IN RE: Amarie D. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter is before the court due to a neglect petition filed by the Department of Children and Families (Department or DCF) on August 18, 2010, alleging that the children were being denied proper care and attention and/or being permitted to live under conditions or circumstances injurious to their well being.   The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the General Statutes and the Connecticut Practice Book. The court finds that it has jurisdiction in this matter.   There are not other actions pending in any other court affecting the custody of the minor children known to this court.

The court heard evidence regarding the contested issues of adjudication and disposition on March 11, 2011.   Mother and father were represented by separate court appointed counsel.   The minor children were represented by an attorney who also served as the children's guardian ad litem.   Numerous exhibits were entered as evidence.   The court took judicial notice of the previous neglect file regarding Amarie.   The department called one witness, Barbara Berkowitz, Ph.D. Respondent parents did not call any witnesses nor did they testify.   Closing arguments and proposed orders were presented.   This court did not grant the mother's last minute request for a continuance to obtain private counsel having denied, the week before, mother's attorney's motion to withdraw due to mother's lack of cooperation.   Having carefully considered the court file, the testimony of Dr. Berkowitz, the exhibits entered into evidence, the demeanor of the respondents, case law and statutory criteria, the court concludes the following by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The oldest child, Amarie, was placed with her maternal grandparents in January 2008, after the probate court granted their request for an order of temporary custody (OTC) removing the child from the care of the mother.   The matter was subsequently transferred to this court on May 9, 2008, after the Department filed a neglect petition against the parents as well as the maternal grandparents.   Brennan was born in July 2008.   Although DCF did not amend the petition to include Brennan it maintained appropriate oversight of the child's best interests.   After two psychological evaluations by different evaluators, an investigation of alleged sexual abuse of Amarie by the father as reported by the maternal grandparents (which was later determined to be unfounded and unfortunately to become a recurrent problem), restraining orders, protective orders, claimed parental alienation, substance abuse treatment by the parents, and visitation orders, the court, Simon, J., on April 2, 2009, issued a bench OTC reinstating the mother as the custodial parent.   On April 9, 2009, the OTC was sustained by agreement, the grandparents having been defaulted for not appearing.   Thereafter, on June 15, 2009, the parents entered pleas of nolo contendere and the court, Santos, J., vacated the OTC and reinstated custody of the child to both parents.   A three-month period of protective supervision with specific steps was ordered.   Protective supervision ended on July 20, 2009.   Amarie's file was closed.

Thereafter, mother and father separated due to ongoing domestic conflict as well as mother's continuing substance abuse.   Father left the children, Amarie and Brennan, with the mother and moved in with paternal grandparents.   In May 2010 mother placed children with maternal grandparents despite recommendations to the contrary cited in the previous psychological evaluations.   DCF became aware of this information after mother overdosed on drugs on July 21, 2010, and was hospitalized.   The department took a 96–hour administrative hold on behalf of the children and then placed them with their father in the paternal grandparents' home a few days later.   The department then filed this current neglect petition.   The children remain in the care of the father at this time.

At the time the petition was filed mother was 23 years old and had ongoing substance abuse issues that were not being addressed.   The mother had overdosed on heroin and was hospitalized at Manchester Memorial Hospital for approximately two weeks.   Her condition was complicated due to renal failure.   It was determined mother was also using multiple narcotic pain prescriptions at high levels.   She was associating with known drug users.   She refused to participate in an in-patient treatment program upon her release from Manchester Memorial Hospital.   Mother did not follow through with a subsequent recommendation by DCF for a substance abuse evaluation.   She continued abusing drugs after her release from the hospital.   Mother is not employed.   She was not caring for the needs of her children.   As cited above, she had left her children with the maternal grandparents even though the most recent evaluations strongly recommended that the children not live with them due to the toxic relationship between the grandparents and the father as well as their own psychological assessments.   Mother did agree to enter into a detox program on August 11, 2010, one week prior to the filing of the petition.

Father, who at the time of the petition was 27 years old, left the mother to care for the children and moved in with his parents knowing that mother was actively using drugs.   He knew mother was in no condition to provide a safe, stable and nurturing environment for the children.   He did not take the appropriate action to protect the children.   There are no allegations that father is drug involved at this time.   While living with his parents he was working full time.

These children were exposed to continuing drug use by their mother.   Mother was not able to properly care for their needs and left them in the care of the maternal grandparents.   Father allowed them to remain in an environment previously found to be unacceptable and did not seek to bring them into his care.   He had little if any contact with the children during that period of time.   The department has proven that the children were permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, or associations injurious to their well being as of the date of the adjudicatory date.   The children are adjudicated neglected.

