IN RE: Julius M.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO REVOKE COMMITMENT MOTION TO VACATE VISITATION ORDERS MOTION FOR INCREASED AND UNSUPERVISED VISITATION

On July 14, 2011, the respondent mother filed a Motion to Revoke Commitment of her minor child, Julius M., and a Motion for Increased and Unsupervised Visits.   The Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Visitation Orders on September 16, 2011.

The Petitioner, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), was represented by an assistant attorney general.   The mother and father were each represented by their own attorneys.   The minor child was represented by an attorney.   The court finds it has jurisdiction in this matter.   There is no other action pending in any other court affecting the custody of the minor child known to this court.

The trial concerning the above referenced motions took place on September 20, 2011 and October 4, 2011.

For purpose of the matters before the court, a history of the file reveals that the minor child, Julius M., is two years of age.   Julius was taken into custody on an Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) on July 23, 2010.   An adjudication sustaining the OTC by agreement was entered on August 5, 2010.   Thereafter, another OTC was filed by DCF. The OTC was sustained without prejudice to the respondent mother due to the non appearance of the respondent mother and her attorney.   On February 4, 2011, a Motion to Reopen and Modify Disposition to Commitment was granted and the minor child was ordered committed to DCF until further order of the court.   Specific Steps were also ordered by the court.   The minor child has been in foster care since his removal on September 15, 2010.

With regard to the Motion to Revoke, the respondent mother seeks revocation of the commitment of Julius because she contends that she has successfully completed all of the specific steps ordered by the court and, therefore, the cause for commitment no longer exists.   She further alleges that it is in the best interest of the minor child to revoke the commitment and restore custody to her.

The court has reviewed the evidence produced at the hearing and considered the testimony of the witnesses.   The credible and relevant evidence offered at trial reveals the following facts.

Testimony was provided by a case manager from The Connection, Inc. who was assigned to the respondent mother in January 2011.   The Connection, Inc. provides a program for supportive housing for families.   An apartment was provided for the respondent mother in April 2011.   Both the respondent mother and the mother's boyfriend, Mr. Patterson, are on the lease with the minor children.   Under the terms of the lease, the respondent mother is required to maintain her mental health treatment and pay for her utilities and to actively seek income.   The case manager received documentation on August 31, 2011 that the respondent mother was starting to get her GED but was unable to verify that the mother was undergoing mental health treatment.   The respondent mother did find employment at the First and Last Tavern as a hostess in July 2011 but she produced only one pay stub dated August 19, 2011.   The case manager assisted the respondent mother in her job search and brought her to the Courtyard Marriott, Chili's and to a gas station.   She confirmed that seeking employment was not a requirement for the housing program and that the housing program can continue if reunification with the minor children continues to be the plan.   The case manager also testified that the respondent mother self-reported domestic violence incidences with Mr. Patterson which occurred in April 2011 and August 2011 at her home resulting in a protective order against Mr. Patterson, a copy of which was provided to the case manager.   The case manager's report noted that the respondent mother had made some progress since being admitted into the program.

Testimony was also presented from the program manager supervisor at The Connection, Inc. who was familiar with the domestic violence incident between the respondent mother and Mr. Patterson.   She noted that a new law going into effect would allow the removal of Mr. Patterson from the lease and that she was open to relocation of the respondent mother for safety reasons.   She confirmed that the respondent mother can stay in the home while the children are removed for visiting purposes.

A Middletown police officer testified that he was working on August 17, 2011 and received a call regarding a disturbance at 206 Main Street, Apt. 206, respondent mother's apartment, at approximately 1:30 p.m. He testified that there had been a prior visit at that location for a domestic related incident in April 2011.   Another police officer spoke to the respondent mother and identified her as the complainant.   The testifying officer observed the respondent mother on 8/17/11 to be aggravated, emotional and upset.   He observed physical injuries including a large lump on the right side of her head.   The respondent mother reported that her boyfriend hit her after she accused him of stealing $10.00 from her.   She identified Mr. Patterson as her boyfriend and he was arrested.   The police officer also testified that Mr. Patterson was the individual involved in the domestic incident in April 2011.   Mr. Patterson was not at the location on August 17, 2011 but was apprehended in the area and arrested by the testifying police officer.

