STUART DAVID BEAR, JUDGE.
INTRODUCTION
The commissioner of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") seeks to terminate the parental rights of the mother to her three children who are currently minors, Anna-Lee M. ("Anna-Lee"), Timothy M. ("Timothy" or "Tim") and Donna-Lee M. ("Donna-Lee"). During the pendency of these proceedings, the father died. Thus, at trial DCF proceeded only with its termination of parental rights petitions against the mother.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
On March 3, 2004, DCF invoked a ninety-six hour hold of the three children. On March 5, 2004, DCF sought an ex parte order of temporary custody, which was granted. The order of temporary custody subsequently was sustained by the court. Also on March 5, 2004, DCF filed petitions alleging that the children were neglected. On August 3, 2004, the court adjudicated the children neglected and committed them to the care, custody and guardianship of DCF. On June 6, 2005, DCF filed its petitions seeking the termination of the parental rights of the mother and the father.
THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS AND SUMMARY OF ADJUDICATORY FACTS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
In its petitions for termination of parental rights, DCF alleged that the parental rights of the mother should be terminated in the best interest of the children for the following reasons:
1. DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify each of the children CT Page 8069 with the mother; and
2. the mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts.
DCF further alleged that each child had been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother had failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of each child, the mother could assume a responsible position in the life of each child.
In its summary of adjudicatory facts for termination of parental rights, DCF alleged the following, which it is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence:
1. this court has jurisdiction over this matter;
2. the mother was unwilling to consent to the termination of her parental rights;
3. DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with each of the children, and in order to do that provided services including the following: psychological evaluations, supervised visitation and DCF transportation in connection with such visitation, AMPS supervised visitation, Y-US transportation, DCF case management, substance abuse evaluations, individual therapy, parenting class with AMPS, a parent education family management program through ECHN, and a domestic violence counseling program;
4. despite the reunification services offered to the mother, she was unable or unwilling to benefit from them because she failed to change her circumstances to become a viable resource for the children;
5. there was sufficient evidence for DCF to satisfy Connecticut General Statutes ("C.G.S.") section 17a-112(c)(3)(B)(i) ("Ground (B)(i)") because the mother's circumstances had not changed since each of the children were placed under an order of temporary custody and thereafter committed to the care, custody and guardianship of DCF and because the mother had not addressed her mental health, domestic violence abuse victim and parenting issues and because she failed to demonstrate that she appropriately could parent the children; CT Page 8070 6. the mother's own claims as follows required the termination of her parental rights: (1) the mother had repeatedly alleged that she was the victim of domestic violence from the father and had sought restraining orders against him, but the mother resumed her relationship with the father and allowed him access to the children; (2) on May 27, 2005, the mother admitted that she and the father were "pretending to be the perfect parents," but that the father had not changed and was "the same as always," e.g., physically abusive to the mother; (3) in a June 1, 2005, affidavit, the mother averred that the father had threatened to kill her "if she ever made him leave" and that the father physically restrained her, threatened her with a kitchen knife, pulled her hair, jumped on her back, hit her head and was stalking her;
7. the mother failed to advise DCF of changes in her household, including the presence of a woman in her basement apartment for several weeks;
8. the mother failed to participate in all individual counseling required to address her mental health issues and the conditions that led to the removal of her children;
9. the mother continued to deny any responsibility for the neglect of her children and did not have insight as to why they were removed;
10. the mother failed to benefit from parenting education programs, including being resistant to staff training, information and guidance, and the mother failed to stop her behavior that had a negative impact on the children during visitation, including behavior that caused them anxiety and confusion;
11. the mother had abused her supervised visitation with the children, by doing the following: (1) telling the children that DCF writes lies; (2) informing the children prior to a court-ordered evaluation that the court appointed psychological evaluator was paid by DCF and says what DCF wants him to say; (3) discussing the children's return home to her; (4) telling the children that children in DCF's care are hurt by foster families and residential placement staff; (5) examining the children concerning their medications; (6) repeatedly crying when visiting with the children despite being aware of the DCF position that such crying negatively impacted the children; (7) repeatedly CT Page 8071 telling the children that she was sad and miserable without them despite being aware of the DCF position that such statements had a negative impact on the children; (8) telling the children that the foster parents receive their social security payments; (9) repeatedly whispering to the children although knowing that such whispering was prohibited by the supervised visitation rules; (10) providing the children with distorted and incorrect versions of why the children were removed from the home; and (11) giving the children an excessive amount of gifts and toys during visits;
12. because the mother did not follow several sets of rules during the period of supervised visitation, the court ordered the curtailment and then the cessation of visitation;
13. instead of being able appropriately to relate to and to parent the children, the mother refused to allow the children to live in foster care without having to worry about her emotional stability and physical well-being, and the mother pressured the children to be responsible for her emotional needs;
14. the mother's actions "have created barriers to the ability of said children to develop values and healthy relationships with others . . .";
15. the mother "has failed to demonstrate an ability or willingness to provide for the emotional and physical safety of herself and said children . . .";
16. despite claiming that "her [fifth] husband . . . sexually assaulted [two of the children] and attempted to murder Father [fourth husband], Mother has continued to have contact with [fifth husband] and has maintained a relationship with him . . .";
17. "[d]espite her repeated allegations of physical abuse by Father, Mother maintained her relationship with him for approximately fourteen months following the removal of said children from her care . . .";
18. "Mother has failed to change her circumstances to permit said children to safely be returned to her care;
19. "Mother has thus far failed to rehabilitate in that she has not demonstrated progress in her own parental deficits and has not demonstrated the ability or willingness to meet said CT Page 8072 children's specialized needs now or within the foreseeable future . . ."
