IN RE: Shanai R. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On September 10, 2009, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) petitioned the Court to modify an existing Order of Temporary Custody of Shanai to Commitment.   The Court had granted the original Order of Temporary Custody of twenty months earlier on February 1, 2008.   Her brother Ja-lyn was born on January 22, 2010, and directly placed in DCF custody under a ninety-six-hour hold with a following Order of Temporary Custody.   DCF also seeks approval of its proposed Permanency Plan filed on May 10, 2010.

DCF filed the original Motion asking that the Court approve a change from its Order of Temporary Custody to Commitment on October 7, 2009.   The prior history with Shanai was as follows:

On 1/28/08, [ ․ DCF] invoked a 96 hour administrative hold on behalf of Shanai.   On 2/1/08, a Petition of Neglect and an Order of Temporary Custody were filed by the Department of Children and Families regarding Shanai, and the Court granted the DCF request on behalf of Shanai ․ on 2/1/08 and was subsequently sustained on 2/8/08.   On 5/19/08 commitment was granted until further order of the court.   On 12/19/08 Shanai was reunified with her Mother.   On 1/7/09, Motion to Revoke Commitment was granted and Shanai was placed under six months of Protective Supervision.   Protective Supervision was due to expire on 7/7/09.   On 5/18/09, a 96 Hour Administrative Hold was invoked on Shanai ․ On 5/19/09 a Petition of Neglect with a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody was filed by the Department of Children and Families and was granted on 5/19/09.   On 5/29/09 the Order of Temporary Custody was subsequently sustained on behalf of Shanai ․ On 9/3/09,a a ninety six hour hold was invoked on Shanai ․ On 9/4/09, a Motion for an Order of Temporary Custody was filed by the Department of Children and Families and was granted on 9/4/09.   On 9/11/09, at the 10 day OTC hearing, Mother contested the OTC and a trial date was set for September 28, 2009.   On 9/23/09, Mother agreed to the OTC and it was thus sustained on 9/23/09.

The actions taken in September 2009 were influenced by an incident earlier that month.   Mother took Shanai to the emergency room because of an injury to her left leg.   Mother noticed that Shanai would or could not bear weight on her left leg and that the leg was swollen.   An x-ray revealed no fractures.   An examination revealed a significant bruise on “her left lateral thigh the size of half a palm [ ․ with] linear streaks consistent with areas between fingers, which appeared to be a slap mark.”   A more thorough full body examination revealed that Shanai also had a small bruise on her left eye.   Mother insisted that any such injury would have been the result of an accident not an inflicted injury.   DCF moved to change the Order of Temporary Custody to Commitment.   The Court heard the Motion on October 7 and November 11, 2010.

Ja-lyn was born on January 22, 2010, and DCF took custody of her directly from the Hospital after her birth and obtained an Order of Temporary Custody from the Court.   Commitment of Child was based on their prior experience with Mother.   DCF placed Ja-lyn with Shanai's Foster Parents.

TESTIMONY

DCF's first witness was Mary H., a DCF Social Worker who has worked as an investigator for the last ten years.   She reported that Mother had cooperated with offered services.   She identified the presenting issues relating to Children's safety were concerns about sexual/physical abuse, domestic violence, criminal activity, supervised visits, and referred Mother for services.   She reported that Mother cooperated with and completed services to which she was referred, particularly parenting, anger management and cognitive behavioral therapy.   However, Mary H. reported that Mother was not able to apply the lessons that she had learned.   She reported that Mother had many aggressive outbursts and that Father was a violent man who spent most of his time in jail.   Finally she reported that Mother was unable to organize and control her Children at visitation opportunities in the community.

On cross examination Mary H. acknowledged Mother's efforts to comply with her specific steps and benefit from the services offered to her, but insisted that Mother was not able to consistently make use of the lessons that she had learned.

DCF offered the testimony of Joyce J., a clinician from the Morris Foundation who was qualified as an expert witness.   The witness reported that the plan was to work with Mother as a person exposed to a drug environment.   The program required Mother's attention once a week for ten weeks.   Mother entered the program on March 10, 2010, and was discharged on April 1, 2010, not having attended any groups.  (See Exhibit X.)

Sgt. Michael D. of the Waterbury Police Department appeared to authenticate sixteen documents for the purpose of admission as exhibits offered by DCF as to criminal activity and domestic violence in the family.

On behalf of CRI, a child welfare agency, Pam W. testified as to its experience as supervisors of Mother's rehabilitation efforts.   The supervision began in May 2010 and she supervised four of the visits between May and October.   The witness reported that Mother was not always prepared for two-hour visits with the Children;  that the visits were supervised at the Waterbury DCF office;  and Mother was not able to cope with visitation with both Children at the same time.   She observed Mother giving soda rather than more appropriate drinks to a two-year-old child and pulling her or picking both Children up by the arms.   Mother was not able to manage both girls in the same room.   On cross examination by Mother's counsel, Pam agreed that Mother loved her Children and worked to serve their needs;  however, she was sorely tested by the fact that she was not able to keep up with Shanai and take care of Ja-lyn.

