Opinion
No. H12-CP10-013043 A
November 14, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
These actions are brought by The Department of Children and Families ("DCF" or "Petitioner") seeking to terminate the parental rights of the biological mother and the biological father of Mi'Shawn L. (hereinafter referred to as "Mi'Shawn L.," or "child"). The biological mother of this child is Shawna R. (hereinafter referred to as "Shawna R." or "Mother"). The biological father of this child is Michael L., (hereinafter referred to as "Michael L." or "Father").
On 3/9/10, the Department invoked a 96-Hour Hold on behalf of the above-named child. The Orders of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petition were granted on 3/12/10 and the OTC was sustained on 3/19/10. On 7/8/10, Mi'Shawn L. was adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department of Children and Families.
On 3/1/11, DCF filed a permanency plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption, which was approved.
On 7/21/11, a Petition to Terminate the Parental Rights of Shawna R. was filed.
On 5/24/11, the court confirmed service on both parents. Parents were present and advised of their rights, and denials were entered. A CSC was set for 7/25/11 at 9:00 a.m. Thereafter, a trial was set for 10/24/11.
On 10/24/11, the court commenced trial. Both Shawna R. and Michael L. were present.
At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted ten exhibits (A-J); Respondent Mother submitted one exhibit (1); and Respondent Father submitted no exhibits. Two witnesses testified for DCF. No witnesses testified on behalf of the Respondent Mother and Respondent Father.
The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting custody of this child and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.
The grounds of the Petition for TPR as to the biological Mother, Shawna R., and as to biological Father, Michael L., are Failure to Rehabilitate (B1).
The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights, has reviewed the Neglect Petition and the social studies and exhibits that were submitted in evidence. The court has utilized the applicable legal standards in considering the evidence and the testimony of any witnesses.
I FACTUAL FINDINGS A. Background, Facts Substantiating Allegations of Neglect and Termination
Shawna R. came into the care of DCF on 10/30/02 and on 01/9/03 she was adjudicated neglected and committed to the Department. On 10/7/03, a finding was made that further efforts toward reunification were no longer appropriate. Mother has had a tumultuous time in placements and has disrupted from many of them. She was committed delinquent from 8/31/04 until 3/10/06 and was placed in Arlington, MA in Germaine Lawrence Residential Treatment Facility. On 3/27/07 she gave birth to a son, Xavier J. Her CPS history as a parent dates back to 5/11/07 with allegations of physical neglect, emotional neglect and physical abuse. There were also allegations of domestic violence between Mother and father of Xavier, Vincent J. Custody was eventually granted through the Probate Court, to his father and paternal grandmother, Tondra, J.
While Mother was incarcerated, she gave birth to Mi'Shawn L. on 3/6/10. Due to the circumstances, she was not in a position to care for the child. She reported that although she was married, Michael L., and not her husband, was the father of Mi'Shawn L. Michael L. denied being the father. Neither Shawna R.'s husband nor Michael L. was in a position to provide appropriate care for the child and all parties have been involved with issues of substance abuse, mental health, lack of housing, anger management, domestic violence and the criminal justice system.
B. Mother, Shawna R.
Shawna R. had an extremely tumultuous and unstable life as a child (see above). The plan was for her to transition into independent living. A few weeks before her 18th birthday, she signed the Age of Majority Form and a service agreement to continue receiving services from DCF, yet on her 18th birthday, she obtained a pass from St. Agnes Home and refused to return. She went to reside with Vincent and his relatives. Custody of Xavier was eventually granted to his father and to paternal grandmother, Tondra J., through Probate Court.
Shawna R. has good health overall. Her mental health history includes a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety and Depression. She has taken Zoloft and Abilify for her depression. She has occasional difficulty dealing with situational stress, problems or crises and she admits to a suicide attempt in March 2009.
Shawna R. has an extensive substance abuse history. She began smoking angel dust (PCP) when she was fourteen years old and used the drug when she felt stressed. In March 2009, she began having marital problems and over indulged in drinking, PCP and Ecstasy.
