Opinion
No. L15-CP05-008099-A
July 1, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I STATEMENT OF CASE
Before the court for consideration are a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR), motion to review permanency plan, and motions to resume visitation. The parties to this matter are as follows: petitioner, Commissioner of Children and Families (DCF or department); respondent mother, Sandee B.; respondent father, Philip L.; and the child, Kyle L.
The matter was tried on May 10-12, and 20, 2010. The following witnesses testified at trial: Jennifer Birden (DCF social worker); Charles Adams (nurse and addictions counselor, Charlotte Hungerford Hospital); Sandy Wolff (licensed clinical social worker, McCall Foundation); Ashley Purdy (child's GAL); Dr. Ralph Balducci (psychologist); Mary Beth Wabrek (substance abuse counselor, McCall Foundation); Dr. Sabooh Mubbashar (psychiatrist); Dr. Rebecca Parilla (clinical psychologist); Maria Coutant-Skinner (parent educator, McCall Foundation); Dr. Stephen Herman (adult and child psychiatrist); Bradley Pike (father's work supervisor); Justin Pike (father's work supervisor); Carolyn Berry (counselor, McCall House); Samantha Turk (mother's step-daughter); Brandy Dziedzic (clinical social worker, Charlotte Hungerford Hospital); Sarah Turk (mother's step-daughter); Robert Turk (mother's husband); Andrea Becker-Abbott (substance abuse technician, McCall Foundation); Philip (father); and Sandee (mother).
The court finds that it has proper jurisdiction of the matter, notice of the proceeding was provided, and no action is pending in any other court affecting the custody of the child.
The court has fully considered the criteria set forth in the relevant Connecticut General Statutes, as well as the evidence, applicable case law, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and arguments of the parties in reaching the decisions reflected in the orders that issue in this memorandum. After due consideration, the court grants the termination of parental rights petition, grants the motion to review permanency plan, and denies the motions to resume visitation.
II FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts and procedural history were proven at trial by clear and convincing evidence.
On November 30, 2005, the petitioner filed a neglect petition with respect to Kyle based on conditions injurious. The Jurisdictional Facts, dated November 30, 2005, indicate the following: "By virtue of the child's age, he is unable to protect himself or summon help. Mother and father use illegal substances (cocaine and alcohol) while caring for their son."
Two months later, Kyle was removed from the parents for the first time on January 26, 2006. The department filed a motion for an order of temporary custody based on a report alleging physical neglect of the child. Kyle was seen outside on January 25, 2006, with no shoes on, playing in the snow. The mother also brought Kyle into a construction area of the building where he should not have been. Mother appeared to be "strung out" and tired. On January 26, 2006, the OTC was granted by the court (Goldstein, J.). The court (Taylor, J.) sustained the OTC by agreement on February 1, 2006. On September 13, 2006, the court (Goldstein, J.) adjudicated Kyle neglected and he was committed to the department. The parents were ordered to comply with specific steps.
On March 5, 2007, the petitioner filed the first TPR petition with respect to the parents, which alleged failure to rehabilitate. On March 4, 2008, after trial, the court (Goldstein, JTR.) denied the first TPR petition. See Memorandum of Decision, dated February 26, 2008. After the first TPR petition was denied, the department made efforts to reunify the parents with Kyle. Services were put in place and additional visitation was provided. On November 10, 2008, the father filed a motion to revoke commitment, which was followed by the filing of the mother's motion to revoke commitment on November 17, 2008. Kyle was returned to the parents under commitment in January 2009.
In early April 2009, the department received a report from Maria Skinner, the PEAS worker, regarding mother's behavior and appearance. The department visited the home and shared the same concerns regarding mother's condition. On April 8, 2009, the department removed Kyle from the parents for the second time. The father filed a motion for immediate emergency in court review re: removal of child on April 9, 2009. The matter was heard on April 14, 2009. After hearing, the court (Eschuk, J.) entered the following orders: "DCF is to return the child to the parents today. Child is not to be left alone w/ mother; mother is to provide DCF w/ all prescriptions, appropriate releases, etc. Recommendation for maternal uncle to not be in the home. Child is to go to daycare this week if there is no one to supervise child w/ mother." Kyle was again returned to the parents under commitment. On May 5, 2009, the father filed a motion to revoke commitment. On May 15, 18 and 19, 2009, the court (Eschuk, J.) held a revocation hearing. On June 15, 2009, the department filed a motion to immediately open the evidence in the revocation hearing. On June 30, 2009, the petitioner filed an emergency request to vacate current order, which was granted, and the child was removed from the parents for the third time. On July 1, 2009, the court granted the department's motion to open evidence. On August 3, 2009, the mother and father withdrew their motions to revoke commitment. On October 1, 2009, the department filed a motion to review permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption. The father filed an objection on October 6, 2009. On October 8, 2009, the petitioner filed the second TPR petition with respect to the respondent parents based on failure to rehabilitate. On October 14, 2009, the objections to the permanency plan were consolidated with the TPR.
Visitation was suspended in October 2010, after consultation with professionals. On January 15, 2010, the father filed a motion to resume visitation. The petitioner filed an objection to that motion on February 19, 2010. On February 22, 2010, the motion to resume visitation was marked over to the TPR trial. On March 5, 2010, the mother filed a motion to resume visitation.
On May 10, 2010, the court granted the department's oral motion to take judicial notice of the first TPR proceeding.
The department has been closely involved with the family since October 2005. The presenting child protection issues with the parents were substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, lack of parenting skills, child safety and inability to appropriately safeguard and parent the child. Jennifer Birden, DCF social worker, was assigned to the case in November 2005. The parents were living together at the time.
Mother was born in Winsted, Connecticut on December 4, 1966. She is forty-three years old. Mother reports that her family moved back and forth between Florida and Connecticut when she was young. Her father was physically abusive toward her and her mother. Her parents eventually divorced and her mother remarried.
After graduating from high school, mother attended Naugatuck Valley Community College and became a certified nurse's aide (CNA)/home health aide. She has worked as a home health aide and in construction. She is currently taking college classes toward a degree.
Mother has a history of substance abuse and mental health issues. Mother reports that she experimented with marijuana in high school. She began drinking alcohol while she was in an abusive relationship between 1991 and 1998. During an evaluation conducted by Karen Gardner at Advance Behavioral Health in September 2006, mother stated that she broke her legs in an accident while under the influence of alcohol. Mother reported a long history of substance abuse going back to when she was sixteen, which included alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and medications. She reported a history of domestic violence and mental health issues including being treated eight months earlier for depression/anger. The evaluator indicated that mother suffered from cocaine and alcohol dependence. Mother has made conflicting statements regarding when she first started using cocaine. She told Birden that she started using cocaine in September 2004, when a tenant introduced her to it. However, she told her substance abuse counselor that she started using cocaine when she was 28 years old.
Mother has a long history of domestic violence. From 1991 to 1998, she was involved in a relationship in which she was physically and emotionally abused. Prior to that relationship, mother was married to Gregory B. They have one child together, Adam B., who is now an adult. Mother has a domestic violence history with the respondent father. On April 4, 2006, she was arrested for assault following an incident with father. As recently as July 2009, she called the police on father, which led to his arrest. Mother stopped living with father sometime after the third removal. Mother moved into Robert T.'s home in December 2009. They have been married for approximately three months. On April, 21, 2010, mother was arrested for domestic incident and charged with disorderly conduct and assault for an incident involving her husband, Robert T. Mother was intoxicated and allegedly hit Robert T. in the face and neck. The case was subsequently resolved without a conviction. Mother's criminal record dates back to 2002, and includes arrests for drug offenses and failure to appear.
The department has referred mother to numerous services including Family Strides for parenting education classes, Parenting Education Assessment Services (PEAS) for in-home parenting education and support, Northwest Center for individual counseling for mental health treatment and medication management, McCall Foundation for substance abuse treatment, Charlotte Hungerford for substance abuse treatment, Susan B. Anthony Project for domestic violence issues, visitation, and case management.
Father was born in Taunton, Massachusetts on April 12, 1967. He is forty-three years old. When he was young, he moved with his family to New Hartford, Connecticut. After his parents divorced, he moved with his mother and siblings to Winsted, where he grew up.
After graduating from high school, father went to work at Hitchcock Chair. He worked there for about six years and then worked for about ten years at Exceleron in East Granby, Connecticut. He left Exceleron because he felt underpaid. He was unemployed until May 2008, when he began working at Fairchild Automated Parts in Winsted. He was let go from Fairchild in July 2009. On January 5, 2010, father went to work as a machine operator at Inertia Dynamics. He is reportedly a reliable worker and is doing well there. Father is working six days per week because of all the work they have.
Father has a long history of substance abuse and mental health issues. In December 2005, during an evaluation, father reported a history of substance abuse going back to when he was in his teens, which included use of alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and medications. Father reported receiving mental health treatment for anxiety in 2003. He took medications for pain and anxiety. The evaluator indicated that father suffered from cocaine abuse, alcohol abuse, opioid dependence and sedative, hypnotic or anxiolytic abuse. In December 2005, father tested positive for cocaine and other substances. In February 2006, father was discharged from McCall Foundation for multiple relapses. In November 2006, father was working on his anxiety, substance dependence and long term goals related to employment and financial security (Northwest Center). In July 2009, father tested positive for opiates.
Father has a criminal record dating back to 2005. He has been arrested for assault, disorderly conduct, failure to appear and breach of peace. He has a history of domestic violence, including arrests in April 2006, and July 2009.
The department has referred father to numerous services including substance abuse evaluation and treatment at McCall Foundation, individual counseling from the Northwest Center in Winsted; medication management from the Northwest Center, domestic violence counseling through the Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA) in Torrington, parenting education classes from Family Strides, in-home parenting education and support through Parenting Education Assessment Services (PEAS) through the McCall Foundation, individual counseling through Waterbury Counseling Associates, visitation and case management services.
After the department became involved with the family in the fall of 2005, the parents were referred to substance abuse programs and mental health services. Intensive Family Preservation services (IFP) were put in place.
