled parenting classes at Kidsafe. Kidsafe stated that Renee actively participated in the group sessions and asked appropriate questions.

Renee attended the substance abuse evaluation at Genesis Center. Renee completed her substance abuse evaluation and segmented hair test on 8/29/02. Renee attended her substance abuse classes as recommended by Genesis Center and was discharged by the Genesis Center on 8/18/03 as having successfully completed the recommended group and having been randomly screened with multiple negative screens.

In January 2003, Renee contacted Intercommunity Mental Health for counseling services. They stated that they could not accept Renee at this time, as her children were not in her care. Renee contacted HVCC in Vernon and began counseling services on 1/9/03. HVCC had indicated that Renee participated in 7 group sessions from 9/18/03-11/20/03. Further, they reported that she was able to recognize the mistakes that led up to the removal of her children. HVCC recommended additional individual counseling and Renee requested services. DCF received approval for payment for these services but Renee failed to attend individual counseling.

On 1/7/04, Renee refused to submit to a hair test but agreed to submit to random urine screens. A referral was made to HVCC for this purpose. HVCC later indicated to DCF that they had contacted Renee for random screens and she had stated that she was unable to attend on the dates requested. On 1/13/04, Renee's telephone was out of service and they were unable to schedule random urines.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that Renee was aware that her continued relationship with Edward negatively impacted her ability to regain and maintain custody of her children. Both clinicians and social workers made this clear to her. Yet, the respondent mother made the rash choice to subordinate her relationship with her children to her relationship with Edward. The evidence is clear that she was provided with many opportunities and resources to aid her in regaining her children. Although the clear and convincing evidence shows that she did avail herself of some of these things, such as parenting classes, visitation, housing assistance and substance abuse treatment, it is equally obvious that she allowed her relationship with Edward to first jeopardize, then ruin her chances of regaining her children.

The court-ordered evaluator, Dr. Rogers, wrote the following about Renee:

[Renee]'s responses to self-report measures reflected a marked effort to portray herself as desperately mentally ill and overwhelmed. The nature and degree of pathology endorsed was in excess of that commonly seen in psychotic illness, and her report was not felt to be a credible account of her present psychological status. Such a pattern of response is sometimes seen in individuals in crisis or, more commonly, in individuals who wish to attract sympathy and succor. These traits were not at all evident in performance-based assays, which showed her to be in relatively good control and without appreciable stress. These seemingly discrepant accounts may both give insight into her present personality functioning.

Data reflect a penitent mien and attitude. She wishes to emphasize that she has erred, and is engaging in considerable self-castigation. Her self-abasement and apparent guilt are likely more based on how she believes that she should feel than as she does, but it seems reasonable to assume that she is acting in accordance with what she feels is right. She readily embraces the term "depression" and endorses any symptoms reminiscent of it. At the same time, she feels quite agitated, with an almost driven quality and considerable need to review and make sense of her experience and course. There was little to suggest, however, that she meets diagnostic criteria for major depression and, at worst, her low mood seems part of a transient adjustment to her circumstances.

Persons with her pattern of scores are often known for their wide fluctuations in feelings and outlook, and are rightly characterized as moody. Most of the time, she is likely Pollyannaish, conveying a strong need to get along and a willingness to compromise her needs and feelings for the general good, or for the comfort and acknowledgement of those around her. She sees herself as much aggrieved, however, and this self-pity episodically stirs some contrary sentiments of anger, resentment and negativism. These will periodically erupt in fits of pique. In light of her reported history of substance abuse, it seems probable that periods of heavy use will prompt such vacillations — particularly those involving disinhibition. While there was nothing to suggest that her substance abuse is presently active, she does show many of the personality characteristics of those at risk for problem use, and her capacity to maintain drug abstinence outside a controlled environment is questionable. Substance use serves as a balm for her feelings of unhappiness and provides some measure of license for her periodic outbursts.

While preoccupied with her failures, there is considerable indication that she is the sort of person prone to behave in ways that lead to occupational and interpersonal failure. Many of the statements that she makes to others, and to herself, tend to perpetuate inadequate or counterproductive action. She may often say, or act as though she deserves mistreatment, but she is nonetheless resentful of it when it occurs. Though often deferent to authority figures, she takes much greater than average umbrage at their direction, and is not beyond acting counter to their direction out of spite. Her opinions tend to be rather fixed, and significant change in her attitudes and actions will be difficult. Her rather substantial capacity for denial will often make it difficult for her to recognize and acknowledge difficulties.

While not an overly needy individual, she does appear passive in her relations, and tends to seek partners who will take responsibility for making the important decisions in her life. This does not mean that she will always agree with their direction, but their vehemence allowing her to assume less of the responsibility for her situation. She is often self-sacrificing in her posture, but much of her attention seems focused on herself, and this will periodically detract from her ability to attend to others and their needs.

