IN RE: Angela R. (2012)

MEMORADUM OF DECISION

This matter is before the court to resolve a child protection matter and to address custody and child support issues that would normally be addressed in the Hartford Family Court but have been consolidated in this court for purpose of judicial economy.   Firstly, a neglect petition was filed by the Department of Children and Families (Department or DCF) on April 25, 2011, alleging that the child was being denied proper care and attention and/or being permitted to live under conditions and circumstances injurious to her wellbeing.   Subsequently, after the family court agreed to allow this court to address any matters that would naturally flow from any issues involving the custody of the child, the father filed a motion for sole custody and to modify child support payments.   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 no other actions pending in any other court, other than those cited here, affecting the custody of the minor child known to the court.

The court held a hearing regarding the contested issues on February 17, 2012, March 12, 2012, and March 19, 2012.   Both parents were represented by counsel as was the child.   The court had also ordered that the child's best interests be represented by a separate guardian ad litem.   The father, prior to any testimony, submitted a plea of nolo contendere for the court's approval.   It was represented to the court that the father did not oppose a finding of neglect and the commitment of the child to the Department.   He wished to begin complying with court ordered specific steps.   The court canvassed the father and accepted his plea as having been entered willingly and voluntarily with the assistance of competent counsel.   The mother opposed the finding of neglect and was seeking sole custody of the child.

Over the course of the hearing dates the court heard testimony from the following DCF witnesses:  Attorney Rhonda Morra, the child's previous attorney during the divorce proceedings;  Samuel Starr, the child's previous therapist;  Joanne Burnham, a therapist from Community Health Resources;  Karen Case, a clinician for the Integrated Violence Program at Community Health Resources;  Clive Pearson, DCF social worker;  David Mantell, Ph.D., court ordered evaluator;  Betsy Barrett, adolescent services for Manchester Memorial Hospital;  and Shelby Judd, the child's present therapist from the Hope Center.   Neither mother nor father presented any witnesses on their behalf.   The court also received and reviewed numerous exhibits filed by the department.   The parents did not submit any exhibits.   The parents did not testify.

Following the last day of testimony, not wanting to delay its decision as to the needs of the child or risk a disruption of the fragile agreement of the parents and DCF to allow the child to remain with an approved caretaker, the court made the appropriate findings and committed the child to the care and custody of DCF. This decision is written to help clarify and support the court's determination for the need to remove the child from the parents' care.

Having considered carefully the court files, the exhibits entered into evidence, the testimony of the witnesses, the demeanor of the respondents, case law and statutory criteria, the court concludes the following facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence:

Angela was born on October 7, 1996, and is presently fifteen and half years old.   The parents' divorce was finalized on March 4, 2009, giving the parents joint custody, primary residence with the mother and a scheduled order of parental access.   Numerous motions for contempt and modification based on the final judgment then inundated the family court.   Attorney Morra testified that she classified this divorce and subsequent proceedings as high conflict due to the strain it placed on the child.   The parents fought incessantly and used the child as a pawn as a means of obtaining or denying access to the other.   She testified the child was negatively impacted emotionally and mentally by the bitter proceedings.   The child did not want to live with either parent due to their constant fighting and telling her of the others' faults and actions.   Attorney Morra was frustrated by the lack of alternative placements on behalf of the child.

Samuel Starr, the child's therapist, treated the child between March 9, 2010 and June 2, 2011, seeing her on a weekly basis.   He also saw the child occasionally with one parent or the other.   Mr. Starr diagnosed the child as chronically depressed due to the ongoing conflict between her parents.   He described her as sad, lonely, frustrated, and angry.   She had a history of self inflicted cutting behavior.   He testified that the parent's relationship was unhealthy.   He stated the ongoing relationship between mother and father never allowed the child to feel stable, cope with her own feelings or grieve the loss of family unity.   He attempted to counsel them on the impact their discussing legal matters was having on the child, but they would not accept responsibility for the harm they inflicted on the child.   Each parent blamed the other.   Mother in particular would not comply with recommended steps to address the counselor's concerns.   Mr. Starr's last session with child on June 2, 2011, ended after the child made comments that she “didn't want to be here, not here alive.”   The child was taken to a local hospital and admitted for observation.   She then began a period of partial hospitalization treatment.

