IN RE: Kiara R. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In accordance with General Statute 46b–124 and Practice Book 32a–7, the names of the parties involved in this case are not to be disclosed, and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.

This case presents a Motion for Revocation of Commitment filed on September 2, 2010, by the attorney for the mother seeking that the court revoke the commitment of the minor child, Kiara, who is almost twelve years old, with or without an order of protective supervision.   The child is currently under a commitment that was ordered by the court on April 29, 2009.   A permanency plan hearing was held by the court on May 5, 2010 at which time the court approved the proposed permanency plan goal of reunification of the child with the mother.

This matter was tried to this court on January 24th and February 25th, 2011.   The petitioner, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families was represented by an assistant attorney general.   The mother was present during the trial and was represented by an attorney.   The father was not present during the trial but was represented by his attorney who did participate in the trial.   The child was represented by an attorney and a separate guardian ad litem who were both present during the trial.

The court has reviewed the evidence produced at the trial and heard the testimony of the witnesses.   The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the trial reveals the following facts.

DCF is opposing the revocation of the commitment in that mother has failed to prove that no cause for commitment presently exists.   Furthermore, DCF asserts that it is in the best interest of Kiara to remain committed.   In support of its position, three DCF social workers provided testimony on behalf of the petitioner as well as the introduction of numerous exhibits which included numerous DCF case plan reports and a case status report.   The thrust of the testimony and reports presented is that the mother has not made significant progress in the mother's ability to protect the child from having inappropriate contact with people, including sex offenders, who pose a safety risk to Kiara.   In addition, the mother needed to improve her parenting skills, including, but not limited to the elimination of inappropriate adult conversations with the child, the elimination of the use of profanity and negative behaviors by the mother that might be modeled by the child.   DCF does not believe that the mother has been able to make sufficient progress such that she would be able to provide a safe, stable, living environment for the child, either now, or in the foreseeable future.   Evidence was presented that in June 2010, the mother took Kiara to a birthday party for a family friend that was attended by two men with a history of committing sex offenses.   It is acknowledged by DCF that the child was not injured as a result of her attendance at the party nor was any evidence presented that the child was not supervised by the mother at all times during the party.   The evidence presented by DCF also refutes the mother's position that she gave prior notification to her attendance at the party to DCF and was given permission to do so.   In addition, the mother reported different periods of time that she was at the party with Kiara.   DCF also presented information as to other occasions prior to the June 2010, in which the mother is claimed to have exercised inappropriate judgment in supervising Kiara.

On April 29, 2009, the child was adjudicated neglected and was committed to DCF. At that time, the court (Foley, J.) ordered final specific steps for the mother and the father, which they agreed to cooperate with to achieve the goal of reunification with their child.   Those specific steps required the mother to do the following:  keep all appointments set by, or with DCF;  cooperate with DCF home visits, announced, or unannounced, and visits by the child's court-appointed attorney and/or guardian ad litem;  keep the child's whereabouts and their own known to DCF, New Life Recovery Center, their attorneys and the attorneys for the children;  participate in counseling and make progress towards the identified treatment goals, parenting, individual, family;  accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by DCF;  cooperate with recommended service providers for parenting/individual/family counseling, in-home support services and/or substance abuse assessment/treatment:  CRI–PPSP Services, United Services Child Guidance Clinic, Day Kimball Hospital individual counseling;  sign releases within 30 (days) authorizing DCF to communicate with service providers to monitor attendance, cooperation and progress towards identified goals, and for use in future proceedings before this Court;  secure and/or maintain adequate housing and income;  consistently and timely meet and address the child's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs, including, but not limited to keeping the child's appointments with her medical, psychological, psychiatric or educational providers;  immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not compromise the health and safety of the child;  cooperate with the child's therapy;  and visit the child as often as DCF permits.   The mother has complied with each of the court's orders.