Patrina L., a DCF case aide, testified about her experience as a visitation supervisor between January and June 2010.   The visitation consisted of a two-hour weekly visit either at the DCF office or meals at Chucky Cheese.   When out, Mother was not conscious of appropriate foods for the toddler or the infant.

The hearing reconvened on November 11, 2010, with Children's physician, Dr. Jennifer G. who was the emergency room physician who treated Shanai.   She noted that Shanai presented with severe pain in the left thigh, two conjunctival hemorrhages in her right eye, a bruise around her right eye, three smaller bruises and scabs on her shoulder.   Dr. Gannon noted the palpable pain suffered by Shanai in her left thigh and offered her opinion that the cause of the injury was a slap inflicted by an adult.   She noted that the pattern of the bruise on the thigh suggested the heel of a human hand and extended, separated fingers.   She offered no opinion about the cause of the other minor bruises and scabs.   On cross examination, Dr. Gannon testified that Shanai was unstable on her feet for a twenty-one month-old child;  that Mother was present and concerned at all times;  and that Shanai sought Mother out for comfort.

Elizabeth S. testified in her capacity as a DCF permanency Social Worker who was assigned to the case on April 21, 2010, and continued in that role through the trial.   Based on her experience with Mother and Children between her initial assignment and November 11, 2010, she identified several concerns:  Mother's complaint that Foster Mother did not properly groom Child's hair;  Mother screamed at the Social Worker complaining about Foster Mother's care;  Mother's failure to contain Shanai during visitation;  and Mother's inability to work with both Children during visitation.   Because Shanai was in foster care three times in her first three years and Ja-lyn has been in the same foster home since being discharged from the hospital after birth, DCF asks that Children be committed to DCF until further Order of the Court and that the Court approve and adopt DCF's permanency plan of Termination of Parent's rights to both Children.

Counsel for Mother objects to the modification of the Orders of Temporary Custody to commitment and asks that the Orders of Temporary Custody be vacated and that both Children be returned to her care.

EXHIBITS

The Court admitted to the Record twenty-two exhibits offered by the parties.   Exhibit A pertains only to Shanai and covers the period from January 8, 2008, to September 17, 2009, and may be characterized as the period before the injury to Shanai's left thigh and, therefore, is not directly pertinent to the pending petition.

Exhibit B is a Social Study in support of a neglect petition filed to support Ja-lyn's Order of Temporary Custody.   The study is adequately summarized by DCF's identification of Mother's strengths and weaknesses:

1. She expresses care and concern for her Children;

2. She loves her children very much and she is willing to do whatever she has to so that the case against her can be closed;

3. She engages in services at DHMAS, Family Services and the Morris Foundation;

4. She is consistent in visiting her Children and will call DCF if she has to miss a visit;

5. She seeks the support of DHMAS and DCF when necessary.

BUT:

1. She has a violent temper and needs to find more appropriate methods to express her frustration and anger;

2. She continues to contact Ja-lyn's father in spite of the existing full protective order;

3. She has reported but denies the existence of domestic violence;

4. She has cognitive limitations;

5. She entered a nolo contendere plea for risk of injury to Shanai, and was ordered to serve three years of probation.

Exhibit C is a Status Report, dated March 31, 2010, that focuses on Mother's history of explosive, uncontrollable anger.   Specifically identified were an incident at Waterbury DCF at which staff denied access to a woman expected by Mother in response to which Mother's reaction was so strong that it required the presence of the guard;  when the supervising worker encouraged Mother to calm Shanai down, Mother responded with aggressive, argumentative and abusive language;  and, DCF alleges that Mother's hostility towards people and her repeated resistance to cooperate with the Department creates additional barriers making it impossible to assist Mother in her treatment;  and at the Waterbury Brass Mall Mother refused to listen to the DCF worker when she suggested that Shanai should be more closely supervised.   All of these events occurred after Mother had completed two separate courses teaching skills to avoid such explosions.   Finally Mother was arrested for assault in the third degree on June 26, 2009 and for assault in the third degree and risk of injury on November 4, 2009.   As a result of the last arrest, she is still on Probation.  (Exhibit Y.) Exhibit Z is the criminal record of Ja-lyn's Father reflecting six violent offenses in the period of eight months from April 30, 2009 to January 15, 2010.

Exhibits E, F, and H—T describe Mother and Father's criminal history, almost all of it involving domestic violence.