As on other self-report instruments, [Renee] has focused on her distress when responding to the CAPI, portraying herself as overwhelmed by unbearable pressures. This strongly biased results, as individuals who are suffering from this level of distress are often unable to cope with the daily challenges of parenting. While her Abuse score on the instrument was well above the cutting score recommended by the test's authors, this datum, in and of itself, cannot be reasonably equated with a higher probability of abuse/neglect in future.

In the summary of his report, Dr. Rogers concluded:

[Renee]'s intellect was not formally assessed, but clinical observations supported at least Average ability. Personality testing and, indeed, interview and clinical examination were complicated by her apparent need to present herself as mentally ill and impaired. This is a relatively unusual bias in a forensic context, but might be seen as an effort to convey a need for assistance, if not latitude. At their core, data reflect a moody individual prone to vary through a wide range of emotions in short periods. Unhappiness is a common experience for her, but by no means pervasive, and there was a strong suggestion that her present "depression," as she labels it, is mostly an adjustment to her unenviable circumstances. She does not appear to meet the diagnostic criteria for Major Depression or any other major affective disorder. A designation of Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood seems appropriate. She likes to get along and be well thought of, but it is her perspective that she is often unrecognized, misconstrued or cheated by life. Individuals with her pattern of results commonly act in ways that draw them into conflict essentially incurring the treatment they purport to dread and reinforcing their view of themselves as victims. A passive style in relationships seems part of this pattern, and it may often be more agreeable for her to be guided by others than to take responsibility for her own action. Her perspectives, however remain relatively resistant to change. Collectively, these could be described as Dependent, Histrionic and Self-Defeating Personality Traits. Substance use, when active, serves as a balm for her upset and as an act of rebellion against a world that is perceived as unfair and uncaring. Equally, it may precipitate other impulsive and antisocial acts.

Although Dr. Kelly acknowledged Renee's solid parenting skills, her easy relation with the children and her capacity to adequately parent the children, he still recommended against placing the children with her, citing the length period of rehabilitation facing Renee and the concern of recidivism:

The term "reasonable period" must be qualified in light of the children's already substantial time outside the home and, essentially, in limbo regarding their permanent placement. The twins' age, and Meggan's reticence made it difficult for them to articulate the effects of protracted reunification efforts followed by a failed pre-adoptive placement, but it would be unusual if this sequence of events did not create apprehension for them. Such insecurity makes it difficult for children of this age to progress in their social and emotional development, and such seems clearly evident in Meggan's case. Their need for stability is dire, and the writer strongly advocates for permanent placement as soon as possible. Neither parent appears in a position to accomplish this. Even were she released from prison today, [Renee] requires extended (9-12 months) residential substance abuse treatment before it would be reasonable to consider placement with her and, even under ideal circumstances, reunification might require an additional 3-6 months of progressive increase in visitation, family counseling, parental coaching and monitoring. As has been argued elsewhere, the mother certainly has the capacity to parent these children adequately, but her history and present personality functioning suggest that she is more likely than not to repeat the actions that created the neglect.

In his testimony, Dr. Rogers opined that, in the evaluation, Renee exaggerated her symptoms of depression as an appeal for leniency. He indicated that she believed that she attempted to present herself as more impaired than she really was, in order to elicit sympathy. He found her reporting prepared and less credible.

In order to ascertain whether Renee would be able to overcome her substance abuse, criminal tendencies and significant parental deficits in order to be a safe, responsible and nurturing parent to the children, it would obviously be necessary to undertake a long-term residential substance abuse treatment program. Following the successful completion of such a program and all aftercare programs, it would further be necessary to observe her in the community for a substantial period of time and to evaluate her to ascertain whether she has made the necessary changes in her lifestyle in order to be a safe, nurturing and responsible parent to Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth. Also, Renee would have to successfully complete any referrals for counseling that are necessary, such as individual counseling. All of this would consume precious time, while the children remained in foster care.

At trial, Dr. Rogers testified that Renee has self-defeating traits. He opined that he found her at greater risk for relapse and that if she were not in a structured setting, she would relapse.

The time needed for Renee to attempt to rehabilitate herself and to attempt to establish herself in the community and as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent is time that Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth cannot spare.

The clear and convincing evidence shows that David's issues encompasses oppositional behavior, anger management, mental health, housing and parenting deficits.

David's difficult and tragic upbringing was mentioned earlier in this opinion. The court has little doubt that his early experiences form the basis for many of his present day difficulties and problems. Unfortunately, these experiences have robbed from him the ability to be a safe, responsible and caring parent.

