SDOCKET NO.: .. SUPERIOR COURT i: 1:3 T93: FOR JUVENILE MATTERS W: f; ti SIN RE: C-G. AT WATERFORD :i . A (3 APRIL 13, 2018 EMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS fi?nancial support. The state was also to be asked for their position. 011 October 24, 2017, the state .A ?Fl'd-m-NM'4 uy. .. Mm EE'objection was expressly conditioned on mother retaining her own parental rights. ,1 it On October 24, 2017 the petitioner?s motion to amend its petition in Z?s case to add a B-2 E?ground [?17a-l and to check the box indicating it was a co-terminus petition, was Eigranted by agreement. The adjudication date is October 24, 2017. The department alleges: that it is in the children?s best interest to terminate and 8?3 5% EEparental rights; that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with KF and or that KF sannd were unable or unwilling to bene?t from reuni?cation efforts; that the children G, M, D, and EL have been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected, and for all ?ve children KF and fhave failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilltation that would encourage the belief that aW1th1n a reasonable t1me, cons1der1ng the age and needs of the children, either parent could assume :Earesponsible position in the lives of the children. The adjudication date for G, M, D, and is March it p: 2 2 5:30, 2017. EE ?The hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists of two phases, adjudication :and disposition. . . . In the adjudicatory phase, the trial court determines whether one of the statutory i: :1 grounds for termination of parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence. If the trial court EEdetermines that a statutory ground for termination exists, it proceeds to the dispositional phase. In the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interest of the Echild." (Citation omitted.) In re Shaun B, 97 Conn. App. 203, 206, 903 A.2d 246 (2006). *p 1 1?7. ?The trial court is required, pursuant to 17a?1 12, to analyze the [parent?s] rehabilitative ES ?status as it relates to the needs of the particular and further . . . such rehab111tat1on must be Eforeseeable within a reasonable time. Rehabilitate means to restore [a handicapped or delinquent .. n-u-Ha ?rm -4 "aw-lw?wh Mm ?magma. mu, mum?, -mm .1 3E EEperson] to a useful and constructive place in society through social rehabilitation. [Webster?s] Third aNew International Dictionary. The statute does not require [a parent] to prove precisely when [he or Eshe] will be able to assume a responsible position in [his or her] child?s life. Nor does it require [him hr her] to prove that [he or she] will be able to assume full responsibility for [his or her] child, pnalded by available support systems. It requires the court to ?nd by clear and convincing evidence, Ethat the level of rehabilitation [he or she] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [he or she] can assume a responsible position Ein [his or her] child?s life. In addition, in determining whether a parent has achieved suf?cient 1? personal rehabilitation, a court may consider whether the parent has corrected the factors that led to the initial commitment, regardless of whether those factors were included in speci?c expectations . 1 '1 E'ordered by the court or imposed by the department.? (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks I omitted) In re Shane M, 318 Conn. 568, 585?586 (2015). The trial lasted six days with seventeen witnesses and seventy exhibits. "The trial court . EE. is not bound by the uncontradicted testimony of any witness . . . and is in fact free to reject such testimony. . . . The trier is the judge of the credibility of all the witnesses and the weight to be given E1 ?1 their testimony and, therefore, has the right to accept part or disregard part of a witness' testimony.? . (Citatlons omitted.) In re Deana E. 61 Conn App. 197, 208, 763 A. 2d 45 (2000). EE The court ?nds the following by clear and convincing evidence. was born to the respondents, KF and TG, on March 15, 2011. was born to the respondents, KF and S, on November 21, 2012. was born to the respondents, KF and S, on April 21, 2014. was born to the respondents, KF and BM, on May 31, 2015. The paternity of BM was 3 Hum-Irwin mum-"w Nanny - ?mm-m m1wmw~mp thm-lmm ?vwmw.s-wm wvww? v? . 