Opinion
H12CP14015365A H12CP14015366A H12CP15015912A
10-11-2016
In re Nevaeh P. [1] In re Imani P., In re Avielle P.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS
Mary-Margaret D. Burgdorff, J.
Before this court is the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) petition filed by the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), in the interests of Nevaeh P. (birth date: March 1, 2012), Imani P. (birthdate: July 31, 2013), and Avielle P. (birthdate: October 13, 2014). By way of procedural history, DCF filed Ex Parte Motions for Orders of Temporary Custody (OTC) as to Nevaeh and Imani on January 8, 2014, and as to Avielle on February 24, 2015. The OTCs as to Nevaeh and Imani were sustained on January 17, 2014 (Dannehy, J.) and as to Avielle, the OTC was sustained on March 6, 2015 (Dannehy, J.). Neglect Petitions were filed in the interests of Nevaeh and Imani on January 8, 2014, and on February 24, 2015 in the interest of Avielle. Said petitions alleged that the children are being denied proper care and attention and are being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being. Nevaeh and Imani were adjudicated as neglected children on March 25, 2014 (Burgdorff, J.) and committed to the care and custody of DCF. Avielle was adjudicated as a neglected child and committed to the care and custody of DCF on April 14, 2015 (Dannehy, J.). The court ordered final specific steps on November 18, 2014 as to Nevaeh and Imani, and March 6, 2015 as to Avielle.
Father's final specific steps included the following; cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of his address; undergo individual and parenting counseling and make progress for the identified treatment goals of addressing safe and nurturing parenting, and trauma history, substance-free safe and nurturing parenting, and no domestic violence; accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF; submit to random drug testing; refrain from illegal drug use and not abuse alcohol or medicine, and refrain from involvement with the criminal justice system; cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing; cooperate with recommended service providers including The Village for Families and Children for parenting/reunification services and couple's counseling and individual therapy, Wheeler Clinic for domestic violence counseling and individual therapy, and the Alumni Program for substance abuse support, Catholic Charities for parenting and substance abuse treatment and testing; sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers; get and maintain adequate housing and legal income; immediately let DCF know about any changes in the make-up of the household; get and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents; attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program; not get involved with the criminal justice system and cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole; take care of the children's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs including keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric or educational providers; make all necessary child-care arrangements to make sure the children are properly supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers; visit the child as often as DCF permits; keep the child in the State of Connecticut while case is going on unless permission is received from DCF or the court to take child out of state and; learn about Imani's specialized medical needs and attend her medical appointments.
Mother's final specific steps included the following: cooperate and keep appointments with DCF and keep the department informed of her address; undergo individual and parenting counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals for mental health, substance-free safe and nurturing parenting, couple's counseling, mental health and no domestic violence; cooperate with recommendations regarding assessment and treatment; refrain from illegal drug use and refrain from abuse of alcohol or medication; accept in-home support services and cooperate with service providers recommended including Catholic Charities for substance abuse treatment and testing, and parenting and individual counseling, Village for Families and Children for parenting/reunification service and couples counseling; cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing; sign releases to enable DCF to communicate with service providers; sign releases for the children; get and maintain adequate housing and legal income; immediately let DCF know about any changes in the household; attend and complete an appropriate domestic violence program; get and/or cooperate with restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan approved by DCF to avoid more domestic violence incidents; keep child in State of Connecticut; visit child as often as DCF permits; do not get involved with criminal justice system and cooperate with Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and follow conditions of probation or parole; take care of the children's physical, educational, medical or emotional needs including keeping the child's appointments with medical or educational providers; make all necessary child care arrangements to make sure child is properly supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers; learn about Imani's specialized medical needs and attend her medical appointments.
DCF filed TPR petitions as to each of the three children on November 17, 2015, alleging that Mother's and Father's parental rights should be terminated on the grounds that they failed to rehabilitate. See C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). Mother was served by way of abode service on December 1, 2015, and Father was served by way of abode service on December 1, 2015. DCF filed a Motion for Technical Correction as to the three petitions on December 16, 2015, to reflect that reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and Father were not required because the court approved a permanency plan other than reunification in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-111b. The court granted the motion December 17, 2015 (Dannehy, J.). DCF filed a subsequent Motion for Technical Correction on June 2, 2016 as to the petitions filed on behalf of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle to reflect that reasonable efforts to locate Mother and Father were made by DCF. The court granted the motion on June 17, 2016 (Burgdorff, J.).
The respondents are Ann Marie G. (Mother) and Nelson P. (Father). Mother and Father were married at the time of the birth of each of the children. There are no other custody proceedings affecting the children. The respondent parents were properly served. Mother and Father appeared, were advised and appointed counsel. The children were appointed an attorney. The Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable as Mother and Father reported that they are not members of any identified tribe. The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction and there are no pending actions affecting the custody of the minor child. This matter was tried to the court on June 17, 2016, August 10, 2016, and August 29, 2016. Mother and Father were present with their respective counsel for trial. The children's attorney was present for trial.
The court heard testimony from eleven witnesses who included two DCF social workers, a DCF case aide, a reunification worker from the Village for Children and Families, a licensed marriage and family therapist, a family therapist from My People's Clinic, a psychiatric social worker from Bristol Hospital, a clinical outpatient worker from Bristol Hospital, a Hartford Police Officer, a Bristol Police Officer and Dr. Logan Green, a licensed clinical psychologist. Mother and Father also testified. The court had advised Mother and Father that it would not make an adverse inference for failing to testify. Twenty-six exhibits were entered into evidence as full exhibits.
DCF made an oral motion for judicial notice on June 17, 2016 that was granted by agreement of the parties. The court, therefore, takes judicial notice of the entire court record including the chronology of the proceedings, the filings or submissions of pleadings, petitions, social studies, statements of facts, affidavits, status reports, evaluations, court hearing memoranda and the court's findings, orders, rulings and judgments.
All counsel participated in the examination of the witnesses and closing arguments.
The court has carefully considered the petition, the criteria set forth in the relevant statutes, the applicable case law as well as all of the evidence and testimony presented, the demeanor of Mother and Father, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the evaluation of their testimony with all other testimony and documentary evidence, and the arguments of counsel, according to the standards required by law. The court was able to clearly listen to and observe all of the witnesses and determine the validity, cohesion, and the credibility of their testimony. The court thoroughly reviewed the documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence presented and for the reasons stated below, the court finds in favor of the petitions and hereby terminates the parental rights of the respondent Mother and the respondent Father as to their children Nevaeh P., Imani P. and Avielle P. The court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.
FACTS
Mother
Mother was born on March 3, 1990. Mother was involved with DCF as a child due to maternal grandmother's mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence history.
Mother completed the 10th grade of high school. She attempted to get her high school diploma at another school as well as a certificate in medical assistance but the school closed before she was able to finish.
Mother has engaged in a variety of employment. She worked periodically part-time at Dunkin' Donuts. Most recently she has worked cleaning houses.