Shawna R. and Carl N. were married on 3/24/09 in West Hartford, CT. They separated later that spring and Shawna R. filed for divorce on 3/8/10, the divorce was granted on 3/25/11.
Shawna R. has limited work experience and no military history. Her criminal record includes convictions for Robbery 1 — disposition 06/02/10 (5 years jail; 5 years suspended; 3 years probation); Larceny 5 — disposition 01/07/10 (6 months jail; 6 months suspended; 1 year probation); Assault 3rd — disposition 01/18/11 (1 year jail); she was discharged on 06/21/11.
C. Father, Michael L.
Michael L. did not provide any social history information to DCF.
At the onset of this case, Father questioned his paternity of Mi'Shawn L. and requested a paternity test that subsequently determined that he fathered the child.
Father has a diagnosis of ADHD and Bipolar Disorder. He was participating in individual counseling at Wheeler Clinic, but was not prescribed any medication. He denied a substance abuse history and domestic violence issues. Prior to his incarceration, he was collecting disability, but did not have stable housing.
Michael L. has never been in the military. He has prior arrests for Larceny 3rd Possession of a Controlled Substance and 4 oz. Marijuana; Use of a Motor Vehicle Without Permission; Sexual Assault; Risk of Injury to a Child; and Probation Violations.
He has been incarcerated since March 2010 and on 02/23/11 he was convicted of Carrying a Weapon without a Permit. He was sentenced to 2 years and 1 day of incarceration; his maximum release date is 04/13/12.
D. Child Mi'Shawn L.
Mi'Shawn L. was born on 03/6/10 in New London, CT. At the time of his birth, the identity of his father had not been determined. Mother's husband, Carl N., was identified as the legal father; however, both he and Mother denied his paternity of the child. Mother identified her boyfriend, Michael L., as the putative father. He also questioned the child's paternity and both men were tested. A paternity test later confirmed Michael L. is the Father of Mi'Shawn L. but his name is not on the birth certificate. On 07/08/10, the court dismissed Carl N. from the case.
Mi'Shawn L. was delivered following a full-term pregnancy. He receives coordinated, comprehensive and continuous health care at Blue Hills Family Center.
Mi'Shawn L. is in his third placement in a non-relative DCF foster home. He was discharged from the hospital on 03/9/10 and placed in a two-parent, non-relative foster home in Windsor Locks. The couple lived for six months in Connecticut and six months in the Midwest. The child was removed from the home because the couple returned to the Midwest. On 04/6/10, Mi'Shawn L. was placed in a two-parent, non-relative foster home in Branford. The couple requested his removal, because they had agreed to temporary care. On 06/23/10, Mi'Shawn L. was placed in his current foster home; the foster parents are not interested in adoption.
Mi'Shawn L. has been registered with the Adoption Resource Exchange (ARE) since 04/27/10. During the fall of 2010, a pre-adoptive family resource was identified in Reidsville, North Carolina. Since that time, DCF has been waiting for the relatives to comply with the necessary Interstate Compact requirements to meet licensure.
Mi'Shawn L. has one older sibling, Xavier J. Shortly after the infant came into care, the DCF social worker spoke with Xavier J.'s paternal grandmother regarding sibling visitation. She expressed an interest and indicated that she would contact DCF at a later time for further discussion. A visit between the siblings has never occurred, however, Xavier J. is approved to accompany Mother to her visits with Mi'Shawn L.
E. Relative Resources (1) Maternal grandfather and his wife — Chuck and Wanda D.
On 3/8/10, Mother reported to the DCF social worker at Lawrence and Memorial Hospital that she did not think that maternal grandfather's home was an appropriate living environment for her son.
On 3/8/10, Investigator Curley went to the home and spoke with the couple. The maternal grandfather stated that he might be willing to provide care, but he suggested his sister, Debbie R., might be a better option.
