IN RE JaQUAN R., No. H12-CP08-012040-A (Feb. 1, 2010)

WOLLENBERG, J.

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 JaQuan R. and Janice R. (hereinafter referred to as "JaQuan R. and Janice R." or "the child" individually or "the children" collectively). The biological mother of these children is Stacy R. (hereinafter referred to as "Stacy R." or "Mother") and the biological father is James R., (hereinafter referred to as "James R." or "Father").

On 7/22/08, Neglect Petitions and Motions for Orders of Temporary Custody were filed on behalf of the children with the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford. OTCs were granted on 7/22/08, and sustained on 8/1/08. On 11/6/08, the children were adjudicated neglected/uncared for and were committed to the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families.

On 6/17/09, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Hartford approved a permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption.

On 8/13/09, Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights of Stacy R. and James R. were filed.

On 9/10/09, the Court confirmed abode service on Mother. Mother was present, was advised and applied for an attorney. On 1/20/10, the court confirmed service by Publication for Father. Father was not present on 1/20/10 and a default was entered. CT Page 4019

On 1/20/10, the court commenced trial. Mother was absent and her attorney commenced with the trial. At the time of trial, counsel for DCF submitted nine exhibits (A-I) and one witness testified. Mother submitted one exhibit (Ex. 1).

The court finds that there is no action pending in any other court affecting custody of these children and that this court has jurisdiction in this matter.

The grounds of the Petition for TPR as to the biological Mother, Stacy R. and biological Father, James R., are Failure to Rehabilitate, Abandonment and No Ongoing Parent-Child Relationship.

The court has applied the burden of proof applicable to the Termination of Parental Rights and Neglect Petitions, 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 a Termination This family has a DCF history dating back to 12/23/96, due to allegations of substance abuse and physical neglect. Mother has a history of abusing illegal substances and not following through with substance abuse evaluations and treatment.

Mother has four children, all of whom have been removed from her care at some point due to her substance abuse and lack of treatment follow-through. Brittany was removed from Mother's care from 9/9/97 through 11/8/04. Barnard was removed from Mother's care from 9/9/97 through 6/29/05. JaQuan R. was first removed from Mother's care from 5/8/02 through 10/31/02, and Janice R. was first removed from Mother's care from 7/24/02 through 10/31/02.

After DCF had advised Mother that they had legal sufficiency to remove Janice R. and JaQuan R. from her care, she agreed to their removal to allow herself time to engage in substance abuse treatment. She had planned to enter a twenty-eight-day program but had no family resources that would care for her children. Bernard K., Jr., DOB 12/8/90, was to CT Page 4020 stay either with his sister, Brittany S., DOB 3/26/89, or spend the summer with his paternal grandparents.

Father has shown no interest in the children since he moved to Georgia in 2002.

Mother resides in a three-bedroom apartment in Hartford, CT. She has a Section 8 voucher which pays her entire rent due to her having no visible income. She has not secured employment since this case was opened on 1/3/07. Mother's boyfriend resides with her and on 9/10/09, Mother reported that he was scheduled to begin work within a week.

Mother continues to use illegal substances despite completing two thirty-day inpatient day programs. Referrals have been made by DCF to give Mother the opportunity to continue to address her substance abuse issues but she has not followed through with the referrals.

Mother claims that she does not maintain contact with DCF when she relapses. She also does not respond to DCF's letters requesting that she contact the Department.

JaQuan R. is doing well in his foster placement. His foster parents have stated that they are willing to adopt him. The possibility that he will not return to his Mother's care has been discussed with him and he has responded that he would be "okay" with remaining with his foster parents. The possibility of him being placed with his paternal relatives has not been discussed in-depth. When asked if he remembers them, he acknowledges that he does have positive memories of his short time with them.

JaQuan R. attended summer school and although he advanced to the fifth grade, he continues to struggle academically. His surrogate parent is working to schedule a PPT so that it can be determined what is needed to assist JaQuan R. with improving his academic performance.

