IN RE: Baileigh F. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed neglect petitions on January 8, 2013 concerning twins, Baileigh F. and Blake F. The children were born on May 2, 2011.   Their mother is Ashlea F. The identity of the children's male biological parent has not been conclusively determined.¹

DCF alleged three counts of neglect in the petitions.   The department contends that Baileigh and Blake were:  abandoned (C.G.S. § 46b–120(6)(A));  being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally (C.G.S. § 46b–120(6)(B));  and being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being (C.G.S. § 46b–120(6)(C)).

Ashlea F. denies the neglect allegations.   She has filed a motion to vacate the order of temporary custody, under which DCF has cared for the twins since January 8, 2013.   Ashlea F. also filed a motion that DCF be prohibited from allowing the maternal grandmother to visit the children.   With the agreement of all of the parties, the court ordered that the mother's motions would be heard during the trial on the neglect petitions.

The neglect trial was held before the undersigned on June 7, 2013.   Ashlea F. was present and was represented by her counsel.   The interests of Baileigh and Blake were represented by their court-appointed attorney.   An assistant attorney general appeared on behalf of DCF. The maternal grandmother, Donna B., had been granted intervenor status in the case.   She represented herself.

The court carefully considered all of the evidence that was presented during this proceeding.   The court has also taken judicial notice of the factual findings and legal rulings it made at a contested order of temporary custody hearing that was held in this case on January 25, 2013.²  The court finds that the facts referred to below were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

FACTUAL FINDINGS—NEGLECT ADJUDICATION 3

This is the second time that DCF initiated a child protection case on behalf of Baileigh and Blake.

In September 2011, when the children were four-months-old, DCF invoked a 96–hour administrative hold on their custody.   There were allegations then that the mother had unmet mental health needs, was transient, and was unable to adequately provide for the infants.   DCF received an ex parte order of temporary custody on September 6, 2011, which was sustained after a contested OTC hearing on September 22, 2011.

On September 28, 2011, the OTC was vacated and the children were returned to their mother's custody.   The court took this action after Ashlea F. contacted one of her former teacher's, Melissa W., and asked for help.   Melissa W., and her husband, Lee W., agreed that Ashlea F. and the two children could live with them at their house in Canterbury.

Baileigh and Blake were subsequently adjudicated as neglected children on February 8, 2012.   The court imposed a period of three months of protective supervision on that date.   The first neglect case ended on May 8, 2012 when the period of protective supervision terminated.

Ashlea F. lived with her children at the residence of Melissa W. and Lee W. from late September 2011 until February 2012.   Melissa W. testified credibly at the January 25, 2013 OTC hearing that Ashlea F. departed from the residence, without advance notice, following a disagreement between the mother and her hosts.   Ashlea F. left Melissa W.'s home with the children sometime in February 2012, the same month that the court issued the dispositional order of protective supervision in the first neglect proceeding.

Ashlea F. and the twins then moved in with the maternal grandmother, Donna B. They stayed there from February 2012, until November 1, 2012.

DCF's Careline received another referral about the children on November 19, 2012.   The caller, a foster parent who had briefly cared for the twins in 2011, reported that Ashlea F. and the children were once again homeless.   The department opened the present case after it became concerned about the mother's mental health status and lack of a place to live.

As noted, DCF filed the current neglect petitions, and sought the ex parte order of temporary custody, on January 8, 2013.   Ashlea F. opposed the order of temporary custody at the hearing on January 25, 2013.  (Petitioner's Exhibit C.) The court made various factual findings at that proceeding, when it concluded that Baileigh and Blake were, or would be, in immediate danger in the custody of their mother and sustained the order of temporary custody.  (Id.) The court will summarize those factual findings here, because they are relevant and material to the pending neglect allegations.