Having seen and heard the testimony of the witnesses, and having reviewed each of the full exhibits, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence that (1) DCF has proved, pursuant to Ground (B)(i) that the parental rights of the mother should be terminated, and (2) that it is in the best interest of each of the children for such parental rights to be terminated.
THE TRIAL: The forensic psychiatrist:
Prior to trial the court ordered that the mother be evaluated by a forensic psychiatrist who would also observe a mother-children interaction. Such psychiatrist has performed approximately twelve hundred (1200) evaluations and has twenty-five years of experience. Such psychiatrist was asked to answer several questions usually asked in the context of such an evaluation. The evaluation consisted of interviews and observations that occurred on August 25, 2005 and September 1, 2005, almost eighteen months after the children were removed from the custody of the mother. In addition, the psychiatrist received copies of written materials, including but not limited to a November 10, 1988, psychiatric evaluation, a January 23, 1990, confidential psychological evaluation, a July 16, 1992 child abuse study by the forensic psychologist who subsequently testified in this case, and a December 14, 2004, psychological report by the same psychologist.
The psychiatrist's twenty-eight page report was admitted as exhibit 4. The psychiatrist concluded: "[The mother] is a destructive, neglectful and [abusive] force in her children's lives. [The mother is unable to protect her children . . . Child care was inadequately provided by [the mother] when the children were in her control . . .
"In my opinion, neither [parent] is the psychological parent of the children. Numerous references throughout the history to an intense emotional attachment between the children and the mother are considered accurate. However, equally numerous references to a `loving' or `bonded' relationship or to a `parent-child relationship' between the children and [the mother], in my opinion, are factually, emotionally, and legally inaccurate and CT Page 8073 untrue and represent a profound misunderstanding of the parent-child relationship as opposed to the distinctive and coercive relationship of an abuser and [her] victim . . . in my opinion, the relationship between [the mother] and her three children has been a coercive and maternally self-indulgent relationship. [The mother] has not demonstrated the care, guidance and nurture required of a parent by a child. All three children demonstrate that while they are subject to their mother's coercion and manipulations, they do not look to her for care, guidance or nurture . . .
"Quite remarkably, neither parent expresses recognition of their need for supportive services. Neither adult recognizes even the suggestion that they may not have fully met the needs of their children. This is quite extraordinary in the case of [the mother], who has spent years reporting her children's sexual and physical abuse by her companions . . ." [The mother] reports that she considers herself to be a fine parent . . .
"In my opinion, none of the children should ever be allowed to live with either of their biological parents under any circumstances. No treatment, counseling or degree of supervision, short of 24 hour parenting care that does not involve the parents, would be adequate for the children's care." Exhibit 4, 28. In his testimony, the psychiatrist described the foregoing statement as "perhaps the strongest statement" he has made in twenty-five years of practice. He is as confident as he could be in its accuracy. Recognizing that the court does not have before it for decision the matter of the children's relationship with the mother in the context of "forever," no evidence presented to the court substantively or materially contradicted the psychiatrist's credible findings (1) that the mother had failed to rehabilitate within a reasonable period of time, and may have at best little or no chance of rehabilitation, and (2) that the best interest of each of the children is not to be reunited with the mother.
In his testimony, the psychiatrist noted the mother's lack of awareness and concern about what had been said about the mother since 1987. He said that the consistent way that others describe the mother is not acknowledged by her. Although the mother received social security benefits for years allegedly because of debilitating anxiety and panic attacks, the psychiatrist observed that the mother showed little or no sense of anxiety. CT Page 8074 The psychiatrist also observed that the mother has "no insight whatsoever" into her children's problems. She does what she wants to do regardless of any and all consequences to the children. The psychiatrist noted that there are a number of other professionals who have observed this behavior over a long period of time.
Although the mother previously had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, the psychiatrist found no evidence that the mother had schizophrenia or any other major psychosis.
The psychiatrist was aware that the children claimed that they wanted to return to the mother. He stated that children of the age and circumstances of the three children in this case do not make that type of decision, e.g., should not be expected or allowed to make such a decision. Parents generally make such decisions, and if they are unable to do so, other adults make such decisions for children.
In the face of consistent evidence that she was doing it, of which evidence the mother was aware, the psychiatrist believed that the mother continued to mistreat the children. He also stated that the mother manipulated the children, so that they said, and they currently say, what she wishes them to say. By working to preserve the "intense bond" between her and the children, she prevented them from moving into and benefitting from a new productive setting. The psychiatrist had read the previous claims and conclusions that there was a loving bond between the mother and the children, but he has concluded that is a lie. He has also concluded that the mother actually is disconnected from the children.
The forensic psychologist
On June 8, 2004, August 10, 2004, August 11, 2004, August 31, 2004, and October 29, 2004, the forensic psychologist evaluated the mother, the father and the children. As part of the evaluation, the forensic psychologist also reviewed sixteen documents. On December 14, 2004, the forensic psychologist completed his report. (Exhibit A.)