11-, We: . W. . not established until December 6, 2016. On June 19, 2015, at the initial ten-day hearing for L?s order of temporary custody, KF and JS requested a paternity test of S, claiming that he was the father. ,iThat test established the was not L?s father. BM was whereabouts unknown at the time. After the department was able to locate him the following year, he cooperated with a paternity test, and as a lresult, was adjudicated the father of on December 6, 2016. was born to the respondents, KS and S, on June 8, 2016. The department, after a multi?year history of nonjudicial involvement with the family, ?led ?damn?t. ?my ineglect petitions in the interest of G, M, and on May 19, 2014. KF and were homeless at the igtime and had been transient for approximately one year. TG had not been involved with since was six months old. KF and were separated at the time, and KF was in a relationship with BM. 3T he children were reported to be dirty and unkempt by several providers. KF was the sole custodian I lOf three young children in a shelter, and acknowledged needing help. i In August, 2014, the department assisted mother in obtaining an apartment in New London i fthrough a supportive housing program (ISHFF). and KP reconciled and moved into the apartment with KF. They have been united as a couple ever since. ii On November 25, 2014, all three children were adjudicated neglected and continued in the ?5 7w Ecustody of KF and with protective supervision by the department for six months. KF and were l?provided speci?c steps which included cooperating with the ISHFF program. Rose B. from ISHFF was the family?s case manager. The couple was noncompliant. They did not cooperate with budgeting education, which was critical for them as they had a severely limited income. They did not keep appointments. Twice the family faced eviction, in November, 2014 and May, 2015, due to non?payment issues. Both times, DCF provided cash payments to 5 4 a ?Newman Erinaintain the apartment. DCF also contributed to the payment of utility bills. DCF also referred mother for parenting education to Triple P, an intensive parenting Efeducation service. The initial referral was to a Danielson program, and then a second referral was inade to New London after the relocation. Mother cooperated with Triple P. i 1 i Mother denied needing mental health services, but did an intake at Community Behavioral ngealth and one couples therapy session. She did no other counseling outside of her limited 3i s- Scooperation with ISHFF. 1 Despite the limited cooperation, protective supervision was allowed to expire on May 22, E2015 with services still in place. if was born on May 31, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the department received a report from the it 93 ifchildren?s pediatrician that KF, S, and the four children came to an appointment, and was 31.5 fswaddled to mother?s chest. The doctor? 5 of?ce staff advised the parents that transporting that way was dangerous and offered the parents a car seat for L. The parents refused and were observed Egdriving off with the baby improperly secured. That day, an experienced DCF investigative worker, EENatasha Reed, went to the family home. She found the apartment hot, unclean, and L, at two weeks, propped up in a baby swing sti?ed with blankets, with a bottle propped up for her to feed herself. This worker testi?ed that for the ?rst time in her career she felt the need to check to see if the baby was breathing. The ?oor was ?lthy and was feeding himself with food off the ?oor. Mother was falone, appeared ill, and not providing necessary parenting. On June 12, 2015, an ex parte order of temporary custody was signed (Mack, J. vesting itemporary custody of all four children in the department. All of the children were placed with Einaternal relatives. On June 19, 2015, KF, S, TG appeared in court, were appointed attorneys, and KP and w. 1% 22requested a contested hearing on the order of temporary custody. 2 On June 30, 2015, KF and submitted pleas of nolo contendere, TG remained silent, and 22 .. all four children were adjudicated neglected. Speci?c steps for reuni?cation were con?rmed. The .21 ?2 2matter was continued for dispositional purposes. A evaluation of all three parents and the children was ordered. Dr. Kelly Rogers performed the evaluation. This evaluation recommended 22against reuni?cation. 1 On November 16, 2015, all four children were committed to the department (Mackhave remamed so ever smceJune 8, 2016, was born. On June 13, 2016, a predictive neglect order of temporary 2pustody was signed, and sustained by agreement on June 17, 2016. Speci?c steps for reuni?cation 22were signed that day by the parents. No adjudication has entered on the neglect petition dated June 213, 2016. 1 2 2 2 The major issues faced by KF and were chronic housing problems, untreated mental health 22concerns, budgeting and income concerns, and parenting de?ciencies. DCF tried, without success, 22to meet all of these issues. 22 22 Mental health needs were the most signi?cant issues facing KF and S. Before the children .22 2?2Were removed, mother disclosed to the department that she had been given in the past a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. She did not acknowledge needing mental health ,treatment. 2 Dr. Kelly Rogers performed an initial court ordered evaluation of mother and father 2211 September, 2015. He found mother excessively defensive and guarded in her disclosures, 2 6 1 m7.? imam, .