Janice R. is in first grade and doing well in school. Her teachers have reported that she likes to talk but can be redirected easily. She has improved her behaviors in the foster home but periodically has periods during which she expresses anger by acting out. The plan is to address her anger more fully in therapy, as well as the possibility that she may not return to her Mother's care.

The children's maternal aunts have come forward as possible resources for them. The foster parents of both JaQuan R. and Janice R. have stated that they would be willing to adopt the children although the foster CT Page 4021 parents of JaQuan R. have suggested more recently, that long-term foster care would be more practical due to their age.

Both JaQuan R. and Janice R. are medically up-to-date with no medical issues. JaQuan R. was prescribed glasses which he reports "help him to see better."

B. Mother, Stacy R.

Stacy R. is an African-American female born on 7/28/67 in Hartford, CT to Wilber and Claire S. She is the youngest child in a sibling line of three children with two older brothers, Scott and Stephan S. Her parents were happily married and she reported that she had a happy childhood with no significant injuries or traumas. She graduated from Weaver High School in 1985 and completed two years of college. Although she has been involved with several CNA training courses, she never completed any of them. Stacy R. has had various types of employment throughout her adult life.

In 1999, Stacy R. married James R. in Ashburn, GA. The couple subsequently moved back to Hartford in December 1999. The couple divorced in 2002. Their marriage produced two children, JaQuan R. and Janice R.

DCF became involved with this family due to Mother's substance abuse and the resulting neglect of her children. In 1997, both Brittany and Bernard, Mother's two oldest children, were removed from Mother's care and were returned seven and eight years later respectively. In 2002, Mother completed the ADRC in-patient program and then entered Coventry House in September 2002. Due to Mother's success in both programs, Janice R. and JaQuan R. were returned to her during her stay at Coventry House. Her case was closed in June 2006. From January 2007 through December 2007, three reports were received in reference to this family alleging illegal drug use, educational neglect, alcohol abuse and physical neglect with crack cocaine use and inappropriate sexual contact between JaQuan R. and Janice R. All three reports were substantiated.

Mother did not engage in any treatment for substance abuse, alcohol abuse or parenting until she entered Rushford's thirty-day substance abuse program in November 2008. She has been unemployed with no visible income since January 2007. She had been evicted twice and was in danger of losing her Section 8 certificate. In July 2008, after being advised that DCF intended to submit an Order of Temporary Custody with Neglect on behalf of JaQuan R. and Janice R., Mother agreed to this action with the plan that she would enter Stonington Treatment Center to address her substance abuse issues but she did not enter as planned. In November CT Page 4022 2008, Mother entered the Rushford Treatment Center's thirty-day program. She completed the program and was discharged on 12/17/08. She failed to follow through with any outpatient treatment or relapse prevention. She did not maintain contact with DCF from 12/15/08 (a telephone call from Rushford Treatment Center) until 4/29/09, when Mother's counselor left a voice mail message stating that Mother had re-entered Rushford. She was discharged from Rushford's inpatient program and as of 5/6/09, completed the three-day-a-week relapse prevention program. Mother contacted DCF via telephone on 6/5/09, stating that she did not complete the recommended two-day-a-week treatment at Rushford and requested that the Department to make a referral for her to ADRC. A referral was made for Mother but she did not follow through with the treatment.

On 8/31/09, DCF was contacted by ADRC stating that although Mother was to begin the intensive outpatient program on 8/17/09, but she did not show up and was discharged.

Mother has reported that she has no outstanding medical concerns.

C. Father, James R.

James R. is an African-American male born on 8/3/49, to James and Christine R. in Florida. He moved to the Hartford area at the age of one. James R. has one older half-sister on his father's side and three younger sisters. He denies any physical or emotional abuse during his childhood. He attended Weaver High School up to the tenth grade, at which time he dropped out to join the Army. He was dishonorably discharged after one year for a physical altercation. He then reportedly joined the Marines and served in Vietnam. He has been employed as a correctional officer in both the states of Florida and Connecticut.