Mother was evicted from her home for nonpayment of rent in April 2015. She is currently residing with family members. Mother was referred to supportive housing on April 2, 2015, but could not be placed on the wait list due to her inconsistency in addressing her treatment goals.
Mother has a trauma history which includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, cutting and suicide attempts. Mother reports being sexually abused by a family member at the age of 5 and physically abused by her father and maternal grandfather. Mother ran away from home at the age of 15. Mother received mental health services as a child. She was diagnosed with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was prescribed psychotropic medications. Mother stopped taking her medications when she was 15 years old and commenced using marijuana to self-medicate. Mother also reported using angel dust and alcohol. Mother continued to use marijuana during Nevaeh's pregnancy and Imani's pregnancy. She reported using marijuana when Nevaeh was sleeping and she also reported using drugs and alcohol when her oldest child was removed from her care.
Mother has a significant mental health history including anxiety, depression and anger issues. Mother has a history of cutting herself. She reported cutting herself when her children were removed from her care. She attempted suicide when she was approximately 15 years old resulting in hospitalization. She reported a history of experiencing hallucinations as well as a history of depression. After Imani's birth in 2013, mother was diagnosed with cannabis abuse, depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder with restlessness, irritability, insomnia and anxiety attacks. As an adult, Mother has a history of trauma, abuse and domestic violence with the father of Emily as well as Father.
Mother has four children. In addition to Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle, she is the mother of Emily H., born on January 24, 2008. DCF filed a neglect petition on behalf of Emily on May 13, 2008. Maternal step-grandmother was awarded custody of Emily on December 6, 2012, by the Bristol Probate Court due to allegations of physical neglect, Mother's transient lifestyle, inadequate shelter, substance abuse issues, and sexual abuse of Emily.
Mother met Father in 2009 and they were married in 2012. They are the biological parents of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle.
On August 12, 2013, DCF received a referral reporting that Mother was admitted to the hospital on July 28, 2013, when pregnant with Imani. Mother did not test positive for illegal substances but reported smoking marijuana while pregnant with her. Imani was born prematurely at 27 weeks. Thereafter, as discussed in more detail below, Imani was admitted to CCMC on December 24, 2013, due to respiratory arrest resulting from Mother's and Father's failure to fully comply with Imani's medications and medical appointments. Mother and father failed to refill Imani's diuretic mediation for a one and a half-week period. Imani was diagnosed with pneumonia and bronchitis and she was placed on a ventilator. On January 7, 2014, DCF invoked an administrative hold on behalf of Imani and Nevaeh. Home visits by DCF revealed concerns about the cleanliness of the home, unsafe conditions including leaving the oven on with the door open, and allowing Imani to sleep on the parent's bed beside a large pile of clothing and co-sleeping with the parents after being repeatedly told by DCF not to do so. Mother reported being overwhelmed caring for two small children.
Mother has a history of domestic violence both as a perpetrator and as a victim. Mother's relationship with Emily's father involved domestic violence. Mother admitted to being the aggressor and assaulting him. Mother's relationship with father has also been marked by domestic violence. She has been named the protected party in protection orders with Father named as the aggressor. As the result of a domestic violence incident on July 5, 2013, Father was arrested and charged with Assault 3rd on a pregnant person. A protective order was issued against Father on July 8, 2013. Mother was assaulted by Father in January 2016, resulting in the issuance of another protective order against Father. Father assaulted mother in April 2016. Mother was charged with breach of peace as the result of that incident.
Mother was arrested for breach of peace, second degree and trespassing, third degree on September 8, 2013. Mother was arrested for breach of peace on April 24, 2016 due to a domestic incident with Father. DCF referred Mother to Catholic Charities Intensive Violence Services (IFVS) on February 7, 2014. Mother participated in the services from April 17, 2014 until December 31, 2014. Her participation was inconsistent. At the time of her discharge, her status was satisfactory. Mother was recommended to continue to work on the dynamics of her relationship with Father. Mother reported to DCF in August 2014, that she felt she and Father needed couples counseling. Mother and Father attended couples counseling but were unsuccessfully discharged for not complying with the attendance contract. They then sought the services of a second counselor but attended only briefly.
Mother was referred to Catholic Charities and Family Based Recovery to address her substance abuse issues. Mother addressed her substance abuse issues and was active in her treatment. She successfully completed intensive in-home services, intensive out-patient service, and out-patient services.
DCF referred Mother to Catholic Charities, Family Based Recovery and Bristol Hospital to address her mental health and trauma history. Mother has a history of anxiety and depression, and has not consistently engaged in her mental health treatment. Mother did participate in Catholic Charities Family Based Recovery Program (FBR) from October 2013, to January 2014, but stopped once Nevaeh and Imani were removed from her care. From January 2014 to September 2014, she engaged in treatment at Catholic Charities and attended seven of the scheduled ten sessions. Mother was rereferred for mental health counseling but failed to engage in individual therapy between July 7, 2014, and March 26, 2015. Between March 26, 2016, and July 1, 2015, she participated in only two individual therapy sessions due to relocating to Bristol. She re-engaged in mental health services on May 27, 2015, at Bristol Hospital and was recommended to engage in weekly group and individual therapy. Her last therapy session was on August 31, 2015. She was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), severe Cannabis Use Disorder and was deemed at moderate risk for suicide due to her risk factors of her history of extensive abuse/trauma, past cannabis use and current alcohol use and moderate psychiatric symptoms. She was discharged from Bristol Hospital for lack of attendance. Mother's diagnoses was Axis 1 Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, and PTSD.
Mother participated in reunification services through the Village for Children and Families from December 3, 2014, to February 20, 2015, but was unsuccessfully discharged as she admitted to continuing to co-sleep with Avielle after being advised by the Village of Families and Children and DCF of the dangers of doing so.
On February 25, 2015, Mother participated in a court-ordered psychological evaluation with Dr. Logan Green, a clinical and forensic psychologist, along with Nevaeh and Imani. In his report, Dr. Green diagnosed Mother with PTSD, Cannabis Use Disorder in full remission; Other Specified Personality Disorder, mixed personality features with unaddressed anger and emotional lability, and Adjustment Disorder with depressive effect. Dr. Green ruled out Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. Specifically, Dr. Green noted in his report that Mother " withdraws from, and frequently avoids social interactions because of her pessimistic views of life . . . She also experiences a number of hostile and aggressive impulses . . . She tends to view the word as being threatening . . . She reported a number of symptoms of anxiety that include sleep and concentration difficulties . . . Her anxiety, fearfulness, and depression are associated with her aggressive and hostile feelings . . ." Dr. Green opined in his report that while Mother appears to enjoy her children and have a positive relationship with them, she does not have a good understanding of the children's needs, nor does she have the capacity to meet those needs because her parenting skills are insufficiently developed. He also opined, that at the time of his evaluation, that Mother could develop that capacity if she engaged, with sufficient motivation, in a treatment program that would help her reduce her personal and interpersonal difficulties. Dr. Green noted in his report that Mother's risks at the time of the evaluation were poor parenting skills, environmental instability, mental health problems, and avoidance of interparental conflict resolution. He concluded that " [g]iven the current risk factors and the difficulties with which [Mother] presents, reunification would present too great a risk of adversity for Nevaeh and Imani at this point. Therefore, TPR and Adoption, given these two alternatives, is the one that is in Nevaeh's and Imani's best interest." Notably, Dr. Green reported that Mother does not believe that treatment is necessary and that Mother did not take responsibility for failing to get Imani's prescription refilled nor did she understand what she could have done. Further, he also noted that Mother did not understand the potential danger of co-sleeping. Dr. Green opined that once Mother understood the need for change, sufficient change could be seen in approximately nine to twelve months with sufficient motivation and engagement in treatment along with appropriate pharmacotherapy. He further opined that " it will be clear in four months as to whether [Mother has] been able to involve [herself] in rehabilitation and [has] shown adequate progress. If inadequate progress has not been seen in four months' time, then it is unlikely that [she] will develop minimally adequate parenting capacity with [her] children who are in their critical developmental stages with regard to attachment." Dr. Green noted his impression that Mother's " involvement in therapy is the result of coercion rather than a desire to free [herself of her] negative internal dialogues" and " rehabilitation has not yet taken hold." Further, Dr. Green testified at trial that children in a household where the parents are depressed and untreated will experience issues later in life such as drug use and PTSD. He further noted that the Mother's failure to successfully engage in and make significant progress in her services reinforces her lack of capacity to engage in real change.