Over the next few months, the department continued to be concerned regarding the parents' substance abuse and mental health issues. They were not engaged in recommended substance abuse and mental health treatment. There were new reports regarding the parents' inadequate supervision of Kyle. He was found wandering outside in the middle of winter without proper attire. Kyle was removed from the parents for the first time on January 26, 2006. The parents were offered substance abuse treatment through the McCall Foundation. Mental health treatment was offered through the Northwest Center. The parents were referred to parenting education classes. Domestic violence counseling was offered to mother through the Susan B. Anthony Project and to father through the Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA). Mother's progress was limited. She delayed in engaging in services and then her participation was inconsistent. Mother continued to test positive for cocaine in 2006. Mother attended two sessions for domestic violence and then did not go back. She did not engage in parenting education until November 2006. She subsequently completed the program. Father's progress was also limited. He delayed engaging in substance abuse services and did not follow through with recommendations. He relapsed and went to detox. Father did not engage in parenting education until November 2006. He subsequently completed the program. Father engaged in individual counseling in June 2006. By end of 2006, the department was recommending termination of parental rights and adoption as the permanency plan based on the parents' lack of progress.
On March 5, 2007, the department filed the first TPR petition. The department continued to offer services to the parents. When first TPR petition was denied, on March 4, 2008, the department understood that it needed to continue to work with the parents. At that point, Kyle had been in the department's care for over two years.
Between March 2008, and December 2008, the parents were making progress and the department was working toward reunification. Both parents were referred for substance abuse and mental health services. Mother was engaged in substance abuse services and was discharged in May 2008, with a recommendation that she attend AA meetings. She was participating in individual counseling at NW Center. In the summer of 2008, the parents appeared to be maintaining their sobriety. Father was attending some AA meetings and engaged in mental health treatment. In July 2008, visitation was increased from once to twice per week. The visit started at DCF. By the end of the summer, visits were taking place at the parents' residence.
The department made a referral in July 2008, to the Parent Education and Assessment Program (PEAS) through the McCall Foundation which provided intensive reunification services in the home. Maria Skinner was the assigned PEAS worker. She started working with the family in July 2008. The parents were living together at that time, and Kyle was living with his foster mother. PEAS provided parenting education and case management services. The family's issues included lack of life skills, housing, employment, budgeting and sobriety. The focus was on sobriety and providing a stable and consistent home environment. Skinner usually met with the parents once per week.
From July 2008, to December 2008, the parents made progress toward reunification. Their relationship was relatively stable. The home was clean and safe. Both parents were employed. They were also working on their parenting skills. Sometimes they had problems taking information and applying or integrating it in their daily life. Skinner provided support for the reunification. She talked to the parents about how the transition might be difficult. Skinner observed that Kyle does better when things are consistent and predictable. When things are not stable, Kyle experiences stress and anxiety.
Dr. Ralph Balducci is an expert in psychological assessments and the diagnosis and prognosis of adults and children. In September/October 2008, Dr. Balducci conducted a court-ordered evaluation of mother and father and a parent-child interaction. He had collateral contacts with service providers.
Mother's primary issue is anxiety. Her childhood was difficult and included her father's drinking, her parents splitting up, and her mother remarrying. Mother has a long history of substance abuse which includes alcohol, cocaine and crack. She has a tendency to minimize the consequences of her substance abuse and does not take responsibility for her actions. She vacillated between accepting responsibility for her actions and blaming DCF. Mother has a limited ability to see what her underlying issues are. Mother reported periods of abstinence. Father also struggled with anxiety and substance abuse (alcohol and cocaine). Father reported periods of abstinence.
Dr. Balducci noted that substance abuse is the primary reason for the current custodial situation. The parents had continued to use cocaine/crack despite the fact that it was causing their lives to unravel and culminated in Kyle's removal from their care and the loss of their home to foreclosure. The parents reported significant periods of abstinence. The parents were highly anxious people.
At the time of the evaluation, Kyle had been out of the home for more than two years. Even though Kyle had been out of the home for a significant period of time, Dr. Balducci thought that reunification was worth pursuing.
By the end of 2008, the plan was to reunify the child with the parents in the home. After a number of unsupervised and overnight visits, Kyle was returned to the home in January 2009. The department's plan was to revoke commitment if reunification went well.
After Kyle was returned home, Skinner came to the home on a weekly basis. Things started out relatively well. The parents were providing structure and routine. Kyle was happy and the parents were happy. Kyle did suffer a sense of loss for his foster mother, and some behavior issues arose with Kyle. Father was attentive to Kyle's needs. Mother had a good relationship with Kyle. She tried hard to provide a happy place. Kyle was not afraid of his parents, but he worried about them. Mother was involved with services through the McCall Foundation, including individual and group counseling. Father was involved in group sessions and was also going to counseling at the Northwest Center.
As time went by, there were signs of concern. The parents were missing appointments and not attending AA meetings. Father expressed that he thought attending AA meetings was a trigger, and mother thought she was past it. Mother had pain in her foot and was seeking treatment. She was taking pain medicines.
In February 2009, Skinner expressed concerns to DCF regarding the parents canceling appointments. In March 2009, there were positive toxicology tests for opiates without a prescription. Mother was referred to substance abuse program at McCall Foundation. Mother was recommended to participate in an intensive out-patient program but was discharged from the program for non-compliance.
On April 6, 2009, Skinner visited the home. Mother was not doing well and appeared under the influence. She was taking pain medication as well as anxiety medication. Her speech was slurred, her pupils were small, and she was moving slowly. Kyle did not feel well and needed to see a doctor. There was some confusion about Kyle's doctor. Mother's judgment seemed impaired. Father was not managing the situation properly. The department had concerns that the mother was abusing prescription medications. On April 8, 2009, Birden came to the home and observed mother in an altered state. Mother did not look like she could take care of the child. Both parents seemed to lack insight into these concerns. The department was concerned that father did not appreciate the risk presented to Kyle by mother's behavior. There were concerns regarding whether father could be the main caretaker without help from mother. Kyle was still under commitment. Based on the mother's inability to care for Kyle in her condition, Kyle was removed from the home for the second time. Kyle was visibly upset, but when he got into the car to leave he was excited about seeing his foster mother again.
A court hearing was held on April 14, 2009, and the court ordered that Kyle be returned to the parents with the condition that Kyle was to be properly supervised and mother was not to be left alone with the child. PEAS continued to provide services in the home.
From April 2009, to June 2009, the situation deteriorated further. Substance abuse was still an issue. After the April 2009 removal, Skinner tried to talk to father about mother's substance abuse. Father would not acknowledge that mother was using. Mother had been unsuccessfully discharged from the McCall Foundation. She had tested positive for medications that were not prescribed. Father attended some AA meetings but indicated that they were not helpful and were more of a trigger. The cleanliness of the home worsened. The parents were not getting along, and Kyle was feeling the stress. Between the April 2009, and June 2009, Kyle called Birden and expressed his desire to see or talk to his foster mother. He asked when he was going to go back to living with his foster mother. Kyle's behavior started to escalate. He had more frequent tantrums and was acting angry and stressed. He was very clingy with Skinner. Kyle's behavior became increasingly worrisome. On one occasion, he put all his possessions in a closet. The parents reported that they heard Kyle crying at night, and he could not be consoled. Kyle seemed sad and full of despair and often could not be comforted. Prior to the April 2009 removal, Kyle was not acting that way.
In June 2009, the department became concerned that father was abusing substances and not properly supervising Kyle. The department had concerns regarding mother's substance abuse as well. When Skinner visited the home in June 2009, the father was sometimes not present, remained upstairs, or it was unclear whether he was there at all. Kyle's school had called DCF with concerns about Kyle. Kyle, now almost five years old, had come to school wearing diapers and pajamas and looking disheveled. He was already potty trained. Up to that point, Kyle had been coming to school appropriately dressed. The paternal grandmother was sometimes providing care during this period.
On June 30, 2009, Kyle was removed from the home for the third time after concerns were raised about father. Skinner and the GAL had gone to the home and observed the father in an intoxicated state. Mother was concerned the father had relapsed and was drinking and abusing medications. Father had become very distraught regarding his relationship with mother. Father said that he had fallen off the wagon. Father was depressed and seemed suicidal. An ambulance was called and the police also responded to the home. Father had to be transported to the hospital. Mother could not be with the child unsupervised. The paternal grandmother was unable to care for Kyle because of her living situation. Kyle was very distraught. Kyle made statements that raised concerns regarding the home situation. Kyle reported that his parents fought a lot. Mother was apparently seeing Robert T. He also reported that his parents were too tired to play with him. He did not object to being removed and appeared happy to be going back to the foster mom. The court (Eschuk, J.) vacated the April 2009 orders entered after the second removal. PEAS closed the case a week or so later.
After the third removal, mother was recommended for a partial hospitalization substance abuse program in July 2009. Mother was unable to enter the McCall Foundation program because of her past history of non-compliance. She was recommended to enter inpatient treatment. In September 2009, DCF referred mother to Catholic Charities for substance abuse treatment. Mother did not engage with the program until November 2009, and stopped attending in December 2009, because she found the program unhelpful. In July 2009, father engaged in substance abuse treatment but admitted to a counselor that he was still drinking. Father was subsequently arrested in July 2009, and referred to an Alternative Incarceration Center (AIC). In September/October 2009, AIC recommended that father enter a dual diagnosis program at the McCall Foundation.
The parents initially had separate visits with Kyle. The visits were later combined until father entered inpatient treatment on October 1, 2009. For the most part, the interaction was appropriate, and the visits generally went well. However, the department grew concerned with the effect of the visits on Kyle. He had behavioral issues at the foster home after returning from visits. Kyle was also having phone contact with his parents, which seemed to cause behavioral issues at the foster home. Kyle sometimes said that he did not want to go to visits with his mother. Kyle's interactions with his mother were not as open as his visits with his father. In October 2009, Kyle's behavior problems increased around the time of the visits. He became angry and more aggressive and was hitting and throwing things. He expressed a lot of anxiety. He was clingy and sad. The foster mother had concerns regarding whether she could keep Kyle safe. After Kyle's therapist became involved, Kyle was admitted into the Pediatric Diagnostic Center for two days. Additional services were put in place, including a referral to a child psychiatrist for the first time. In October 2009, the visitation was suspended based on the recommendation of providers working with Kyle. Kyle was seeing Dr. Rebecca Parilla on a weekly basis. Kyle had also seen Dr. Sabooh Mubbashar. Dr. Parilla recommended that visitation stop because of Kyle's behavior at the foster home was escalating around visits.