James R. has been married three times. His first wife was killed in an automobile accident in 1971 and his second marriage, which produced no children, ended in divorce.

He married Stacy S. in 1999 and they had two children, JaQuan R. and Janice R. This marriage ended in divorce in 2002.

James R. claims he has a life threatening illness, bad eyesight, a bad knee and lung problems due to years of smoking. He admits to having a significant drug problem in the early 1990s, his drugs of choice being cocaine and heroin, and stated that his drug usage was his attempt at suicide. James R. reports having received substance abuse treatment at Blue Hills Treatment Center but cannot remember the date or if he completed the program. During a telephone conversation on 6/17/08, James CT Page 4023 R. reported that he had been "clean" for nine years. His criminal history dates back to 1966 and includes ten counts of larceny 6, eight counts of failure to appear, four counts of probation violation, two counts of robbery 3, two counts of larceny 2, two counts of criminal trespassing, one count of assault 3, one count of forgery 3, and one count of breach of peace. He has had no arrests in Connecticut since October 1997.

James R. is unable to care for his children and gave his mother and father as possible resources for the children although his parents are in their eighties. His sister, Martha K., came forward as a possible resource for both children. On 9/22/09, the DCF social worker spoke to paternal aunt, Janice R.-L., who relayed that the three paternal aunts would discuss how best to assist in the lives of their niece and nephew. DCF has not had any feedback from Janice R.-L.

Father has made no attempt to visit with his children nor has he called to check on their well being.

D. Child, JaQuan R.

JaQuan R. is a ten-year-old African-American male who was born in Hartford, CT to James R. and Stacy R. He had been designated developmentally delayed due to poor speech, language and motor skills and he has received special education services since the third grade. Currently, he is struggling with math but is doing better in reading. He has also had some behavioral problems in school. He attended summer school in 2009, and a PPT has been requested on his behalf

JaQuan R. has two older siblings, Brittany S., DOB 3/26/89 and Bernard K., DOB 12/8/90. He also has a younger sister, Janice R., DOB 7/22/02. He is close to all of his siblings but is especially protective of Janice R.

JaQuan R. was removed from his Mother's care on 7/23/08, via an Order of Temporary Custody and was initially placed with his sister, Janice R., in a DCF licensed foster home. The foster mother reported that JaQuan R. had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with one of the mentally delayed females in the home so he was moved to the Village for Families and Children's Safe Home. He was given a single room and it was reported that his behavior was within safe parameters.

JaQuan R. showed little distress at being placed either in the foster home or the safe home. Mother was present during his intake at the safe home. After the intake was completed, it was difficult to get JaQuan R. to leave the new friends he was making so that he could say goodbye to CT Page 4024 his Mother.

JaQuan R. was also told by his Mother that she was going into the hospital and because he had not seen her since October 2009, he continued-to believe that she was hospitalized and possibly very ill. He was informed by his maternal relatives that Mother was not hospitalized nor was she ill. He had an easier time accepting that his Mother was okay than did his sister, Janice R.

JaQuan R. has no presenting medical issues, is up-to-date medically and receives individual therapy from the Village for Families and Children.

E. Child, Janice R.

Janice R. is an African-American female born on 7/22/02, at Saint Francis Hospital in Hartford, CT. She weighed eight pounds and was born with a slight heart murmur that later became undetectable. She is the youngest of four children, Brittany S., DOB 3/26/89, Bernard K., Jr., DOB 12/8/90 and JaQuan R., DOB 3/1/99. Janice R. has a close relationship with all of her siblings but is especially close to her brother, JaQuan R. She was removed from her Mother's custody on 7/23/08, via an Order of Temporary Custody.