Thereafter, Mother was referred to Family Based Recovery, Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), Village for Families and Children/Reunification Services, Village for Families and Children/Therapeutic Family Time and My People's Clinical Services to address her parenting issues. Between February 23, 2015, and May 21, 2015, Mother participated in thirteen out of the twenty-two sessions of the Therapeutic Family Time Program. Mother was referred to My People's Clinical Services (MPCS) for one-on-one parenting and hands-on parenting instruction. She failed to be consistent in addressing her goal of demonstrating the ability to establish and maintain routine and structure during her therapeutic visits with the children. She failed to be consistent in co-parenting with Father as well as in setting appropriate limits and discipline. After the services ended, the provider reported that mother failed to fully demonstrate the ability to maintain safety for the children and has failed to implement the parenting skills provided to her.
Mother has acted appropriately in her interactions with the children on a majority of the visits. However, there continue to be concerns regarding her parental judgment and ability to safely parent the children. Despite receiving parenting instructions, she remains inconsistent in co-parenting with Father, in following through with recommendations, and in supervising all of the children. Mother has failed to implement the parenting skills provided to her in a consistent manner. For example, Mother provided inappropriate food such as candy to the children during visits. Testimony from the observing DCF worker noted that mother expressed that she was providing the candy to " hype up" the children and to " make them rowdy" for the foster parents. She also failed to remove choking hazards from Imani and failed to monitor her food and liquids to prevent choking on them after being repeatedly told to do so, she failed to properly monitor both Nevaeh and Imani while crossing the street, and exercised poor judgment in interactions with the children. During the supervised visits, she promised to bring toys or other activities for the children and failed to do so. Mother has also engaged in inappropriate interactions such as placing a carrot in Nevaeh's nose, biting her on the arm after Nevaeh bit Mother on the arm and teasing Nevaeh with a toy of which she was clearly terrified. Mother failed to provide toys or activities for Imani who was often left to herself and appeared detached during the visits.
Father
Father was born on February 12, 1990. Father was raised by his paternal grandmother. Father did not have a relationship with his biological parents and reported that his father died of a drug overdose in 2007 and his Mother died of a drug overdose in 1997.
Father stopped attending school after the 8th grade as he went to work to support his oldest child. He has not obtained his high school or Generalized Education Degree.
Father reports difficulty in maintaining employment due to his diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Most recently, was employed as a dishwasher until May 2015. He then worked at a supermarket until he was fired.
In addition to Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle, Father has two older children, Jayden V. (birth date: 8/14/05) and Jadel P. (birth date: 5/20/08) who presently reside with their mother and with whom he has regular visitation.
Father's history with DCF as a parent commenced in 2005, due to allegations of physical neglect due to substance abuse issues, inadequate supervision and exposure to domestic violence. In 2010, a report was made by the Hartford police department that Father left Jayden and Jaidiel alone in the home, and assaulted the children's mother.
Father and Mother commenced a relationship in approximately 2009, and were married on May 2, 2012. They are the biological parents of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle.
Father was evicted from his apartment in April 2015 for non-payment of rent and currently resides with family members.
Father was arrested for assault, third degree, and disorderly conduct in 2009, Disorderly conduct, risk of injury, unlawful restraint and assault, third degree in 2010, and assault, third degree on a pregnant person, unlawful restraint, first degree, and strangulation, third degree in 2013. Father received a one-year suspended sentence and 18 months of probation. He was arrested on November 13, 2013 for breach of peace, second degree, and trespassing, third degree. His probation ended early due to his successful compliance with treatment. Father was arrested for a domestic violence incident involving Mother in January 2016, wherein he pushed her into a mirror resulting in an injury to her hand. Father left the home and returned shortly thereafter at which time he crashed the motor vehicle he was driving into a telephone pole. He was transported by ambulance to the hospital and was admitted for a psychological evaluation. He was arrested for breach of peace and violation of probation in April 2016, due to a domestic violence incident with Mother, and served a period of incarceration. He is presently on probation.
Father has been involved in domestic violence incidents as the offender in his relationship with the mother of his two older children and Mother. He has been the subject of protective orders issued on May 4, 2009, and February 10, 2010, with the mother of his two older children as the protected party, and in 2013, and 2016, with Mother as the protected party.
Father has a history of substance abuse including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, marijuana and opiates. He began smoking marijuana and experimenting with other drugs commencing at the age of 11. He was referred to Catholic Charities and Wheeler Clinic. Father was assessed at Wheeler Clinic on September 18, 2013, pursuant to a referral by his probation officer. He was diagnosed with Impulse Control Disorder and Cannabis Dependence. He did engage in group sessions while undergoing treatment but he continued to smoke marijuana daily. He did not make significant progress toward his treatment goals. He was discharged from treatment due to excessive absences. Father did not follow through with the recommended follow-up with the Wheeler Clinic Alumni Group nor with the recommended Men's Anger Management Group for substance abusers.
Father has a history of mental health and trauma issues. As noted above, Father was diagnosed with ADD and was prescribed different medications as a child. Father witnessed the death of his cousin at the age of 15. Father has reported having difficulty controlling his anger and aggression, anxiety, irritability and sleep disturbances. He reported that he stopped taking the medication when he graduated from elementary school. Father testified that he continues to have difficulty controlling his anger and has acknowledged his need for additional services.
Due to his reported trauma history as an adult, Father was referred to Catholic Charities Wheeler Clinic and Bristol Hospital. Father did complete the intake appointment for Wheeler Clinic Men's Empowerment Group on March 9, 2015, to address his trauma history but failed to attend any group sessions. He also failed to attend mental health treatment between March 19, 2015, and June 1, 2015. He re-engaged in mental health treatment at Bristol Hospital on June 1, 2015. Father admitted to a significant trauma history but denied the need to discuss it. His provider noted that Father had a diagnosis of Unspecified Anxiety Disorder and had limited insight into the reasons why DCF was questioning his parenting abilities. She noted that his barriers to treatment include limited insight, history of lack of treatment adherence and a history of abuse. His last therapy visit was on August 5, 2015. He was discharged from Bristol Hospital on October 15, 2015 due to lack of attendance.