- I?m?m?a'lnrw .1 ?druids-him "NM?um . w~ ihypersensitive, hyper?reactive and with suspicions bordering on paranoia. She was not thinking Eclearly, prone to anger, and preoccupied with resentments. Her defensiveness precluded a de?nitive . gdiagno sis but he felt that data supported a personality disorder otherwise speci?ed, and could not rule gout an evolving thought disorder. At the time her responses to recent stress were best understood as i :an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. DCF referred mother to United Community and Family Services (U CF S) twice in June, 2015 ilvithout success. Mother instead began counselng at Inner Peace on June 22, 2015. She missed half pf her sessions and was discharged non-compliant in October, 2015. Mother began an intensive outpatient program (IOP) at Lawrence and Memorial Hospital in ESDecember, 2015. It was a 4-6 week program. At discharge, the IOP referred mother to Sound Community Services in New London. Mother refused to attend there. Mother participated in no counseling until March, 2016. Mother began then with Change, 1 Inc. A licensed therapist worked with mother until February 2017. The therapist had the bene?t of Rogers? first evaluation. Before receiving it, she, too, diagnosed mother with a borderline Elfpersonality disorder, which she opined was dif?cult to treat. She was to meet weekly with mother, bEut mother?s attendance was inconsistent. Mother was unwilling to address Dr. Rogers? frecommended issues, and decided on her own what they discussed. There was no capacity for inedication management at Change, Inc. The therapist testi?ed that her hope was to obtain the basis for mother to improve mother?s insight in the future. She believed mother showed no insight into i? imother?s problems. Mother would need insight to change her behavior. They were working on skill . idevelopment including anger management, self regulation of emotions, self soothing, coping skills ?and, 1nter-persona1 relationships. Mother?s interest was intermittent. Mother claimed her only issue dukx?v'u. mum-n4? .m wumu?n a. mm mm iwmamm MK vs? iwas some housekeeping concerns and that her children were removed improperly. The therapist ?inever observed mother with her children and had no opinion as to mother?s parenting abilities, was 3 fnever asked to opine on parenting and would not be able to even if asked. This ?rst Change, Inc. therapist became a supervisor and transferred mother?s treatment ganother therapist, who was in the process of working toward her license. She needed a licensed supervisor. She saw mother from March, 2017 until August, 2017. Mother was to attend weekly, but :3 ii . Egmissed 13 out of 23 scheduled sessions. Unfortunately, her licensed supervisor left the agency 1n iiAugust, 2017 and she was not allowed to continue counseling mother. She thought, at that time, that ifshe was beginning to earn mother?s trust, and would be willing to re-engage with mother if she lzould. In October, 2016, without notice to Change Inc. or the department, mother attended an intake medication management and therapy at UCFS. KF refused to sign a release for DCF for anything hther than attendance. DCF was unable to con?rm whether mother was prescribed medication. They Eivere able to con?rm that mother was discharged unsuccessfully shortly thereafter. After leaving Change Inc., mother advised the department that she was counseling with Safe iFutures, a domestic violence counseling center. She refused to sign any release to allow the :department to con?rm that she is in treatment. These refusals are in violation of mother?s speci?c Eisteps. Dr. Rogers had recommended in his ?rst evaluation that a consultation be arranged for mother and one was scheduled with Dr. Masse. Mother missed the first evaluation, but was evaluated on March 16, 2016. She was found fully oriented, independent, and with no neuro degenerative disorders. Dr. Masse diagnosed mother with generalized anxiety disorder, and 8 ?Mm an.? inland-Alum. mi my ., gfrecommended a review of medication for optimization and encouraged mother to participate in EE Efsupportive and supportive socialization. Mother followed this last recommendation several months later, attending a one day conference, and enrolling in two educational support 7 groups which provided socialization and skills, but nothing immediately bene?cial to her children. Dr. Masse noted that mother presented with weakened initiation, self-monitoring, disorganization, muv-w-uuwnm A ~;and poor planning, and would likely perform most effectively in a structured environment. Dr. Rogers performed a second evaluation of mother in November, 2016 and found some moderation in her prior distress. He opined that she continued to be fragile and readily incited, and presents as angry. He reported that unfamiliar and unexpected stresses readily overwhelmed KF. He continued in his diagnosis of personality disorder otherwise speci?ed with borderline paranoid traits as well as an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. Dr. Rogers was unable to see I a third time until January, 2017, at which time he saw inother, and with all the children. Again he opined that reuni?cation was not advocated in the near future. 