IN RE: Christopher 1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Re Motion to Reopen (sic) and Articulation ²

The respondent mother of the two children named above, has moved to open a judgment terminating her parental rights, failing that she requests the court to articulate a portion of the previous findings.   As much of her claim focuses on a failure of DCF to provide reasonable efforts and a failure of the court to address this, the court directs attention to the following excerpts of the decision.

DCF worked vigorously in providing services to Jessica and David to move toward reunification.   David and Jessica participated in Intensive Safety Planning Services through United Community and Family Services, which did not support reunification of Christopher Jr. in October 2009.   From the months of January 2010 through April 2010, Birth to Three worked in the home with Christopher Jr., his mother and David.   Birth to Three would encourage David to participate in the sessions and encouraged him in relationship building activities.   Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) was engaged to assist in reunification.   They reported a lack of motivation from David in participating in services and had concerns of controlling behaviors he exhibited towards Jessica.

Most notable in reunification efforts was engaging the Reconnecting Families Program (RCFP) into the life of Jessica and David.   DCF engages this program preparatory to reunification.  (See Respondent's Exhibit 7.) This program is a six month in-home service to facilitate successful reunification.   Jessica was very pregnant at the time this program was commenced on February 5, 2010.

The Reconnecting Families Program closed its file and DCF discontinued efforts to immediately reunite Christopher with Jessica.   But DCF did continue to offer services to Jessica and to David.   While Jessica made some token efforts, David made no efforts toward reunification with his daughter Allyson.

It is clear that DCF had made substantial efforts after Christopher Jr.'s injuries to reunify Jessica with her child.   Reconnecting Families only closed their case after Allyson was born and injured.   At that time Jessica was within days of a reunification.

Jessica is a woman with monumental mental health needs.   Her whole life has been affected by sexual predators and abusive relationships.   She desperately needs mental health counseling.   She was referred for individual counseling in August 2009.   The record supports a finding that after the removal of Christopher in 2009, Jessica made efforts at reunification.   After the removal of Allyson she made no efforts.

DCF offered intensive safety planning services, Birth to Three visits, domestic violence counseling through United Services which she took in 2009 (Respondent's Exhibit 2), Care Net parenting courses from September 2009, through November 2009 and then again in January 2010, (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and the Reconnecting Families Program (Respondent's Exhibit 7).   As previously indicated, Jessica was doing the right things to achieve reunification until Allyson was born and was abused.   Whatever courses she had taken, whatever education she had received, appear to have had no benefit to Jessica.   And after April of 2010, Jessica appears to have lost interest in participation in services.

It is clear from this excerpted language that Jessica did understand how to engage services and how to cooperate with DCF. She was aware of the process and the protocols to engage services.   Cooperation was more than just signing releases.   After the first child was injured, Jessica did engage in the many services that DCF recommended.   Jessica did successfully participate and complete the services.   She knows how to do it.   She was on the cusp of reunification with Christopher.   DCF had planned a date for the reunification to occur.   DCF had made reasonable efforts to reunify her with Christopher.   Until the injuries to Allyson.

But just days prior to actual reunification, Allyson was born and four days thereafter she was physically abused.   Whatever efforts DCF had made to assist Jessica in reunification collapsed.   After that time, April 15, 2010, Jessica was unwilling to participate in services until March 2011.   DCF was offering the same or similar services as she had successfully engaged in the past.   The same kind of services that Jessica actually participated in before Allyson's injuries.   What changed?   Not DCF's manner of doing business.   What changed was Jessica's unwillingness to participate in services.

After her only two children had been removed from her care she no longer robustly acted to engage services.   She did not take the single most important step to regain custody of her children:  to separate herself from the source of the injuries, i.e. David.   She stayed with him for a year.   During that year she did not participate in the recommended counseling.   She did not attend court.   She did not attend the scheduled DCF meetings.   She was irregular in her visitation.

Jessica now seeks to blame one of her three lawyers for her lack of involvement.   There was no evidence presented that her attorney told her to stop visiting.   There was no evidence presented that her attorney told her to stay with the likely abuser of her children.   There was no evidence that the lawyer told her not to go to court.   There is no evidence that her attorney told her not to attend scheduled meetings with DCF. In fact, even with the benefit of very capable trial counsel, Jessica did not testify to any short comings of her prior attorney.   The only testimony before the court was the hearsay statement that the social worker was told by Jessica that her attorney told her not to talk to DCF without his presence.

The court's decision was not based upon overlooked facts or the improper application of legal precedent.   While Jessica may wish to assign more weight to some facts than the court, that is not a basis for opening a judgment.   Neither is dissatisfaction with the outcome a basis for reconsideration.   The motion to open the judgment is denied.

Articulation:

With respect to the request to articulate, the decision of the court was complete.   Insofar as the respondent is confused by the court finding that “Jessica and David are unwilling to benefit from reunification efforts,” the court articulates as follows:  The court specifically finds, by clear and convincing evidence that DCF made reasonable efforts from the time it became involved with Jessica and her children, to reunify them with her.   The services were fully detailed in the earlier decision and the excerpted portions previously mentioned.   The court specifically finds that Jessica did not cooperate with DCF after the removal of Allyson in April 2010.   Jessica was unwilling to cooperate.   She had signed the Specific Steps.   She knew from her prior experience with Christopher, what she could do to work with DCF. After Allyson was removed, she no longer cooperated.   She was unwilling to cooperate.   She clearly understood what was required for a successful reunification.   She had nearly achieved it prior to the birth of Allyson.   With or without a lawyer, she was told by the social worker and she knew from the Specific Steps what was required.   She valued her relationship with the abuser over the possibility of reunification with her children.   That constitutes an unwillingness on her part.

On November 19, 2010, DCF initiated termination petitions.   Christopher had been in foster care for 16 months at that time.   It was not until three or four months after the termination petitions were filed that Jessica decided to end her relationship with the man that very likely, physically abused her two children.   She stayed with him for a year and a half after Christopher was first abused.   That is essentially a year and a half during which time she could have been robustly working toward reunification.   She subordinated her children's well-being to her relationship with their abuser.   There is nothing in the record to suggest that whatever caused her to stay with the abuser has been addressed in treatment and therapy.

The court specifically finds that at no time did David participate or engage in services offered.   The court finds he was unwilling to cooperate with DCF in efforts at reunification.

With respect to the claim of inadequate assistance of counsel, after hearing the evidence there was on this point, the court finds that Jessica knew how to cooperate with DCF as she did initially after Christopher's removal.   After Allyson was removed, she was more invested in her boyfriend than she was in her children.   She did not leave the likely abuser of both her children.   That is a very significant matter.   It certainly reflects on her priorities.

She did not robustly participate in services which would assist her in regaining custody of her two children.   There is no evidence that her lawyer told her not to participate in services.   Jessica was familiar with DCF practices.   There was testimony that the DCF social worker specifically talked to her to attempt to assist her during the time the social worker transported Jessica to and from visitation.   Jessica did not attempt to engage in any services after Allyson's removal until well into calendar year 2011.   The services she did finally engage did not occur until March of 2011, at which time Allyson had been in foster care for four days short of her entire life, one year.

In sum, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.   The motion to open the judgment is denied.   The motion to articulate is granted as appears herein.

Foley, Sr. J.

FOOTNOTES

FN2. As the judgment has never been previously opened, it thus cannot be re-opened..  FN2. As the judgment has never been previously opened, it thus cannot be re-opened.

Foley, Francis J., S.J.