(2) Maternal great aunt — Debbie R.
On 6/8/10, the DCF social worker spoke with Debbie R. and subsequently mailed her a copy of the relative application for possible placement of Mi'Shawn L.; she did not return the application.
(3) Maternal great aunt — Katherine J.
On 6/21/10, the DCF social worker spoke with Katherine J. She expressed an interest in providing kinship care to Mi'Shawn L. and an Interstate Compact request was submitted.
On 9/16/10, DCF was notified by another relative that Katherine was not interested in providing care to Mi'Shawn L. She later confirmed this to be true and DCF withdrew the Interstate request.
(4) Maternal great uncle — Lawrence and his wife. Melissa R.
On 9/16/10, Melissa R. contacted DCF regarding their interest in providing kinship care to Mi'Shawn L. via a transfer of guardianship or adoption. An Interstate Compact request was submitted to North Carolina for an assessment. The family initially expressed an interest in a Subsidized Transfer of Guardian (STOG) and Mother was receptive to that plan. During the Multidisciplinary Assessment for Permanency (MAP) the plan was changed to Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption. The new plan was discussed with the aunt and Mother, and the aunt stated that she and her husband would adopt Mi'Shawn L., if necessary.
On 6/22/11, the social worker traveled with Mi'Shawn L. to Reidsville, North Carolina for a day visit with the relatives. The couple shared that the MAP classes would be completed later than the original date of 8/10/11, and 8/24/11 at the earliest.
The uncle and aunt agreed to travel to Connecticut for another visit with Mi' Shawn L. DCF made travel arrangements and overnight accommodations for a visit on 8/3/11.
On 6/22/11, Mother informed DCF that she did not support the placement of Mi'Shawn L. in North Carolina. She expressed that she wanted to maintain contact with the child and wanted him to develop a relationship with his sibling, Xavier.
(5) Paternal uncle — Aaron E.
In March 2011, Mother identified paternal uncle, Aaron E., as a possible resource for Mi'Shawn L. The DCF social worker mailed the information for relatives to the address provided for Aaron E., but he did not respond. After she was discharged from the Department of Correction, Mother stated that she would contact her uncle and have him contact the DCF social worker as soon as possible.
On 7/7/11, Aaron F. telephoned DCF to express his interest in adopting Mi'Shawn L. and the necessary information was provided. A short time after speaking with the social worker, Aaron F. came to the DCF office and requested the relative application. He stated that he was available to provide care to the child immediately and was interested in a walk through from the licensing unit. On 7/18/11, Mother informed DCF that Aaron E. had changed his mind and would not follow through with kinship care.
(6) Paternal grandmother — Dawn L.
Michael L. identified his mother, Dawn L. as a possible resource, however, she cannot be licensed.
F. Present Situation
Shawna R. was discharged from the Department of Corrections on 6/21/11 and was admitted to the Judah House which offers housing, skills assessments, preemployment training, introduction to job searches on the internet, workplace etiquette, interviewing skills, employment placement and other support services. On 7/1/11, she was asked to leave the program after a disagreement with a staff member. Other programs were pursued by Shawna R. as directed by DCF and her probation officer, but none have been successful. She has not been required to participate in urine screens by her probation officer but has admitted to using marijuana.
Shawna R.'s housing efforts have been unsuccessful. She has not been able to find stable housing as she has inadequate funds and the added liability of a criminal record. She lives occasionally with her father and friends. It does not appear that she is pursuing the services offered by the Access to Recovery Program.
On 10/11/11, Mother came to DCF with a friend, Raven H., who is also well known to the Department. This friend was a hindrance to the orderly discussion of matters between the social worker and Mother. Although Mother started a number of programs and services she has only minimally completed them to the satisfaction of her advisors and staff. Mother has appeared scattered and unable to focus which could make it very difficult for her to parent Mi'Shawn R. independently. Any mother/child program offered was rejected by Mother unless it was located in Hartford.