A social worker assigned to the DCF Meriden Office testified.   She is familiar with the respondent mother and Mr. Patterson.   She was assigned to the case in March 2011 regarding the respondent mother's three older children.   She testified that Mr. Patterson was at the respondent mother's home on May 18, 2011.   Initially, the respondent mother denied that the individual was Mr. Patterson but later admitted that he was present at her home.   She also admitted that he was involved in a domestic violence incidence against her in April 2011 which resulted in his arrest.   The case worker testified that the respondent mother minimized the incident.   She testified that the respondent mother called her on August 18, 2011 with regard to a visit with Julius scheduled for August 19, 2011 at which time she reported that she was at the emergency room for an abscessed tooth and could not attend the scheduled visit.   Subsequently, the social worker learned of the domestic violence incident in September 2011.   The social worker spoke with the respondent mother on September 8, 2011 at which time the respondent mother admitted she did not have an abscessed tooth and acknowledged that she was involved in the domestic violence incident with Mr. Patterson on August 17, 2011.   The case worker testified that the respondent mother told her she did not want to go through domestic violence counseling.   She also testified that as of September 19, 2011, the respondent mother had not started her GED classes, had no scheduled work hours at her job and admitted that Mr. Patterson came over to her apartment to have sex with her on August 17, 2011 at which time they got into an argument.

An employee of All Pointe Care, a parent educator, who supervises the visits between Julius and the respondent mother, also testified.   She supervised visits between the respondent mother and Julius commencing in July 2011 for six hours per week.   One hour is for parental education.   The parent educator testified that the respondent mother is very loving, intelligent and funny but has a temper and is not as responsible as she could be concerning medications and in other areas affecting her parenting skills such as her failure to get her GED and to get a job.   She further testified that Julius is very bonded with his mother and cries when he leaves her.   She testified that the respondent mother reported that she has migraine headaches but has not sought specific help for them.   While she did see a doctor, she has not taken the medication prescribed.   With regard to her parenting skills concerning Julius, she reported that the respondent mother took her eyes off of Julius while she was cooking and going down the stairs.   She also testified that the respondent mother keeps the television on all of the time and had mixed reactions when told that it was not good for Julius and was not receptive to provided written documentation regarding young children watching television.   The parent educator also testified that she drove the respondent mother to talk to someone about getting her GED and that mother reported she did well on the test but did not follow up on it.   The parent educator was not aware of the domestic violence issues regarding the respondent mother.   The parent educator opined that the respondent mother should continue to have supervised visits with Julius for Julius' safety and that it was a good idea to keep another pair of eyes on her.   She also testified she needed to continue with parenting classes especially with regard to feeding Julius and with regard to the appropriate food to feed him as well as his feeding schedule.   She further testified that Birth to Three services were involved with regard to his special needs and developmental problems and speech delay.   She did note that Julius is improving and is talking more and reported that the respondent mother is talking to him more and reading to him but indicated that this improvement might be the result of Julius' recent placement in day care.   The parent educator's notes reflect that the respondent mother's overall evaluation was good and that she interacted appropriately with Julius.   The parent educator also testified as to her observance of the respondent mother's anger issues.   Specifically, she noted that she was not happy when she was assigned a new worker and yelled at the DCF worker.   She also observed her become angry in front of her sixteen-month-old niece whom she was babysitting when informed by a DCF worker who had concerns about the young niece in the home which resulted in a cancellation of the scheduled visit with Julius.   She also observed her yelling at Julius's father on the telephone because he failed to come without wipes.   She believed she used profanity when yelling at Julius's father.   The employee felt services for the respondent mother should remain in place and that Julius should not be placed with her due to Julius' need for a stable home environment.

Medical records produced at the trial reveal that the respondent mother has past diagnoses of attention hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder.   Presently, her main impairments have to do with her attention and focus difficulties and significant difficulty with anger and impulsivity around her anger.   The respondent mother has been regularly attending individual therapy since August 5, 2011.   She began attending treatment for domestic violence on September 20, 2011.

In addition to the above testimony and related exhibits, the parties presented a written Stipulation which provided that Dr. Heather Paxton's testimony would state she is a psychiatrist at Middlesex Hospital, that she prepared a report summarizing her evaluation of the respondent mother and that the respondent mother is in treatment with her to date.   The parties also stipulated that Rick Tsukada, LCSW, a therapist at Middlesex Behavioral Health, would testify that he is conducting individual therapy with the respondent mother and that the respondent mother has been compliant with her appointments since August 17, 2011, and the parties further stipulated that the respondent has completed hair and urine testing.   The results of the testing were subsequently provided to the court.   The results are negative.

The court takes judicial notice that Mr. Patterson is not the father of Julius.   The court also takes judicial notice of Specific Steps ordered by the court.   Specifically, the respondent mother is required to keep all appointments set by or with DCF;  participate in counseling and make progress towards the individual and parenting treatment goals;  maintain a legal income;  have no involvement with the criminal justice system;  and immediately advise DCF of any changes in the composition of the household to ensure that the change does not affect the health and safety of the child.

Julius' attorney represented to the court that she was not in agreement with respondent mother's Motion to Revoke Commitment in light of the repeated incidents of domestic violence in her home where Julius would be placed if the motion was granted.   Further, she represented that she had concerns about the respondent mother's ability to safely parent Julius.