Janice R. began the first grade in September 2009, and it was reported by her previous teacher that she is an intelligent child who has no behavioral issues in school. She is described as a sweet child who is a pleasure to have in class. Although Janice did experience some difficulty with retention of information and was "chatty" during class, she had made significant improvements by the end of the 2008-2009 school year.

Janice R. misses her mother and is generally doing well in her foster home. During a visit in October 2009, Mother told Janice R. and her brother, JaQuan R. that she was going into the hospital. She has not visited her children since that time which has caused Janice R. to have a high level of concern about the state of her Mother's health. During visits with her maternal family, Janice R. was told that her Mother was not in the hospital and was fine but she continued to express concern for her Mother and has only recently come to believe that her mother is not ill.

Janice R. participates in an after-school program at Girls, Inc. The program offers after-school tutoring and recreational activities and she enjoys the program. The staff at Girls, Inc. report that Janice R. does well in the program.

CT Page 4025

Janice R. has no medical issues and is up-to-date medically. A referral has been made to the Village for Families and Children for individual therapy for Janice R. and eventually family therapy with her brother, JaQuan R.

F. Relative Resources

The Department spoke to two of the children's paternal aunts, Janice R.-L. and Martha K. on 9/22/09. Martha K., who is the youngest of the three paternal aunts, has stated that she is willing to adopt both children. Janice R.-L. has stated that it may not be in the best interest of the children for them to be placed with Martha K. DCF had suggested that the three sisters discuss the situation to determine who would be best suited to adopt the children. Janice R.-L. had relayed that she would get back to DCF when she had met with the rest of the family but has not done so at this time.

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, Stacy R.'s and Father, James R.'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, DCF, in order to terminate parental rights, initially must show by clear and convincing evidence that it "has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent 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)(l). "Reasonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not-everything possible." In re Jessica B., 50 Conn.App. 554, 56-6, 718 A.2d 997 (1998).

Reasonable efforts to reunify JaQuan R. and Janice R. with Stacy R. and James R. are not possible because they have not seen their children for extended periods and have not engaged in treatment services offered by DCF.

On 8/1/08, final specific steps were issued by the court for Stacy R. and on 11/06/08, final specific steps were issued by the court for James CT Page 4026 R.

See Paragraph D, Grounds for the Termination: Failure to Rehabilitate-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1) — as to biological Father, James R. and biological Mother, Stacy R. for specific steps and compliance thereof.

In addition, DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the Permanency Plan. All court findings were made by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Grouuds for Termination: Abandonment — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(A) as to Biological Father, James R. and Biological Mother, Stacy R. This ground is established when the child has been abandoned by the parent in the sense that the parent has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the child. Sporadic efforts are insufficient to negate the claim of abandonment. The test for determining abandonment of a child for purposes of termination of parental rights is not whether a parent has shown "some interest" in his or her child, but rather, whether the parent has maintained any reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare. In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 36, 534 A.2d 897 (1987).

Attempts to achieve contact with a child, telephone calls, the sending of cards and gifts and financial support are indicia of "interest, concern or responsibility." In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn.App. 194, 209, 504 A.2d 533 (1986).

"The commonly understood general obligations of parenthood entail these minimum attributes: (1) express love and affection for the child; (2) express personal concern over the health, education and general well-being of the child; (3) the duty to supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care; (4) the duty to provide an adequate domicile; and (5) the duty to furnish social and religious guidance." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Kezia M., 33 Conn.App. 12, 17-18, 632 A.2d 1122 (1993); In re Roshawn R., 51 Conn.App. 44, 53, 720 A.2d 1112 (1998).

Ground A — Abandonment as to JaQuan R. CT Page 4027 and Janice R. by Biological Father, James R.

1. Father has not seen the children since 2002 when he moved to Georgia.

2. Since 2002, Father has not recognized the children on special occasions by sending cards or gifts or making phone calls.

3. Father has not maintained contact with DCF to find out how the children were doing or to ask how he could contact them.