Shawna R.'s mental health history includes a diagnosis of Bipolar, anxiety disorders and depression as a youth. She was prescribed Zoloft and Abilify while in care, but discontinued the medications after she was discharged. She acknowledged that she does not consistently take the medications.
Mother feels that the visitation reports from Radiance are not truthful and she would like them changed. (See Visitation and other schedules at Exhibit J, pages 7-11; or compliance by Mother as well as Father.)
Father remains incarcerated and is in no position to provide parenting care for Mi'Shawn L. While he has identified relatives in the area who might be interested in being a resource for his son, the limited access to him makes meaningful efforts every difficult, if not impossible. Efforts to obtain information regarding services in which he has participated have been unsuccessful.
Michael L. admits to diagnoses of ADHD and Bipolar disorder. Before his arrest he claimed that he was participating in individual counseling, but was not taking any medication.
Mi'Shawn L. continues to live in the care of his foster mother. Although her intention has not been to provide a permanent placement for him, she has agreed to extend this placement for a longer time as she is aware of DCF efforts and intense interest in adoption by great great maternal uncle, Lawrence R. and his wife, Melissa. It appears that that placement could be imminent as these relatives have completed all the necessary training, CPC documents are in place, reciprocal visits to Connecticut and North Caroline have taken place, and the home study by North Carolina was successfully completed.
II TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION
The court must determine whether the proof provides clear and convincing evidence that a pleaded ground exists to terminate Mother, Shawna R.'s and Father, Michael L.'s rights as of the date of the filing of the petition.
A. Reasonable Efforts Finding
Unless a court has found in an earlier proceeding that efforts to reunify are no longer appropriate, in order to terminate parental rights DCF initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and to reunify the children with their parents, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parents are unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts." C.G.S. Sec. 17a-112(j)(1). "[R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible." In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 748 (2011).
DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with Shawna R. and Michael L.
The reasonable efforts provided by DCF and others have been extraordinary. Time after time services and programs have been offered to Mother only to have her refuse to cooperate or leave the program before it was completed.
Neither Mother nor Father has shown the ability to gain insight into their failings as parents and have proven an inability to rehabilitate and provide the care that the child requires. Father's continued incarceration and the situation in which he finds himself involved at particular facilities makes efforts extraordinarily difficult.
The parents are unwilling or unable to benefit from efforts because they have been unable to show progress in their rehabilitation with regard to mental health, substance abuse, parenting, anger management, and involvement in the criminal justice system. In addition, Mother has been incarcerated for a period of time and may have her probation revoked and be incarcerated once again if she does not participate in following court orders or probation orders.
DCF has been involved with this family since 2002 when Shawna R. was a juvenile; since 2007 upon the birth of her first child; and recently with Mi'Shawn L.'s birth.
Mother and Father have had sporadic attendance at services made available by DCF. They have participated in these programs for a period of time but invariably failed to complete them, and in many cases they have been discharged for lack of compliance.
In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.
B. Grounds for Termination: Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1) — as to biological Mother, Shawna R. and Biological Father, Michael L.The Commissioner has alleged as a ground for termination that Mother and Father have failed to rehabilitate themselves after their child had been adjudicated as neglected. This ground for termination, based upon a prior adjudication of neglect and a failure of personal rehabilitation, is clearly articulated in our statutes. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1) states in part that:
[t]he Superior Court . . . may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that . . . the child under the age of seven years . . . has been found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected . . . and the parent has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child."
Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ". . . [The statute] requires the trial court . . . to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [they] have achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life." (Internal quotation marks omitted). In re Arvahney S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 195, 16 A.3d 1277 (2011) ". . . [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the [parents have] improved [their] ability to manage [their] own life, but rather whether [they have] gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001); In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005).
