IN RE: Gabriella S. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on Gabriella (Child) on October 13, 2010.   She had turned 13 a month earlier and had a continuing relationship with her “friend” Joseph, an eighteen-year-old suitor.   Mother discovered that she had left the home at two-thirty that morning and Mother was not able to find her.   Mother called the police to report her absence and the circumstances.   The police found her later that afternoon.   Mother went to the department and told all concerned that she was not able to handle her daughter anymore and thought that DCF might be the solution.   For her part, Child said that she did not want to return to her Mother's home.

Mother and Daughter agreed on the point that they were not living in the same home successfully.   All parties made the effort to reconcile Mother and Child, but finally gave in to the inevitability that neither Parent nor Child were open to efforts for reconciliation at the time.   The Department concluded that Child was in immediate physical danger from her surroundings, and that “immediate removal from such surroundings ․ was] necessary to ensure [ ․ Child's] safety, and further that the conditions or circumstances surrounding the care of Child requires that custody be immediately assumed to safeguard the welfare of said Child.”   DCF invoked a ninety-six-hour hold.

Child reported that she had been leaving home because “she hates it at home” and she “hates Mother's boy friend.”   She did not allege neglect.   A DCF Social Worker confirmed with a Cheshire Detective that Child was having sex with an eighteen-year-old man.   After substantial effort by the Police Department, the school, DCF and the Police Social Worker to return Child to her home, all parties concluded that immediate reunification could not be achieved.

DCF could not find Father, who has not been in Child's life for eleven years.   The agency resorted to a ninety-six-hour hold because reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and Child were not possible.   DCF and the Police Department contacted the “hot line” to arrange immediate shelter for Child and she was placed initially with a family that included two males aged fourteen and eighteen.   The placement enabled further inappropriate sexual activity and DCF found another placement for Child which she disrupted.   Mother sought return of Child as a result of the experience, but DCF elected to proceed with its request for an Order of Temporary Custody which the Court endorsed.

In the meantime DCF arranged transportation to Child's school of record, but she elected not to attend and was missing for a day and a half before DCF found her.   DCF did not advise Mother of her truancy and disappearance until after it recovered her.   After a series of placements Child asked to be returned to her home and Mother had lost confidence in DCF's ability to manage Child.

The Court heard the Order of Temporary Custody and the pending neglect petition on November 30, 2010, including the testimony of DCF social workers Felicia Garcia (DCF), social worker Michael C. (DCF), Kristen S. (Town of Cheshire), Amy P. (clinical social worker treating Child), and Mother.

EXHIBITS

The Court admitted four exhibits to the record:  (A) the redacted Social Worker Affidavit prepared by Social Worker Michael C. and dated October 15, 2010;  (B) the initial Social Worker Affidavit prepared by Felicia V-G and dated October 13, 2010;  (C) preliminary specific steps filed on October 15, 2010, and signed by Judge Upson and DCF staff attorney 3;  (D) Report of Child Abuse andNeglect signed by Kristen S. of Cheshire Social Services and dated October 18, 2010;  and (E) the Social Study in Support of the Neglect Petition.

Exhibit A can be summarized as follows:  On 10/14/10 the investigative social worker learned the from the Cheshire social worker that she had worked out a plan with Child and Mother.   Mother reported that Child is out of control and wants to run her own life;  Child does not believe that she has been abused or neglected, but believes that she “needs time away from her mother and her mother's boy friend.”

Exhibit B reports the mutual feelings of Mother and Child in crisis in that neither of them can face the issues confronting them.   Child is a promiscuous thirteen-year-old girl who leaves home for extended periods in defiance of Mother's attempts to stop her reckless behavior.   Child also resents the presence of Mother's partner in the family.   Mother works two jobs to support the family and is out of the home in the evening to provide home health care to others.   Her only free time to work with Child is before school or in the early evening.   Child habitually leaves home and returns only when Mother is not able to be there.

Exhibit C is Mother's preliminary specific steps ordered by Upson, J. in connection with the Order of Temporary Custody.

Exhibit D is the one-page Report of Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect dated October 18, 2010, prepared by Kristen S. Who reports:  “Gabriella has history of sneaking out of the home ․ Arrangements were trying to be made to get [ ․ Child] back home.   Her mother was not agreeable to this, and when suitable arrangements were made, the situation escalated and [ ․ Mother] began to yell at [ ․ Child].   She was saying that she didn't want this Child home, and even told [ ․ Child] to run away again.   In her anger she also stated she didn't like her.   This was all said in front of [ ․ Child] and this writer which caused [ ․ Child] to cry.   DCF was notified of the circumstances and given a comprehensive report.”

Exhibit E is a social study in support of the neglect petition.   Father is not in the picture and has had no relationship with his daughter for eleven of her thirteen years.   The current family unit is Mother, Child and Mother's “boy friend” (hereinafter Partner) living in a rented two-bedroom home in Cheshire Ct. Mother works from ten to four in a deli and from five to nine as a home health aide.   Partner works from early morning to mid afternoon as a welder in Shelton Ct. Mother has had two back surgeries over the past year and has multiple herniated discs.   Her disabilities do not restrict her ability to maintain the house and meet the requirements of her employment.   Mother sought help to control Child's behaviors through the Family with Service Needs program in November 2010.

Based on this history, DCF requested that the Court adjudicate the child to be neglected with a disposition of commitment.

TESTIMONY

The Assistant Attorney General elected to present his case through the exhibits discussed above.   Therefore, most of the testimony consisted of respondents' examination of DCF workers based on the exhibits with redirect by the State.   Mother testified extensively about issues with her daughter, her concern about DCF's placement decisions between October 14th and November 18th, and her understanding of the changes she needs to make in her life to better support and guide Child through her adolescence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Child is barely thirteen years old and has been involved in a continuing inappropriate sexual relationship with an eighteen-year-old man.

2. Mother maintains a supportive, cohabitation relationship with Keith W., whom Child resents.

3. Mother maintains a modest home in Cheshire sufficient for the family's needs.

4. Mother works in a deli during the day and as a home health aide in the evening.

5. Mother gets Child to school in the morning and begins work at 10:00 am.   Keith leaves for work before dawn and returns home between three and four in the afternoon.

6. Prior to events of October 13, 2010, Child ignored Mother's warnings about her apparent sexual relationship.

7. Mother acted promptly to prevent Child's late night, early morning rendezvous with her paramour, but was unsuccessful and engaged the help of the Cheshire Police Department.

8. After the Police found Child the relationship between Mother and Child exploded:  Child refused to go home and Mother refused to take her home in spite of the significant efforts of the police department, social workers and DCF to effect a reunification.

9. Working with Child the Hot Line and DCF were not able to secure an appropriate placement for Child until November 18, 2010, and that placement is in Greenwich, a significant distance from her home and school.

10. Beginning immediately after the unfortunate Hot Line placement, Mother sought Child's return to her home and Child expressed the desire to be reunited with her Mother.

11. As of this Date, Mother and Daughter have been separated for three months based on the 96-hour hold and subsequent Order of Temporary Custody.

12. Mother's refusal to welcome Child to her home on October 13, 2010, and her failure to intervene more actively in Child's sexual proclivities amount to a failure to care for Child.

13. Based on the above findings, the Court concludes that Child was uncared for by Mother.

DISPOSITION

Having found that Child has been UNCARED FOR the Court ORDERS that Child be reunited with Mother under an Order of Protective Supervision for a period of six months.   The Court also ORDERS Mother to comply with the attached Specific Steps.

Respectfully Submitted

Hon. Thayer Baldwin, Jr.

Judge Trial Referee

Baldwin, Thayer, J.