4. Father has not supported the children physically or emotionally.

5. Father has not participated or shown an interest in the children's educational needs.

6. Father has not inquired about the children or requested visitation with them for a long period of time.

Ground A — Abandonment as to JaQuan R. and Janice R. by Biological Mother, Stacy R.

1. Mother has seen the children infrequently since 7/22/08.

2. Prior to DCF's most recent involvement on 7/22/08, Mother had other children removed from her care in 1997 (older siblings).

3. Since the children were committed to the Department on 7/22/08, Mother has not recognized the children on special occasions by sending cards or gifts or making phone calls.

4. Mother has not maintained contact with the children's caretakers to find out how they are doing and to facilitate a relationship, although she knew the caretakers and was given their telephone numbers.

5. Mother has not supported the children physically or emotionally.

CT Page 4028

6. Mother has not participated or shown an interest in the children's educational needs.

7. Mother has not inquired about the children or requested visitation with them for a long period of time.

C. Grounds for Termination: No Ongoing Parent-Children Relationship-General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(D) as to Biological Mother, Stacy R. and Biological Father, James R. This ground alleged by DCF requires proof by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship, which means "the relationship that ordinarily develops as a result of a parent having met on a day-to-day basis the physical, emotional, moral and educational needs of the child and to allow further time for the establishment or reestablishment of such parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the best interest of the child."

This statutory definition, as it has been interpreted in case law, requires a finding that "no positive emotional aspects of the relationship survive." In re Jessica M., 217 Coun. 459, 470, 586 A.2d 597 (1991). "It is inherently ambiguous when applied to noncustodial parents who must maintain their relationship with their child through visitation." Id., 459; In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 531, 613 A.2d 748 (1992). Although the ultimate question is usually whether the child has any present memories or feelings for the natural parent, the existence of a loving relationship or a "psychological parent" relationship with one other than the natural parent does not, of itself, establish the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination. In re Jessica M., supra, 473-75.

Unlike the other nonconsensual grounds to terminate parental rights, the absence of a parent-child relationship is considered a "no fault" ground for termination. To establish this ground requires the trial court to make a two-pronged determination. First, there must be a determination that no parent-child relationship exists; and second, the court must look to the future and determine whether it would be detrimental to the child's best interest to allow time for such a relationship to develop. The absence of a parent-child relationship can be demonstrated in situations where a child has never known his or her parents so that no relationship ever developed between them, or where the child has lost that relationship so that despite its former existence, it has now been CT Page 4029 completely displaced. In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 670, 420 A.2d 875 (1979).

Judicial interpretation has imposed a requirement that a child have "present memories or feelings" for the parent, and "at least some aspects of these memories and feelings are positive" to overcome this ground. In re Jessica M., supra, 217 Conn. 475; In re Juvenile Appeal (84-6), 2 Conn.App. 705, 709, 483 A.2d 1101, cert. denied, 195 Conn. 801 (1984). The existence of positive feelings usually depends on the viewpoint of the child. In re Rayna M., 13 Conn.App. 23, 35, 534 A.2d 897 (1987). As the Appellate Court recently noted, "the feelings of the child are of paramount importance." In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn.App. 595, 602 (1999). "Feelings for the natural parent connotes feelings of a positive nature only." Id.

Ground D — No Ongoing Parent-Children Relationship as to Biological Mother, Stacy R.

1. Paragraphs one through seven of Ground A as to JaQuan R. and Janice R. by Stacy R. — are hereby incorporated.

2. Mother has seen the children infrequently since 7/22/08.

3. Mother is a virtual stranger to the children.

4. JaQuan R. has only faint memories of his Mother prior to DCF's involvement.

5. Janice R. has few positive memories of her Mother.

6. To permit additional time to develop a parent-child relationship will not be in the children's best interests because there has been no positive ongoing contact.

Ground D — No Ongoing Parent-Children Relationship as to Biological Father, James R.