On March 1, 2006, the forensic psychologist again met with the mother to answer the court's question: how does the death of the father affect your recommendations (if there is any effect)? The children were not part of this updated evaluation. In responding to the court's question, the psychologist quoted from his earlier CT Page 8075 report (exhibit A, 39): "Questions of candor and reliability surround the entire evaluation . . . [Both parents'] psychological assessment material is of limited value on account of their high defensiveness and the distorted aspects of their reports . . ." (Exhibit B, 5.)
The forensic psychologist also reported the following:
"Now that [the father] is deceased, there is no longer an issue of his rehabilitation, of his relational problems with the mother negatively impacting her and the children, and of the children being re-exposed to his violence. But otherwise, the mother appears to remain essentially unchanged. She is the way she has always presented from the time that I first met her many years ago. She is pleasant, has an appealing manner, is usually soft spoken, and involved in a child protection matter that has the potential of Criminal Court action that does not materialize. On the one hand she and her children appear to be very close if not relationally enmeshed while the mother is found to have strong deficits in self-understanding and in parenting that are considered harmful to the children. Adult Relational Disorder is the pattern of her adult life. By her retrospective report, Parent and Child Relational Disorder characterized her childhood and adolescence. Hence, disturbances in primary relationships are overarching issues throughout her life. Over time, the mother does not appear to develop insight. Problematic behavioral patterns exist. One way or another her relationships with her children are undermined by the circumstances of her own life including her own attitudes and behavioral patterns . . . Some of her decisions in relationships and with government agencies may have been motivated for the major purpose of financial gain. This may have caused her to break rules and make poor judgments that compromised herself and her children."
Id., 6.
The psychologist noted that it was likely that the mother would begin a relationship with another man. Id. The psychologist opined: "This development is more rather than less likely to raise new issues." The psychologist was concerned about the mother's history of relationships with violent men. Id. With CT Page 8076 respect to the deceased father, the psychologist concluded: ". . . I do not think that either parent had given me a full disclosure about the extent of his renewed violence against [the mother]. But since [the father] is deceased the realism of the mother's assessment of his violence potential and her willingness to report his misconduct and to take appropriate action are resolved in this case though these remain as general issues for the mother in any of her adult relationships." Id.
In his testimony, the psychologist expressed the following conclusions about the mother:
(1) she is extremely troubled;
(2) she has a life history surrounded by issues of abuse and neglect;
(3) she has rarely been free of litigation;
(4) she has lost custody of all five of her children;
(5) her problems of personal reliability and candor have been issues since he first met her professionally in the early 1990s.
With respect to the children, their key person of attachment in August 2004, when he observed them, was the mother. He stated that the attachment was unusual only in degree. Most children have a greater depth in their relationships with their parents. He stated that both the father and the mother were estranged from their families. Thus, it would have been unusual if the children had not named their mother as their key person of attachment.
Although he recommended an attempt at reunification under very firm DCF guidelines, he opined that the prognosis for such a reunification was poor. He saw the parents as "very difficult": ". . . they break rules, and they do so habitually." The mother's failure to rehabilitate was not surprising to him.
The psychologist concluded that the mother does not benefit from instruction. He did not see any growth in her perspective between his two evaluations.
The psychologist saw a mother-child bond as set forth in the psychological literature, but with harmful and destructive CT Page 8077 features.
During the 2004 evaluation, the parents (the mother and the father-fourth husband) were anxious to meet the forensic psychologist and to explain their version of events. (Exhibit A, 3.) The parents discussed the fifth husband, whom the father described as "a hell of a nice guy," who "unfortunately did not have a tag on him indicating that he was a pedophile." Id.
The psychologist reported the mother's view of the fifth husband: "The mother then gave a very positive description of [the fifth husband] and his many positive attributes and both parents excused his liability which was his drinking which was getting worse because his aunt had died. The mother then told me about a history of misfortunes that had altered the life of [the fifth husband] and later how his life fell apart on account of his alcoholism. She worked hard to get him needed care although she had a lump in her breast that needed to be removed. The parents helped each other to tell this story, reinforcing each other, showing much deference, warmth, understanding, and with helpful prompts and corrections. The mood was light and cheerful. The facts were horrendous . . ." Id.
The mother sought another parent-child interactional session with the psychologist. The court denies that request.
The DCF investigative worker
The DCF investigative worker testified concerning some of the history of DCF's contacts with the family. On December 11, 2003, DCF made a referral to the Aetna Foundation Children's Center concerning alleged sexual abuse by the fifth husband of one or more of the children. See exhibit 14. On December 16, 2003, an intake information narrative was prepared as part of the case notes by appropriate staff at the Center. Id. Also on December 16, 2003, the Center conducted a diagnostic interview of the first child interviewee. In connection with this interview, the interviewer had police information that the fifth husband admitted and corroborated the child's allegations. Through the date of the trial, the mother continued to be involved with the fifth husband, although another man accompanied her to court.
On February 27, 2004, the Center conducted another diagnostic interview. (Exhibit 15.) The second child interviewee stated that inappropriate behavior by the fifth husband was reported to the CT Page 8078 mother. Id., 2. On previous occasions, the mother had seen the fifth husband in the child's room. Id. On several occasions, the mother told the fifth husband not to enter the child's room. Id. The mother's warnings were ineffectual, and she did not do anything else to protect the child. However, the Center noted that the child's "disclosure should be evaluated within the context of the history of prior fabricated statements of sexual abuse attributed to older children in the family." Id., 3. The mother was the common thread with respect to such sexual abuse allegations.