Father was referred to Family Based Recovery, Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood Program, Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), Village for Families/Reunification Services, Village for Families and Children/Therapeutic Family Time (TFT) and My People's Clinical Services. Father completed the intake with Triple P on January 31, 2014, and at the time of his discharge on December 31, 2014, it was noted that Father had shown great improvement in his parenting skills but needed to remain consistent with structure and routine.
Father participated in the reunification services at the Village for Families and Children between December 3, 2014, and February 20, 2015, to work toward returning Nevaeh and Imani returning to his care. Father failed to call to cancel or failed to show on six occasions. He failed to be consistent in assisting Mother and failed to appropriately interact with the children. At the time reunification services ended in February 2015, the provider had ongoing concerns regarding Father's limit setting, administration of consequences, and redirecting negative behavior as well as his ability to maintain a safe home environment for the children.
Between February 23, 2015, and May 21, 2015, Father attended the Village for Families and Children/Therapeutic Family Time. He failed to cancel or show for nine visits. The provider noted that during some of the visitations, Father had to be reminded to monitor what he fed Imani due to her choking on food and liquids, and be reminded to remove small items in her mouth. Father also became frustrated easily during the visits. The provider also noted ongoing concerns regarding Father's inconsistency in setting limits, administration of consequences and redirecting negative behaviors as well as his ability to maintain a safe environment.
Father attended My People Clinical Services for one-on-one parenting in June 2015. The provider noted concerns with Father being easily frustrated when the children did not listen or they misbehaved. Father failed to attend parenting sessions on July 23, 2015, and July 30, 2015.
As discussed above, Father attended couples counseling with Mother in August 2014, but he was unsuccessfully discharged for not attending. Father attended only three counseling sessions at the Counseling Center of Greater Hartford in April 2015. The counselor noted that Father had a distrust of Mother and spent his energy on keeping tabs on her. It was noted that Father was very dysfunctional.
At the time of Imani's initial hospitalization after her birth in 2013, Father failed to make himself available to learn and demonstrate that he could provide for Imani's needs and properly administer her medications, which delayed Imani's discharge from the hospital. Further, Father failed to ensure that Imani attended several follow-up appointments with the audiologist and medication appointments. As previously noted, he also failed to refill Imani's diuretic medication which she was without for one and a half weeks, which aggravated her respiratory failure and led to her hospitalization in December 2013.
Father reported that he co-slept with Avielle on more than one occasion even after being repeatedly instructed not to do so by DCF and after being provided with DCF's written policy on co-sleeping. Father continues to report that he does not see the concern with co-sleeping with him.
Father has interacted appropriately with Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle for the majority of the supervised visits. He is clearly bonded with them. Toys were brought to the visits for Nevaeh and Avielle; however, at times, no toys or activities were brought for Imani and little interaction with her was made during the visits. Concerns were raised concerning his co-parenting with Mother and the ability to safely parent the children. Inappropriate snacks, including candy, were brought to the visitations. Father failed to follow through with recommendations in supervising the children. At times, he failed to properly monitor Imani for choking hazards and monitoring her food intake to prevent her from choking. Mother and Father were at times at odds in their disciplining of the children. Father spent a substantial amount of time on his phone during the visits. He often failed to help mother during the visits when she appeared to be overwhelmed. He failed to show a consistent ability to co-parent with Mother.
Father participated in the court-ordered evaluation with Dr. Green on February 26, 2016, and March 12, 2015, along with Nevaeh and Imani. Dr. Green diagnosed Father with Cannabis Use Disorder in full remission, Other Specified Personality Disorder with mixed personality features with unaddressed anger and emotional lability, and Major Depressive Disorder, in full remission. Dr. Green recommended individual psychotherapy to help focus on his social skills, assertiveness and anger management. In addition, he needed to be taught ways of verbalizing his anger. Dr. Green noted the positive relationship between Father and the children but noted that he does not have a good understanding of their needs nor the capacity to meet those needs as his parenting skills are underdeveloped. He opined in his report that given his current risk factors, including poor parenting skills, environmental disability, mental health problems and avoidance of interparental conflict resolution, reunification with the children would present too great a risk of adversity for Nevaeh and Imani as of the time of the evaluation. He opined that TPR and Adoption was in the children's best interest. He noted that the recommended therapy would be especially difficult as Father did not believe that treatment was necessary. He also noted that Father's failure to refill Imani's prescription was disturbing as was his continued failure to understand the implications of his failure to do so. Notably, Dr. Green opined that at the time of his report, Father would need to engage in therapy for approximately 9 to 12 months to see sufficient change. This would include couples counseling, individual psychotherapy and parenting education. He noted that " it would be clear in four months time as to whether Father and Mother have been able to involve themselves in rehabilitation and have shown adequate progress. If adequate progress has not been shown in that time, it is unlikely that they will develop minimally adequate parenting capacity while their children are in their critical development stages with regard to attachment." Dr. Green credibly testified during the trial that Father's failure to successfully engage in services and make significant progress since the evaluation reinforces his lack of capacity to change.
The Children
Nevaeh
As noted above, Nevaeh was born on March 1, 2012. Mother reported that there were no issues or concerns with Nevaeh's developmental milestones. As discussed above, Nevaeh was removed from her parents' home on January 7, 2014, and was committed to the care of DCF on March 25, 2014. Nevaeh was placed in a nonrelative foster home at the time of her removal, where she remains. She is in the same foster home as her sister, Imani, and her brother, Avielle. When first placed in the foster home, Nevaeh exhibited temper tantrums, did not follow directions and was difficult to understand. Currently, these issues have lessened. Nevaeh is able to make her own bed and take care of washing herself. She has no difficulties with eating or sleeping habits. She assists in caring for her sister and brother by giving them toys and singing to them at nap time. She knows her colors, numbers, and most of her shapes. She is learning to recognize the letters of her name. She enjoys being read to. She is closely bonded with her foster parents and calls them " Mommy" and " Papi."
Nevaeh's health is good. She was diagnosed with a MRSA infection prior to her removal from her parents' home which has since resolved. She is up to date on her medical appointments, immunizations and dental care.
Nevaeh was evaluated in the Multi Disciplinary Examination (MDE), The Ages and Stages Questionnaire on January 30, 2014. She passed the communication, fine motor, gross motor, problem solving, and personal social domains. It was recommended that she continue to be exposed to developmentally appropriate experiences such as puzzles, books, toys, etc. to ensure that her development continued to progress.
Nevaeh has attended daycare since being placed in foster care. She is learning to socialize with children her own age and is increasing her vocabulary. The daycare director reported that Nevaeh has had challenging behaviors since starting daycare including acting defiantly and not following directions. In October 2015, Nevaeh was placed with a new teacher and has not exhibited any challenging behaviors since that time.