As to disposition, the court notes father successfully completed the Intensive Family Preservation program on December 21, 2010.   Father has followed through with all suggestions and feedback from staff.   He has gained insight into the long-term effects of mother's substance abuse and its consequences on the children.   Father has followed through with the children's counseling and educational needs.   They are presently well cared for in the home of the father and paternal grandparents.   He participated in a substance abuse evaluation and it was determined he did not have any issues regarding drug use.   He cooperated with the court ordered psychological evaluation.   Dr. Berkowitz noted his focus was the welfare of his young children, and how hard he was working to be the best father he could be.   She recommended placement of the children with father as the best alternative available at this time based on his willingness to continue with services geared to increasing his parenting skills and capacity to understand the children's emotional needs.

Between July 21, 2010 the date of mother's overdose and December 8, 2010 the date of mother's evaluation with Dr. Berkowitz, mother participated in numerous drug treatment evaluations and programs at the direction of DCF in an attempt to assist her in address her addiction.   None were deemed successful.   In fact, on the date of her evaluation, mother reported to Dr. Berkowitz that she had last used heroin and cocaine approximately 36 hours before.   During the evaluation it was noted mother was not oriented as to time and had muddled cognition, hesitancy before responding to questions and undue negativity.   Dr. Berkowitz described mother's personality characteristics and behavioral patterns consistent with individuals diagnosable with Borderline Personality Disorders and/or Bipolar Disorder.   Mother's condition is further complicated by her significant substance dependence disorder which she tends to minimize.   Her prognosis at that time was poor-to-guarded.   Dr. Berkowitz concluded that mother seemed hardly capable of safely and healthily caring for herself, much less for two young children.   Dr. Berkowitz recommended sufficient inpatient experience with a psychological component followed by intensive outpatient treatment for a period of a year before she could be a positive influence on her children.   She could not recommend mother as a placement resource for the children within the foreseeable future.

After the evaluation, mother participated in an 28–day inpatient program from December 15, 2010 until January 11, 2011, at Armes Acres in New York. Although she made fair progress during treatment it was noted mother still lacked education regarding the disease of addiction, insight into her own behaviors and an understanding the negative impact substances have on her life.   Mother declined the program's recommendation for a long-term treatment program deciding to return home to live with her parents and attempt to complete a local intensive outpatient program.   Her discharge prognosis was classified as “fair” depending on her willingness to follow through in the out patient program, attend self-help meetings, and utilize a sober support system.   Mother did participate in an evaluation at the out patient program on January 25, 2011.   Except for two negative urine screens submitted by DCF on behalf of the mother, this court has no evidence of the mother's subsequent involvement with the program.

Amarie is almost six years old.   Dr. Berkowitz describes her as being bold, bossy and verbal.   However, the evaluator believes under this facade is an anxious, emotionally vulnerable child, confused about all the moves in her short life.   She has significant attachments to her mother and father.   She is currently involved in regular clinical treatment.   Brennan is two and half years old.   He appears to be a normal, healthy toddler.   The evaluator noted there was nothing observed to cause significant concern about him, physically or psychologically.

The court finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the following disposition is in the best interest of the children:

1. Sole custody and guardianship of both children is vested in father.

2. Protective supervision is ordered for a period of six months until September 21, 2011.   An in court review shall be scheduled for August 18, 2011.

3. Father and mother shall comply with specific steps attached to this decision.

4. Additionally, mother shall comply with a hair test to be performed within one week of the date of this decision and again at the end of three months from the first test.   Mother shall provide random urine screens to DCF throughout the period of protective supervision.

5. Mother's visitation with the children shall be supervised by a neutral third-party agency paid for by DCF, two visits per week, two hours per visit until further order of the court.   Visits shall be set for a consistent day and time during the period of protective supervision.   Father or father's family shall provide transportation of the children to attend visitation.   Visitation supervisor may terminate visitation if mother appears under the influence.   Mother shall comply with all standard conditions of visitation as set by the supervising agency.   Reports of said visits shall be released to DCF upon completion and distributed by DCF to all parties within one week of receipt.

6. Four months from this date all visitation reports, as well as mother's substance abuse treatment records since December 15, 2010 to present, and names and releases for all of mother's service providers, shall be forwarded to Dr. Berkowitz for an updated report concerning her opinion and recommendations as to final orders regarding visitation.   Said report shall be submitted to all parties one week prior to the scheduled in court review.

BY THE COURT

Simon, J.

Simon, Jorge A., J.