Whether the age and needs of the child would support allowance of further time for the parents to rehabilitate must also be considered. In re Luis C., supra, 210 Conn. 157, 167-68, 5541 A.2d 722 (1989). The reasonableness of the time period within which rehabilitation is sought to be accomplished is a question of fact for the court. In re Davon M., 16 Conn.App. 693, 696, 548 A.2d 1350 (1988). Also, in determining whether further allowance of a reasonable period of time would promote rehabilitation, a court can consider efforts made since the date of the filing of the petition to terminate parental rights. In re Sarah M., 19 Conn.App. 371, 377, 562 A.2d 566 (1989).
Several aspects of the clear and convincing evidence in this case compel the conclusion that Shawna R. and Michael L. have yet to achieve a sufficient "level of rehabilitation . . . which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their] child's life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Mia M., 127 Conn.App. 363, 376, 14 A.3d 1024 (2011); In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005); In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001). The credible evidence in this case, presented through the TPR social study and exhibits, clearly and convincingly establishes that Shawna R. and Michael L. have not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B1) rehabilitation. The court credits the DCF reports which show that Shawna R. and Michael L. have been unable to achieve their rehabilitation.
Ground B1 — Failure to Rehabilitate as to Child Mi'Shawn L. by biological Mother, Shawna R.
See Section I, Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D and F above.
Shawna R. has a history with the Department dating back to 2002. As reported above, Mother does not have her older child, Xavier L. in her care.
Specific steps ordered by the court on 7/8/10 to facilitate the return of Mi'Shawn L. to Mother, Shawna R., have not been complied with.
Shawna R. will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of her child within a reasonable time period. Since the time of the child's removal, Mother has not adequately addressed her substance abuse needs, mental health needs, and has been involved with the criminal justice system. She has had the benefit of DCF intervention beginning in November 2007, with no demonstrated change in behavior.
Mi'Shawn L. is a eighteen-month-old male who requires a safe and stable home environment free of domestic violence and that has a sober and competent caregiver. He has been thriving while in foster care and does not have any specialized needs. He is placed with non-relatives who are not willing to adopt him but adoption by relatives in North Carolina is a very strong possibility.
Mi'Shawn L. is in need of a permanent home where he can continue to flourish and grow. His relatives in North Carolina are committed to ensuring that he is in a safe, loving and consistent home.
Ground B1 — Failure to Rehabilitate with Child Mi'Shawn L. as to Biological Father, Michael L.
See Section I, Factual Findings, Paragraphs A, B, C, D and F, above.
Child, Mi'Shawn L., was committed to the care of the Department following his birth at which time Mother was incarcerated. Father was residing with relatives, but did not have permanent housing and was in no position to parent the child.
On 5/27/10, paternity tests results confirmed that Michael L. is the Father of Mi'Shawn L.
At the time of adjudication, the presenting problem was that Father has an extensive criminal history dating back to 2003 with convictions for Possession of Narcotics, Larceny 1 and 3; Probation Violation; Use of a Motor Vehicle without Permission; Risk of Injury; Sexual Assault 2; Possession of Drugs/MRHNA; Tampering with a Motor Vehicle; and Larceny 2 and 4. On 4/14/10, Michael L. was arrested for Carrying a Pistol Without Permit; Criminal Possession of Pistol; Illegal Discharge of Firearm; Reckless Endangerment 1st Degree and Assault 3rd Degree. He was incarcerated with pending charges stemming from the 4/14/10 arrest. On 2/23/11 he was sentenced to 731 Days in jail for Carrying a Pistol without a Permit.
On 7/8/10, the court issued final specific steps to facilitate the return of Mi'Shawn L. to Michael L. but he has been non-compliant.
Initially, Michael L. was unable to take advantage of services offered by the Department of Corrections, as individuals are not eligible for some services before being sentenced. At Cheshire Correctional Facility, Michael is not in the general population. He was able to participate in religious programs, but did not have access to any other services. His housing assignment is reviewed periodically. Michael L.'s maximum release date is 4/13/12. His criminal activities have precluded him from addressing presenting issues of mental health and housing.
Father will not be able to assume a responsible position in the life of his son within a reasonable time period.