DCF proved that in November 2012, Ashlea F. was suffering from mental illness, was not taking her prescribed psychiatric medications, and was decompensating ⁴ as a result.  (Id., p. 13–9.)   She was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization at the Day Kimball Hospital in Putnam on November 21, 2012.   (Id., p. 13.)   Ashlea F. was hospitalized there, for nine days, until she was discharged on November 30, 2012.  (Id.).  She was diagnosed with depressive disorder and anxiety, and prescribed Klonopin, Seroquel and Trazedone for those conditions.  (Id.).  Ashlea F. told DCF social worker Jill Holmgren that she had tested positive for marijuana at the time of her admission at Day Kimball Hospital.   The mother also admitted to Ms. Holmgren that she had not been taking her psychiatric medications, and had not been participating in therapy prior to her hospitalization on November 21, 2012.   (Id., p. 5–7.)

During the time last November when Ashlea F. was in psychiatric distress, she and the children lived at six different locations during a 20–day period.   (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 4.) As noted, the mother and children had been living at the home of Donna B., the maternal grandmother, since February 2012.   However, following an argument with Donna B. and her husband on or about November 1, 2012, Ashlea F. left that residence with Baileigh and Blake.⁵  During the next three weeks, the mother and the children were effectively homeless, and moved among the homes of friends and relatives, with whom they stayed for brief periods of time.   A DCF social study noted credibly:  “Beginning on 11/1/12 [Ashlea F.] ․ moved the children to and from six different residences and displayed an ongoing pattern of transience.”  (Id.)

Credible evidence presented at both the contested OTC hearing and the neglect trial proved that on or about November 20, 2012, Ashlea F. contacted Melissa W., once more, and asked if she and her husband would care for Baileigh and Blake while she (Ashlea F.) underwent psychiatric hospitalization.   Melissa W. and Lee W. agreed to take the children.   Baileigh and Blake went to live with the couple on November 21, 2012 and have resided there continuously since that date.

Following her discharge from the hospital on November 30, 2012, Ashlea F. rented her own apartment.   The lease began on December 1, 2012.   However, by January 25, 2013, she owed an arrearage of $500 on the rent, and had been served a notice to quit those premises.  (Petitioner Exhibit C, p. 12.)

The mother returned to her employment with a fiber optics manufacturer after release from the hospital.   She was terminated from that employment on December 14, 2012.  (Id., p. 13.)   The loss of the job compounded her financial problems, and precipitated her threatened eviction from the recently rented apartment.

Day Kimball hospital recommended that Ashlea F. receive follow-up, outpatient psychiatric treatment in a partial hospitalization program.   The mother did not accept this suggestion, and opted instead to return to her job.   However, she could have made efforts to participate in the partial hospitalization program following her layoff on December 14, 2012, and prior to January 8, 2013, when DCF filed the neglect petitions and sought the order of temporary custody.   Ashlea F. did not do so.

DISCUSSION—NEGLECT ADJUDICATION

Ashlea F.'s unmet mental health needs and unstable housing situation were the primary reasons for the first neglect adjudication.   The facts and circumstances of the present case are quite similar.

Between November 1, 2012 and November 21, 2012, the mother was suffering with a serious psychiatric illness.   During this period, while Baileigh and Blake were in her care, Ashlea F. failed to take her psychiatric medications, and was decompensating.   She also self-medicated with illegal marijuana.   Ashlea F. and her children were essentially homeless during this period.   The family moved peripatetically to six different locations within a 20–day period.

Following her discharge after nine days of psychiatric treatment at Day Kimball Hospital, Ashlea F. declined to enroll in follow-up therapy at a recommended mental health partial hospitalization program.   And although Ashlea F. rented an apartment on December 1, 2012, by January 25, 2013 she had accumulated a $500 rent arrearage, and eviction proceedings had begun.   At that time, Baileigh and Blake were approximately 20 months old.

The court finds from all of the foregoing evidence that between November 1, 2012 and November 21, 2012, Baileigh and Blake were neglected because they were permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being.   Specifically, prior to November 21, 2012, they were being cared for by a parent whose mental health was deteriorating, who was not taking her prescribed psychiatric medications, and who was using illegal marijuana.   Ashlea F. at times behaved erratically and exercised poor judgment, as evidenced by her decision to remove herself and the twins from maternal grandmother's home, at a time when she lacked suitable alternative housing for herself and the children.