The current DCF' treatment worker
The current DCF treatment worker testified at trial. The worker prepared documents that were admitted as full exhibits, including the June 14, 2005, social study for termination of parental rights, which study was filed on June 15, 2005. (Exhibit 1.)
The mother's history of making sexual and physical abuse allegations against at least four of her five spouses was set forth in the study. In a 1987 custody dispute involving her oldest, now an adult, child ("the first child"), the mother alleged that her second husband sexually molested that child, and raped her (the mother). Id., 3. She also alleged that the second husband physically abused her and the child. Id. A court appointed psychiatrist concluded that the sexual abuse allegations were untrue, and "that mother had psychiatric issues . . . that impaired her credibility relative to the allegations . . ." Id.
In 1988 DCF received a court referral that the first child was being neglected "due to issues of domestic violence" with the mother's third husband. Id., 4. In 1990 the mother reported that her third husband was physically abusive toward her, her first child, and her second (also now an adult) child. Id. She also accused the third husband of physically and sexually abusing his child from another marriage. Id.
In 1991 a rape crisis counselor made a referral to DCF because the mother had alleged that her third husband had sexually molested her second child. Id. This allegation was not confirmed by an examination of such second child. Id. Approximately nine months later, the mother retracted her allegations. Id., 5. CT Page 8079 In July 1992, the forensic psychologist submitted a report to the court. Id. He concluded that the second child had not been sexually abused by her father [the third husband], but rather Mother had repeatedly coached her [then three year old] child to give fabricated details of sexual abuse." Id. The psychologist concluded that the mother needed intensive psychiatric treatment. Id.
Also in July 1992, DCF received a referral from the maternal grandmother concerning serious alleged inappropriate behavior by the mother to the first child. Id. In January 1993, a similar report was made by the third husband. The mother subsequently admitted a portion of the allegations. Id., 6.
In 1993, there were claims, found to have a "high probability" by a psychologist specializing in treating victims of satanic cult/ritual abuse, that the two children "had been subjected to ritualistic occult-like abuse by their mother," the father (the mother's fourth husband) and the mother's then ex-husband (the mother's third husband). Id., 6-7. However, no such claims were made with respect to the three children in these proceedings.
From 1993 through 1997 there were additional reports and referrals. In April 1997, the first child refused to return home from school. Id., 7. At the first child's request, DCF was called by the school social worker. Id. The then sixteen-year-old first child "reported that his mother and stepfather, [the fourth husband], were physically abusive to him and had threatened him. He reported that his mother forced him to make allegations that his step-grandfather . . . had sexually abused him. Further, he reported that his mother also forced him to say that he had been sexually abused by [his former stepfather, the third husband]. [The first child] reported that his mother had defecated on various items and then forced him to say that he was doing these things because of the anxiety of having been sexual[ly] abused. Of great concern, [the first child] reported that his mother and [the fourth husband] had threatened to harm him on several occasions with [stun guns]. [The first child] reported that he had witnessed his mother and [the fourth husband] put prescription medication in his younger [siblings'] bottles so that they would go to sleep." Id., 8. The three children in this case had been born when the first child made these statements, and the court has accepted that they are the children referred to by the first child. CT Page 8080 On December 7, 2000, DCF received a referral from a homeless shelter. Id. The family had been evicted from its apartment. Id. There had been a domestic violence incident and the father had been incarcerated. Id.
DCF investigated and determined that the mother had been keeping Timothy, the fourth child, "out of school to collect cans with her . . . and that [he] had missed thirty-eight days of school. The reported domestic violence incident occurred on 11/30/00, alleging [that the father] had dragged Mother by her hair, kicked her, and punched her on her legs and neck. Further, [the father] allegedly placed a plastic bag over Mother's head and attempted to kill her. The children were at home during the domestic violence incident. Mother minimized the impact that the domestic violence had on the children and stated that they were sleeping on the couch at the time the incident occurred. To the contrary, Anna-Lee and Timothy . . . both reported . . . seeing their father attempt to murder their mother and reported to be extremely frightened. Mother reported that she had experienced a ten-year history of domestic violence with [the father] and was frightened that "he would kill her someday." Id., 9.
When Anna-Lee met with the forensic psychologist, she became distressed by the memory of her father beating her mother: "Anna Lee thinks she was about 6 when her parents broke up. The reason was that her real dad beat her mom. She knows because she watched it happen . . . [T]he child was obviously distressed by the memory." Exhibit A, 7.
Thereafter, the mother and the children moved into the home of the person who would become mother's fifth husband. Id. The mother "met [the fifth husband] while going door to door collecting cans for her alleged cancer treatment." Exhibit 1, 9.
Subsequently, the mother moved to the father's apartment. Id. After the father was released from incarceration, the mother had outstanding protective orders modified so that the father could have contact with her and the children. Id.
Approximately two months after such move, DCF received another referral concerning domestic violence involving the parents. Id. The father again threatened the mother's life. Id. A police officer found the mother and the three children hiding behind a dumpster. Id. The children did not corroborate what the mother alleged, and the mother did not press charges against CT Page 8081 the father.