Testimony was also presented by the licensed clinical social worker from United Services, Inc, Tina Lekacos, who has provided counseling to the mother from June 1, 2009 until the present.   Ms. Lekacos testified that the mother has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, moderate and recurring.   As a result of that condition, she has been taking prescribed medications.   Over the past year and nine months of therapy, the mother has shown improvement in understanding her illness and is able to utilize positive skills to deal with the stressors in her life.   According to the counselor, the mother is very engaged and cooperative in her therapy, has had good attendance and has shown improvement in responding to the therapy.   In addition, the mother has never shown a mental health crisis since Ms. Lekacos has worked with her.   Ms. Lekacos also testified that she believes that the mother has the ability to keep her daughter safe and would keep her away from people that might harm her.   A letter from Ms. Lekacos to DCF dated August 13, 2010 summarizing her treatment of the mother was entered as an exhibit by the mother.

DCF engaged the services of Kaleidoscope Family Services for parent aid assistance and supervised visitation for the mother.   Testimony was presented by the parent aid, Cheri Hitchcock, who provided those services for Kaleidoscope for the mother for the period of July 2009 through April 2010.   Ms. Hitchcock testified that the mother made improvement with her treatment goals of improving communication skills between the child and her mother, for the mother to refrain from discussing adult issues and helping the mother set appropriate behavioral limits for the child.   The mother and daughter also displayed a strong bond with each other and were affectionate towards each other.   The mother was very compliant with her assistance.   She also testified, that in April 2010, she thought that reunification of the child with the mother should take place as she did not see any concerns that would prevent reunification.   However, she also that services such as family and individual therapy should remain in place.   Multiple reports of the supervised visits were entered as an exhibit by the mother.

Dr. Lawrence Ash–Morgan was the family therapist through United Services, Inc. who counseled both the mother and the child since March 16, 2009.   Correspondence from Dr. Morgan to DCF, dated August 12, 2010, was presented by the respondent as an exhibit.   In the letter, Dr. Ash–Morgan reported that the mother and child have been very consistent about attending their treatment, and were cooperative and engaged.   His treatment focused on “attachment and bonding issues, improving communications, and helping Darlene (the mother) identify and provide for Kiara's needs.”   He reported that the mother has “greatly improved in listening skills and showing empathy to Kiara.   She has also worked on trying to avoid involving client in adult matters.   Although there are occasional slips, and client often pushes for such information, Darlene is more self-aware and is better at not discussing client in adult matters with Kiara.”   He also reported that they are “openly affectionate with each other.”   Finally, he reports that “I believe they have made good progress in communicating with each other and improving their relationship, and based on my work with them, would have no reservations about Kiara returning to live with her mother.”   This letter was sent to DCF and was received by them in August 2010 after they made the decision to change the permanency plan to termination of parental rights and adoption.   Testimony was given by a social worker from DCF that despite now having the knowledge of Dr. Ash–Morgan's report recommending reunification, that they would still not change their goal of termination of parental rights and adoption.

The mother was referred by DCF for reunification services to the Community Residences, Inc., Family Reunification/Preservation Program.   Peter Trombley was the permanency clinician from the program that was assigned to the mother and child and provided services to them for the period of May 13, 2010 until the present time.   As part of his duties, he had the opportunity to observe the mother and child together during visitation and that he had conducted announced and unannounced visits to her home.   Mr. Trombley testified that the mother had reported to him that in June 2010, she had attended a child's birthday party in which two sex offenders were present.   He reported that concern to DCF on June 23, 2010.   That disclosure was a safety concern that he had in regard to the mother's conduct.   He testified that the mother did express remorse to him about exposing her child to a sex offender, acknowledging that she may have jeopardized the child's safety and that she would not associate with any known sex offenders.   Mr. Trombley testified that the mother has become very engaged at engaging Kiara in her life, and was very affectionate with the child.   He had no safety concerns of the mother's home and does not have any concerns about the mother's ability to keep Kiara safe from sex offenders.   He is still working with the mother and does believe that the mother and child should remain in family therapy.   The mother has made great strides in her treatment towards meeting the treatment goals that have been established with her after consultation with DCF. It was his recommendation that reunification services continue for the mother and that he is recommending that the child be returned to the mother.   He noted that there has not been any additional contact with known sex offenders and that he does not have any concerns about the safety of the child if she were to be in the mother's care.   The monthly progress reports of Mr. Trombley were submitted by the mother as exhibits.   The report, dated February 15, 2011 reports in part that “This worker does not note any barriers to reunification at this time as ․ (the mother) ․ has demonstrated progress in meeting treatment plan goals, there has been no reported contact with known sex offenders, and there are no known safety concerns.”