5 i I Two evaluators and an independent therapist worked with mother for a substantial period of E?jdme, and all found a signi?cant need for ongoing mental health treatment. Mother has consistently Eidenied the truth and on the witness stand af?rmed that she had no mental health needs. KF has not i the speci?c step for mental health treatment. i was equally noncompliant with mental health services. Dr. Rogers, in his September, 2015 gevaluation found readily overwhelmed with limited frustration tolerance. had quite limited Efunctionality. Given presentation and reported history, Dr. Rogers found them consistent with :3 ES E?ttention de?cit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. 9 .. mm I-uuv-n W. m. EHje recommended a evaluation, parenting coaching, and review of the need for . EADHD medication. In January, 2016, Dr. Rogers performed a evaluation which Eincluded review of a January, 2013 learning disability evaluation performed by the Bureau of g; 1 3{Rehabilitation Services. Dr. Rogers found clinically signi?cant ADHD with a combined :presentation of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Again he recommended a medication 5 review for ADHD medicine. began counseling at UCFS in August, 2016, and was discharged in October, 2016 for failing to attend. engaged in no other individual counseling until August, 2017. In December, 2016, was referred to the Community Health Center. He saw them in I I January, 2017 for medication management, and did not return until August, 2017. In July, 2017, advised the department that he either lost his prescription or discontinued his medication because KF told she had seen a television report that the medication was recalled. In January, 2017, Dr. Rogers saw for a third time, and strongly advocated medication for mm ?mw we ADHD. Dr. Rogers noted that participation in services was inconsistent and he was considerably EEresistant to change. Focused individual was recommended, but failed to complytoo, has not complied with his critical step to address his mental health needs. is i 2 claimed completion of a parenting program through Madonna Place called the Fatherhood EEInitiative. He failed to respond to the ?rst two referrals, ?nally began it in October, 2016, and . I 2 icompleted the twelve week program ?ve months later. Mother claimed that she took an online g?parentmg program so she had no need to comply with any DCF referral. i! i? As noted, the parents were living in an apartment through an intensive supportive housing EEprogram. As of June, 2015, the case manager was to meet with them regularly and the parents were 5! ?i 10 'Jm-m-nm :10 report all income and accept budgeting assistance. They would not cooperate. They missed ffappointments, ignored budget advice, and failed to disclose their income. As noted, DCF was EErequired to pay out funds on two occasions to stave off eviction. The parents spent frantically, Epurchasin items for the children which were already provided by DCF. They would not account for their income or their expenses. In November, 2015, they once again faced eviction for nonpayment 0f back rent and late fees. Once again, DCF was asked to provide assistance. The department would Eneed to pay approximately $2,500.00? $3 ,500.00 to prevent an eviction action. The department could Enot and would not pay unless the parents established the ability to meet their rental obligations in the future The parents refused to cooperate, thus jeopardizing their tenancy and their housing voucher. EThe parents claim this was unreasonable on the department?s part. Reasonable efforts do not require EE Ethe department to be a guarantor of the parents? rental obligations with no cooperation from the s? 1 EEJarents. s: EE Because of the noncompliance of KF and S, they lost their supportive housing apartment. They did not disclose any housing to DCF until February, 2016. They had moved into a private Eapartment in New London. By December, 2016, they were over $2,000.00 in arrears for rent, and had no oil for heat in the apartment. They were threatened with eviction. They rejected offers of help by Ethe department. In January, 2017, KF and moved into a home in Groton, at the invitation of half EEbrother B, who was a tenant in the home. The house also was occupied by KF ?3 mother, who suffers Efrem dementia, and a full time aide for the maternal grandmother. KF ?s stepfather resides there, too, as does another adult relative. KF and live in a crowded basement storage room, on a mat next Eto the hot water heater. In September, 2017, KF attorney proposed returning the two oldest children ll mun?mt?. we . . mm Wuhan-?mu -.- um." a. .W mm ito KF in that home. The proposal was to make maternal grandmother sleep on a sofa, while the gigohildren would share her bedroom. said there was room for all ?ve children, despite the :department?s observation of limited space. had made declarations of interest in helping in the past, '35 ibut never offered to be a custodial resource before. The department did not countenance this 2? 