1. Paragraphs one through six of Ground A as to JaQuan R. and Janice R. by Father are hereby incorporated by reference.

CT Page 4030

2. Father has not seen the children since he moved to Georgia in 2002.

3. JaQuan R.'s memories of his Father are mostly negative.

4. Janice R. has no positive memories of her Father.

5. To permit additional time to develop a parent-child relationship will not be in the children's best interests because there has been no positive ongoing contact and in the past both parents have been in agreement with the TPR.

D. Grounds for the Termination: Failure to Rehabilitate — General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1) — as to biological Father, James R. and biological Mother, Stacy R. 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)(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." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 706, CT Page 4031 741 A.2d 873 (1999). ". . . [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, 5545 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 Stacy R. and James R. 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 children's lives]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sarah Ann K., 57 Conn.App. 441, 448, 749 A.2d 77 (2000). See In re Alejandro L., 91 Conn.App. 248, 259, 881 A.2d 450 (2005); In re Ashley S., 61 Conn.App. 658, 665, 769 A.2d 718, 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 the parents have not achieved CGS § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(1) rehabilitation: The court credits the DCF reports which show that they have been unable to achieve rehabilitation.

Ground B1 — Failure to Rehabilitate after Adjudication as to Janice R. and JaQuan R. by Stacy R., Mother and James R., Father:

1. From 1996 through 11/08/06, Mother, Stacy R., was involved periodically with DCF. She has four children, all of whom have been removed from her care at some point due to her substance abuse and lack of treatment follow-through. Brittany was removed from Mother's care from 9/9/97 through 11/8/04; Barnard was removed from Mother's care from 9/9/97 through CT Page 4032 6/29/05; JaQuan R. was first removed from Mother's care on 5/8/02 through 10/31/02; and Janice R. was first removed from her Mother's care from 7/24/02 through 10/31/02.

2. On 11/6/08, Janice R., DOB 7/22/02 and JaQuan R., DOB 3/1/99, were adjudicated neglected/uncared for in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at 920 Broad Street in Hartford, CT.

3. At the time of adjudication, the presenting problems were Mother's inability to maintain her sobriety and the resulting neglect of her children; her inability to keep sufficient food in the home; two evictions from her home despite her having a section 8 voucher; and allowing a known drug dealer to reside in her home.

Father has had no contact with the children since he left the state in 2002. He reported to DCF that he was unable to serve as a placement resource for his children.

4. The following specific steps ordered by the court on 8/1/08 and 11/6/08, to facilitate the return of the children to Stacy R. and James R., have not been complied with:

Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the children's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem. Mother has not complied with this specific step. She did not visit or request visitation. She had the opportunity to visit her children weekly or for a minimum of 32 visits between October 2008 and July 2009, and did not do so. DCF does not have confirmation on whether or not Mother has met with her court-appointed attorney.

Father has resided in Ashburn, GA since 2002, and has not made any contact with the Department since June 2008.

Keep whereabouts known to DCF and your attorney.

CT Page 4033

From November 2008 until April 2009, Mother's whereabouts were unknown. In April 2009, she contacted DCF and reported that she had re-entered Rushford's Substance Abuse Treatment Program. In June 2009, it was confirmed that she had resided in an apartment at 168 Park Street in Hartford.

Father has made his address available to the Department.

Visit children as often as DCF permits and demonstrate appropriate parent/child interaction during visits.

Mother has made little or no effort to visit the children since October 2008.

In June 2009, after completing the Rushford Substance Abuse Treatment Program for the second time, the Department informed Mother that she would be required to submit one month of negative toxicology screens (four screens) before visitation could resume. It was explained to her that this requirement was based on her past relapse behavior that resulted in Mother not maintaining contact with the DCF, and the negative affect this behavior would have on her children if she visited, then relapsed and disappeared again.

Father reported that he has not seen the children since moving to Georgia in 2002, and he has not made any request to see them after having been informed that the children had been removed from Mother's care.

Submit to substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment.

Mother did not keep any of the appointments that DCF made for an assessment and toxicology screen.