The court further finds from all of the foregoing evidence that Baileigh and Blake were neglected because they were being, and would be,⁶ denied proper care and attention physically.   The court reiterates and incorporates here by reference each of the factual findings that it made with respect to the previous neglect count.   In making the present adjudicatory finding, the court also attached significance to the credible evidence that Ashlea F. did not enroll in the recommended partial hospitalization program, that she fell behind in her rent and received the notice to quit in January 2013 and that this was the second time that Baileigh and Blake were removed from her care by DCF.

DCF has also alleged that Ashlea F. abandoned Baileigh and Blake.   Abandonment occurs when a parent fails to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern or responsibility as to the welfare of a child.  In re Ilyssa G., 105 Conn.App. 41, 46–47 (2007).   The court finds that DCF did not prove that Ashlea F. abandoned her children.   That count of the neglect petition is hereby DISMISSED.

FACTUAL FINDINGS—DISPOSITION 7

Ashlea F. obtained employment in February 2012, through a temporary agency, at the Rite Aid Distribution Center.   She worked there from February 5, 2013 through March 14, 2013.  (Respondent Mother's Exhibit 3.) She was laid off on March 14th, but could have returned to that position on May 15, 2013.   (Id.).  For reasons discussed below she has not done so, and has remained unemployed.   She receives $80 a week in unemployment and $500 per month in food stamps.

The mother obtained another apartment in Putnam at the beginning of February 2013 through the Putnam Housing Authority.  (Respondent Mother's Exhibit 4.) After her layoff, her rent was reduced to $49 per month.   As of June 5, 2013, Ashlea F. had accumulated an arrearage of $122.05 for past due rent.  (Id.) She plans to seek the assistance of Project Northeast, a local social service program, to come current on the rent.  (Id.)

Ashlea F. began out-patient psychotherapy with Lisa Muray, a licensed clinician at Day Kimball hospital, at the end of March 2013.   She has also been seeing Kathleen Reynolds, a nurse practitioner there, for the prescription and management of her psychotropic medications.   Both Ms. Muray and Ms. Reynolds were called as witnesses by Ashlea F. at the trial.

Ashlea F. has been diagnosed with Mood Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), and anxiety.   Ms. Reynolds testified credibly that the mother is currently prescribed Ambien, Seroquel, Viibryd, Klonopin, and Wellbutrin.   Ms. Reynolds also testified credibly that Ashlea F. has been compliantly taking her medications, is actively engaged in treatment, and has given no indications that she is abusing substances.

Ms. Muray sees Ashlea F. weekly.   The sessions last between 30–60 minutes.   The mother was not engaged in therapy during January, February, and most of March, because none of the psychotherapists at the hospital could accommodate the appointment times that Ashlea F. requested due to her work hours.   Per Ms. Muray, Ashlea F.'s attendance at therapy sessions has been perfect.   Ms. Muray testified that Ashlea F.'s mood has been much more stable lately, and has improved significantly since the end of March, when she began psychotherapy with the mother.   Treatment goals for Ashlea F., in addition to the stabilization of her mood, include helping her achieve stabilized housing, and stabilized employment.   Ms. Muray testified that she does not believe Ashlea F.'s present mental health status would negatively affect her ability to parent Baileigh and Blake.   The court will comment further on this opinion below.

However, both Ms. Muray and Ms. Reynolds testified on June 7th that Ashlea F. continues to struggle with insomnia and stress.   Ms. Reynolds recently changed one of the mother's prescriptions from Trazedone to Ambien, because the former medication was not effective in preventing the insomnia.   Ms. Reynolds testified at trial that Ashlea F. is very overwhelmed by the separation from her children, the sleeplessness, and the “lack of balance” in her life.   The insomnia is apparently of such severity that it has rendered Ashlea F. unable to return to her employment at the Rite Aid Distribution Center.   Ashlea F. discussed not returning to that position with Ms. Muray and Ms. Reynolds.   She is presently looking for a less stressful job.   The court credited the foregoing evidence about Ashlea F.'s insomnia.