David's oppositional behaviors and his anger management issues have been treated at Manchester Behavioral Health. However, the clear and convincing evidence shows that David has failed to benefit from this treatment and has subsequently remained angry, oppositional and defiant. This anger continues to flow forth in the children's presence during visitation. David has continued to act out during visitation in the children's presence. He continued to discuss adult topics before these young children. When redirected, he fails to comply with requests. He says hurtful things to the children and in front of the children. He recklessly engages in acts in front of the children which cause them pain.

Dr. Rogers provided some compelling observations of David. He wrote:

[David] was seen on two occasions-for individual evaluation and at the parent/child interaction observation. At both, he was on-time for his appointment. He was casually, but neatly attired in clean clothing of good repair. He appeared of good hygiene. Excepting a slight goatee, he was clean-shaven and had close-cropped hair. His grooming was neat. Speech was markedly pressured. His agitation and vehemence made interview difficult, and he was not readily confined to a particular topic of inquiry. He spoke broadly and dramatically, and often intimated threats against unspecified parties. Affect was a mixture of anxiety, dysphoria, agitation and anger. He was jittery, but exhibited no other specific abnormality in form or rate of movement. He gave no indication of intoxication. He was encouraged to take breaks, but did not, completing written materials in a normal time. Still, he exhibited poor frustration tolerance, and seemed markedly taxed by the modest demands of clinical inquiry. He either refused or failed to answer a variety of questions, and results were consequently limited in scope. He was, however, felt sincere in his representations. Results were judged a valid reflection of his present psychological functioning.

He described his present mood as "bitter" adding, "and that ain't gonna change any time soon." This mood has persisted since his last court date, he said. Asked about depressed mood, he answered obliquely: "I don't remember when. I'm too busy." Most of his worries concern his children and his finances, he said. Sleep is often delayed in onset by rumination.

He claimed no significant hyposomnia. Apart from his irritability, there was little to suggest present or past mania. He denied any history of euphoria, hyperactivity, flight of ideas, grandiosity or over involvement. He said that he "used to" have a bad temper, but no longer. He quipped, "I beat guys, not women and kids." He declined to identify his last fight. He claimed many confrontations with police but, amazingly, denied arrest resulting from these. He denied suicidal ideation or intent . . .

Psychometrics readily confirmed what was evident at interview. This chronically sad and angry man struggles with marked angst and seldom rises to the point at which he is free of his demons. He varies in how he labels his dysphoria, but it is clear that he sees no end to it, and he is constantly preoccupied with identifying and sorting his role in his present circumstances. Simultaneously the victim and the executor of his fate, he vacillates between blaming himself, his fellows and his circumstances. No matter, he is chronically disillusioned and confident in his conclusion that all is rotten.

He attempts to hide his considerable vulnerability beneath a veil of cocky self-assurance, but this is fragile, and even he is beginning to doubt the reality underlying his bravado. His self-esteem appears low. For self-protection and to lessen his self-loathing, he is often preoccupied with the seeming unfairness of his surroundings. This brings about considerable blaming, and at least some measure of denial.

His coping skills appear quite limited and easily overwhelmed, leading to the paroxysms that have often characterized his interpersonal relations. He seems to have little use for or capacity for moderation, and is either withdrawn or fully engaged, even confrontational. Violence is not typical for him, but the power of his emotions makes periodic eruptions likely, and many of them will be aggressive in character.

His ability to introspect is quite limited, and he seems to have a poor notion of why others respond to him as they do. This only exaggerates his sense of being rejected. In all likelihood, few of his relationships have gone well, and he has come to expect interpersonal matters to result in dissatisfaction, if not failure. While he seems to resist close connections as much out of self-protection as preference he is prone to dependency within those relations he chooses, and quite vulnerable and easily led by those few in whom he vests trust. His volatility, lability and persistent distrust give little hope for satisfactory long-term relations, and it does not seem surprising that he has few remaining psychosocial resources on which he can depend.

As at interview, he hints at a history of life trauma. While data were insufficient for diagnosis, this pattern of results is not atypical in adults with a history of untreated Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and this aetiology of his self-protective and defensive posture should be given careful consideration. It is clear that he truly views the world as a place uniformly hostile to him, and he finds it very hard to trust. Control (and safety) is achieved by limiting one's associations and being ever on the lookout for betrayal. Change is difficult in this context, and he can be expected to actively resist it viewing it as a threat. He will tolerate a remarkable degree of emotional pain before seeking assistance.

While he presently denies alcohol or illicit drug abuse, his personality profile is common to those who seek escape in the numbing effects of drugs. His drinking, when active, has an almost self-destructive quality that serves his ever-present Nihilism.