The police report (exhibit 6) contains the summary of the police investigation, the father's admission of physical abuse of Timothy, and the mother's refusal to press charges on her claims. ( Id., 2.)
However, the mother did obtain a restraining order against the father and moved back to the home of the person who would become her fifth husband. Id. The mother filed for a dissolution of her marriage to the father, her fourth husband. In September 2001, DCF closed its case. The anticipated fifth husband "had no criminal involvement, owned his own home, and had been employed at the same place of employment for five years." Id., 9-10.
In April 2003, DCF received an anonymous referral from Donna-Lee's school. It was reported that the mother had been arrested for bigamy and that residing in the home were the fifth husband, the mother, the three children and the fourth husband, "who had moved into the home approximately one month previous[ly], after his release from prison." Id., 10.
Also in April 2003, Donna-Lee reported that at night, after the lights were turned off, her mother would come into her room and pinch her in the nose, and that "mom will be mad if I tell." Id.
At some point the fifth husband had entered a substance abuse facility for treatment of alcoholism and had transferred ownership of his home to the mother. Id.
In October 2003, the fifth husband allegedly poisoned the fourth husband by putting the mother's Klonopin in his coffee. Id., 10, 18. The mother found the fourth husband on a couch in the family home. Id. The mother did not call for medical assistance. Id. She is quoted in the police report of the incident as stating: "I thought he was dying and I thought [that] he was having a good death." Id.
According to testimony, after this alleged murder attempt the fifth husband checked himself into a treatment facility.
It was alleged that the fifth husband had sexually abused two of the children. Id. Despite this, and despite the attempted murder, the mother and the father (the fourth husband) were going to allow the fifth husband to live in a basement apartment on the CT Page 8082 property. Id., 10, 19. As of June 2005, the mother reported that she was in the process of divorcing the fifth husband. Id., 14. However, between December 16, 2003, when the mother admitted knowing that the fifth husband had sexually abused at least one of the children, and June 14, 2005, the date of the social study, the mother failed to act to protect the children from the chance of further abuse by the fifth husband. Id., 18-19.
Although the mother had been arrested for bigamy because her marriage to her fourth husband had not been dissolved before she married her fifth husband, the charge was nolled because her marriage to her fourth husband was not valid because he had not dissolved his marriage to his wife before he married the mother. Id., 11. The mother's seeming bigamy was brought to the attention of the police by a probate judge, who, in part wrote the following:
"At a hearing held on 12/31/02, I was presented with a Virginia marriage license for [the fifth husband] and [the mother] proving the union of their marriage in Arlington, VA., on 7/1/02. (My concern was 1/2 [the fifth husband's] real estate was transferred to [the mother] in 8/02.) When [the fifth husband's attorney] and I asked [the mother] if her divorce was finalized to [the fourth husband], she stated there was some hold up on the paperwork, but that she stood before a Judge and it was granted.
"I wanted verification that the divorce was finalized with [the fourth husband], so I called the . . . Superior Court and discovered that the dissolution was continued until 2/6/03." (Exhibit 7.) Thus, the mother was caught in a substantive, material lie made in court to a probate court judge.
In a witness statement to the police dated October 23, 2003, the mother admitted that "[the fourth husband] and I got married on December 31, 1992, and were divorced February 7, 2003." However, it is unclear if this statement is correct, since the DCF records reflect that the mother "remarried" the father on February 7, 1993 (testimony of "prior DCF worker") and the date scheduled for the dissolution was February 6, 2003.
DCF asserted that the mother has failed to rehabilitate herself because she has failed to have her mental health issues successfully treated and resolved. Id. The mother continued to choose as partners men who she claimed were physically and/or sexually abusive. Id., 10-19. DCF reports that as of June 14, 2005, the mother continued "to threaten to `kill'" the first child, who is an adult.
On January 5, 2006, the current DCF worker completed an addendum to the social study. (Exhibit 2.) She reported that the mother remained married to the fifth husband. Id., 2. On June 30, 2005, the mother contacted the shelter where the father was CT Page 8083 living and "told father and the shelter staff that one of their children had died." Id., 3. The mother's statement was untrue. On August 4, 2005, the mother asked the father to move into her home. Id. The father did so, and remained there until his death. Id. On August 5, 2005, supervised visitation was terminated because of the parents' "non-compliance with procedures and restrictions from the Department as well as AMPS, the professional agency used to supervise the visits." Id. On September 28, 2005, an incident occurred that caused DCF to fear "that the parents were attempting an abduction of [one of the children]." Id. On October 19, 2005, DCF learned that the mother had been arrested "for Criminal Lockout charges in January 2005. Mother did not inform the Department she had a boarder." Id., 4. On November 11, 2005 the father died. Id. On November 14, 2005, the mother reported that she was still in contact with her fifth husband, "and that she would like the Department to pay for his therapy." Id., 5.
The worker described what DCF believed to be the mother's efforts to manipulate the children to undermine the foster home placements, the authority of the supervised visitation staff and of the worker. DCF also believed that the mother tried to bribe and to manipulate the positions and feelings of the children though gifts of toys, clothes and treats.
The children had numerous issues and needs for services.