Mi'Shawn L. is in need of a permanent, nurturing home where he can grow into a healthy, happy, productive individual.
Summary of Adjudicatory Findings
This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence: Mother, Shawna R., and Father, Michael L., have failed to rehabilitate after a prior court finding of their having neglected Mi'Shawn L.
III DISPOSITION
Except in the case where termination is based on consent, if grounds have been found to terminate parental rights applying the appropriate standard of proof, the court must then consider whether the facts as of the last day of trial establish, by clear and convincing evidence after consideration of the factors enumerated in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k), that termination is in the child's best interest. If the court does find that termination is in the child's best interest, an order will enter terminating parental rights.
A. C.G.S. § 17a-112(k) Criteria
The court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory grounds alleged by DCF for the termination of parental rights have been proven.
Before making a decision whether or not to terminate Shawna R.'s and Michael L.'s parental rights, as they did not consent, the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k). In re Shawn B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 212-13, A.2d 276 (2006); In re Ashley M., 82 Conn.App. 66, 70, 842 A.2d 627 (2007); In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 355, 641 A.2d 378 (1994).
These criteria and this court's findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
1. "The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered or provided to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent."This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Mi'Shawn L. with his parents. Services were ordered in a timely manner and were appropriate for the circumstances at hand.
Considered carefully, the clear and convincing evidence shows that DCF offered timely, appropriate and comprehensive services to the respondent parents to facilitate their reunification with their child and made reasonable efforts to reunite them with their child. In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 258-60, 829 A.2d 855 (2003).
Based on this clear and convincing evidence of the circumstances now present in this case, the court finds that Shawna R. and Michael L. are unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. CGS § 17a-112(j)(1). Their serious issues clearly and convincingly make them unable and/or unwilling to benefit from reasonable reunification efforts. In re Tyqwane V., 85 Conn.App. 528, 535-36, 857 A.2d 963 (2004).
Shawna R. and Michael L. have been provided with many services to rehabilitate and return Mi'Shawn L. to their care and the referrals were made in a timely manner to facilitate a successful reunification. They were referred to services multiple times to encourage cooperation. Father's incarceration has made efforts extremely difficult.
2. "Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended."
This court finds that the clear and convincing evidence in this matter proves that the child's parents are presently unable and/or unwilling to benefit from such reunification services as was contemplated by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.
DCF has previously offered multiple services to Mother and Father, to the extent possible. DCF has made reasonable efforts to maintain contact with both parents.
3. "The terms of any court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all the parties have fulfilled their obligations of such order."The clear and convincing evidence indicates that Mother and Father have failed to fully comply with most of the steps ordered by the court.
4. "The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to his parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties."The child has been able to exhibit limited bonding with his parents, due to his parents' substance abuse, incarceration, and reluctance to accept their roles as parents. He has developed a strong bond with his foster parents with whom he has lived for some time. Relatives in North Carolina have expressed a desire to adopt him.
5. "The age of the children."
Mi'Shawn L. is 20 months old.
6. "The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to such child's home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent provided that the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child."The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parents have not made realistic and sustained efforts to conform their conduct to minimally acceptable parental standards.
The clear and convincing evidence indicates that the parents have failed to rehabilitate up to the present time and have refused to co-operate with DCF or programs presented.
The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents have not made the changes necessary in their lifestyles that would indicate that they would be safe, responsible and nurturing parents for their child. To permt the child to return to the parents' care would compromise the safety of the child.
7. "The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent."This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no unreasonable conduct by DCF, foster parents, Department of Correction or third parties prevented Shawna R. or Michael L. from maintaining a relationship with their child, nor did their economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the foster care system remained in effect.
B. Best Interest of the Child — C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2)
The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Shawna R.'s and Michael L.'s parental rights to Mi'Shawn L. would be in his best interest. 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, CGS § 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, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 945, 747 A.2d 522 (2000).