Imani
As noted above, Imani was born on July 13, 2013. She was born at 27 weeks due to Mother's placenta disrupting. Her birth weight was 2 pounds, 2 ounces. She remained at John Dempsey Hospital until September 16, 2013 when she was transferred to CMCC. Imani spent two and a half months in the neonatal intensive care unit. She was diagnosed with anemia, apnea, broncho pulmonary dysplasia (BDP), chronic lung disease, cardiac murmur, heart problems, eye problems and a failed hearing screen. She was discharged from Connecticut Children's Medical Center (CCMC) on October 15, 2013. Notably, Mother and Father were informed by the hospital staff, as well as DCF, of the need to increase their visits with Imani during her stay at the hospital in order to give them sufficient time to learn how to care for her. Imani's discharge was delayed by several days due to Mother's and Father's lack of sufficient visits and their failure to make themselves available to learn and demonstrate that they could provide for Imani's needs and properly administer her medication. At the time of her discharge, Imani was prescribed Chlorothiazide and Spironolactone, diuretics utilized to excrete excess fluid from the body. Additionally, she was prescribed Polyvisol with iron. Upon her discharge, the family was referred to Visiting Nurses Association (VNA) services and to Birth-to-Three services.
On December 18, 2013, Imani was seen by her pediatrician for cold symptoms. Mother was told to bring Imani back for a follow-up visit two days later but Mother failed to do so. Thereafter, on December 26, 2013, Mother reported to DCF that Imani had been brought to CCMC's emergency department as she had stopped breathing on December 24, 2013. Imani was admitted to CCMC from December 26, 2013, to January 15, 2014, due to her diagnosis of viral bronchitis and bacterial pneumonia. She also experienced respiratory failure and was placed on a ventilator during her admission. Imani's attending physician reported that Mother and Father failed to refill Imani's diuretic medications and she was without them for one and a half weeks. Mother and Father failed to attend all follow-up appointments at CCMC's Transitional Care Clinic to assess her medications and development between November 12, 2013, and November 26, 2013. Since being placed in her foster home, she has attended the scheduled appointments between March 5, 2014, and July 15, 2015. Since being placed in her foster home, Imani has had no ongoing breathing problems and was weaned off all medications. She was discharged from pulmonary services.
Mother and Father failed to attend several appointments with Imani's audiologist at CCMC between October and December 2013. Since being placed in foster care, she has consistently attended her audiology appointments. As of October 22, 2015, Imani had normal hearing sensitivity in both ears. She does continue to have risk factors for hearing loss and follow-up visits were recommended. Notably, after Imani's discharge from CMCC on October 15, 2013, Mother and Father failed to contact Birth to Three from October 29, 2013 to November 21, 2013 resulting in Imani's unsuccessful discharge. As a result, Imani was not able to receive Birth-to-Three services until she was placed into foster care.
Imani participated in her Multidisciplinary Examination (MDE) on February 6, 2014. She passed the communication and gross motor domains. Her score on the fine motor, problem solving, and personal social domains fell below the cut-off scores, indicating potential delays. It was recommended that she continue to receive services from each of her specialists, including Birth to Three.
Imani had her two-year physical on July 31, 2015, and no issues or concerns were noted. She is up to date on her immunizations and her dental checkups. She is doing very well in her foster home. Her developmental milestones and her neurologic exam is appropriate for her age. Her physician recommended that she continue her current nutrition plan and advance her diet as tolerated, continue to follow with her audiologist as recommended and continue with Birth to Three once per month. She is well bonded with her foster parents and calls them " Mommy" and " Papi." She is thriving in her current foster home along with Nevaeh and Imani.
Avielle
Avielle was born on October 13, 2014, with no medical concerns. During a DCF home visit on November 16, 2014, Avielle was observed to be fully dressed and wrapped in a blanket. When the worker recommended that the blanket be removed, Mother did not wish to remove the blanket and only did so when she observed Avielle sweating at the end of the visit. It was also documented that Avielle was not being given tummy time to help him build his muscles in order to lift his head.
Avielle is up to date with his medical visits. The pediatrician expressed concern regarding Mother's and Father's conversation and behavior during the appointments. During a visit to the pediatrician on February 16, 2015, Mother was informed that she was overfeeding Avielle and needed to slow down his feeding time. Mother reported that she likes " fat babies" and requested to start Avielle on solid foods. At his visit on July 13, 2015, Avielle's weight had stabilized and he was able to eat iron fortified foods. Avielle was noted to be wheezing and required Pulmicort and Albuterol. Mother reported on several occasions of co-sleeping with Avielle and continued to do so after being repeatedly advised that it was dangerous to do so. Mother reported that she did not see the concerns of co-sleeping.
Avielle participated in a Multidisciplinary Examination (MDE) on March 17, 2015. He appeared to be content and happy during the examination. He appears to be developing within normal limits. He was recommended to be exposed to developmentally appropriate experiences to ensure his development progresses.
As noted above, Avielle was placed in his current foster home on February 20, 2015, due to safety concerns with his parents. He has adjusted well to the home. He is a happy child and very loving. He is closely bonded with his foster parents as well as his brother and sister with whom he loves to play. He attends daycare with Imani and Nevaeh and is doing well.
ADJUDICATION
The court must first determine whether DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of Mother and Father should be terminated. " A hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication and disposition . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Destiny R., 134 Conn.App. 625, 627, 39 A.3d 727, cert. denied, 304 Conn. 932, 43 A.3d 660 (2012); In re Shaun B., 97 Conn.App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006).
Reasonable Efforts
Section 17a-112(j) provides in relevant part: " The Superior Court . . . may grant a petition [to terminate parental rights] . . . if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the [department] has made reasonable efforts to locate the parents and to reunify the child with the parent in accordance with subsection (a) of section 17a-111b, unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts . . ." (Emphasis added.) " [T]he department may meet its burden concerning reunification in one of three ways: (1) by showing that has made such efforts, (2) by showing that the parent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, or (3) by a previous judicial determination that such efforts were not appropriate . . ." In re Gabriella A., 154 Conn.App. 177, 104 A.3d 805 (2014). " Thus, the department must prove [by clear and convincing evidence] either that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify or, alternatively, that the parent is unwilling or unable to benefit from reunification efforts. Section 17a-112(j) clearly provides that the department is not required to prove both circumstances. Rather, either showing is sufficient to satisfy this statutory element." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kylik A., 153 Conn.App. 584, 102 A.3d 141 (2014) citing In re Anvahnay S., 128 Conn.App. 186, 191, 16 A.3d 1244 (2011); see also In re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819, 837, 863 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 938, 875 A.2d 43 (2005). " [I]n determining whether the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify a parent and a child or whether there is sufficient evidence that a parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, the court is required in the adjudicatory phase to make its assessment on the basis of the events preceding the date on which the termination was filed . . . [T]he court, when making its reasonable efforts determination . . . is limited to considering only those facts preceding the filing of the termination petition or the most recent amendment to the petition . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kylik A., Id., citing In re Kyara H., 147 Conn.App. 855, 870-71, 83 A.3d 1264, cert. denied, 311 Conn. 923, 86 A.3d 468 (2014). See also Practice Book § 35a-7.