Betsy Barrett is employed by Manchester Memorial Hospital in the Adolescent Services Unit. She was involved in Angela's post-hospitalization treatment.   She described Angela as distraught due to the continuing conflict between mother and father.   Angela was depressed.   She testified that the parents made minimal progress in understanding that adult issues should be kept separate from their child-parent relationship.   Parents continued to blame the other for being the cause of Angela's issues.

Joanne Burnham is a domestic violence counselor with the Community Health Resources Integrated Violence Program whom Angela was referred to by DCF to assist in repairing the mother-child relationship.   It is a home based treatment program.   She specializes in working with at risk children.   She saw the child four times beginning August 8, 2011.   She did not have contact with the father as he was classified as the offending parent.   Her involvement ended when the mother abruptly left the child at the father's home on September 21, 2011, because Angela was not respectful enough of her home rules.   Mother changed the locks in her home so that child could not return.   Ms. Burnham described Angela as uncommunicative, resistant, quiet, and tired of working with therapists.   Angela wanted her parents to stop fighting and putting her in the middle of their battles.   She lashed out at her mother by isolating herself and defying her mother's rules.   She coped with her father's anger issues by leaving the house as much as possible.   Ms. Burnham testified that mother was unable to connect how her behavior impacted Angela's success in treatment.   In a letter to DCF dated October 17, 2011, Ms. Burnham opined that “the conflict between Angela's parents continues to have a severely negative impact on her sense of emotional safety in both homes.   At this time Angela is requesting to live outside these stressors with a family friend.   The court should consider the current concerns regarding her functioning in both homes and honor her wishes if a safe and strong alternate plan can be arranged.”

Karen Case is also involved in the Integrated Violence Program however her focus is working with the non-offending parent, in this case the mother.   She worked with the mother for approximately six months and saw her six to ten times.   Ms. Case's goal was to provide a safe environment for Angela in the mother's home.   She testified that mother could not understand the impact her behavior had on the child.   Mother was not ready to help the child.

David Mantell, Ph.D. evaluated the family members and prepared reports and updates at the request of the court.   His familiarity with the family goes back to the beginning of their divorce.   He described the family conflict as the primary source of the child's psychological condition.   He determined that the parents have not made any progress in addressing these concerns.   In his November 11, 2011 report he states quite emphatically his concerns regarding this child:

My professional opinion is that the continuing high conflict relationship between the parents has a debilitating effect on Angela, that neither parent is able to put their personal animosities aside and shelter Angela satisfactorily from the conflict, and that Angela's best interest is to live in a neutral environment which cannot be in either parental home.   I think Angela requires a higher level of care than the father can facilitate due to his work schedule and assessment of Angela's needs, and that both parents underestimate the negative impact on Angela of their continuing personal and parental conflict.

He described the interaction of mother and child as being without warmth, no positive relationship, no happy moments and a mother constantly critical of the child.   His last contact with the father and child indicated a strained relationship.   They were avoidant of one another, and not happy.   He believes that co-parenting is not possible.   Furthermore, the parent's relationship is unworkable.   Dr. Mantell indicated this was a classic case of each parent believing the other is toxic and should have no contact with the child.   Unfortunately it is both of them that should have no contact with the child until the child determines when it is appropriate to resume contact with them.   He recommends allowing the child the flexibility to control the nature and extent of parental access.

Michelle Judd is the child's present therapist.   She has been seeing the child once a week since December 3, 2011, following a court order.   She diagnosed the child with situational depression based on the continuing conflict between the parents.   Angela described her parent's relationship as a “war zone,” where they don't communicate, don't like each other and don't work together.   She feels caught between her parent's hate for one another.   She supported Angela's need to take a break from her parents and focus on her own life.   Ms. Judd states the child has been doing well since moving in with friends.   Angela is involved with extra-curricular activities, improving her studying skills and overall much happier.