On October 8, 2009, the department filed the second TPR petition. The department believed that the parents had not made sufficient efforts or progress in addressing their substance abuse issues.
Mother is currently attending a women's group and individual counseling at the McCall Foundation. She has participated in individual counseling with Sandy Wolff since January 2010. Mother has also been attending school and working toward a degree. Mother reports that she was married to Robert T. about one month ago. On April 21, 2010, the mother was arrested for assault and disorderly conduct. The case was subsequently nolled.
On October 1, 2009, father entered an inpatient treatment program through the McCall Foundation. After successfully completing the program, he went to reside in the McCall House. Since November 2009, father's urine screens have been negative. Father has been employed full-time since end of January 2010.
At this time, the department is still supporting the plan of termination of parental rights and adoption. DCF has concerns that mother may still be abusing substances based in part on her recent arrest. Father has been able to maintain his sobriety in a very structured environment. Based on his past history, he would need to demonstrate the ability to maintain his sobriety in the community for a year or more. It is too long for Kyle to have to wait.
Kyle is going to be six years old in August. Since the first removal in January 2006, Kyle has spent most of the time in foster care. Kyle has special needs. He receives special education services for language and attention issues. He has mental health issues, including reactive attachment disorder and anxiety. He has also demonstrated behavioral concerns including hitting and throwing things after visits. He sees a child psychologist on a weekly basis in addition to medication management. Kyle is not currently having visits with the parents. He recognizes his parents as his biological parents.
In April 2010, Kyle had an interaction session with this father. The visit seemed to go well. However, after the visit, Kyle exhibited some behavioral concerns and expressed fear that he was going to be removed from his foster mother.
On May 8, 2010, Kyle was transitioned to another pre-adoptive foster home because the foster mother was unable to continue to provide care due to her own health issues. Dr. Parilla assisted with the transition to the new foster home. Before Kyle was moved to the new foster home, Kyle had visits with the new foster family which included overnights. Kyle appears to be adjusting well. The current foster parents are willing to adopt Kyle if he is freed for adoption. They have previously adopted another child through DCF who has special needs. The adopted child is about two years older than Kyle. The boys appear to be getting along well. Kyle has not expressed that he wants to live with his parents instead of being placed in a new foster home. Kyle is still in therapy. He sees a child psychologist weekly and a child psychiatrist monthly.
At trial, Dr. Balducci testified regarding the case and was asked hypothetical questions based on facts that occurred after his evaluation in the fall of 2008. After Kyle was returned to the parents in January 2009, mother continued to struggle with her substance abuse and mental health issues, and Kyle was temporarily removed from the parents' care in April 2009. After that second removal, the court ordered that mother not have unsupervised contact with Kyle. Despite reporting periods of sobriety for as long as two years, father relapsed before Kyle was removed in June 2009. Father continued his substance abuse until he entered in-patient treatment on October 1, 2009. Even after Kyle was returned to them, the parents continued their substance abuse although they knew the consequences in terms of losing custody of Kyle. In Dr. Balducci's opinion, the parents' prognosis is poor given their relapse and failure to sufficiently address their underlying mental health issues. When despite all the services, the parents continue to abuse substances, there are reasons for concern.
Kyle has experienced out of control behavior in the foster home around the times of his visits with his parents. He would become very upset. Kyle struggled to control himself. These behaviors indicate that Kyle struggles emotionally and psychologically with the interaction with his parents.
In October 2009, father entered an inpatient treatment program and then transitioned to a residential program. Dr Balducci noted that father has exhibited progress in a structured setting. Father has made steps in the right direction, but there are still concerns given his past history and uncertainty regarding whether his underlying issues of anxiety have been sufficiently addressed. As recently as last summer, father has abused substances even though he knew the consequences. Given his history, father's prognosis is guarded at best once he is no longer in such a structured setting. In order to feel confident that father has made sufficient progress, father would need to live independently and manage the household affairs without external control for a significant period of time. The ultimate measure is what father does in the community. In Dr. Balducci's opinion, father would need to maintain sobriety for two years in the community for the doctor to have confidence that father will likely sustain his sobriety.
Mother has made steps in the right direction including participating in individual and group therapy, passing drug screens and going to college. Despite this progress, mother relapsed with alcohol in April 2010. Mother needs to address her underlying anxiety. Although she has made steps in the right direction, her relapses are problematic and make her prognosis more guarded. Given her history, the mother's prognosis is poor in that she thinks she is able to continue to use alcohol despite all of her dependency issues.
Kyle is a very anxious child. Kyle's lack of competent parenting fuels his underlying anxiety. His parents have failed to meet his need for stability. He needs consistently available and competent caretakers who are able to provide him with a feeling of security and meet his needs. Part of the idea of attachment is to have a safe, secure base. From the child's perspective, permanency includes the ability of a caretaker to put the child's needs first, not minimize the effect of his/her behavior on the child, provide consistent and competent parenting in the home, be aware of the child's physical and emotional needs and meet those needs, and help the child develop a healthy mind set. With a secure base, a child is able to cope when things do not go as well as planned. The parents have not adequately addressed the underlying cause for the department's involvement and have not been able to sustain their recoveries from substance abuse for a sufficient period of time. In Dr. Balducci's opinion, the parents are not able to meet Kyle's needs.
Additional facts will be provided as needed and were proved by clear and convincing evidence.
III DISCUSSION
The issue in this case is whether the petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of the respondent parents should be terminated. "In order to terminate a parent's parental rights under [General Statutes] § 17a-112, the petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the department has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1); (2) termination is in the best interest of the child; General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(2); and (3) there exists any one of the seven grounds for termination delineated in § 17a-112(j)(3)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 148-49, 962 A.2d 81 (2009).
"The legal framework for deciding termination petitions is well established. [A] hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases: the adjudicatory phase and the dispositional phase. During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must determine whether one or more of the . . . grounds for termination of parental rights set forth in § 17a-112[(j)(3)] exists by clear and convincing evidence . . . If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for termination exists, then it proceeds to the dispositional phase. During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child . . . The best interest determination also must be supported by clear and convincing evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., supra, 231 Conn. 163. "Except in the case where termination is based on consent, in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section, the court shall consider and shall make written findings regarding" the seven statutorily-enumerated criteria. General Statutes § 17a-112(k).
A Reasonable Efforts
In the adjudicatory phase, the first issue is whether DCF met its burden regarding reasonable efforts. See In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 148-49. The court must determine if "the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to locate the parent and to reunify the child with the parent . . . unless the court finds in this proceeding that the parent is unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts, except that such finding is not required if the court has determined at a hearing pursuant to Section 17a-111b, or determines at trial on the petition, that such efforts are not required . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(1). In accordance with § CT Page 13713 17a-112(j)(1), "the department may meet its burden concerning reunification in one of three ways: (1) by showing that it made such efforts, (2) by showing that the parent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts or (3) by a previous judicial determination that such efforts were not appropriate." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jonathan C., 86 Conn.App. 169, 173, 860 A.2d 305 (2004).
"The standard for reviewing reasonable efforts has been well established by the Appellate Court. `Turning to the statutory scheme encompassing the termination of the parental rights of a child committed to the department, [§ 17a-112] imposes on the department the duty, inter alia, to make reasonable efforts to reunite the child or children with the parents. The word reasonable is the linchpin on which the department's efforts in a particular set of circumstances are to be adjudged, using the clear and convincing standard of proof. Neither the word reasonable nor the word efforts is, however, defined by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was drawn . . . [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.' . . . In re Daniel C., 63 Conn.App. 339, 361, 776 A.2d 487 (2001)." In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 632, 847 A.2d 883 (2004). "[R]easonableness is an objective standard . . . and whether reasonable efforts have been proven depends on the careful consideration of the circumstances of each individual case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Vincent B., 73 Conn.App. 637, 641, 809 A.2d 1119 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934, 815 A.2d 136 (2003). The department has "a continuing duty to make reasonable efforts." Id., 644. But "[t]he department is required only to make `reasonable efforts.' It is axiomatic that the law does not require a useless and futile act." In re Antony B., 54 Conn.App. 463, 476, 735 A.2d 893 (1999). In addition, "making no efforts to reunify a parent and his or her child may be reasonable in certain circumstances . . ." In re Vincent B., supra, 73 Conn.App. 645.