In the summary of his report, Dr. Rogers concluded:

[David]'s intellect was not formally assessed, but clinical observation suggested roughly High Average ability. He was intermittently cooperative with evaluation and clearly much more uncomfortable than most people seen in this context. This limited the scope of inquiry, but it was felt that a reliable impression of his present psychological functioning was obtained. While he works to conceal it beneath a facade of bravado and aggressive posturing, psychometrics showed him to be a sad, even tortured man. He is, most certainly angry, but his anger seems his only way to motivate himself and move away from despair. When not railing at the inequities of his circumstances and the unfair treatment he feels he has received, he readily turns his anger on himself demeaning his ability and worth. He sees little hope, and is increasingly given to a nihilistic outlook and course. His meager emotional resources are readily taxed by the demands of his everyday life, and he is easily overwhelmed usually resulting in some sort of outburst. His chief means of self-control is isolation. His practical and emotional withdrawal from others has afforded him little social insight or social skill, and his inability to successfully engage others only furthers his sense of inadequacy and frustration. He enters into relationships with considerable caution but, once in them, is prone to considerable dependency. Regrettably, his volatility and lability inevitably poison his relations and/or drive others away. To focus on himself and to consider alterations in his perspectives and practices is too threatening to his fragile sense of self and, as such, he strongly resists influence and change. While in considerable emotional pain, he would rather bear this alone than to risk others discovering his vulnerability. Dysthyrnia, or chronic low-level depression, was strongly indicated, and this seems accompanied by Avoidant and Self-Defeating Personality Traits. He gave limited information regarding the nature of his childhood trauma, but many aspects of his presentation and personality testing were consistent with a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and this bears further examination.

The clear and convincing evidence indicates that David still manifests substantial parental deficits. His behavior indicates a lack of a complete understanding of the effects of his behavior upon the children, as well as a dogged refusal to even attempt to change his behavior. His behaviors also show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is unable to put his children's interests before his own. He has not made any changes in his circumstances that would allow him to try to regain custody of the children, including appropriate housing.

Both Renee's and David's parental performances clearly and convincingly show that each lacks the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill a valid parental role. Their inabilities to successfully address their issues in a timely manner and their failures to successfully address their individual parental deficits clearly and convincingly show that it is unlikely that either one will ever be able to conform their behaviors to appropriate norms or be able to serve as a safe, nurturing and responsible parent for their children.

Based upon Renee's and David's behavior and performance so far, this court cannot foresee either respondent parent ever having the ability or the patience to follow the regimen necessary for Meggan or Nancy or Elizabeth to maximize their abilities and achievements.

In his testimony, Dr. Rogers indicated that TPR was in the best interests of Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth.

The children's attorney indicated that the TPR would be in his clients' best interests.

Counsel for the respondent parents both argued that the TPR should not be granted due to the lack of an adoptive home or homes for the children. Counsel for David further argued that adoption was unlikely considering the children's needs and special needs. However, this is not a prerequisite for the court to terminate parental rights. In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528 (2004).

Counsel for the respondent parents both argued that the TPR should not be granted due the strong bond between the respondent parents and the children, claiming that the TPR would not be in the children's best interests. 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 Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App at p. 535; In Re Quanitra M., 60 Conn.App. 106.

Our courts have recognized that "long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development." In re Eden F., supra, 250 Conn. 709. 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 930 (1991); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The court is obliged to agree with the children's attorney and DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth 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 State and DCF have recommended the TPR and adoption of Meggan, Nancy and Elizabeth. There has been absolutely no evidence to establish the unreasonableness of this request.

Having balanced Meggan's and Nancy's and Elizabeth's individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with Renee and David, 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 children 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 Renee and David as to Meggan and Nancy and Elizabeth are in the best interests of the children in question.

ORDER OF TERMINATION

WHEREFORE, after due consideration of Meggan's and Nancy's and Elizabeth's sense of time, their need for a secure and permanent environment, the relationship they have with 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 David R. are hereby terminated as to the children Meggan R. and Nancy R. and Elizabeth R.

That the parental rights of Renee N. are hereby terminated as to the children Meggan R. and Nancy R. and Elizabeth R.

That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for Meggan R. and Nancy R. and Elizabeth R. for the purpose of securing an adoptive family 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.

BY THE COURT,

C. Taylor, J.

In re Meggan R.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

FACTUAL FINDINGS

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

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

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

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

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

RELATIVE RESOURCES

SIBLINGS

ADJUDICATION

LOCATION AND REUNIFICATION EFFORTS

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

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

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

Visit the children as often as DCF permits.

DISPOSITION

SEVEN STATUTORY FINDINGS

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

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS-CGS § 17a-112(k)(3)

AGE 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 Meggan R.

In re Meggan R.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citations