After the OTC was sustained last January, DCF licensed Melissa W. and Lee W. as foster parents.   As noted, the twins have remained continuously in their care since Ashlea F. entered Day Kimball Hospital on November 21, 2012.

Melissa W. testified credibly at trial that during the period from November 2012 through April 2013, Ashlea F. visited Baileigh and Blake three times per week at the foster home.   The mother visited the twins on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6–7 p.m. and on Saturdays from 8–11:30a.m. Melissa W. testified credibly that the visits went very well.   Ashlea F. would bathe, feed, and read to the children during these contacts, and was attentive to them.

Melissa W. also testified credibly that the foster parents' relationship with Ashlea F. became strained again this past April.   Blake has developmental and physical problems that require a number of medical appointments.   Melissa W. and DCF social worker Douangdy Roberts both testified credibly that Ashlea F. took responsibility for making the children's medical appointments but often failed to consult beforehand with either DCF or the foster parents about the times and dates of these appointments.   Ashlea F. depends on DCF or Melissa W. for transportation.   Melissa W. works as a consultant and has a crowded schedule.

DCF asked the mother to do a better job of giving the agency and the foster parents more advance notice of the children's medical appointments, but she frequently failed to do so.   Ms. Roberts testified that this caused chaos.   It also created friction between Ashlea F. and the foster parents.

Ashlea F. accused Lee W. of lying about one of the children's medical appointments.   She also sent several of accusatory, angry, and profane text messages to Melissa W. (See Petitioner's Exhibits D, E, and F.) These actions prompted the foster parents to request that Ashlea F.'s visitation occur away from their home.   Ashlea F. now sees the children at public locations.   Ms. Roberts testified credibly that Ashlea F. has visited the children consistently, and has had positive interaction with Baileigh and Blake, during these contacts.

In March 2013, Ashlea F. was involved in a motor vehicle accident.   Her automobile was uninsured.   She was charged by the police with two motor vehicle offenses, including operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance.   She was found guilty of these offenses and fined $200.   Her license to operate a motor vehicle was also suspended by the motor vehicle department as a result of her conviction for driving without insurance.   She was financially unable to pay the fine, and has been given until June 18th by the court to pay it.   (Petitioner's Exhibit B, p. 7.) As of June 7th, her license to operate a motor vehicle has remained under suspension.   Ms. Roberts, the DCF social worker, testified credibly at trial, and noted in a written status report, that Ashlea F. has operated a motor vehicle while her license has been suspended.  (Id.) When Ms. Roberts attempted to caution the mother about this illegal conduct, she told the worker that it was “her issue” and not DCF's concern.  (Testimony of Douangdy Roberts;  Petitioner's Exhibit B, p. 7.)

Ms. Roberts also testified credibly that Donna B. has recently been visiting with Baileigh and Blake twice a month.   Per Ms. Roberts, DCF decided to allow contacts between the children and their grandmother because Baileigh and Blake had lived with their mother in Donna B.'s home for approximately eight months, and the department thought it appropriate to maintain the connection.   The department believed that although the mother was opposed to these visits, the contacts would be beneficial for the children.   Ms. Roberts testified credibly that Donna B.'s visits have gone well, and that Baileigh and Blake appeared to enjoy seeing their maternal grandmother.

During her testimony on June 7th Ms. Roberts opined that Ashlea F. is not currently ready to have the children returned to her custody.   Ms. Roberts based this conclusion on the fact that mother is experiencing ongoing difficulty with insomnia that recently required a change in medication;  the fact that mother's rent is once again in arrears;  the fact that the mother is unemployed;  and the facts that mother's motor vehicle operator's license is suspended, and the mother has admitted that she drove under suspension.