1 .. ww- ginroposal. It could not have taken effect because the landlord was evicting KF and at the time of . ii it trial The landlord was another half?brother of KF who had no knowledge of their occupancy, and I 7 :refused to grant them permission to stay. KF and were once again destined to be transient. I I Poor budgetmg, or misrepresentations about income, have exacerbated the housmg concems yofKF and S. Mother testi?ed that they paid no rent or utilities at the Groton house, and claimed that She had full and regular employment as a CNA, and that father was also working. They would not disclose their income to DCF. Despite having no housing expenses, they were only able to set aside $500.00 for all expenses as of the date of trial. The likelihood of housing success was remote. On the last day of trial, mother claimed that an anonymous donor had provided mother?s attorney with suf?cient funds to provide housing for a year. While the court is impressed with the suggested kindness of a stranger, there is no reasonable prospect of either KF or managing and it; ifmaintaining stable housing for an extended period, even with assistance, based upon past performance. I i KF and are both high school graduates. KF has a certi?ed nurse?s assistant license, and :a history of inconsistent employment at nursing homes in the area. She does not provide proof of employment, in violation of her speci?c steps, but does acknowledge inconsistent employment with iseveral involuntary terminations. provided very limited proof of employment, and by report has iininimal employment opportunities. As noted, by misrepresenting or not presenting proof of income, 12 . tumm- "manor MAithe family was denied supportive housing and they have not established a stable, lawful income. i KF and were referred to the Child and Family Agency in March, 2016 for a twelve week i i fassessment for an intensive family reunification program known as RTFT. They were discharged and i ij?determined ineligible for reuni?cation. The clinician recommended individual counseling for both KF and S, and couples counseling to work on their communication skills. KF and have had one gicouples counseling session in three years. The clinician also recommended that KF reconsider the iiprior medication recommendations. The clinician had ongoing safety concerns about the children ?1n the care of KF and S. The clinician expressed concerned with and S?s consistency and 4 I stability in housing and employment, as well as their lack of communication. She was also concerned with the judgment of S. She observed cooking with a rag too close to the stove. reported an i i i incident where he had eggs boiling on the stove and left the apartment, without notifying mother, and the eggs exploded all over the kitchen. 1 i The parents have consistent visits with the children and express great interest in and love for i ?l :5 i. ?2 I ihem. The visitation, however, has been highly problematic. DCF workers and visitation supervisors :have noted extensive, inappropriate bickering between KF and in the presence of the children. KF and become overwhelmed or inattentive at the visits. They resent, and dispute, the frequent and Enecessary interventions of the visitation supervisor. KF so lost control of herself at one visit that she and JS lost access to visitation in a family home type of setting. They were transferred to a DCF givisitation room for security reasons. i has been seen frequently putting items from the ?oor into her mouth without parental intervention. After many months of supervised visitation, there was a strong recommendation against 13 ?nk-f .2 ?mew x? ?a-xu "haw. ?unsung. i .u .mmnw m? . .V my". Eiunsupervised visitation. The safety issues were too prevalent. 5 While KF and demonstrate a bond with and love for their children, their parenting abilities ?remain inadequate. Parental love is not the same as parental competence. i; All of children have Special needs. is in weekly therapy with emotional issues. She has it gjspeech delays and an individual education plan (IEP). has speech delays, asthma, an IEP, and is i {medically complex. D, who suffered enormous harm while in the care of a maternal relative foster it gr gimme, is struggling from failure to thrive issues. He is frequently at the doctors. He was closing down in the presence of his family during visits, so much so that his attorney moved to suspend the visits. His parents have not seen him since June, 2017. and displayed delays, but are improving in their respective foster homes. ?Mm is the only child who lived with KF (or S) for more than half her life. She was removed at age four years. was two and a half years at removal. was one year, and and were removed .. . virtually at birth. i i No provider has recommended reuni?cation. N0 provider has noted full compliance by either or S. Then mental health remams untreated. Their chronic housmg issues continue unabated. i thhey are facing eviction again. They have no stable income, and are evasive or misrepresent their ii iincome. They have been rejected for reuni?cation services. They have had years of supervised ,yisitation, and have shown no signi?cant progress. .2 R) i- .3 i was removed based upon predictive neglect. To return her to her parents would put at :risk of homelessness, inattentive or poor parenting, and an unhygienic environment. The department has proven that she was neglected. has been in the custody of the department for more than ?fteen ?1 .1 {months as of the adjudication date. 14 .manmmn.? 