Testimony of two police officers
Two police officers testified at trial. The first officer testified concerning several guns that the mother turned over to the state police. These guns originally belonged to the fourth husband (the father). The police officer said that the police received a number of calls from the mother's household that were in his view an inordinate amount for one family." For safety reasons, two police, instead of a single police officer, responded to each call. Such police officer also described a very long investigation of whether the mother defrauded the United States Social Security Administration. See also exhibit 22. The mother was arrested and the case is pending. (The mother testified that she expected it to be nolled on May 16, 2006.)
The second police officer testified concerning that the mother collected cans and bottles as part of a "cancer drive" for herself. The mother claimed to have cancer. Also, the second CT Page 8084 officer investigated the claim that the mother was a bigamist. At times in 2004 the mother was living both with her fourth husband, whom she alleged physically abused her and one or more of the children, and her fifth husband, whom she alleged sexually abused at least two of the children. At DCF insistence, the mother obtained a restraining order against the fifth husband, but the mother ignored that order. The second police officer received a report from a town employee that the fifth husband was on the mother's property (formerly owned by the fifth husband). The second police officer asked the mother about the report. The mother initially denied it, then said that she could not keep the fifth husband away, and finally said that she had a "wifely duty" to give him a haircut. According to the DCF treatment worker, at other times the mother claimed that the sighting of the fifth husband at the home was a case of mistaken identity, and that the person was not the fifth husband but "Jim the plumber" who looked like the fifth husband. See, e.g., exhibit A, 4.
The supervised visitation worker
The supervised visitation worker described the series of issues, events and behavior by the mother and the father that led to the cessation of visitation in July 2005. Such issues, events and behavior also are set forth in exhibits 10, 11 and 12.
The mother
The mother voluntarily testified. She described her home as very suitable for her and the children, if they were returned to her. She stated that she has owned the home since 2002.
Her primary source of income was social security benefits. She claimed to have a disability based on hypertension and anxiety. She said that the social security benefit payments currently are suspended because of the pending criminal charges. She stated that the prosecutor is going to nolle those charges on May 16, 2006.
On February 3, 1994, the mother filed a "Disability Report," her application for social security disability benefits. (Exhibit 22.) She wrote that her disabling condition was "panic attacks," starting on June 1, 1992. Id., Disability Report, 1. She also wrote that she stopped working on June 5, 1992, and that she was "unable to get out of bed without medication. Even on medication unable to care for myself without the help of a home care prividor [sic]." Id.
She wrote that she was referred to her then current doctor "because of stress + panic attacks." Id., 2. She claimed that an agency was "providing special benefits for a home care provider." Id., 3. She further claimed that she could not "do daily activities necessary for every day living." Id., 4. She wrote that she had "a home care provider who takes care of everything — clean, cook, shop." Id.
She listed her "recreational activities and hobbies" as "watch[ing] TV with children before but I can't do that now. I can't listen to music." Id.
Under the category of "social contacts," she wrote: "I can't deal with people on a day today [sic] basis. I can't go into restaurants. I can't listen to other people's problems or [sic] even idle chit chat bothers me." Id.
Under the category of "Other," she wrote: "I don't allow my self [sic] to drive because of my panic attacks. I've drive [sic] a total of 1/2 hour between 6/92 and now." Id.
Although the mother had been married to the fourth husband since late 1992 or early 1993, she applied for and signed the application using the last name of her third husband. Id., 6. She listed her physically abusive fourth husband as her "Home care provider full time — he lives in my home." Id. CT Page 8095 Assuming that what the mother said is true, she told the psychologist that her "conditions" improved. See exhibit A, 4-5: "She had learned to control the panic attacks with breathing techniques and these had been under control for quite a few years. She indicates she would not have one again today and that there is no reason for this to occur." However, the mother also told the psychologist: "She also takes a Klonopin wafer [if] she thinks she is going to have a quick panic attack." Id., 5.
She did not report, at any time, to the Social Security Administration that she was no longer disabled.
However, if the mother's description of her disabling conditions remains accurate, she clearly is unable appropriately to parent her children. Instead, if they were returned to her, they would be parenting and caring for her, especially since the father has died and thus obviously is no longer available to her as a resource or "care giver."
Assuming that the mother lied to the Social Security Administration to obtain disability benefits, as can be seen from DCF and other contrary reports of her and the fourth husband's behavior, and the mother's statements, this is cumulative confirmation that the mother is not credible and that her claims concerning the children and her alleged positive relationship with them should not be given any meaningful weight.
The mother claimed to have attended a parenting program, whose name she could not remember, though a hospital. She said that she had a substance abuse evaluation, but there were no recommendations for treatment. She participated in individual counseling, where the focus was the children. The counseling also addressed the issue of domestic violence. She is currently being treated for anxiety and is on medication. CT Page 8085
The mother claimed always to have attended scheduled sessions, and always to have been on time.
The mother took no responsibility for the supervised visitation problems that led to the cessation of visitation. She blamed the problems on last-minute changes of the rules. She said that the problems were caused by the fourth husband, DCF and the supervised visitation provider.
The mother also criticized the foster home where Tim was residing.
Because of the lack of visitation, the mother's testimony established that she has evaded, avoided and ignored the telephone and letter contact rules established by DCF. Though such prohibited contact, see, for example, exhibits C, E and G, and unmonitored telephone contact, she has continued her efforts to disrupt the foster care placements, and to maintain her control over the loyalty and emotions of the children.