DISCUSSION—DISPOSITION

The evidence presented at hearing established that Ashlea F.'s situation has improved since November 2012.   She is presently taking her prescribed medications, is not abusing illegal substances, and is now actively engaged in psychiatric treatment provided by two competent practitioners.

The court, however, does not accept the assertion that the mother's mental health has improved to the point that Baileigh and Blake could be appropriately returned to her custody today.   There was credible evidence at trial that Ashlea F. continues to experience serious difficulty with insomnia, and that this condition is stress-related.   The medication initially prescribed has not been palliative, and a different drug was recently introduced.   The insomnia is so problematic that it currently prevents Ashlea F. from working, and she is seeking a less stressful job.   A single parent attempting to care for 25–month–old twins would likely be exposed to a number of stressful situations.

Although Ashlea F. obtained a subsidized apartment in February, and her rent is currently $49 a month, she has recently accrued an arrearage of $122.05.   The mother's inability to pay her rent has been a past problem that has resulted in an unstable housing situation for both the children and her.   Compounding this situation is Ashlea F.'s current inability to return to her former employment, her lack of transportation and a driver's license, and the outstanding fine of $200 which she must pay soon.

The court found the mother's conviction for operating without insurance, and her admission that she has subsequently violated the law by driving under suspension, to be problematic for several reasons.   When the children were removed from her care, Ashlea F. was given preliminary specific steps orders.   Among them were the requirement that she avoid contacts with the criminal justice system.   Her actions, and her subsequent comment that driving under suspension was not Ms. Roberts's “issue,” call into question her respect for the law and court orders in general, and her ability and willingness to cooperate with specific steps orders.   Put succinctly, the mother's admitted conduct was the social worker's concern.   Additional convictions for motor vehicle offenses such as driving under suspension could, at a minimum, expose Ashlea F. to additional fines she can ill afford to pay, and to additional periods of license suspension that would adversely affect her ability to gain employment, and transport her children.

The court also found the content of Andrea F.'s recent text messages to Melissa W. to be disturbing.   The texts reflect a degree of hostility and lack of civility and flexibility that call into serious question the mother's present ability to cooperate with the foster parents and DCF, and to appropriately regulate her emotions.⁸

DCF has recommended that Ashlea F. receive the services of the Reconnecting Families Program before the children are returned to her care.   The court credits this suggestion.   It is hoped that, with the assistance of such a program, Ashlea F. can achieve reunification with her children.

The court finds, based on all of the evidence presented at trial, that commitment of Baileigh F. and Blake F. is presently in the best interests of each child.   The court will issue an order below committing said children to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   The court finds that prior to trial, DCF offered appropriate reunification services to Ashlea F. in an effort to eliminate the necessity of commitment.

FINDINGS RE COLLATERAL MOTIONS

The court has found that grounds for commitment exist in this case.   Ashlea F.'s Motion to vacate the Order of Temporary Custody is hereby DENIED.   The existing OTC ends upon commitment, by operation of law.

Credible evidence proved that between February and November of 2012, Baileigh and Blake lived with their mother in the home of Donna B., the maternal grandmother.   The children had daily contact with their grandmother during this period.   The court notes that because the identity of the children's biological father has not been determined, they have no known paternal relatives.   Credible evidence at trial established that DCF believes that it is the best interests of Baileigh and Blake to maintain their contact with Donna B. The grandmother's recent twice-a-month visits have gone well, and Ms. Roberts testified credibly that Baileigh and Blake appear to enjoy the contacts.   Ashlea F. testified at trial about her reasons for objecting to visits by the maternal grandmother.   Having heard and considered that testimony, the court finds that the mother's objections stem primarily from the grievances which she has against Donna B., and are not based upon compelling concerns about the children's best interests.   For all of the foregoing reasons, the respondent's motion for an order requiring DCF to prohibit contacts between Donna B. and the children is hereby DENIED.