"Reunification efforts generally consist of visitation and, where appropriate, other rehabilitative services such as evaluations, testing, counseling, therapy, education, medical care, parenting classes and housing assistance." In re Destiny Q., Superior Court, Child Protection Session at Middletown (November 19, 2001, Levin, J.). In evaluating the department's reunification efforts, the court may consider whether the department engaged the respondent, apprised him or her of the steps that had to be taken to achieve rehabilitation, and gave the respondent feedback on his or her progress in reaching that goal. In re Vincent B., supra, 73 Conn.App. 645. The court may take into consideration whether the department met "its burden of making reasonable efforts to achieve reunification by engaging the respondent and making available services aimed at instilling in him [or her] healthy parental skills." Id., 647. The court may also assess whether "steps taken by the respondent presented the department with a window of opportunity during which reasonable efforts at reunification should have been made." Id., 644. The court may find that the efforts were reasonable even though the department made mistakes. In re Charles A., 55 Conn.App. 293, 297-98, 738 A.2d 222 (1999) ("The court is aware that [the department] has made mistakes in this case in failing to treat [the respondent] as a victim of domestic violence . . . These mistakes, however, do not defeat the proposition that reasonable efforts at reunification were made. In the first instance, counseling services were provided. Other, in home services were offered, but refused" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In finding that DCF made reasonable efforts, the courts have given careful consideration to the circumstances of each individual case. See, e.g., In re Destiny D., 86 Conn.App. 77, 83-84, 859 A.2d 973 (department provided regular visitation, rehabilitative services, counseling and therapy for children, respondent's performance in rehabilitative programs was disappointing, including erratic attendance, resistance to treatment recommendations and positive drug tests; respondent also refused to sign releases for a period of time, so department unable to make additional referrals), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 911, 863 A.2d 702 (2004); In re Jonathan C., supra, 86 Conn.App. 180 (department provided numerous referrals for services, facilitated visitation and provided therapy for both respondent and children); In re Sheila J., 62 Conn.App. 470, 479, 771 A.2d 244 (2001) (department offered respondent services over several years, including substance abuse evaluation and treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence counseling, family reunification program, psychological evaluation and visitation; but she failed to avail herself of or participate meaningfully in those services by failing to attend many visits, and denying that she needed to participate in counseling); In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 362 (respondents participated in services but continually relapsed and resumed abusing substances and alcohol, so the department, not unreasonably, declined to pursue goal of reunification after children were removed; "[t]he dissolution of this family resulted from the respondents' cycle of alcohol and substance abuse and not from the failure of the department to provide services and assistance"); and In re Ebony H., 68 Conn.App. 342, 350, 789 A.2d 1158 (2002) (respondent's inability to overcome drug addiction and failure to comply with services "thwarted the department's efforts to reunify her and the child").
In the alternative, the court may also determine that the respondent was either unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts. As previously noted, "[t]he department is required only to make `reasonable efforts' . . . [as] [i]t is axiomatic that the law does not require a useless and futile act." In re Antony B., supra, 54 Conn.App. 476. Accordingly, the court may find by clear and convincing evidence that "the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with the children, [and] [t]he respondent's subsequent failure to take advantage of those efforts establish her [or his] inability or unwillingness to benefit from those reasonable efforts . . ." In re Alexander T., 81 Conn.App. 668, 676, 841 A.2d 274, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 924, 848 A.2d 472 (2004).
In finding that a respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from the department's reunification efforts, the courts have given careful consideration to the circumstances of each individual case. See, e.g., In re Jonathan C., supra, 86 Conn.App. 178 ("[t]hroughout the duration of the department's involvement with the family, the respondent demonstrated a lack of cooperation and progress, and revealed an apathetic attitude toward the repeated and extensive reunification efforts that were made"). In making this determination, the court may consider whether "the respondent's positive step in participating in a treatment program demonstrated a degree of rehabilitation in itself." In re Vincent B., supra, 73 Conn.App. 645 (trial court judgment terminating respondent's parental rights reversed because department did not make reasonable efforts when it decided not to engage in further efforts based on its prior experiences with respondent, although respondent took steps and was in a position to benefit from services; respondent had successfully completed long-term inpatient substance abuse treatment and counseling for anger management and depression and had attended regularly scheduled supervised visitation; there was no evidence of relapse in those areas). In addition, the court may consider whether the respondent "was unwilling or unable to formulate an appropriate plan for [the child] . . . Id., 647.
(1) Mother
As to mother, the department alleges that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child. The department has been closely involved with the mother since October 2005, addressing her ongoing child protection issues related to her substance abuse, mental health issues, lack of parenting skills, domestic violence and inadequate supervision. Over a period of several years, the department offered the mother numerous rehabilitative services and referrals to prevent the removal of the child and/or reunify the child with her. The department has referred her to Family Strides for parenting education classes, Parenting Education Assessment Services (PEAS) for in-home parenting education and support, Northwest Center for individual counseling for mental health treatment and medication management, McCall Foundation for substance abuse treatment, Charlotte Hungerford for substance abuse treatment, Susan B. Anthony for domestic violence issues, visitation, and case management.
The evidence shows that the department engaged the mother, apprised her of the steps that she had to take to achieve rehabilitation and gave her feedback on her progress in reaching that goal. The department's efforts were thwarted by the mother's inability or unwillingness to benefit from the services.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with the child. The mother was unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification efforts. Therefore, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department has met its burden of proving reasonable efforts as to the mother.
(2) Father
As to father, the department alleges that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify him with the child. The department has been closely involved with the father since October 2005, addressing his ongoing child protection issues related to substance abuse, mental health issue, lack of parenting skills, domestic violence, and inadequate supervision. Over a period of several years, the department offered the father numerous rehabilitative services and referrals to prevent the removal of the child and/or reunify the child with him. The department has referred father to substance abuse evaluation and treatment at McCall Foundation, individual counseling from the Northwest Center in Winsted; medication management from the Northwest Center, domestic violence counseling through the Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA) in Torrington, parenting education classes from Family Strides, in-home parenting education and support through Parenting Education Assessment Services (PEAS) through the McCall Foundation, individual counseling through Waterbury Counseling Associates, visitation and case management services.
The evidence shows that the department engaged the father, apprised him of the steps that he had to take to achieve rehabilitation and gave him feedback on his progress in reaching that goal. The department's efforts were thwarted by the father's inability or unwillingness to benefit from the services.
The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department made reasonable efforts to reunify the father with the child. The father was unable or unwilling to benefit from the reunification efforts. Therefore, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the department has met its burden of proving reasonable efforts as to the father.
B Statutory Grounds for Termination
In the adjudicatory phase, the next issue is whether the department has proved one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights. The TPR petition alleges as grounds for both parents: failure to rehabilitate pursuant to General Statutes §§ 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). Each statutory basis set out in General Statutes § 17a-112(j) is "an independent ground for termination." In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263, 293, 618 A.2d 1 (1992). The petitioner is required "to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the specific statutory bases for termination has been established." In re Baby Girl B., supra, 224 Conn. 293.
Pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i), the department alleges that the respondent parents have failed to rehabilitate themselves. Under this statute, the court may grant the petition if it finds by clear and convincing evidence [ inter alia] that "the child . . . has been found by the Superior Court . . . to have been neglected or uncared for in a prior proceeding . . . 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 . . ." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
The first element is satisfied in that Kyle was adjudicated neglected and committed to the department on September 13, 2006.
The court must next address the element of whether the parents have 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, the parents could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. Personal rehabilitation, as used in the statute, refers to the restoration of a respondent to a constructive and useful role as a parent. In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 149. The parent's compliance with the court ordered expectations entered at the time of the neglect adjudication is relevant but not dispositive to the rehabilitation finding. Id., 151. "The court, in proceedings to terminate parental rights . . . considers the specific steps issued in the order as a measure of the degree of `personal rehabilitation.' . . . The specific steps are also considered `fair warning' of the potential termination of parental rights in subsequent proceedings pursuant to § 17a-112." (Citation omitted.) In re Jeffrey C., 64 Conn.App. 55, 61-62, 779 A.2d 765 (2001), rev'd on other grounds, 261 Conn. 189, 802 A.2d 772 (2002). "Indeed, the failure to comply with specific steps ordered by the court typically weighs heavily in a termination proceeding." In re Devon B., 264 Conn. 572, 584, 825 A.2d 127 (2003). "The failure to articulate expectations or to convey them to the respondent, however, does not in and of itself preclude a finding of failure to rehabilitate . . . [The statute] does not provide that in order to achieve personal rehabilitation a parent must meet the expectations of a court as ordered pursuant to a commitment hearing . . . Nor have our courts required an articulation of expectations or strict compliance thereto as a condition precedent to a finding of failure to rehabilitate." (Citation omitted.) In re Michael M., 29 Conn.App. 112, 125, 614 A.2d 832 (1992).
"[The statute] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 149. "There may be instances in which the evidence does not establish that parental rights should be terminated under this section, despite the fact that continuing support programs for the parent may be suitable or even necessary." In re Luis C., 210 Conn. 157, 167, 554 A.2d 722 (1989). The statute "requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation she has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date she can assume a responsible position in her child's life." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Melody L., supra, 290 Conn. 149. "Although the standard is not full rehabilitation, the parent must show more than `any' rehabilitation . . . Successful completion of the petitioner's expressly articulated expectations is not sufficient to defeat the petitioner's claim that the parent has not achieved sufficient rehabilitation . . . [I]n assessing rehabilitation, the critical issue is not whether the parent has improved [her] ability to manage [her] own life, but rather whether [she] has gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child at issue . . . Thus, even if a parent has made successful strides in her ability to manage her life and may have achieved a level of stability within her limitations, such improvements, although commendable, are not dispositive on the issue of whether, within a reasonable period of time, she could assume a responsible position in the life of her child." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). In re Victoria B., 79 Conn.App. 245, 254-55, 829 A.2d 855 (2003). "Thus, the trial court's inquiry requires the determination of both the present and past status of the child, and obtaining a historical perspective of the respondent's child caring and parenting." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Galen F., 54 Conn.App. 590, 594, 737 A.2d 499 (1999). See In re Halle T., 96 Conn.App. 815, 836-38, 902 A.2d 670 (2006), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 924, 908 A.2d 1087 (2006); In re Daniel C., supra, 63 Conn.App. 354.
The progress and timeliness of the rehabilitative efforts must be considered. The Appellate Court, in the case of In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 96, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009), found that: "The [trial] court engaged in an appropriate analysis of the mother's progress and the amount of time that she required to complete her rehabilitation. The court considered properly that in light of Janazia's emotional problems and need for permanency, the `mother's ongoing work toward independent living is not far enough along for reunification to be possible.'" In another case, In re Samantha C., supra, 268 Conn. 629, the Supreme Court found that: "The [trial] court reasonably concluded that Samantha had emotional and behavioral problems, which, according to Meier, were likely to resurface if she were to be placed in an unstable environment. The evidence suggested, moreover, that the respondents' relationship had remained unstable and chaotic, which created significant doubt as to whether they could adequately meet Samantha's needs. Indeed, Samantha's behavior tended to become worse after overnight visitations with the respondents. In particular, the court credited Meier's testimony, who concluded that, given the amount of time that Samantha had remained in temporary care, and given her need for permanency, the time for rehabilitation had passed." (Emphasis added.)