She said that the children tell her that they want to come home. She stated that she was not so selfish that she needed the children for herself but she needs the children because they need her. She denied that she had told the children and others that "I would die without my children." She also denied that a person believed to be her current boyfriend, who came each day with her to court, is living with her in her home.
She testified about how and why she made a claim against the state for the destruction of the guns that were owned by the fourth husband but that she claimed to belong to her. See also exhibit 26.
She also claimed to have breast cancer diagnosed in December 1999. She told one of the children that she had breast cancer. For treatment she went to a healer. She also claimed that a lumpectomy confirmed she had breast cancer. She also stated that she had vulva cancer. She said that tests as late as 2003 confirmed that she had cancer. She was shown exhibit 27, which contained a report of no malignancy. She said that something was missing from the report. She stated that she had been told that she was in the beginning stages of cancer, and that was consistent with "negative for malignancy." CT Page 8086 Her fifth husband, who lived with her and the children, was drinking between one pint and one quart of vodka daily, but she was unaware of this. However, she was generally aware of the fifth husband's alcohol problem.
After they split up, she said that he started to use cocaine. She also was unaware of this until some time after he started his use.
Although she had concerns about the treatment of her children in DCF care, she did not contact the DCF hotline to report or discuss them. She claimed that she did tell the current worker about her children's calls for help.
The foster mother
Anna-Lee's foster mother testified about Anna-Lee's progress and her current interests.
DCF is making arrangements for Donna-Lee to move into this home.
The guardian ad litem
The guardian ad litem testified and was subject to cross-examination. Taking into consideration the best interest of the children and their need for permanency and stability, the guardian ad litem recommended that the mother's rights be terminated.
APPLICABLE LAW
This court previously has set forth the law applicable to this case and to similar cases in In re Jyronne D., docket no. K09-CP02-008619-A, Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, Child Protection Session at Middletown (Bear, J., April 12, 2006), pages 25-30.
DCF HAS PROVED, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ITS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS
As set forth on pages 2-5, above, and otherwise throughout this memorandum of decision, including but not limited to the seven required statutory findings, DCF has alleged and proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) this court has jurisdiction CT Page 8087 over the matter and the parties; (2) the children previously were adjudicated neglected; (3) DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with the mother through the offer of and the provision of services; and (4) the mother was unable to benefit from the services to the point where she could be considered to be a parental resource for reunification.
THE MOTHER FAILED TO REHABILITATE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN ON MARCH 3, 2004.
On March 3, 2004 when the children were removed, they were 10, 9 and 7 years old. The forensic psychologist completed his first report on December 14, 2004, approximately six months after the removal of the children. The forensic psychiatrist saw the mother and the children approximately one year later, or eighteen months after their removal. Because of the mother's long-term issues, behavior, vulnerabilities and self-focus ("issues"), the psychiatrist reported his conclusion, ". . . none of the children should ever be allowed to live with either of the parents under any circumstances . . .," see pages 6-7, above, providing strong emphasis that there was little or no hope that the mother within any reasonable time would resolve her issues, and thus there was little or no hope for a reunification within a reasonable time (eighteen months having already passed).
The last day of trial was April 21, 2006. It thus was approximately 25 1/2 months since their removal from the mother's custody. The children were 12, 11 and 9 years old. Despite the mother's sabotaging and manipulative efforts, each of the children had achieved or was progressing toward permanency and stability in their current living arrangements. The children have achieved safety in their living circumstances.
From the perspective of each of the children, their ages, circumstances, needs and stages of development, the mother had more than a reasonable time to demonstrate the level of personal rehabilitation required by the applicable statutes, Practice Book provisions and case law. The mother failed to achieve that level of rehabilitation within a reasonable time. The children were and are entitled to a level of safety, security, stability and permanency that the mother could not provide before March 3, 2004, or within a reasonable time after such date.
C.G.S. SECTION 17A-112(k) FINDINGS: CT Page 8088 1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and each child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of each child with the parent. The services to the mother have included the following:
A. general DCF and social work services;
B. court-ordered psychiatric and psychological evaluations;
C. alcohol and substance abuse assessment and treatment;
D. domestic violence abuse victim services;
B. parent education;
F. individual counseling;
G. supervised visitation;
H. transportation;
I. case management services.
The services to the children have included the following:
A. general DCF and social work services;
B. foster care;
C. medical services;
D. dental services;
E. individual counseling;
F. supervised visitation;
G. Aetna Foundation Children's Center services;
H. case management services.
The foregoing services amply demonstrate that DCF made CT Page 8089 reasonable efforts to reunify each of the children with each parent. C.G.S. Section 17a-112(j)(1).
2. Whether DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 as amended. DCF has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family. See 1. above.
3. The terms of an 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(s). On August 8, 2004, the following final specific steps were signed by the mother and issued by the court:
* Keep all appointments set by or with DCF. Cooperate with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and with visits by the child's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem. There was no evidence that the mother was not generally cooperative.
* Keep children's whereabouts and your own whereabouts known to DCF, your attorney and the attorney for your children.
There was no evidence that the mother did not comply with this expectation.
* Participate in counseling and make progress toward identified parenting, individual and family treatment goals.