ORDERS

1. It is ORDERED that Baileigh F. and Blake F. are hereby committed to the Commissioner of the Department and Children and Families;

2. DCF is hereby ORDERED to conduct further inquiry about the paternity of the twins.   DCF shall contact the magistrate's session to determine the outcome of the paternity action initiated there against Jack A. If judgment pertaining to the paternity of the twins has entered there, DCF is to secure a certified copy of said judgment.   DCF shall also undertake any additional contacts and/or inquiry which may possibly resolve the issue of paternity.   DCF shall file an updated status report with this court pertaining to its efforts to accurately and conclusively determine the identity of the children's biological father, within sixty (60) days after the date this decision is issued;

3. DCF shall immediately refer Ashlea F. to the Reconnecting Families Program, or other similar intensive reunification program.   DCF shall also provide all other case management and therapeutic services to mother and children that it deems necessary to facilitate the reunification of this family;

4. Ashlea F. shall comply with the following Specific Steps orders, which the court finds are necessary to facilitate her reunification with Baileigh and Blake, and the safety of both children:

a.  Mother shall visit the children as often as permitted by DCF;

b. Mother shall continue to cooperate with psychotherapy with Ms. Muray (and/or other appropriate clinicians) and to regularly take all medications that are prescribed for her by Ms. Reynolds (or other appropriate mental health treatment providers);

c. Mother shall sign, on an ongoing basis, all appropriate releases authorizing DCF and the children's attorney to communicate with all service providers and treatment providers about the parties' attendance at, and cooperation with, services and treatment, and about their progress toward achieving the goals established for same;

d. The mother shall not operate an uninsured and/or unregistered motor vehicle, and she shall not illegally operate a motor vehicle while her license or right to operate is under suspension.   Additionally, the mother shall avoid any future contacts with the criminal justice system;

e.  The mother shall inform DCF about her current address, and the identities of all persons with whom she may reside, at all times during the pendency of this case;

f. The mother shall secure and maintain stable housing and income, and keep current on her monthly rental payments;

g. DCF shall ensure that the scheduling of all medical, dental, educational and other similar appointments for Baileigh and Blake shall be coordinated with the mother and foster parents.   Whenever possible, all parties should receive reasonable advance notice of such appointments, and be consulted about their availability to attend same;

h. It is has not yet been accomplished, DCF shall ensure that Blake undergoes an MRI evaluation, as soon as possible.

i. Mother shall not use, or possess, illegal drugs, narcotics or controlled substances;

j. All parties, counsel of record, and the social worker, shall meet with the Court Services Officer at this court, within 45 days of the date hereof, for the purpose of signing specific steps orders consistent with those set forth herein.   In the event of any disagreement among the counsel and parties concerning the drafting, or execution, of said written specific steps orders, the Court Services Officer shall request an in-court review hearing before the undersigned, for the purpose of resolving any such disagreement.   A final specific steps order shall be signed by the parties and counsel, and submitted to the court for its review, approval and signature.

SO ORDERED,

DYER, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Ashlea F. initially gave DCF the names of three men who might have fathered the twins.   Genetic testing excluded all of them as the biological father.   On January 18, 2013 Ashlea F. informed the court that another person, Jack A., might be the father.  (See Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 9–10.)   DCF has attempted, without success, to have Jack A. genetically tested to determine if he is the father.  (Petitioner's Exhibit B, p. 2.) Jack A. has not been impleaded as putative father in this case.   This court was informed at the outset of trial that a paternity action had been initiated against Jack A. in the family support magistrate session.   The undersigned was not informed during trial about the disposition, if any, of that matter DCF has published a notice to “John Doe” in connection with the neglect proceeding.   The undersigned has previously found constructive notice by publication, upon “John Doe.” A default for failure to appear was entered against “John Doe” on June 7, 2013..  FN1. Ashlea F. initially gave DCF the names of three men who might have fathered the twins.   Genetic testing excluded all of them as the biological father.   On January 18, 2013 Ashlea F. informed the court that another person, Jack A., might be the father.  (See Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 9–10.)   DCF has attempted, without success, to have Jack A. genetically tested to determine if he is the father.  (Petitioner's Exhibit B, p. 2.) Jack A. has not been impleaded as putative father in this case.   This court was informed at the outset of trial that a paternity action had been initiated against Jack A. in the family support magistrate session.   The undersigned was not informed during trial about the disposition, if any, of that matter DCF has published a notice to “John Doe” in connection with the neglect proceeding.   The undersigned has previously found constructive notice by publication, upon “John Doe.” A default for failure to appear was entered against “John Doe” on June 7, 2013.