4..- w- ?ma?a?n -.V Wumqm-Mu-?anw. Murmuw. As to all the children, specific steps for reuni?cation were provided to KF and S, and they failed to rehabilitate and did not address successfully their mental health needs, their housing needs, I. .a iitheir parenting de?ciencies. Given their resistence to services, and the length of time the children it iihave been in care, and the poor prognosis noted particularly by Dr. Rogers, the court ?nds by clear iiand convincing evidence on all adjudicatory grounds in favor of the petitioner. . ~a i The department made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with KF and S. ?The word 3 iireasonable 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, de?ned by our legislature or by the federal act from which the requirement was [R]easonable efforts means doing everything reasonable, not evelything possible.? (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Ryan R., 102 Conn. App. 608, 619, cert. Denied, 284 Conn.923, 924 (2007). KP and were unwilling or unable to bene?t from reuni?cation efforts. The four older children were adjudicated neglected, and is neglected and in 4 the custody of DCF for over 15 months; and KF and have failed to achieve the degree of personal i rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time given the ages and needs Sof the children, they could assume a responsible position in the lives of the children. Dispositionally, the court must consider the children?s best interests, taking into account the seven factors set forth in General Statutes In doing so the court considers and makes ithe seven statutory ?ndings as follows. 1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the iiparent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent. E2 ii TG consented. DCF provided timely services to KF and JS, including visitation"am, ?an. .. chum. Mahayana?a ., .u mama: . Mme mam.?? evaluations, evaluations, parenting assessment and education, EE EEtransportation, individual counseling, cash assistance, and case management. 2. Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, as amended from time Eto time. Reasonable efforts were made by DCF. 3. The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have ful?lled their obligations under such order. Specific steps were set by the court at the times of the orders of temporary custody and the entry of commitment orders for the four older children. They required KF and .T to cooperate with mental health evaluations and treatment, obtain and maintain a stable income and housing, visit, and - 1 to address their parenting deficiencies. Their successes and failures in these regards are noted in the Egadjudicatory section. EE 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 exercrsed physical care, custody or control EE for at least one year and with whom the child has developed signi?cant emotional ties. The children know KF and as parents who love them. is losing her attachment to as 1 a: i she spends more time with her father, BM, and becoming bonded with him. is very close to her EEmother, and to his father. and were close to their maternal relative foster parents with whom they resided for two years. Unfortunately, the foster family was missing necessary appointments for the children and reports of hygiene issues were raised. DCF was investigating the reports, and asked 16 ?In?r?-??lwr?nw: u. .ai. m. .. A . ?m?v?uhr-mn: .r ., . for and to visit D?s foster home for ?ve days to assess if it would be available. The department EEhad initiated no removal procedures, but the fosters called DCF and, to the great distress of the 3% {parents and and M, demanded their removal. was removed from visitation with his parents in EjJune, 2017 on the motion of his attorney, so his bond is presumably weakening. The children are 3% Eall in pre-adoptive homes, with and together. All five children, especially the three youngest, i re bonded with their foster families. 5. The age of the child. is seven years old, born March 15, 2011. is ?ve years old, born November 21, 2012. 3: is three years old, born April 21, 2014. is two years old, born May 31, 2015. is one year old, born June 8, 2016. 3 6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent?s circumstances, conduct, or iEmnditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable Efuture, 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 Eicontact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child. KF and S, particularly KF, have maintained frequent, almost daily, contact with DCF . When [the children were ?rst placed with maternal relatives, KF and JS would have contact directly with the relatives. The relatives often complained to DCF that KF was a liar, and questioned her stability. Kli's communication i-vith DCF u'm'kers is often rude. vulgar. and angry on KlT's part. There is no 17 W. m. .. tjdirect communication with the current foster parents. Other than visitation, which has not often been smooth, the parents have inconsistently and inadequately attempted to adjust their circumstances favorably. 