(1) Mother
Mother has been closely involved with the department since October 2005. Kyle was removed by the department for the first time on January 26, 2006. On September 13, 2006, the court (Goldstein, J.) ordered mother to comply with the specific steps. Kyle was in his parents' care from January 2009 to June 2009. The second TPR petition was filed on October 8, 2009. As previously noted, the department has referred mother to numerous services, including Family Strides for parenting education classes, Parenting Education Assessment Services (PEAS) for in-home parenting education and support, Northwest Center for individual counseling for mental health treatment and medication management, McCall Foundation for substance abuse treatment, Charlotte Hungerford for substance abuse treatment, Susan B. Anthony for domestic violence issues, visitation, and case management.
During her involvement with the department, mother has not fully complied with the specific steps. Mother has not participated in recommended counseling and made progress toward the identified treatment goals. The department or providers recommended that she participate in domestic violence counseling and inpatient substance abuse treatment, but she has failed to do so.
Mother has not avoided further involvement with the criminal justice system. In April 2010, she was arrested for a domestic violence incident with her husband, Robert T.
Mother has not been able to secure and maintain stable housing and legal income. During this period, mother has been transient, apparently living for periods of time with father, a cousin and Robert T. For the last few months, mother has been living with her new husband. She is attending school. She has not maintained employment throughout the period in question.
Mother has not been able to consistently and timely meet and address the child's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs. From the time of the first removal on January 26, 2006, Kyle has only lived with his mother for approximately six months, between January 2009, and June 2009.
Mother continues to struggle with her substance abuse and mental health issues. Mother has a long history of non-compliance with substance abuse treatment. Her non-compliance has included her failure to comply with treatment recommendations, and her positive toxicology screen and missed appointments. Mother has been discharged from programs and refused admission due to her non-compliance. Mother has been asked to consider inpatient treatment but has not seriously pursued it.
She has been involved with the McCall Foundation off and on for the last few years. In May 2006, mother was discharged from the McCall Foundation because she relapsed on cocaine and alcohol after three months of sobriety. Sandy Wolff, an outpatient counselor who deals with substance abuse and mental health issues, referred mother to intensive outpatient substance abuse program (IOP) because of the relapse and her need for more structure. In June 2006, Wolff reported that mother stopped coming to the IOP after one day. In September 2006, mother had a positive toxicology screen for cocaine and non-prescribed medications and was referred for an evaluation. During an evaluation in September 2006, mother stated that she broke her legs in an accident while she was under the influence of alcohol. Kyle was two years old at the time. In October 2006, mother was engaged in treatment at the Northwest Center and was working on remaining substance abuse free and improving her coping decision making and conflict resolution skills.
While Kyle was in her care, mother had a positive toxicology test in March 2009. Mary Beth Wabrek, a substance abuse counselor at the McCall Foundation, began working with mother in May 2009, when mother participated in the IOP. In June/July 2009, mother was unsuccessfully discharged from IOP due to non-compliance. She tested positive for three different medications, only one of which was prescribed to her. Mother was referred to a higher level of care, which she needed to complete before coming back to the McCall Foundation. She was asked to consider inpatient treatment. Mother stated that she had several years of abstinence, which was not accurate. There was evidence to the contrary. Mother was told she could return to the McCall Foundation for aftercare if she completed treatment elsewhere. Wabrek believed that mother's prognosis was extremely guarded because of mother's denial.
Charles Adams, a substance abuse counselor at the partial hospital program (PHP) at Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, began working with mother on June 24, 2009. Mother presented as being very anxious, agitated and with disorganized thoughts. Mother's use of prescription drugs was a concern. Mother was accepted into PHP and satisfied the program requirements.
After completing PHP, mother was accepted back into the McCall Foundation where she began receiving individual counseling from Wolff, who began providing weekly individual counseling to mother in December 2009. Mother presented with a number of issues including sedative dependence, alcohol abuse, anxiety and eating disorders. Mother has been consistent with her attendance and has made progress in her treatment. Prescription medicine have not helped mother given her addictive personality. Mother has been trying the alternatives to help with her anxiety including exercise. She passed several toxicology screens between December 4, 2009, and April 16, 2010. Mother also participates in a weekly women's group with Wabrek, which she started on April 8, 2010. Mother had a relapse with alcohol on April 21, 2010, which led to her domestic violence arrest involving her husband.
Wolff believes that mother needs to maintain abstinence for longer periods of time to demonstrate real progress. A measure of success for mother would be to maintain at least six months total sobriety, demonstrate good coping skills and better manage her anxiety. Mother has made some strides dealing with her anxiety. She needs more time to demonstrate that she is able to address her issues.
Mother testified during the trial. She believes that she is in a better place now. Although she was recently arrested for assaulting her husband, she claims that she is happily married. She is no longer taking medications and goes instead to the gym to deal with her anxiety. Since Kyle was removed the third time, mother has tried to prepare herself for his return. She is in a stable environment now and is able to provide for Kyle. Mother believes she can maintain her sobriety. What is different now is that, in the past, there were a lot of problems between mother and father. She struggled with anxiety and medication issues. Mother loves school and is working toward becoming a drug counselor. Mother believes she can provide a safe home. Mother requests that visitation be resumed. Mother's relationship with father is much better, and she believes she will be able to co-parent with father, that they will be able to work out a parenting plan and set-up a safety network.
Throughout the department's involvement, mother was given fair warning as to what conduct was required, or must be avoided, in order to prevent the termination of her parental rights. See In re Samantha C., supra, 268 Conn. 631. On numerous occasions, she was advised by the court and the department as to what she needed to do in order to be reunified with her child, including being ordered to comply with specific steps. During this period, numerous services and referrals were provided to the mother to improve her parenting skills and to address the child protection issues.
The record reflects numerous examples of the mother's failure 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, she could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. Mother has a long history of substance abuse and mental health issues. She has relapsed several times on illegal drugs, medication and alcohol. Mother has not fully complied with the court orders and recommendations and has not truly benefited from the services and referrals that were provided to her by the department. Although she has participated in services, she has failed to make real progress toward the identified treatment goals. She has taken steps in the right direction but has experienced several relapses. Mother claims that she has maintained a significant period of sobriety, but there is much evidence to the contrary. There are valid concerns that mother may still be abusing substances as indicated by her April 2010 arrest. Mother has a tendency to minimize or deny the consequences of her substance abuse and does not take responsibility for her actions. Mother has a long history of domestic violence including with father. Given the tumultuous history of their relationship, it is highly questionable whether the parents would be able to appropriately co-parent Kyle.
Mother has not made sufficient efforts or progress in addressing her substance abuse and mental health problems. She has failed to show any real and sustained growth in terms of her parenting skills that would indicate she could effectively handle the child's physical, emotional, behavioral and medical needs. Even after Kyle was returned after months of intensive services, mother was not able to maintain her sobriety, and she relapsed. She has been unable to adequately parent Kyle and provide him with a stable and safe home environment. She has not consistently and effectively met his needs. She has not gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child. Mother is not capable of being the primary caretaker of the child. The issues remain chronic, and her lack of sustainable progress has hindered the reunification process. She is at high risk of relapse. The mother has not achieved a level of stability necessary to provide a safe and nurturing environment for the child. She needs to focus on her own needs.
Based on the evidence and testimony of the social workers, agency personnel, service providers and professionals who had close contact with the mother during this period, it is clear that the mother has failed to make any real and sustained progress in improving her parenting skills so as to be in a position to be reunified with the child.
Kyle is a young child with special needs. He has physical, emotional, behavioral, medical, psychological and developmental needs. He has been in foster care for approximately four years since he was first removed in January 2006. Kyle needs a permanent and stable home environment with caretakers who are willing and able to address his needs. The child's safety is of paramount concern. He needs a safe and stable home environment with competent caretakers.
There is clear and convincing evidence that when the second TPR petition was filed on October 8, 2009, mother had failed to achieve the degree of rehabilitation that would put her in a position to resume the role of an effective parent of the child.
The court can also consider a parent's rehabilitative efforts subsequent to the filing of the TPR petition in determining whether it is foreseeable that the parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child within a reasonable period of time. Practice Book § 35a-7; In re Amber B., 56 Conn.App. 776, 785, 746 A.2d 222 (2000).
Mother has continued to participate in services since October 2009. She claims that she has been able to maintain her sobriety. These claims are undermined by her arrest in April 2010. She is still struggling with her substance abuse and mental health issues, and there is no clear end in sight.
Since October 8, 2009, the mother has failed to achieve the necessary degree of rehabilitation. The mother has failed to "assume a responsible position in the life of the child." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). She has not gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child, and she is no closer to being ready to assume full parenting responsibilities. Even if it could be argued that the mother made some progress toward rehabilitation, it is not of such a degree that would allow this court to find that it is foreseeable that she could be a responsible parent within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child. She would need a substantial period of time to address her needs before she could assume the role of a responsible parent. See In re Sheila J., supra, 62 Conn.App. 481. The time for rehabilitation has passed.
For the above-stated reasons, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, she could assume a responsible position in the lives of the child. The department has proved the ground of failure to rehabilitate with respect to the mother pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
(2) Father
Father has been closely involved with the department since October 2005. Kyle was removed by the department for the first time on January 26, 2006. On September 13, 2006, the court (Goldstein, J.) ordered father to comply with specific steps. The second TPR petition was filed on October 8, 2009. As previously noted, the department has referred father to substance abuse evaluation and treatment at McCall Foundation, individual counseling from the Northwest Center in Winsted; medication management from the Northwest Center, domestic violence counseling through the Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA) in Torrington, parenting education classes from Family Strides, in-home parenting education and support through Parenting Education Assessment Services (PEAS) through the McCall Foundation, individual counseling through Waterbury Counseling Associates, visitation and case management services.