" [T]he statute imposes on the department the duty . . . to make reasonable efforts to unite the child or children with the parents. The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof. Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act by which the requirement was drawn . . . [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible . . ." (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001); In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 722 A.2d 1232 (1999). " [R]easonableness is an objective standard . . . and whether reasonable efforts have been proven depends on the careful consideration of the circumstances of each individual case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kyara H., 147 Conn.App. 855, 872-73, 83 A.3d 1264, cert. denied, 311 Conn. 923, 86 A.3d 468 (2014). See also In re Vincent B., 73 Conn.App. 637, 641, 809 A.2d 1119 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934, 815 A.2d 136 (2003). " The department has a continuing duty to make reasonable efforts." Id., 644. But " [t]he department is required only to make 'reasonable efforts.' It is axiomatic that this does not require a useless and futile act." In re Antony B., 54 Conn.App. 463, 476, 735 A.2d 893 (1999). In addition, " making no efforts to reunify a parent and his or her child may be reasonable in certain circumstances . . ." In re Vincent B., supra, 73 Conn.App. 645. The court may also determine that the respondent parents were either unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. See In re Alexander T., 81 Conn.App. 668, 676, 841 A.2d 274, cert. denied 268 Conn. 924, 848 A.2d 472 (2004).
DCF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it used reasonable efforts to locate mother and father as contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(1). The evidence clearly establishes that mother and father were properly served. Both mother and father were present for the trial of this matter.
DCF has also proven by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to reunify Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle with Mother and Father. Both Mother and Father were offered appropriate services to facilitate reunification with their children. As discussed in detail above, mother was offered a multitude of services which included counseling, mental health treatment, substance abuse services, parenting services, in-home support services, supervised visits, domestic violence services and medication management. Unfortunately, with the exception of the substance abuse services, mother garnered very little success or progression from the services in which she did engage. She has failed to fully engage in treatment to address her mental health issues nor has she made any significant progress in addressing her history of trauma or in understanding the consequences of her actions on the well-being of the children. She has clearly not gained sufficient insight into her issues with domestic violence or her mental health issues. She has not demonstrated any rehabilitation she may have gained to an extent that she can safely care for the children. She has failed to demonstrate the ability to implement the parenting skills taught to her. The court notes that mother does appear to love her children and she did engage with them at times during visitations; however, the love and affection she has for them does not arise to parental competence. See In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575, 877 A.2d 941 (2005). Notably, mother's demeanor during the trial was inappropriate as she expressed amusement on several occasions. It is clear that mother's lack of judgment continues to be a grave concern.
Father was offered numerous services to aid in attaining reunification with Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle including substance abuse evaluation and services, domestic violence and anger management services, mental health services and treatment to address his trauma history, individual therapy, parent education and supervised visitation. Although offered a multitude of services, Father has failed to change his circumstances and failed to attain a level of stability to permit his children to be safely placed in his care. Father has been involved in the criminal justice system stemming from his acts of domestic violence. Further, he made limited progress and gained no lasting benefit from the services he has received. He has failed to gain the necessary insight needed to care for his children. He has clearly demonstrated his ongoing issues with his mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence, and his ongoing involvement with the criminal justice system. He has failed to consistently co-parent with Mother and has failed to consistently provide routing and structure for the children, and has failed to implement and understand the need to safely parent the children. The court notes that Father appears to love his children and at times, has acted appropriately with him during the supervised visits he did attend. However, the love and affection he has for his children does not constitute parental competence. Father's demeanor during the trial was at times inappropriate as he expressed amusement at times during the examination of the witnesses. His continuing lack of judgment concerning the ongoing safety and care continues to be a grave concern.
Accordingly, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made reasonable efforts to locate Mother and Father and to reunify them with Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle, and further, that they are unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification efforts.
Failure to Rehabilitate
In the adjudicatory phase, the court must next determine whether DCF has proved the statutory ground for termination of parental rights-failure to rehabilitate. " The . . . [grounds] alleged in this petition [are] that . . . [the parents] failed to achieve rehabilitation pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(I) which allows for termination if a child has found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . the [parents] of such [children have] been provided specific steps to take to facilitate the return of the [child] to the parent pursuant to § 46b-129 and the [parents have] failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child, such parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child . . . " Personal rehabilitation . . . refers to the restoration of the parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent . . . [and] requires the trial court to analyze the [parents'] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time . . . The statute does not require [the parents] to prove precisely when they will be able to assume a responsible position in [their children's] life. Nor does it require [them] to prove that [they] will be able to assume full responsibility for [their children], unaided by available support systems. It requires the court, to find by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [they have] achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [they] can assume a responsible position in [their children's] life." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 628, 847 A.2d 883 (2004); In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 94, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009); In re Halle T., 96 Conn.App. 815, 835, 902 A.2d 670, cert. denied. 280 Conn. 924, 908 A.2d 1087 (2006), In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873 (1999)." The critical issue is not whether the parent has 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." Id. at 835. The ultimate question is whether the parent at the time of the filing of the termination petition is more able to resume the responsibilities of a parent than he or she was at the time of the making of the commitment. In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 614 A.2d 832 (1992). In making this determination, the court may properly rely upon events occurring after the date of the petition when considering whether the degree of rehabilitation is sufficient to foresee that the parent may resume a useful role in the child's life within a reasonable time. In re Stanley D., 61 Conn.App. 224, 230, 763 A.2d 83 (2000); In re Latifa K., 67 Conn.App. 742, 748, 789 A.2d 1024 (2002). See also In re Emerald C., 108 Conn.App. 839, 858-59, 949 A.2d 1266, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 923, 958 A.2d 150 (2008). " An inquiry regarding personal rehabilitation requires a historical perspective of the respondent's child caring and parenting." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kyara H., 147 Conn.App. 855, 867, 83 A.3d 1264 (2014). " Terminating a parent's rights is not ordered to punish a parent who has not tried to rehabilitate; it is ordered so as not to punish a child by denying the child a safe and permanent home with proven competent caretakers because [the biological parent] . . . continues to be incapable of providing such a home for the child." In re Samantha B., 45 Conn.Supp. 468, 477, 722 A.2d 300 (1997), aff'd 51 Conn.App. 376, 721 A.2d 1255 (1998), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 902, 732 A.2d 177 (1999). In light of the statutory elements of this ground as well as the case law interpreting it, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DCF has met its burden as to Mother and Father.