Clive Pearson, the DCF social worker, has been involved with the family since October 2010.   He testified that presently mother is involved with individual counseling that is addressing past domestic violence issues and meeting Angela's needs.   Father is actively involved in a long-term family violence treatment program.   Angela is doing well while in the temporary care of a non-relative.   The child is presently not taking medication per her therapist's recommendation.   Angela is not visiting with her father and sees her mother under supervised conditions.

DISCUSSION

This is one of the saddest cases of parental emotional abuse inflicted upon a child by biological parents observed by this court in sixteen years.   Obviously there have been more severe cases of physical neglect and abuse.   And surely other cases of divorcing parents have caused similar detrimental psychological harm upon a child.   But the extent to which these two parents have deliberately placed their child in the middle of their unending conflict defies reason.   It goes against the very essence of parenthood.   They have put the child in the position of believing death is her only avenue of relief.   She is torn between the natural love and affection a child has for her biological parents and hatred she has for both of them for the emotional scars they have inflicted upon her.   They have purposely and without concern for the child's well-being placed her in the middle of their unending conflict.   Over the past five years her parents have been the source of a literal tsunami of hatred with the child in the middle of its path.   They cannot see the harm they have caused this child.   They don't want to see it.   They just want to use the child to inflict further pain upon the other.   They have driven her to the point where she seeks sanctuary in the home of a non-relative.   She can no longer live with either parent and maintain her sense of emotional equilibrium.   She has to feel that someone puts her first and foremost.   Sadly her parents cannot meet her needs.   Angela is not safe in their care.

Although both parents have achieved some success in regards to ongoing counseling neither is in a position to have the child placed in their care.   They need to gain a semblance of insight into what they have done.   Father, in some show of lucidity, realized that he could not be a resource for the child at this time.   He entered a plea of nolo contendere and was in agreement to have the child placed in the care of the department while he engaged in appropriate treatment to address concerns that have been presented to the court.   The mother on the other hand, was under the delusional belief that placing Angela in her sole care would resolve the severe psychological trauma she has inflicted upon this child.   To reach such a conclusion this court would be perpetuating and condoning the eventual conflict that would certainly arise again between mother and father.   There is no other solution than to remove Angela from the requirements of living with either parent.   Quite honestly, at this moment neither one of them deserves her.   They lost that right when they selfishly and intentionally put her in harm's way.

DISPOSITION

As to adjudication, the court finds that the Department has proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the child was neglected at the time of the petition in that the child was permitted to live under conditions and or circumstances injurious to the child's well-being.   As to disposition, the court, having taken into consideration all the evidence up to the date of trial finds:

1.  Continuation or resumption of residence with the parents is contrary to the welfare of the child;  and

2.  DCF made reasonable efforts to prevent the continued removal of the child from the parent's care as well as provided for the opportunity for the child to live in their home.

Accordingly, the court finds it is in the best interest of the child to commit her to the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families effective from March 19, 2012, until further order of the court subject to the following orders:

1. Mother and father shall comply with the specific steps signed by the court on March 19, 2012.

2. DCF shall maintain the child in the present licensed foster home so long as the foster home maintains itself in good standing.   Should exigent circumstances necessitate the child's removal the department shall notify the child's attorney immediately of its intent.

3. Visitation shall proceed as therapeutically determined appropriate between the child and her therapist and parents are compliant with their specific steps.

4. DCF is not to engage the parents in co-parenting counseling.

5. Mother shall forward father's current child support payment, effective from March 19, 2012, to DCF until such time as the Department of Support Enforcement is able to redirect wage withholding to DCF. Mother shall keep all sums dedicated as arrearage payments.

6. Both parents shall maintain the child on their health insurance so long as said premiums are reasonable.

7. All other pending matters shall be continued to an agreed upon date among the parties and the court.

8. For purposes of any appeal of this decision mother and father shall submit a new financial affidavit for the court's review.

SO ORDERED

SIMON, JUDGE

Simon, Jorge A., J.