In determining whether termination of Shawna R.'s and Michael L.'s parental rights would be in the child's best interest, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of his environment; his length of stay in foster care; the nature of his relationship with his biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with his biological parents. In re Dylan C., 126 Conn.App. 71, 85, 10 A.3d 100 (2011); In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance the child's intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with his parents. In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 658, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010) (the 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 the child's best interest to continue to maintain any legal relationship with his parents.
The clear and convincing evidence also shows that the child's parents have failed to gain insight into becoming safe, nurturing and responsible parents for the child. The clear and convincing evidence shows that their judgment and conduct remains questionable, and has not improved since the child was taken into DCF care.
The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles. Their recalcitrance concerning referrals clearly and convincingly shows that, without commitment to consistent substance abuse treatment, as well as individual, domestic violence and parenting counseling, it is likely that they have extinguished what little chance they ever had to be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for any child.
An additional factor to consider in this case is time. The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates the child's pressing need for permanence and stability. Unfortunately, much time would be required for Mother and Father to show that they have forsaken substance abuse, addressed their issues, undertaken the necessary counseling and succeeded in it, established themselves in the community and shown that they were capable of being safe, nurturing and responsible parents to their child.
Mi'Shawn L. cannot delay his need for permanence and stability in exchange for his parents' uncertain future.
Based upon the parents' behavior and performance so far, this court cannot foresee them ever having the ability or the opportunity to be able to follow the regimen necessary for this child to maximize his abilities and achievements.
The clear and convincing evidence shows that the time needed for the parents to attempt to rehabilitate and establish themselves in the community as safe, nurturing and responsible parents, if that were possible, is time that their child cannot afford.
The parents' performance clearly and convincingly shows that they lack the attributes and characteristics necessary to fulfill valid parental roles. Their conduct clearly and convincingly shows that it is unlikely that they will ever be able to conform their behavior to appropriate norms or be able to serve as safe, nurturing and responsible parents for this child.
Our courts have recognized that "long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development . . ." In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 658, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010); In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). Furthermore, "[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence" when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children. In re Alison M., 127 Conn.App. 197, 221, 15 A.3d 184 (2011); In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (84-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). The court is obliged to agree with DCF and concludes that the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the child is entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of his biological parents as caretakers.
Having balanced the child's individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with his parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the child's best interest cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to his parents. In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 658, 6 A.3d 86, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 920, 10 A.3d 1051 (2010).
Accordingly, with respect to the best interest of the child as contemplated by CGS § 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 Shawna R. and Michael L. as to Mi'Shawn L. is in the best interest of the child in question.
The linchpin to a determination of rehabilitation necessarily includes a finding that the parent can begin parenting within a reasonable period of time. Father remains incarcerated and so any reunification that might be further explored would have to wait for his release which is some time in the future and however long thereafter it may take him to rehabilitate himself so as to be able to provide safe and nurturing parenting to this child, to attend to his developmental needs and provide him with an appropriate home. This would include a substantial period of sobriety, adequate housing, gainful employment, no further involvement with the criminal justice system and an unknown amount of therapeutic services to facilitate a relationship with the child who may well be 2-3 years older before all of these events could conceivably unfold. To allow for such a further additional and significant period of time, easily more than one year for Father to achieve a degree of reasonable rehabilitation, runs counter to our court's long recognized preference for permanency. Indeed, it would result in this young child being raised with not only the specter of upheaval but the goal of such. This the court cannot allow. The question is not simply one of rehabilitation; it is whether the particular needs of the child can be met within a reasonable timeframe. See In re Amneris P., supra, 66 Conn.App. 384-85.
IV CONCLUSION
The court having considered all statutory considerations and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights, further finds upon all the facts and circumstances presented, that it is in Mi'Shawn L.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Shawna R., the biological Mother of the child and Michael L., the biological Father of the child. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to Mi' Shawn L. are hereby terminated.
It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for this child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for this child.
The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, required by state and federal law, which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of this child.