The evidence here, as discussed in detail above, proves clearly and convincingly the first element under the statute that Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle have been previously found to have been neglected. As noted above, Nevaeh and Imani were adjudicated neglected July 1, 2014, and Avielle was adjudicated neglected on April 15, 2015. Specific steps were ordered as to Mother and Father on November 18, 2014 as to Nevaeh and Imani, and on March 6, 2015 as to Avielle. As previously discussed in this decision, Mother was unable to successfully complete her steps with the exception of her substance abuse services. Mother has been unable to successfully engage in treatment for her mental health, parenting and ongoing domestic violence issues. She failed to complete her mental health counseling and engage in the recommended therapy. She has failed to find adequate housing. She is overwhelmed and unable to adequately cope with the stresses in her life, and has admitted to being overwhelmed in caring for her small children. She has been unable to successfully implement the parenting skills taught to her or to safely parent her children. She cannot adequately meet the children's developmental, emotional and medical needs. She has not sufficiently and successfully engaged in rehabilitation nor has she made adequate progress in the nine- to twelve-month period after Dr. Green's evaluation to make it safe for the children to return to her care. It is clear and convincing to the court that as of the conclusion of the trial, Mother has not rehabilitated to the extent that she could care for Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle within a reasonable period of time given their ages and need for permanency. Further, giving Mother additional time to do so is neither in the children's best interest nor in their need for permanency. Nevaeh and Imani have been in their foster home since January 2015. Avielle has been in the foster home since February 2015.
Accordingly, the court finds that Mother's failure to rehabilitate, as it has been statutorily defined, has been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Father was unable to fully complete his specific steps. As discussed above, specific steps were ordered for Father on July 1, 2014. Father has not successfully completed his substance abuse treatment and was discharged from those services due to his excessive absences and continued use of marijuana. He did not follow through with the recommended treatment at the Wheeler Clinic Alumni Group or the Men's Anger Management Group for Substance Abusers. He has chosen not to follow through with the recommended services for his mental health needs other than attending the initial intake appointment. Father did engage in parenting and reunification services, and showed some improvement but failed to demonstrate consistency in providing structure and routine for the children. He was easily frustrated by the children during some of the visits and at times did not interact appropriately with them. He failed to co-parent with Mother and assist her when needed. He remains unemployed and does not have stable housing. Father is unable to meet the developmental, emotional, and medical needs of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. He cannot provide for his children's shelter, nurturance, safety and security. See In re Paul M. Jr., 154 Conn.App. 488, 107 A.3d 552 (2014). It is clear that as of the conclusion of the trial, Father has not rehabilitated to the extent he can care for his children. It would not be in the children's best interests to allow for more time for Father's rehabilitation, given the children's young ages and need for permanency. As previously discussed in detail above, Father has not adequately engaged in rehabilitation services nor has he shown adequate progress or change in the nine- to twelve-month period recommended by Dr. Green in his evaluations.
The evidence is clear and convincing that when the termination of parental rights petition was filed on November 17, 2015, neither Mother nor Father had achieved such a degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that, within a reasonable period of time, considering Nevaeh's, Imani's and Avielle's ages and needs, they could assume a responsible position in their lives. Neither Mother nor Father have sufficiently addressed their issues and parental deficiencies that gave rise to DCF's involvement. Both Mother and Father have failed to gain the necessary insight and ability to care for their children given their ages and needs within a reasonable period of time. See In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, 741 A.2d 873, reargument denied, 251 Conn. 924, 742 A.2d 364 (1999). While Mother and Father clearly love their children, their attempts to reunify with them have failed. " Motivation to parent is not enough; ability is required." In re Paul M. Jr., Id., citing In re G.S., 117 Conn.App. 710, 718, 980 A.2d 935, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919, 984 A.2d 67 (2009). See also In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 667, 769 A.2d 718, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 950, 769 A.2d 61 (2001); In re Christina M., 90 Conn.App. 565, 575, 877 A.2d 941 (2007). Further, the legal obligation of a parent necessarily encompasses that fundamental right of a child to be safe physically, psychologically and emotionally. General Statutes § § 46b-120(8) and (9) and 17a-112(j). See also In re Nelmarie O., 97 Conn.App. 624, 629, 905 A.2d 706 (2006). Of paramount consideration to the court is the issue of stability and permanency for Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. See In re Katia M., 124 Conn.App. 650, 666-67, 6 A.3d 86 (2010). Our laws recognize that a child is legally entitled to some minimum standard of safety which should include a parent's desire to protect and keep their children safe in all ways including physically and emotionally. Nevaeh's, Imani's and Avielle's need for permanence far outweighs any remote chance that Mother and Father may rehabilitate in the far distant future which they clearly have not done since the children's removal. Mother and Father have, either because of lack of ability or lack of desire, failed to successfully accomplish what was needed to consider reunification as an appropriate conclusion. These three children cannot afford to wait for their parents to rehabilitate. DCF has presented compelling evidence that they need permanency and stability now.
Accordingly, the court finds that, based upon the credible testimony and documentary evidence presented, DCF has met its burden of proof by the rigorous standard of clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father have failed to achieve the degree of rehabilitation which would reasonably encourage the belief that at some future date they can assume a responsible position in their children's lives.
DISPOSITION
For all of the above reasons, the court, having found by clear and convincing evidence that the necessary statutory grounds alleged by the petitioner for the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights have been proven, the court must now consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in General Statutes § 17a-112(k). In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 641 A.2d 378 (1994). " In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the interest of the child . . . [T]he trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the [respondents'] parental rights is not in the best interest of the children." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 97-98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009). " The best interests of the children includes the children's interest in sustained growth, development, well-being and continuity and stability in their environment . . . In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings delineated in [§ 17a-112(k)]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Trevon G., 109 Conn.App. 782, 794-5, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008). " [These factors] serve simply as guidelines for the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be determined before termination can be ordered . . . There is no requirement that each factor be proved by clear and convincing evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Davonta V., 98 Conn.App. 42, 47, 907 A.2d 126, aff'd 285 Conn. 483, 940 A.2d 733 (2008).
The seven statutory findings, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, are as follows:
1. The Timeliness, Nature and Extent of Services Offered, Provided and Made Available to the Parent and the Child by an Agency to Facilitate the Reunion of the Child With the Parent
As discussed above, DCF offered timely and appropriate services to Mother and Father all in an effort to facilitate reunion with Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. Mother was offered mental health services, substance abuse services, domestic violence services, family violence services, parenting education, individual therapy and counseling, monthly bus passes, supervised visitation services and case management services. Father was offered mental health services, substance abuse services, anger management and domestic violence services, parenting, supervised visitation, monthly bus passes and case management services. All of the recommended services were reasonable and appropriate, and offered on a consistent, timely and sufficient basis.
2. Whether the Department of Children and Families Has Made Reasonable Efforts to Reunite the Family Pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as Amended
As discussed in detail above, reasonable efforts to reunify Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle with their Mother and Father were made by DCF pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. The services offered, as detailed above, were appropriate and timely to address the issues that led to the children's removal. The services were offered on a consistent and timely basis, and tailored to address their specific individual needs. Mother and Father failed to sufficiently benefit from the services offered and provided. They failed to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the children to return to their care. Neither parent has consistently availed themselves of their services in order to improve their circumstances to the extent they can assume a responsible role in their children's lives. Mother and Father have clearly failed to demonstrate their ability to appropriately and safely parent Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. DCF has clearly made reasonable efforts toward family reunification.