The guardian ad litem, previously appointed by the court for the child, testified at the hearing.   He reported to the court that he observed the interaction between the mother and the child and found it to be appropriate.   In addition, after inspecting the mother's residence, he had no concerns as to the physical safety of the child or the condition of the home.   He acknowledged that the mother's previous exposure of her child to known sex offenders was a mistake and that once she determined the presence of a sex offender, she should have left the area.   The guardian ad litem also testified that he does not have any concerns about the mother's ability to keep the child safe.   He supports the revocation of the commitment and that it is in the best interest of the child to be returned to her mother's care at this time.   However, the guardian ad litem also supports the Department of Children and Families having protective supervision for the child and that therapy should continue for the child and the mother.

The father, Jesse R., did not attend the hearing.   He has not maintained contact with DCF and is not a significant part of Kiara's life.   The father's last visit with Kiara was approximately four years ago.   Jesse R. did contact DCF in October 2010 to report that he was not in a position to take care of Kiara.

The attorney for the minor child also supported the commitment being revoked and the child being returned to the mother.

The attorney for the father requested that the court deny the motion for revocation and that the child remain committed to the Department of Children and Families.

The court finds that the mother and daughter are strongly bonded with each other.   The court recognizes that the mother's previous conduct of allowing her daughter to attend a party with known sex offenders present, placed her daughter at risk and was not appropriate parenting conduct.   The court also finds that since the child was removed from the mother's care and committed to DCF, she has made significant progress in not only her parenting skills, but in her personal therapy and in her understanding of the dangers of exposing her daughter to people who might harm her child, including sex offenders.   The cause for the commitment of this child no longer exists and it is in the best interest of the child that the commitment be revoked and the child be returned to her mother.   The DCF arranged service providers that worked with the mother and have provided compelling evidence that the mother recognizes the dangers of exposing her child to inappropriate people as well as her improving her parenting skills.   Tina Lekacos, the licensed clinical social worker from United Services testified that the mother has the ability to keep her daughter safe and would keep her away from people that might harm her.   Testimony was also presented by Cheri Hitchcock, the parent aid who provided services through Kaleidoscope, she did not see any concerns that would prevent the mother from reunifying with the child.   Dr. Lawrence Ash–Morgan, the family therapist through United Services, who counseled the mother, had no reservations about the child returning to live with the mother.   Peter Trombley, the permanency clinician for Community Residences, Inc., also testified that he had no concerns about the mother's ability to keep the child safe and that he was recommending that the child be returned to the mother.   The guardian ad litem for the child also testified that he did not have any concerns about the mother's ability to keep the child safe.   The attorney for the minor child also requested that the child be returned to the mother's care.   In addition, the mother has cooperated with the court ordered specific steps and has cooperated with the numerous service providers arranged by DCF. The court believes that a period of protective supervision is appropriate in this case.

Accordingly, the court hereby finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the cause for the commitment of the child no longer exists and that it is in the best interest of the child to revoke the commitment.   The court hereby revokes the commitment of the child subject to an order of protective supervision for a period of one year.   The court maintains the specific steps previously issued in this case.   However, as to the mother, the court also orders that the mother obtain the approval of any caretakers for the child and that she is to insure that the child is adequately supervised.   In addition, the mother is not to allow any contact of the child with any known sex offenders nor allow the child to be present in any dwelling/and or location where a known sex offender is present.   Contact includes, but is not limited to, in person contact, telephone contact, electronic communication, cell phone, telephone, text, email, internet, any social networking sites, or any contact by any medium or through any person.   The mother shall notify DCF if any known sex offenders attempt to contact her child.   DCF shall provide continuing individual and family therapy for the mother and Kiara and shall also continue to the extent possible with the services previously provided through the Community Residences, Inc., Family Reunification/Preservation Program to assist the mother to enhance a successful reunification between the mother and Kiara.

The clerk of the court shall schedule an in-court review on the protective supervision for February 29, 2012, at 11:15 a.m.

Graziani, Judge

Graziani, Edward C., J.