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 5unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent. i suffered severe harm while in the foster home of a maternal relative. Mother and father blame DCF for inadequate supervision. The department transferred responsibility for all the children from the Norwich to the Willimantic of?ce for a fresh assessment. Mother is also very upset that L?s tat-13*? ather BM was located and became involved He cooperated fully with his speci?c steps and his other, a licensed foster mother was given custody of L, to mother extreme displeasure Mother mm. as not prevented from her efforts or relationship by either BM 0r paternal grandmother, except to m, 1 lghe extent that BM successfully applied himself to his own reuni?cation steps. Mother however, has regularly attempted to interfere with his parental rights. Mother called the Careline numerous times ivVith unfounded allegations that was being physically and sexually abused in or paternal {l "l Egrandmother?s care. The Careline had to warn mother of a possible criminal complaint for false l: El reports to control her ?Our statutes de?ne the termination of parental rights as the complete severance by court gjorder of the legal relationship, with all its rights and reSponsibilities, between the child and his g?parentw It 13 a most senous and sensmve realm of Jud1c1al actlon.? (Internal quotat1on marks ?fpmitted.) In re Antonio M, 56 Conn. App. 534, 538 (2000). i? ?In the dispositional phase of a termination of parental rights hearing, the emphasis :l 18 1 a -. mm. ell-schism? "Hammw up? 11mm mew ?we Mra. mmwmuhna WNW nun-.1 appropriately shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of the [T]he trial court Einust determine whether it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the continuation of 1! ii Elhe respondent?s parental rights is not in the best interest of the child. (Citations omitted; internal EEquotation marks omitted.) In re Janazia S., 112 Conn. App. 69, 97?98, 961 A.2d 1036 (2009). EE ?The best interests of the child include the child?s interest in sustained growth, development, :3 EEwell?being and continuity and stability of its environment.? in re Trevor: G., 109 Conn. App. 782, 952 A.2d 1280 (2008noted, the have been out of their parents? care for a substantlal period of tlme. Dr Rogers, as an expert, opined that and need permanency now. has serious medical issues EEand needs a stable, supportive environment. needs an emotionally stable and secure home. KF LE it EEcannot provide that, and has demonstrated an inability to co-parent with BM. She has filed false ft EEreports of a serious nature against L?s placement, in an attempt to undermine L?s placement. Z, and Eall the children, need a stable, hygienic, nurturing, supportive environment. The attorneys EErepresenting all ?ve children have recommended that the parental rights of TG, KF, and be i {terminated as to their respective children. The court agrees, and finds by clear and convincing Eevidence that it is in the best interests of the children to do so. 2. it it Wherefore, after due consideration of the children?s need for a secure, permanent placement, EEand the totality of the circumstances, and having considered all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts at reuni?cation with KF and were made and that each was unwilling or unable to benefit from those efforts, and that grounds exist to EEterminate and S?s parental rights for a failure to rehabilitate as alleged, and of based Eupon his consent, and that it is in the children?s best interest to do so, the court orders: 19 That the parental rights of respondent father, TG., and the respondent mother, KP, are hereby literminated as to their child, born March 15, 2011; That the parental rights of the respondent mother, KF, and the respondent father S, are Ehereby terminated as to their children C, born November 21, 2012; and C, born April 21, 2014; and C, born June 8, 2016; That the parental rights of the respondent mother, KF, are hereby terminated as to her child C, born May 31, 2015, with father BM remaining as the sole legal parent; That the commissioner of the department of children and families is appointed statutory parent of the children G, M, D, and for the purpose of securing the children?s adoption, with ?rst consideration to be given to the current foster parents; a? That a written report of the plan for the children, other than L, shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be ?led with the court as required by law; That the Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the children, if probated, shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford of the date when said adoption is ?nalized, as shall the petitioner. BY THE COURT Mair/? . John C. Driscoll, J. 20 mm Wum?rnnl??MW Wm.? alumna unlu? um-? . A .1 WW, vuaww .?nav?m- 1 man