3. The Terms of Any Applicable Court Order Entered Into and Agreed Upon by Any Individual or Agency and the Parent, and the Extent to Which All Parties Have Fulfilled Their Obligations Under Such Order
Neither Mother nor Father have fulfilled their obligations pursuant to the specific steps ordered by the court. As discussed in detail above, Mother and Father continue to have ongoing mental health, domestic violence, and parenting issues which have negatively impacted the reunification process. They have not successfully completed many of their court-ordered services. They clearly have not gained sufficient insight into their issues.
4. The Feelings and Emotional Ties of the Child With Respect to the Child's Parents, Any Guardian of Such Child's Person, and Any Person Who Has Exercised Physical Care, Custody or Control for at Least One Year and With Whom the Child Has Developed Significant Emotional Ties
Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle recognize Mother and Father have engaged with them during their visits with them. They appear to have a loving bond with each other. Nevaeh and Imani have resided together in the same foster home since January 2014. Avielle has resided in the same foster home with his older brother and sister since February 2015. They all seek out their foster parents for comfort and safety. They each call their foster mother " Mommy" and foster father " Papi." They follow the foster parents' directions and they are clearly bonded with one another. The foster parents have provided nurturing and loving care to all three children and they have ensured that the children's medical, dental, emotional and educational needs are being met. They are all thriving in their foster parents' care.
5. The Age of the Children
Nevaeh was born on March 1, 2012. She is presently four years old.
Imani was born on July 31, 2013. She is presently three years old.
Avielle was born on October 13, 2014. He is almost two years old.
6. The Efforts the Parent Has Made to Adjust Such Parent's Circumstances, Conduct, or Conditions to Make it in the Best Interest of the Child to Return Such Child'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 the Court May Give Weight to Incidental Visitations, Communications or Contributions, and (B) The Maintenance of Regular Contact or Communication with the Guardian or Other Custodian of the Child
Neither Mother nor Father have made sufficient efforts or adjustment to their individual circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of Nevaeh, Imani or Avielle to return safely to their care in the foreseeable future. Mother and Father are unable or unwilling to benefit from efforts due to their mental health and parenting issues. Mother and Father somewhat consistently visited with the children twice a week for two-hour visits. Mother and Father have maintained regular contact with DCF.
7. The Extent to Which a Parent Has Been Prevented From Maintaining a Meaningful Relationship With the Child by the Unreasonable Act or Conduct of the Other Parent of the Child, or the Unreasonable Act of Any Other Person or by the Economic Circumstances of the Parent
There is no credible evidence that either Mother or Father have been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. DCF has encouraged them to do so. No unreasonable act or conduct of Mother or Father, or any other person, has prevented Mother or Father from a having a meaningful relationship with Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. The economic circumstances of Mother and Father have not prevented either of them from having a relationship or visits with their children. Both Mother and Father were offered and provided programs and services, at no cost, to assist them with their issues. There has been no claim that Mother or Father were unable to obtain services due to lack of financial resources. Legal counsel was appointed for them at no cost.
The court also finds that there is no disposition less restrictive than termination of parental rights that would serve Nevaeh's, Imani's and Avielle's best interests. To the contrary, in deciding the best interest in this case, the court has considered the adjudicatory and dispositional evidence in its entirety and has concluded, by the clear and convincing evidence presented, that there is no permanency plan that could have secured the best interests of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle that is less restrictive than the termination of parental rights at issue. See In re Azareon Y. et al., 309 Conn. 626, 72 A.3d 1074 (2013).
Best Interests of the Child
Once the court finds that the allegations of the petition have been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the court must find, also by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination is in the best interests of the child. In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 52, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998)." [T]he determination of the child's best interests comes into play only after statutory grounds for termination of parental rights has been established by clear and convincing evidence." In re Zion R., 116 Conn.App. 723, 738, 977 A.2d 247 (2009). The best interest standard is inherently flexible and fact-specific to each child, giving the court broad discretion to consider all the different and individualized factors that might affect a specific child's welfare. In determining whether terminating the Mother's and Father's parental rights would be in the best interests of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle, the court has considered various factors, including their interests in sustained growth, developed well-being, and in the continuity and stability of their environments; Cappetta v. Cappetta, 196 Conn. 10, 16, 490 A.2d 996 (1985); In re Jason R., 129 Conn.App. 746, 766 n.15, 23 A.3d 18 (2011); their ages and needs; the length and nature of their stages of foster care; the contact with their parents or lack thereof; the potential benefits or detriments of retaining connections with their Mother and Father; their genetic bond with their birth parents; In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999); and the seven statutory factors and the court's findings thereon. It is clear that Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle cannot be returned to their Mother or Father. The court has balanced each child's intrinsic need for stability, sustained growth, development, well-being and permanency against the potential benefits of maintaining a connection with their biological parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity). In consideration of all these factors and after weighing all of the evidence, the court finds that the clear and convincing evidence has established that it is in the best interests of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle to terminate the parental rights of the respondent Mother and the respondent Father to ensure that they each have a secure and safe placement so they can grow and mature to become productive children and adults. They need the permanency and stability that their foster parents will continue to provide for them. As our courts have long observed, the deleterious effects of prolonged temporary care is well known. In re Juvenile Appeal (84- CD), 189 Conn. 276, 292, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983). " It is undisputed that children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents. There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty . . ." Lehman v. Lycoming Country Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 513, 102 S.Ct., 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982). Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle need this closure of the uncertainty in their lives and the removal of the possibility of returning home to their Mother or Father. Neither Mother nor Father offer any reasonable prospect of providing any form of the stability, safety and permanency that these three children need in the foreseeable future. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that neither Mother nor Father is a stable and competent caretaker for Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. Mother and Father have each individually failed to sufficiently address their mental health and trauma issues, and have not sufficiently progressed in their parenting educations to safely parent the children in the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, after considering the children's ages and the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights is in the best interests of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle. The convincing and clear evidence has established that Mother and Father are in no better position today to provide for their children than they were at the time of their removal. The problems that led to the children's removal have not been rectified and the prospects of improvement are bleak at best. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of the witnesses as well as the information contained in the exhibits presented at the time of trial. The children's attorney is in support of the termination of parental rights of Mother and Father in light of their failures to rehabilitate.
It is hereby ORDERED that the parental rights of Ann Marie P. and Nelson P. are hereby TERMINATED as to their children Nevaeh P., Imani P. and Avielle P.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing findings and having considered all of the evidence after due consideration of the children's needs for a secure, permanent placements, the totality of the circumstances, having considered all statutory criteria, having found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts to locate Mother and Father were made, that efforts at reunification with Mother and Father were made, that Mother and Father were and continue to be unable or unwilling to benefit from those efforts, and that further efforts are no longer required, the court finds that grounds exist to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights as alleged, and that it is in the children's best interests to do so. It is accordingly ordered:
That the parental rights of the respondent Mother, Ann Marie P., and the respondent Father, Nelson P., are terminated;
That the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is appointed statutory parent of Nevaeh, Imani and Avielle for the purpose of securing their adoption as expeditiously as possible;
That a written report of the plan as to the status of each of the children shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be timely filed and presented to the court as required by law.
Judgment shall enter accordingly.