DISCUSSION

This case began in Hartford and was transferred to Waterbury due to Mother's relocation.   Four different judges ordered specific steps.   DCF has asked the Court to modify the existing Order of Temporary Custody to Commitment;  to adjudicate the Children to have been neglected and to approve its proposed Permanency Plan to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights to Children.   Mother seeks reunification with her Children.   The Children are now three and one respectively and Mother and DCF have been working together for all three of the years since Shanai's birth.   Clearly the patience of both have been exhausted.   In response, Mother's Counsel filed a Motion to Vacate the Order of Temporary, an Objection to the Permanency Plan and a Motion for reunification with both Children.

Currently Children reside together in a foster home that is a possible adoptive resource.   The Foster Parents have been the principal caretakers for Shanai and the sole caretaker of Jay-lyn.   DCF acknowledges that Children are bonded to Mother and the Foster Parents but that Mother has failed to sufficiently rehabilitate to the extent that one or both of the Children could be safely reunited with her.   The history confirms that even after taking advantage of offered services Mother has been unable to safely care for them.   Her history is that she manages to successfully complete the work required for reunification, but fails to apply what she has learned when given the opportunity.

FINDINGS

1. DCF has provided appropriate and adequate services for Mother to enhance her childcare skills.

2. Mother has successfully completed such services, but DCF believes that she does not apply her acquired skills in the care of her Children during visitation.

3. Shanai is bonded to her foster family and Mother.

4. Jay-lyn is in her bonding period but has, not had sufficient opportunity to form a bond with Mother.

5. Mother is not inclined to follow through with recommendations offered by DCF providers to enhance her child caring skills.

6. Mother is not yet able to control and support both Children simultaneously during supervised visitation.

7. DCF's burden of proof to prevail in its efforts to commit Children is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

8. The Order of Temporary Custody should be “temporary” and has overstayed its welcome in this case.

9. Mother has neither completed her Specific Steps or learned to contain her characteristic outbursts at this time.

10. The Order of Temporary Custody should be vacated in favor of Commitment of Children.

11. The termination of Mother's parental rights to Jay-lyn is premature at this time.

12. Mother should be provided the opportunity to bond with Jay-lyn during this crucial period.

13. Such bonding requires extended opportunity for Mother to have sustained contact with Child.

14. Mother should be provided extended visitation with Shanai alone and visitation with Children together.

15. Mother must make a commitment to cooperate with DCF and any offered services to earn reunification with her Children.

PERMANENCY PLAN

DCF proposes a Permanency Plan of Termination of Mother's Parental Rights to Shanai and filed its study dated April 28, 2010, on May 10, 2010.   Her younger child, Jay-lyn, was born four months earlier and placed in the same foster home with her sister.   The proposed Permanency Plan applies only to the older Child.

DCF's Study in Support of Permanency Plan cited specific services provided Mother with a series of services designed to control Mother's primary disability—her inability to control her temper and work constructively with DCF. Mother was referred to, “Inter Community Mental Health Center and Young Adult Services;  Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services;  Supportive Services for anger management and parenting classes;  Supportive Housing;  Reconnecting Families, Intensive Family Reunification Program;  Family Services for anger management and parenting classes;  education programs;  Peas program;  Safe Haven;  Well Path for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy;  Community Residence, Inc.;   and CT. Counseling Resource Group.   DCF also provided Mother with supervised visitation, bus passes, transportation and case management.”

Mother participated in offered services, but often failed to complete them because of her inability to control her anger and resentment of her long history with DCF. The record reflects that she loves her Children, but is compromised by that lack of control.   DCF reports that Mother “still does not have the ability to manage her anger and she continues to be hostile towards people who provide instruction and recommendations to her.   If a comment is made to [ ․ Mother] trying to improve her parenting skills she takes it as criticism and becomes combative making assistance in her treatment impossible.”

Father has never been a part of Shanai's life.   His whereabouts are unknown and he has never been identified.

The Court finds that the proposed Permanency Plan is appropriate and accepts, approves and adopts it as the Permanency Plan for Shaina.   The Court also finds that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.

ORDERS

1. The Order of Temporary Custody of Children should be and is hereby VACATED;

2. Children should be and are hereby COMMITTED to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families until further order of this Court;

3. DCF is ORDERED to construct a visitation program for Mother that provides supervised, individual and joint visitation for Mother and Children in the family home.

4. DCF is ORDERED to continue to provide treatment and training services designed to control her explosive behavior and improve her Child care skills.

5. Mother is ORDERED to cooperate with treatment and successfully complete any and all programs designed to reduce her anger and complete offered programs successfully.

6. Mother is ORDERED to seek and successfully complete another program of cognitive behavioral therapy designed to support her efforts to control her anger and support her Children.

7. The Court ORDERS quarterly status reports and in court reviews of DCF services and Mother's progress.

Respectfully submitted,

Hon. Thayer Baldwin Jr. J.T.R.

Baldwin, Thayer, J.