The mother completed a sixteen-session parent education family management program through ECHN. She failed to complete successfully the parenting component scheduled after each supervised visitation. The mother attended therapy with at least two therapists. The mother refuses to accept her role and responsibility in connection with the neglect of the children, so she is unable to make progress toward the goals of the therapy.
The forensic psychiatrist and the forensic psychologist referred to the mother's inability or unwillingness to benefit from therapy or other teaching, instruction or guidance. CT Page 8090
* Accept and cooperate with in-home services referred by DCF.
There was no evidence that any such services were offered or provided by DCF.
* Cooperate with court-ordered evaluations and testing.
The mother cooperated.
* Obtain and/or cooperate with a restraining/protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by DCF to avoid further domestic violence incidents. The mother at times obtained such orders, but did not keep them in effect or obey them.
* Sign releases authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress toward identified goals, and for use in further proceedings before the court. There was no evidence that the mother failed to cooperate with this expectation.
* Secure and/or maintain adequate housing and legal income.
The mother has adequate housing, but there was no evidence about its current condition.
The mother's social security income is currently suspended. The mother did not provide the amount of income she is earning from her dog-breeding business.
* No substance abuse.
There was no evidence that the mother did not comply with this expectation.
* No involvement/further involvement with the criminal justice system. Cooperate with the Office of Adult Probation or parole officer and comply with conditions of probation or parole. The mother was arrested for offenses relating to the unreported earning of income while receiving social security benefits. CT Page 8091
On October 19, 2005, the mother was arrested for criminal lockout of a tenant that allegedly occurred in January 2005. The mother had not reported to DCF the existence of the tenant in her home.
* Consistently and timely meet and address the children's physical, educational, medical and emotional needs, including but not limited to, keeping the children's appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric, or educational providers. The mother did not comply with this expectation.
* Immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the children. The mother did not comply with this expectation.
* Cooperate with the children's therapy.
There was no evidence that the mother was asked to participate in or otherwise cooperate with the children's therapy.
* Visit the children as often as DCF permits.
The mother was unable to benefit from the supervised visitation and the parenting component. Such visitation was terminated.
4. The feelings and emotional ties of each child with respect to their parents, any guardian of the 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 a bond with the mother that continued through the end of the trial. The forensic psychiatrist and the forensic psychologist opined that from the perspective of the children their enmeshment with the mother was harmful and destructive, and was manipulated by the mother to serve her needs. Anna-Lee has a bond with her current foster mother, and the mother continuously since her removal has attempted to undermine that bond.
The girls have a bond with each other, and are expected to be reunited in Anna-Lee's foster home. Timothy is bonded to his CT Page 8092 sisters. He has issues, and has recently moved into a new foster home.
5. The age of each child.
The children are currently 12, 11 and 9 years old.
6. The efforts each parent has made to adjust his or her circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of the children to return home in the foreseeable future. The mother has not adjusted her circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interests of any of the children to return home in the foreseeable future. The forensic psychiatrist concluded, inter alia, that the mother "is an intelligent, organized, verbally adept woman who has pursued her own interests and emotional needs at the expense of her five children over the past 25 years . . . [The mother] is seen quite consistently as neglecting her children's needs to their substantial detriment. Exhibit 4, 25. "[The mother] has an entirely self-centered and unidirectional relationship with her children. Her central position is for her children to meet her needs, regardless of the consequences to the children." Id., 26.
7. The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the children by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the children, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent. There was no evidence that the mother has been prevented from maintaining a relationship with the children for any reasons other than the predictable consequences of her behavior, and the father's behavior, which she joined in and supported.
The mother did not provide specific information concerning her current or past economic circumstances.
THE BEST INTEREST OF EACH OF THE CHILDREN:
The court separately has considered the best interest of each of the children. The court has considered whether it is in the best interest of any of the children to be returned to the CT Page 8093 mother, including whether she reasonably could be expected and relied upon to provide the safe, secure, nurturing, violence-free, stable and permanent environment idealized in the statutes and case law. The court has considered each of the children's current circumstances, the length of time each such child has been in those circumstances, and the reports of their growth and progress. The court also has taken into consideration the evidence on those issues. The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of each of the children, and that it is necessary for their growth, development, safety, security, stability, and permanency, that the rights of the mother be terminated.
THE STATUTORY GROUND FOR EACH TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS:
The court finds that DCF has established, by clear and convincing evidence, with respect to each child, Ground (B)(i), "failure to rehabilitate" sufficiently to have any, some or all of the-children reunited with the mother.
CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
Having considered the evidence and the statutory, Practice Book and case law requirements, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, as to each child, that DCF has proved Ground (B)(i), "failure to rehabilitate" by the mother.
Having considered each of the children, his or her age, experiences, needs, sense of time, relationships with the mother and foster parents, need for safety, security, stability and permanency, previous victimization by the mother and the partners she chose, the mother's lack of any reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation, and the general totality of circumstances, the court finds that it is in the best interest of each of the children to terminate the parental rights of the mother.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parental rights of the mother to each child are hereby terminated. The commissioner of the department of children and families is appointed as statutory parent of each child. The initial report concerning each child shall be submitted, as required, within thirty days hereof. Quarterly reports and annual permanency plans shall be submitted as required in accordance with statutory requirements.
Judgment shall enter accordingly. CT Page 8094