During his involvement with the department, the father has not fully complied with the specific steps. He has not kept all appointments set by or with DCF and has not cooperated with DCF home visits, announced or unannounced, and visits by the child's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem. During June 2009, father did not cooperate with home visits. When Skinner visited the home, the father was sometimes not present, remained upstairs, or it was unclear whether he was there.
Father has not participated in counseling and made progress toward the identified treatment goals. On September 4, 2009, father showed up at a counseling session under the influence of alcohol. During this period, father was not regularly attending AA meetings as recommended. Father also failed to show up at other counseling sessions because he had been drinking.
He has not been able to secure and maintain stable housing and legal income throughout this period. Father lost his home to foreclosure in February 2008. Father resided in an apartment for most of 2009 until he entered the Carnes Weeks Center inpatient treatment program in October 2009. After leaving that program, father resided in the McCall House for six months until May 2010. After being let go by Fairchild, father did not obtain stable employment until January 2010, when he went to work at Inertia Dynamics.
Father has not been able to consistently and timely meet and address the child's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs. From the time of the first removal on January 26, 2006, Kyle has only lived with his father for approximately six months, between January 2009, and June 2009.
Father has not avoided further involvement with the criminal justice system. In addition to his prior criminal record, father was arrested for several offenses and was referred to an Alternative Incarceration Center (AIC) in July 2009.
Father did not visit the child as often as DCF permits. He missed three scheduled visits with Kyle between July 1, 2009, and September 30, 2009.
During this period of involvement with the department, father has struggled to address his substance abuse and mental health issues. Father has not fully complied with treatment, including by failing to comply with recommendations, and his positive toxicology screen and missed appointments. Father has continued to abuse substances. On a number of occasions, father has appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or other substances. In March 2009, father tested positive for opiates while Kyle was in his care. He also tested positive for opiates in July 2009.
Father entered the inpatient treatment program at the Carnes Weeks Center on October 1, 2009. Carnes Weeks was the father's first residential treatment experience. Previously, he had only been to outpatient programs and detox. When he was admitted to the program, the following reasons for admission were noted: addiction to alcohol; unable to stop without residential structure; legal pressure; homeless or unsafe living environment; isolated/lack of support network; and DCF involvement. He participated in the program for thirty-eight days. Andrea Becker-Abbott, a substance abuse technician with the McCall Foundation, was assigned to Carnes Weeks while father was there. Father participated in the groups she taught.
While he was in Carnes Weeks, father had three visits with Kyle. Father thought the visits went well. However, Kyle had a crisis at the foster home and went to a hospital in Danbury to be evaluated. Visitation was eventually suspended because of concerns regarding Kyle's behavior around visits. Father thought the visits were being stopped only for a few weeks. When visits were not resumed, father filed a motion for visitation. After visits stopped, father kept in contact with DCF, and Birden would tell him how Kyle was doing.
Father was successfully discharged from the Carnes Weeks program. His aftercare plan included a referral to a half-way house, psychiatric services and 12-step support groups. After leaving the Carnes Weeks Center, father was admitted to the McCall House on November 8, 2009. He has stayed at the McCall House, an intermediate residential substance abuse treatment facility, for approximately six months. Carolyn Berry is a house counselor at the McCall House and an expert in substance abuse counseling. Berry has been father's counselor for the last six months. She is working on treatment goals with father, including working on his interpersonal and coping skills and his compliance with DCF. Father has made progress. He actively participates in regular individual counseling, small group meetings and community meetings. Berry talks with father about recovery issues and coping skills. Father is beginning to understand the connection between his alcoholism and its consequences for Kyle. He is focusing on what he needs to do to remain sober. All his toxicology screens have been negative for substances not prescribed by a doctor. He has maintained sobriety and is attending AA meetings in the community. Father never really did the 12-step program. In the past, father has had periods of abstinence and has then relapsed. Father needs to focus on his substance abuse and anxiety and long-term goals related to employment, housing and financial issues.
Father was scheduled to leave the McCall House at the time of trial, and he had obtained an apartment. Under the aftercare plan, father was to continue therapy at Charlotte Hungerford, take his medications, attend AA meetings, continue the aftercare group at McCall Outpatient Services and use his support system. Father reportedly seems to have better understanding of impact of his substance abuse on Kyle.
Since February 2010, father has been seeing Brandy Dziedzic, a clinical social worker at Charlotte Hungerford, for individual counseling every two to four weeks. Father's presenting issues include depression and anxiety. Father has made some progress. Dziedzic has set goals for father to reduce his depression and anxiety and maintain sobriety. Father is taking his medications as prescribed and is stable on his meds. He has expressed his love for Kyle. He understands the accountability issues involved and feels enormous guilt concerning situation he has put Kyle in. Father also sees a psychiatrist at Charlotte Hungerford, Dr. Flynn, who monitors father's depression and anxiety medications.
In March 2010, Dr. Stephen Herman conducted a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of father and Kyle as well as an interaction with them. Dr. Herman is an expert in adult and child psychiatry. The father's presenting issues were chronic abuse and dependence on alcohol, depression and anxiety. He admits to being slow in following the department's specific steps. Even after DCF was involved, he began drinking heavily again and had several experiences in detox. Up until the latter part of 2009, father was drinking heavily, every day. He checked himself into Carnes Weeks in October of 2009, and stayed there for thirty-nine days. He then moved to McCall House. He said that he has remained sober for four months.
Dr. Herman reported that father also has a history of using illegal drugs, including cocaine, heroin and crack. He reportedly started using cocaine when he was in his 20s. He claims that he finally stopped using cocaine about five years ago. Father indicated that he snorted heroin a few times per month between 2002 and 2003. During this period, he also used crack frequently until the department became involved in 2005. Father reported that he also tried marijuana occasionally, in high school. He also takes pain medications for a back injury. Father has had a difficult family life which has likely led him to depression and antisocial activity. He has involvement with the criminal justice system and a somewhat unstable unemployment history. Father indicated that he was not in contact with mother. He has no contact with Kyle's mother.
In Dr. Herman's opinion, four months of sobriety was not a long enough period of time to declare that father was in total remission. One of the real issues with father is whether he will be able to maintain his sobriety when he is no longer residing in a structured setting. Father is maintaining sobriety in the protected environment of the McCall House, and there is no guarantee that he will be able to continue to do so once he is living in the community. Father's short period of sobriety was not enough time to declare that he was sober. In Dr. Herman's opinion, father's prognosis is extremely guarded, and he is at very high risk of relapse. Given his history, father would need to live in the community at least one year without relapsing in order for the doctor to have confidence that he will be able to maintain his sobriety.
Dr. Herman also conducted an interaction evaluation between father and son. They interact well together and are deeply attached to one another. Despite the positive interaction, Dr. Herman believes that it is questionable whether father is able to provide the stable and calm home environment that Kyle requires given his history.
Father testified during the trial. At the time of trial, father was still living at the McCall House but had signed a month-to-month lease for a one bedroom apartment in Torrington. He plans on staying in Torrington and away from Winsted, where he used to live. Father wants to be reunified with Kyle. He is asking that visitation be resumed. Father thinks his relationship with mother is on good terms, and he is able to co-parent with her. In March 2010, however, father told Dr. Herman that he was not in contact with mother. They stopped living together weeks before father was admitted into the Carnes Week program on October 1, 2009. Mother has subsequently married. Father recognizes that Kyle needs to feel that he belongs and is not going to be going anywhere. He recognizes that it is possible that he may relapse. If he relapses, father knows that Kyle would be removed. Father also knew the consequences in June 2009, when he relapsed and Kyle was removed for the third time. In the past, father has felt that he was a functioning alcoholic. When Kyle was returned in January 2009, father reports that he had been sober for two years. Father says that he finally recognized he had a substance abuse problem when he went into inpatient treatment in October 2009. Father thinks that he has the tools now to keep his substance abuse in check.
During first TPR trial, father reported that he had maintained sobriety for a long period of time. Father was not candid about the fact that, at that time, he actually could not stand going to AA meetings and did not believe in them. Father claims things are different now.
Throughout the department's involvement, the father was given fair warning as to what conduct was required, or must be avoided, in order to prevent termination of his parental rights. See In re Samantha C., supra, 268 Conn. 631. On numerous occasions, the father was advised by the court and the department as to what he needed to do in order to be reunified with his child, including being ordered to comply with final specific steps. During this period, numerous services were offered to the father to improve his parenting skills and to address the neglect issues.
The record reflects numerous examples of the father's failure 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, he could assume a responsible position in the lives of the child. Father has a long history of substance abuse and mental health problems. He has relapsed several times. He has failed to fully comply with the specific steps and recommendations and has not benefited from the services and referrals provided to him by the department. Although father has claimed he has maintained a significant period of sobriety, there is much evidence to the contrary, including statements he made to Dr. Herman. Before he went into inpatient treatment, father continued to abuse alcohol. Father has not always been truthful regarding his substance abuse. He has participated in services but has failed to make real progress toward the identified treatment goals. Father has taken steps in the right direction but has experienced several relapses. Until recently, he has apparently lacked true insight into the severity of his substance abuse problems and the consequences to Kyle. There are valid concerns that once the father leaves the structured setting of the McCall House and returns to the community, he will relapse. Father has a history of domestic violence with the mother which includes an arrest in July 2009. Given the tumultuous history of their relationship, it is highly questionable whether the parents would be able to appropriately co-parent Kyle.
The father has failed to show any real and sustained growth in terms of his parenting skills that would indicate he could effectively handle the child's physical, emotional, behavioral and medical needs. Even after Kyle was returned after months of intensive services, father was unable to maintain sobriety, and he relapsed. The father has been unable to adequately parent the child and provide him with a stable and safe home environment. Father has not consistently and effectively met Kyle's needs. He has not gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child. These issues remain chronic, and his lack of sustainable progress has hindered the reunification process. The father has not achieved a level of stability necessary to provide a safe and nurturing environment for the child. Father would need to maintain his sobriety in the community for a significant period of time to have confidence that he is not likely to relapse. He is at high risk of relapse. Father needs to focus on addressing his own needs.