FN2. See the excerpted transcript of the OTC proceedings that were held before the undersigned on January 25, 2013, which were introduced into evidence during the neglect trial as Petitioner's Exhibit C. The court signed said transcript as its written memorandum of decision for the January 25, 2013 contested OTC hearing..  FN2. See the excerpted transcript of the OTC proceedings that were held before the undersigned on January 25, 2013, which were introduced into evidence during the neglect trial as Petitioner's Exhibit C. The court signed said transcript as its written memorandum of decision for the January 25, 2013 contested OTC hearing.

FN3. Findings are based on evidence about events which transpired prior to January 8, 2013, the date when DCF filed the pending neglect petitions..  FN3. Findings are based on evidence about events which transpired prior to January 8, 2013, the date when DCF filed the pending neglect petitions.

FN4. Decompensation is the appearance or exacerbation of a mental disorder due to failure of defense mechanisms.   Steadman's Medical Dictionary, 24th Edition, 1982, p. 366..  FN4. Decompensation is the appearance or exacerbation of a mental disorder due to failure of defense mechanisms.   Steadman's Medical Dictionary, 24th Edition, 1982, p. 366.

FN5. At the conclusion of the OTC hearing on January 25, 2013, the undersigned found that Ashlea F. had been asked to leave her mother's home.   However, during the trial on June 7, 2013, there was credible evidence that Ashlea F. made the decision to relocate from Donna B.'s home following an argument, and that Donna B. subsequently denied a request by Ashlea F. to return there with the children..  FN5. At the conclusion of the OTC hearing on January 25, 2013, the undersigned found that Ashlea F. had been asked to leave her mother's home.   However, during the trial on June 7, 2013, there was credible evidence that Ashlea F. made the decision to relocate from Donna B.'s home following an argument, and that Donna B. subsequently denied a request by Ashlea F. to return there with the children.

FN6. This adjudicatory finding is based, in part, on the theory of “predictive neglect.”   See:  In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 (2008).   The children were the subject of a prior neglect adjudication, based in part on Ashlea F.'s unmet mental health needs.   In the present case, she was found by the court to be decompensating psychiatrically, not taking her prescribed psychiatric medications, and using marijuana while serving as the primary caretaker for two very young children.   DCF was not required to wait until serious harm befell Baileigh and Blake before taking action..  FN6. This adjudicatory finding is based, in part, on the theory of “predictive neglect.”   See:  In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 (2008).   The children were the subject of a prior neglect adjudication, based in part on Ashlea F.'s unmet mental health needs.   In the present case, she was found by the court to be decompensating psychiatrically, not taking her prescribed psychiatric medications, and using marijuana while serving as the primary caretaker for two very young children.   DCF was not required to wait until serious harm befell Baileigh and Blake before taking action.

FN7. Based on evidence pertaining to events that transpired through June 7, 2013, the date when this trial ended..  FN7. Based on evidence pertaining to events that transpired through June 7, 2013, the date when this trial ended.

FN8. See, for example, the comments Ashlea F. made to Melissa W., and about the DCF social worker, in Petitioner's Exhibit D..  FN8. See, for example, the comments Ashlea F. made to Melissa W., and about the DCF social worker, in Petitioner's Exhibit D.

Dyer, Richard W., J.