During the duration of this case, Mother entered Rushford's Substance Abuse Treatment Prograin twice, but did not follow through with the recommended aftercare. She continued to use after being discharged.

Father reported that he has maintained his sobriety for nine years and was not in need of substance abuse treatment.

Successfully complete substance abuse treatment and follow recommendations regarding aftercare treatment, including relapse prevention.

On 12/15/08, via a telephone conversation, the DCF social worker was CT Page 4034 informed by Mother's counselor that she had completed Rushford's 30-day Substance Abuse Treatment Program. In April 2009, Mother reported that she had re-entered Rushford and was due for discharge on 5/6/09. She was to attend relapse prevention groups three times a week with transportation to be provided by Rushford. However, she did not comply and requested that DCF make a referral to another program. A referral was made to ADRC but no confirmation of Mother's participation has been received from ADRC. By her own admission, Mother continues to use illegal substances.

Father has declined to participate in substance abuse treatment.

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

Mother has not submitted to any random drug testing other than the testing that was required while she was an inpatient at Rushford from November 2008 through December 2008; and April 2006 through June 2009.

Father declined any involvement with testing or treatment for substance abuse.

Follow recommendations of service providers.

Mother did not comply with Rushford's recommendation that after completion of a 3-day-per-week relapse prevention program, she continue with a 2-day-per-week program.

Father was not involved in any treatment.

Secure and maintain adequate housing and legal income.

Mother has a Section 8 voucher and did secure a three-bedroom apartment in Hartford. She has not secured employment even after being given a bus pass to assist with transportation.

Father has resided in Ashburn, GA since 2002.

No substance abuse.

On 4/29/09, DCF received a voice mail message from a counselor at the Rushford Treatment Center, stating that Mother had been in the program for two weeks to address her addiction to crack cocaine. She reported on 6/11/09 that she had relapsed.

CT Page 4035

Father reported that he has been sober for nine years and is not currently using illegal substances.

No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system.

Mother has had no further involvement with the criminal justice system.

By his own admission, Father stated in a telephone call placed to him in July 2009 that he was on probation for failure to pay child support.

See also Paragraph I, Factual Findings, A, B, C, D, E, and F above. Summary of Adjudicatory Findings

This court has found that the Commissioner has proved the following adjudicatory grounds by clear and convincing evidence: Mother, Stacy R., and Father, James R., have legally abandoned JaQuan R. and Janice R., have not maintained an ongoing parent-child relationship with the children, and have failed to rehabilitate.

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 children's best interest. If the court does find that termination is in the children'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 Stacy R.'s and James R.'s parental rights, as they did not consent [and a default plea CT Page 4036 was ordered by the court with regard to Father], the court will consider and make findings on each of the seven criteria set forth in C.G.S. § 17a-112(k). 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 JaQuan R. and Janice R. with their parents. Those 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[ren] and made reasonable efforts to reunite [them] with [their] child[ren]. 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 Stacy R. and James R. 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).

DCF was unable to provide services to facilitate the return of the children to Father since Father, James R. has not come forward to participate in services and to establish stability.

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 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.

CT Page 4037

DCF has previously offered multiple services to the parents. 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 the parents 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 children have exhibited little or no bonding with their parents, due to their absence and reluctance to accept their role as parents. They have been unable to develop emotional ties with caregivers through their placements over the years.

Since Father, James R. and Mother, Stacy R. have not come forward with any regularity, the children were unable to bond with them.

5. "The age of the children."

JaQuan R. was born on 3/1/99 and is almost 11 years old. Janice R. was born on 7/22/02 and is 7 years 6 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 CT Page 4038 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 they have continued to be uncaring toward their children up to the present time and have refused to cooperate 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 JaQuan R. and Janice R. To permit the children to return to their parents' care would compromise the safety of the children.