Based on the evidence and testimony of the social workers, agency personnel, service providers and professionals who had close contact with the father during this period, it is clear that the father failed to make any real and sustained progress in improving his parenting skills so as to be in a position to be reunified with the child.
Kyle is a young child with special needs. He has physical, emotional, behavioral, medical, psychological and developmental issues. He has been in foster care for approximately four years since he was first removed in January 2006. Kyle needs a permanent and stable home environment with caretakers who are willing and able to address his needs. The child's safety is of paramount concern. He needs a safe and stable home environment with competent caretakers.
There is clear and convincing evidence that when the TPR petition was filed on October 8, 2009, the father had failed to achieve the degree of rehabilitation that would put him in a position to resume the role of an effective parent of the child. He failed to benefit from the reunification services offered by the department.
The court can also consider a parent's rehabilitative efforts subsequent to the filing of the TPR petition in determining whether it is foreseeable that the parent could assume a responsible position in the life of the child within a reasonable period of time. Practice Book § 35a-7; In re Amber B., supra, 56 Conn.App. 785.
Father has continued to participate in services since October 2009. He has completed an inpatient treatment program for the first time and has lived for six months at the McCall House. Father claims that he has been able to maintain his sobriety, but he has done so in a highly structured setting. The father has not demonstrated that he is able to remain sober in the community for a significant period of time.
Since October 8, 2009, father has failed to achieve the necessary degree of rehabilitation. The father has failed to "assume a responsible position in the life of the child[ren]." General Statutes § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i). He has not gained the ability to care for the particular needs of the child and is no closer to being ready to assume full parenting responsibilities. Even if it could be argued that the father made some progress toward rehabilitation, it is not of such a degree that would allow this court to find that it is foreseeable that he could be a responsible parent within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and needs of the child. He would need a substantial period of time to address his needs before he could assume the role of a responsible parent. See In re Sheila J., supra, 62 Conn.App. 481. The time for rehabilitation has passed.
For the above-stated reasons, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the father has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the lives of the child. The department has proved the ground of failure to rehabilitate as to father pursuant to § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).
C Best Interest of the Child
The department has proved the failure to rehabilitate ground for each of the parents. The next issue is whether the department has met its burden of proof as to disposition.
"In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the emphasis appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the child." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Janazia S., supra, 112 Conn.App. 69, 97. In this phase, "the trial court must determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of the respondent's parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. In arriving at this decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in [§ 17a-112(k)]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Tremaine C., 117 Conn.App. 590, 600, 980 A.2d 330, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 920, 984 A.2d 69 (2009). The court makes the following findings regarding the statutory factors.
(1) The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.
The department has offered the parents numerous and extensive services over several years to facilitate reunification. The services were offered on a consistent basis and in a timely manner. The parents were provided with ample services by the department to facilitate the return of the child.
(2) Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.
The department has offered the parents numerous services over several years to address the issues that led to the removal of the child. The parents have failed to benefit from the services offered. The department has clearly made reasonable efforts toward family reunification.
(3) The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order.
The court ordered the parents to comply with the specific steps. The department offered services to the parents. The services were appropriate in that they were designed to address the problems that led to the department's involvement and ultimately the removal of the child from the parents. The parents have failed to fully comply with the specific steps and have failed to benefit from the services offered.
(4) The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of such child's person and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control of the child for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.
Since January 2006, the child has only been in the parents' care for the period from January 2009 to June 2009. Kyle has demonstrated affection towards his biological parents and has a bond with them. There are questions as to whether the bond is a healthy one. He has been described as a parentified child. He worries about his parents' well-being. Kyle has developed a close bond with his former foster mother, who was unable to continue to care for him due to her own health issues.
5) The age of the child.
Kyle is five years old. His birthday is August 17, 2004.
6) The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.
Until visitation was suspended in October 2009, the parents maintained regular contact with the child for the most part. Visitation was suspended because the visits were causing Kyle emotional, psychological and behavioral problems. The parents have failed to sufficiently adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return to their home in the foreseeable future. The parents continue to struggle with their substance abuse and mental health issues. They have failed to exhibit the ability to provide a safe, stable and appropriate home environment that would meet the needs of the child. Although the department has provided the parents with extensive services, they have not been able to sustain any real benefit from the services. The parents' failure to truly benefit from these services has prevented them from reuniting with the child.
(7) The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.
The parents have not been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by an unreasonable act or conduct by anyone, or by their economic circumstances. The department attempted to encourage and assist the parents in maintaining a relationship with the child and offered them a multitude of reunification services. The department acted reasonably under the circumstances. The parents have failed to benefit from the services necessary to ensure reunification with the child.
Having made the written findings regarding the seven statutory factors delineated in § 17a-112(k), the court must now determine whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. This is part of the dispositional phase of a termination proceeding. In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492, 511, 613 A.2d 748 (1992) ("the determination of the child's best interests comes into play only after statutory grounds for termination of parental rights have been established by clear and convincing evidence"). In making this determination, the court can consider all events occurring through the close of the dispositional hearing. Practice Book § 35a-9.
In addition to the statutory factors, the court has identified a number of other factors that are relevant to the determination of the best interest of the child. These factors include the following: child's age; child's behavior surrounding visits; child's bond and attachment to the biological parent; child's developmental concerns; child's disclosure of information; child's educational issues; child's emotional and psychological needs; child's exposure to domestic violence; child's exposure to substance abuse; child's expressed feelings; child's interests in sustained growth, development, well-being and continuity and stability of his environment; child's length of stay in foster care; child's mental health issues; child's need for supportive, safe, structured, stable, and nurturing caretakers; child's removal and placement history; child's safety; child's temperament and developmental needs; communication issues between the parents; foster care history; foster parent's willingness to provide long-term care and/or adopt the child; genetic bond to the parent; nature of allegations and impact on child; nature of parent-child relationship; parent's ability to benefit from services provided; parent's ability to be primary caretaker; parent's ability to maintain sobriety in the community; parent's ability to parent cooperatively; parent's ability to provide adequate supervision; parent's ability to provide long-term care; parent's compliance with the court orders (specific steps) and services; parent's ability and willingness to make sufficient efforts to reunify; parent's constitutional right to raise child; parent's contact with child; parent's continuing involvement with the criminal justice system; parent's domestic violence history; parent's efforts toward reunification; parent's mental health issues; parent's relapse history; parent's wishes and desires; parent's substance abuse history; parental rights and responsibilities; permanency, need for; testimony from professionals; reasonable efforts made by the department to reunite the family; removal history; removal trauma; services offered to the parent(s); stability, need for; transition to new foster home; and visitation history.
Based on the evidence presented, the court concludes that the evidence and the above-mentioned factors weigh in favor of the termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence.
Kyle is almost six years old. He has been removed from his parents' care on three occasions. On January 26, 2006, he was removed pursuant to an OTC. He was adjudicated neglected and committed to the department on September 13, 2006. He remained in foster care until January 2009, when he was reunified with the parents. On April 8, 2009, Kyle was removed for the second time. After Kyle was returned to the parents on April 14, 2009, he was removed for the third time on June 30, 2009. During his placement in foster care, he lived with the same foster mother until she became ill, and Kyle was transitioned to a new foster home in early May 2010. Kyle is living with his current foster parents who also previously adopted another foster child with special needs. Kyle has a bond with his biological parents, but there are concerns regarding the quality of the attachment.
Ashley Purdy was appointed Kyle's guardian ad litem in April 2009. In May 2009, Purdy met with Kyle while he was placed with his parents. Kyle expressed a desire to return to his former foster mother. He did not want to stay with his parents and was agitated with his current living situation. When Purdy returned to the home in early June 2009, she had a number of concerns. The condition of the home had deteriorated, and father reported that he was depressed. After the visit, mother tried to contact Purdy to express concerns regarding the father. Mother disclosed that father had been drinking, and she was concerned about Kyle being with father. Mother was trying to comply with the court order that she not be alone with Kyle.
Purdy met with Kyle when he was removed on June 30, 2009. Kyle seemed overwhelmed and was stressed and felt that things were not working out. He felt burdened by the situation and was trying to figure out how the situation could work out without hurting anyone's feelings. The paternal grandmother was unable to be a long-term caretaker for Kyle because she lived in elderly housing.
In Purdy's opinion, Kyle needs permanency and stability now. Kyle is a very troubled and confused child. The third removal had a huge impact on Kyle. The parents are not able to provide Kyle with permanency and stability. After Kyle was returned to the parents in January 2009, both parents continued to struggle with their substance abuse and mental health issues and were unable to maintain the progress that they had made after the first TPR petition was denied. Based on what has transpired, Purdy does not believe that father or mother could provide, within a reasonable time, the permanency and stability Kyle so badly needs. A concern with father is his history of relapse. Mother still is working on addressing her issues. There is a difference between a parent addressing his/her own needs versus taking on the additional responsibility of taking care of a child's needs. The new foster parents have a track record of providing stability and permanency for the child they have adopted. Purdy believes that termination of parental rights is in Kyle's best interest.
Dr. Sabooh Mubbashar is an expert in child psychiatry. He has worked with Kyle since October 30, 2009. Kyle's primary diagnosis is reactive attachment disorder. He struggles with anxiety. Kyle has experienced physical, psychological and emotional abuse and neglect over a period of several years. He has a history of multiple removals and placement in foster homes. He has a tendency to act out or have mood swings when he is anxious. His behaviors manifest his underlying anxiety. In the last few months, Kyle has been taking medication to address his anxiety, aggression and impulsivity. The length of time Kyle will need to take medications will depend on his progress.
In the doctor's opinion, the parents have not provided a safe and stable environment. Kyle has been removed three times from their care since January 2006. He has spent most of the last few years in foster care. Biological parents are the preferred placement, but Kyle's child protection history and needs do not support placement with the parents. The department has tried to reunify Kyle with his parents.
