IN RE: Matthew D.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Before the court is a petition dated December 9, 2009, alleging that now, sixteen-year-old Matthew D. (dob.  June 25, 1994), is uncared for by virtue of being homeless or that Matthew has specialized needs that cannot be met in the home.   The biological parents, Carrie D. and William D. have each been served with process and initially appeared.   The parents are separated and divorced.   The mother has had an attorney appointed for her and has continued to participate in the process.   The father was found ineligible for court appointed counsel and has not obtained private counsel nor has he continued to participate in the legal process or express any interest in his son.   He failed to appear for this scheduled hearing and is according defaulted.

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) has been involved with the parents and Matthew since 2004.   They have been most actively involved with Matthew since July 2006, when the mother sought voluntary services for him due to his unmanageable, aggressive and oppositional behavior which jeopardized the safety of the mother and the other children in her household.²

DCF began offering voluntary services for Matthew which included five hospitalizations at Natchaug Hospital and the Children's Center in Hamden between 2006 and 2007.   He was hospitalized at Riverview Hospital for a 30-day evaluation.   He was released from Riverview to the Learning Clinic residential placement on February 8, 2008.   Matthew remained in residential placement for twenty months until December 6, 2009, when Matthew ran away from the Learning Clinic.

When Matthew was located by the police at 3:00 AM on the morning of December 7, 2009, he was brought to the Windham Hospital to ascertain his physical and mental status.   The Learning Clinic indicated to the police that they would not take Matthew back without a determination of his physical and mental status.   Once Matthew was deemed eligible by the hospital staff for discharge, the Learning Clinic made a determination that for reasons of safety and Matthew's instability, Matthew could not return to the Learning Clinic.   DCF immediately contacted the mother for possible placement of Matthew.   The mother indicated that she could not accept Matthew into her home for fear he would assault her other children.   DCF thereafter filed this uncared for petition and also sought, and obtained, an order of temporary custody as Matthew was ready for discharge and was effectively homeless.

Shortly after the order of temporary custody was granted, the parties agreed to vacate the order and to place the child temporarily with the maternal grandmother for a very short period of time, given that the grandmother did not feel able to provide a long-term placement for Matthew.   The uncared for petition remained pending in court.   Matthew was placed in a residential group home under an agreement for voluntary services.   He has remained in the group home since January 2010.

The mother's position on this case is confusing to the court.   She seems to take the position that she was not offered sufficient time to come up with a suitable placement resource for Matthew and accordingly believes DCF acted too hastily to end voluntary services and file the instant petition.   Yet seven months has now elapsed and there is no indication that she had a better plan for the child than the one subsequently found by DCF. She does not want Matthew removed from his present group home where he is comfortably situated, enjoys his colleagues, and is making progress in his behavioral health, but she opposes a commitment under the petition even though she does not contest the adjudicatory findings.

The parties have all stipulated that Matthew has specialized needs and that his mother is unable to provide the specialized care which Matthew requires.   Matthew's diagnosis upon entry into the Learning Clinic was Impulse Control Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, enuresis, encopresis, and parent-child relational problems.

The issue presented by the mother as a defense to the petition is that since the child was receiving voluntary services, DCF had no right to bring a petition claiming the child was uncared for and thus end the voluntary services.   She maintains that under the Department's own regulations, § 37-9, the department did not have the right to terminate voluntary services.   The court disagrees.

Exhibit M-2 is the respondent's exhibit.   That document indicates that termination of voluntary services may be initiated by the Department under three circumstances 1) the child/youth and his/her family have been provided services according to the treatment plan, can no longer benefit from continued provision of services, 2) the child/youth or parent/guardian is not cooperating with the treatment plan as agreed upon by the Department and the child/youth and parent/guardian, or 3) the child/youth or parent/guardian no longer meet the eligibility criteria.

It is undisputed that the treatment plan for Matthew called for him to remain at the Learning Center and cooperate with treatment.   Respondent's Exhibit 1 indicates that Matthew's conduct prior to his flight on December 6, 2009, had been significantly escalating.   It is alleged that Matthew had become increasingly aggressive, he had threatened the staff with a pipe, he had stolen $300 from the Learning Clinic, and had run away three times within the preceding two months.   He fled the Learning Center under circumstances which resulted in his inability to return to the Learning Center.   In doing so, the child/youth was not cooperating with the treatment plan.   Given Matthew's lack of cooperation, DCF had the right to terminate the voluntary services and to seek judicial relief.

ORDER;

The adjudicatory findings have been stipulated by the parties, and independently are found by the court that the child was homeless at the time the petition was filed in that he was about to be discharged from the hospital with no place to reside, and also that the child's home could not provide the specialized care which the physical, emotional or mental condition of the child required.   Accordingly, Matthew is ordered committed to the Department of Children and Families.

Specific steps were previously ordered by the court (Graziani, J.) on December 9, 2009.   This court ratifies and adopts the same specific steps as the final steps as a part of the disposition of this case.

Judgment may enter accordingly,

Foley, Sr. J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Carrie has five children:  Matthew, aged 16 and four female children aged 17, 12, 10 and 5..  FN2. Carrie has five children:  Matthew, aged 16 and four female children aged 17, 12, 10 and 5.

Foley, Francis J., S.J.