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, caregivers, the Department of Corrections or third parties prevented Stacy R. or James R. from maintaining a relationship with JaQuan R. and Janice R., nor did their economic circumstances prevent such relationship, although the limitations and restrictions inherent in the care system remain in effect.

B. Best Interest of the Children — C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2)

The court is next called upon to determine whether termination of Stacy R.'s and James R.'s parental rights to JaQuan R. and Janice R. would be in their best interests. Applying the appropriate legal standards to the clear and convincing facts of this case, the court finds this issue in favor of the State of Connecticut and DCF.

The final element of the termination of parental rights statute, 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 CT Page 4042 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 Stacy R.'s and James R.'s parental rights would be in the children's best interests, the court has examined multiple relevant factors, including the children's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, stability and continuity of their environment; their length of stay in foster care; the nature of CT Page 4039 their relationship with their biological parents; and the degree of contact maintained with their biological parents. In re Alexander C., 60 Conn.App. 555, 559, 760 A.2d 532 (2000); In re Shyina B., 58 Conn.App. 159, 167, 752 A.2d 1139 (2000); In re Savanna M., 55 Conn.App. 807, 816, 740 A.2d 484 (1999). In a matter such as this, the court is further called upon to balance JaQuan R. and Janice R.'s intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their parents. See Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296, 314, 709 A.2d 1089 (1998) (child's physical and emotional well-being must be weighed against the interest in preserving family integrity).

"[T]he genetic bond shared by a biological parent and his or her child, although not determinative of the issue of the best interest of the child, is certainty 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 JaQuan R.'s and Janice R.'s best interests to continue to maintain any legal relationship with their parents.

The clear and convincing evidence also shows that the children's parents have failed to gain insight into becoming safe, nurturing and responsible parents for them. The clear and convincing evidence shows that their judgment and conduct remains questionable, and has not improved since their children were 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 mental health and other treatment, as well as individual 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 JaQuan R.'s and Janice R.'s pressing need for permanence and stability. Unfortunately, much time would be required for Mother and Father to show that they have forsaken selfish abuses, 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 for their children.

JaQuan R. and Janice R. cannot delay their need for permanence and stability for their 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 CT Page 4040 to follow the regimen necessary for these children to maximize their 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 children 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 JaQuan R. and Janice R.

Our courts have recognized that "long-term stability is critical to a child's future health and development . . ." In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 709, 741 A.2d 873 (1999). Furthermore, "[b]ecause of the psychological effects of prolonged termination proceedings on young children, time is of the essence" when resolving issues related to the permanent or temporary care of neglected children. In re Alexander V., 25 Conn.App. 741, 748, 596 A.2d 934 (1991), aff'd, 223 Conn. 557, 613 A.2d 780 (1992); see also In re Juvenile Appeal (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 JaQuan R. and Janice R. are entitled to the benefit of ending, without further delay, the period of uncertainty as to the availability of their biological parents as caretakers.

Having balanced JaQuan R. and Janice R.'s individual and intrinsic needs for stability and permanency against the benefits of maintaining a connection with their parents, the clear and convincing evidence in this case establishes that the children's best interests cannot be served by continuing to maintain any legal relationship to their parents. Pamela B. v. Ment, supra, 244 Conn. 313-14.

The parents have shown a lack of interest or ability to care for their children to the extent that they have abandoned their children and have no ongoing relationship with them.

Accordingly, with respect to the best interests 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 Stacy R. and James R. as to JaQuan R. and Janice R. is in the best CT Page 4041 interest of the children in question.

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 JaQuan R. and Janice R.'s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Stacy R., the biological Mother of the children and James R., the biological Father of the children. Accordingly, it is ordered that their parental rights to JaQuan R. and Janice R. are hereby terminated.

It is further ordered that the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families be appointed the statutory parent for these children for the purpose of securing an adoptive family and a permanent placement for these children.

The statutory parent is ordered to file the appropriate written reports with the court, as are required by state and federal law and which show the efforts to effect the permanent placement of these children.

CT Page 4043