In the fall of 2009, Dr. Mubbashar recommended that visits be stopped. Foster mother indicated that Kyle's behavior issues, his aggressiveness and outbursts, would escalate following visits. Kyle's attachments with his parents are not necessarily healthy ones and may be detrimental to Kyle. Dr. Mubbashar's recommendation to stop the visits was not based on the parents' misconduct during visits, but rather on Kyle's needs. Kyle's behavior has improved since his visits with his parents were suspended in October 2009, and Kyle began taking medications in December 2009. Dr. Mubbashar would not recommend ongoing contact with parents at this time. Kyle needs the opportunity to be able to form safe attachments with secure and stable caretakers. Kyle needs to be in a setting where he is focused on forming secure attachments with caregivers. Any contact with the parents must be therapeutically recommended.
Dr. Mubbashar belles that Kyle needs a stable, secure home environment right now and for the next few years in order to address his developmental, emotional and psychological issues. In the short term, Kyle needs a secure attachment to caregivers who are able to appropriately manage his behavioral issues. In the long term, Kyle needs a very safe, stable and secure environment with competent caretakers who understand his behavioral needs. He needs a sense of security and safety with attached and reliable caretakers in order to address his anxiety issues. The most important thing for Kyle is to be placed as soon as possible in a very secure and stable environment. Kyle cannot wait another six months or more. Dr. Mubbashar does not recommend waiting longer for the parents to attempt to rehabilitate. If Kyle is placed in a secure and stable environment as soon as possible, his prognosis is favorable. He is an intelligent and capable child.
Dr. Mubbashar has not met the new foster parents yet. A favorable factor is that they have already cared for a child with behavioral issues and have a proven track record. He recognizes that there is no guarantee.
Dr. Rebecca Parilla is an expert in child psychology. She first met Kyle in April/May 2007, when she conducted an evaluation related to file language delays and hyperactivity. She did not see Kyle again until August 2009, when he was referred for therapy.
In August 2009, Kyle presented with chronic PTSD and reactive attachment disorder. Kyle has experienced trauma and neglect, which is reflected in his behavior. His life situation has included three removals from his parents' care and concerns regarding his parents' substance abuse issues. He observed his parents on numerous occasions to be in an incapacitated state and was left alone or left to take care of himself. He presented as a child with enormous amounts of anxiety and triggers. Some of triggers involve people with alcohol, locked doors and guns. He does not have sufficient internal coping mechanisms or strategies.
In Dr. Parilla's work with Kyle, they have talked about his feelings and ways to deal with his anxiety and aggression. He is an adorable, kind child who loves animals and flowers. He presents as being a parentified child and is very anxious about his parents. Young children should care about their parents but should not be worried about their parents' choices and well-being.
Dr. Parilla supported suspending visitation in the fall of 2009 because Kyle was de-compensating. She continues to support no contact with the parents. The parents do not represent safety and security for Kyle. Kyle needs an opportunity to establish a relationship with his pre-adoptive foster parents before visitation with the biological parents may be considered.
After Kyle's interaction session with the father conducted by Dr. Herman, Kyle's behavior showed increasing anxiety even though the interaction was positive. He seemed traumatized by the session and demonstrated increased anxiety and aggression and stated that he was fearful that a truck was going to take him back to his parents. Kyle acts out in the foster home because it is a secure and stable environment. Kyle rarely talks about his parents. He has not said that he wants to be returned to his parents. Instead, he has talked about going back to his parents when he is ninety, not while he is a child.
Dr. Parilla participated in Kyle's transition to the new foster home. Dr. Parilla knows the current foster parents from prior experience. Dr. Parilla talked to Kyle about the new foster placement. Kyle needs a stable environment that mimics the stability he had with his prior foster mother. She believes that Kyle has successfully made the transition to the new foster home.
In the doctor's opinion, the type of environment that is best for Kyle is one with structured supportive caregivers, preferably two parents, who have a capacity for deep empathy. Kyle needs caregivers who are loving, kind, consistent, and predictable. They must be able to anticipate Kyle's needs and modify their behavior accordingly. Kyle has been in limbo for an extended period of time. He is not able to connect with caretakers with the fear of reunification with his parents. His wellness is stymied because he is unable to disconnect with the unhealthy relationship with his parents. He needs to be able to connect in a healthy relationship with caregivers. The time he spends in limbo compounds the issues that impede his ability to develop a sense of self and healthy coping strategies. Kyle's prognosis is guarded. Kyle is resilient but will struggle. Kyle will do better when he has permanency. Permanency will help him to develop a sense of self and healthy coping strategies.
Dr. Herman performed an evaluation of Kyle and an interaction session with father in March 2010. Kyle presented as a child who has been traumatized by his experiences. Kyle talked about his parents fighting all the time. Kyle said his parents used to yell at each other. When they would yell, Kyle said he would tell them to stop. Sometimes, they did. Dr. Herman had collateral contact with Kyle's school which indicated that Kyle will probably still require special education services.
At the interaction session, Kyle and father demonstrated affection and a bond with each other. The interaction was appropriate. Notwithstanding the positive interaction, Dr. Herman believes that Kyle would be placed at risk if he was placed with the father instead of new foster home. Father is still at high risk for relapse. Caring for Kyle would create extra stress for father. There would be a high probability Kyle would have to be removed again. Kyle has not said that he wants to live with his father. If would be confusing to Kyle to continue to see his father.
In Dr. Herman's opinion, the best treatment for Kyle is to be in a permanent placement. He needs the structure. He needs to continue with therapy. Delaying permanency for one year would adversely affect Kyle's development. Kyle would be very upset, confused and angry. Kyle needs permanency and stability now, not at some uncertain date in the future. Kyle needs a permanent placement. It would be a clear message where he is going to live. The parents are not in a position to provide the permanency and stability that the child requires given their special needs.
Based on the evidence and testimony of the social workers, agency personnel, service providers and professionals who had close contact with Kyle during this period, it is clear that termination of parental rights and adoption is in Kyle's best interest. Even though the parents have participated in many services and have complied to some extent, they have not benefited from the services to the degree that they are in a position, now or in the foreseeable future, to properly care for the child's needs and to provide the child with a safe, nurturing environment. Based on the history of the case, there are not many reasons to be optimistic about the parents' potential for sufficient rehabilitation, especially given the failure of numerous treatment interventions to yield sustainable progress. Both parents have had long periods of claimed sobriety and then relapsed. They have both relapsed in the last year. To delay or disrupt a permanent placement for the child while the parents work on resolving their issues, with no clear end in sight, is not in the best interests of the child. There is nothing to suggest that returning the child to the parents would result in a reduction of the risks that were present at the time of the child's removal. There is significant risk in returning the child to the parents. The court cannot take a chance with Kyle's mental health by returning him to his parents.
Kyle has exhibited behavioral issues which require caretakers who are attentive to his special needs and have the ability to care for his particular needs. He requires a higher level of care than the parents are capable of providing on a consistent and effective basis. Kyle is in need of a home environment where he will be safe and protected from injury and will receive proper supervision and nutrition. He is a young child at a critical time in his development and growth. His safety is at risk in the parents' care. He has been in foster care for approximately four years. Kyle needs permanency now. Given the child's age and needs, he requires caretakers who will be consistently available to meet his needs. The child needs and requires a sense of stability and safety for his proper care and guidance. He deserves a chance for a stable upbringing in a safe home environment. The current foster placement is a legal risk pre-adoptive home. The foster parents have expressed a willingness to adopt the child. The foster parents have a proven track record of caring for a child with special needs. Removal of the child from the foster home placement to another home that does not have prospect of providing him with permanency would be harmful. The child needs a permanent and stable living arrangement in order to grow and develop in a healthy manner and to continue to make therapeutic gains.
Kyle has been in foster care for approximately four years. Under the circumstances, allowing the parents further time to attempt to rehabilitate would be detrimental to Kyle's best interest. As in the case of In re Janazia S., the parents' ongoing efforts to address their substance abuse and mental health issues are not far enough along for reunification to be possible in light of Kyle's emotional and psychological needs. See In re Janazia S., supra, 112 Conn.App. 96. Like In re Samantha C., the time for rehabilitation has passed given the lack of real, sustainable progress by the parents, the length of time Kyle has remained in foster care, and his need for permanency. See In re Samantha C., supra, 268 Conn. 629. Kyle cannot afford to wait any longer. His development and well-being require permanency now, not at sometime in the future when the parents may achieve sufficient rehabilitation.
Based upon the foregoing findings, and having considered all the evidence and the statutory considerations, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to terminate the parental rights of the respondent parents.
D Motion to Resume Visitation
On January 15, 2010, father filed a motion to resume visitation. The petitioner filed an objection to that motion on February 19, 2010. On March 5, 2010, mother filed a motion to resume visitation.
For the above-stated reason, the court finds that it is not in Kyle's best interest to resume visitation with the respondent parents. The court has found that termination of parental rights and adoption is in the best interest of the child. Accordingly, the motions to resume visitation are denied.
E Motion to Review Permanency Plan
On October 1, 2009, the department filed a motion to review permanency plan of termination of parental rights and adoption. The father filed an objection October 6, 2009.
General Statutes § 46b-129(k) governs the approval of a permanency plan. The statute provides in pertinent part: "[T]he court shall approve a permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child or youth and takes into consideration the child's or youth's need for permanency. The child's or youth's health and safety shall be of paramount concern in formulating such plan."
Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that termination of parental rights and adoption is in the child's best interest and need for permanency. Accordingly, the department's motion to review permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption is granted.
IV CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the court renders judgment as follows. The petition is granted and judgment may enter terminating the parental rights of the respondent parents. It is further ordered that the Commissioner of Children and Families is appointed the statutory parent for the child.
Pursuant to § 17a-112(o), the department shall report to the court, not later than thirty days after the date judgment is entered, on case plans, as defined by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, for the child, which shall include measurable objectives and time schedules. At least every three months thereafter, the department shall report to the court on the progress that has been made on the implementation of the plans.
The court approves the permanency plans of termination of parental rights and adoption. The court further finds that the department has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan for the child.
The respondent parents' motions to resume visitation are denied. The petitioner's objection is sustained.