The Motion to Revoke is governed by General Statutes § 46b–129(m) and Practice Book § 35a–14A.   The judicial authority may revoke commitment if a cause for commitment no longer exists and it is in the best interests of the child or youth.   With respect to such motion, the respondent mother has the burden to prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the cause for commitment no longer exists.   If she meets that burden, the party opposing the revocation has the burden of proof, again by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that revocation would not be in the best interests of the child.   See In re Sarah S., 100 Conn.App. 5776 (2008).

General Statutes § 46b–129(m), which governs revocation of commitment provides in pertinent part:  “The commissioner, a parent or the child's attorney may file a motion to revoke commitment, and, upon finding that the cause for commitment no longer exists, and that such revocation is in the best interest and welfare of such child or youth, the court may revoke commitment of any child or youth.”  “Clearly, the burden is upon the person applying for the revocation of commitment to allege and prove that the cause for commitment no longer exists.   Once that has been established, the inquiry become whether a continuation of the commitment will nevertheless serve the child's best interest.   On this point, when it is the natural parent who has moved to revoke commitment, the State must prove that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be returned to his or her natural parent.”  In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous), 177 Conn. 648, 659 (1975).

Based upon the credible evidence presented, the minor child cannot be restored to the care and custody of the respondent mother at the present time.   The respondent mother has had repeated issues with domestic violence and anger as well as with her mental health that have prevented her from safely caring for her son.   While the court notes that the mother has made some progress, the uncertainty of her employment situation, her need for ongoing mental care from treatment providers and her failure to provide truthful information all contribute to the need for the commitment to remain in place.   The court finds that the respondent mother is continuing with her pattern of failing to follow through with her efforts to obtain counseling and remain consistent with it.   Specifically, the court notes that the mother did not recommence domestic violence treatment until September 20, 2011 which was the first day of the trial on her motion.   Further, while the respondent mother did find a job, she has produced only one paycheck since August 2011 and did not present any credible evidence that she is actively seeking employment.   The court is also concerned with the respondent mother's ongoing anger issues and her lack of judgment in allowing domestic violence to continue in her home as demonstrated by the events which occurred in April 2011 and July 2011.   The court is also concerned about the respondent mother's poor judgment and lack of insight in continuing with her relationship with Mr. Patterson after the domestic violence incident which occurred in April 2011 and by allowing him in her home thereafter.   This demonstrates a lack of safety in the home which would be detrimental to the safety and well-being of Julius and clearly would not be in his best interests if he is returned to the home.

Based on all of the findings made herein, the court, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, finds that the respondent mother has clearly failed to prove that the cause for commitment no longer exists.   The court further finds that the minor child's best interest would not be served if custody and guardianship is returned to her.   Accordingly, the Motion to Revoke Commitment is denied.

The Motion to Vacate Visitation Orders filed by DCF requests that the visitation be at its discretion in light of the respondent mother's recent domestic assault at her home and because the current visitation schedule is negatively impacting the child's daycare routine and sleep.   The current visitation schedule provides for six hours of visitation per week at the respondent mother's home.   DCF has represented that it will continue to provide visitation in a manner which is in the minor child's best interest.   The respondent mother has filed a Motion for Increased and Unsupervised Visits in light of her compliance with her Specific Steps.

General Statutes § 17a–10a(a) provides:  “The Commissioner of Children and Families shall ensure that a child placed in the care and custody of the commissioner pursuant to an order of temporary custody or an order of commitment is provided visitation with such child's parents and siblings, unless otherwise ordered by the court.”  “In juvenile matters, the Superior Court shall have authority to make and enforce such orders ․ as the court deems necessary or appropriate to secure the welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support of a child ․ subject to the court's jurisdiction or otherwise committed to or in the custody of the Commissioner of Children and Families.”  General Statutes § 46b–121(b)(1).

The minor child has been in foster care for approximately fourteen months and is currently placed in a foster home in New Haven.   The respondent mother resides in Middletown where the visits take place.   The travel to and from New Haven disrupts the minor child's nap time thus affecting his sleep pattern as well as his mood which affects his current household.   Further, he is unable to attend some of the day trips scheduled by his day care provider.   For these reasons as well as those stated in the court's decision regarding the mother's lack of judgment concerning her domestic violence issues, the court finds that it is not in the minor child's best interest to continue with the visitation in its current form.   The court, therefore, grants DCF's Motion to Vacate Visitation Orders and denies the respondent mother's Motion for Increased and Unsupervised Visitation.   DCF is hereby given the discretion to determine the scheduling and location of the visitation between the respondent mother and the minor child.   The court notes DCF's representation at trial that DCF will ensure that visitation between the respondent mother and Julius will continue.

Accordingly, the respondent mother's Motion to Revoke Commitment is denied.   DCF's Motion to Vacate Visitation Orders is granted.   The respondent mother's Motion for Increased and Unsupervised Visits is denied.

SO ORDERED

Burgdorff, J.

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.