IN RE: Litza C. (2013)

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.

For the purpose of the matters before the court, on September 5, 2013, a petition of Order of Temporary Custody (“OTC”) and Neglect was filed by the petitioner Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) on behalf of the minor child, Litza C., requesting that the OTC be vested in the maternal uncle.   The Neglect Petition alleged that the minor child was neglected in that she was abandoned and that she was denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally.   The OTC was sustained by the court on November 15, 2013.

The matter was set down for trial with regard to adjudication and disposition and was heard by the court on December 20, 2013.   Immediately prior to the commencement of the trial, father, mother and the legal guardian filed pleas of nolo contendere as to an adjudication of uncared for due to Litza's specialized needs.   The father, mother and the legal guardian were canvassed by the court with regard to said pleas and they were accepted by the court.   Mother and father agreed to a disposition of commitment of Litza to DCF's care.   The legal guardian contested that proposed disposition.   DCF was represented by an assistant attorney general during the trial.   The respondent mother was present during the trial and was represented by an attorney.   The respondent father was present and represented by counsel.   The respondent legal guardian was present and was represented by counsel.   The minor child was present and was represented by counsel.   Litza's Guardian ad Litem was unavailable and provided the court with his Position Statement.   The court heard testimony from a safe home clinician from The Village for Families and Children, Litza's former DCF social worker, her current DCF social worker and the legal guardian.   Eight exhibits were admitted into evidence and consist of the Social Worker Affidavit, the Social Study, father's Certified Criminal History, mothers' Specific Steps, father's Specific Steps, legal guardian's Specific Steps, the Guardian Ad Litem's Position Statement and Addendum to the Social Study.   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 affecting the custody of the minor child known to this court.   The court takes judicial notice of relevant court actions, orders and prior proceedings.

The court has reviewed the verified petition, considered the testimony of the witnesses produced at the hearing and each full exhibit as well as the history of the file.   The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the trial reveal the following facts which were proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The minor child, Litza, is presently fourteen years old.   Maternal grandmother, her current legal guardian, obtained guardianship of Litza in 2007.   Litza had resided with her since she was an infant.   In January 2012, Litza was placed in a safe home at The Village for Families and Children due to her uncontrollable behaviors at the request of her legal guardian.   During that time, legal guardian received services by DCF which included Intensive In–Home Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services (IICAPS).   After five months at The Village, Litza was able to transition back to legal guardian's home.   IICAPS continued working with Litza and her family.   The legal guardian was provided with services to help her manage and understand Litza's behaviors.   The legal guardian did now always make herself fully available to the service provider and failed to attend some of the scheduled appointments.   Further, the legal guardian did not follow through with the strategies provided to her.   She failed to hold Litza accountable for her actions and behaviors.   She failed to provide the appropriate limits and structure needed by Litza.

On August 28, 2013, the legal guardian contacted the Hartford Police Department due to Litza's aggressive and disrespectful behavior.   The legal guardian refused to allow Litza to return to her home at that time due to her uncontrollable behavior.   Litza was transported to the Institute of Living (“IOL”) CARES unit via an ambulance.   She was assessed and received treatment.   At the time of her discharge from IOL on August 30, 2013, legal guardian reiterated that she could no longer care for Litza.   Litza's maternal uncle contacted DCF and stated he would allow Litza to reside with him.   On September 5, 2013, temporary custody of Litza was granted to the maternal uncle.   The placement initially went well and Litza was provided with necessary structures and consistency.   However, shortly after her placement with her uncle, the legal guardian undermined the placement by telling Litza that she wanted her to return to her home.   As a result of this conflict, Litza became emotionally unstable and reported that she wanted to harm herself if she did not return to the legal guardian.   She was then transported to the hospital for an assessment.

On November 4, 2013, the Hartford Police Department contacted DCF and reported that Litza was taken to Connecticut Children's Medical Center (“CCMC”) for evaluation due to expressing suicidal ideations.   Litza continued to express those ideations while at CCMS. On that date, maternal uncle advised DCF that he could no longer care for Litza due to her putting his family at risk and as the result of the legal guardian's undermining interference with Litza's placement there.   Litza was admitted to the hospital and then transferred to IOL on November 5, 2013.   Litza was discharged from IOL on November 7, 2013 and placed at The Village due to her refusal to return to maternal uncle's home and his refusal to continue to care for her.   Litza advised that she wanted to return to her legal guardian's care.   On November 7, 2013, DCF filed another OTC on Litza's behalf.   As noted above, that OTC was sustained by the court on November 17, 2013.   DCF has identified a therapeutic foster home for Litza and is currently in the process of scheduling the necessary meetings for placement if the home proves suitable to her needs.

Litza has been diagnosed with Mood Disorder, NOS which is her current diagnosis.   Her past diagnoses included Reactive Detachment Disorder and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.   She has been prescribed medication in the past and is currently taking medication.   While in the care of the legal guardian, she has not been consistent in taking her medication and has refused to take her medication when asked to do so by the legal guardian.   She has had episodes of manic behavior and depression.   In August 2013, she began attending CREC Polaris therapeutic day school where she is placed in a highly therapeutic setting that is able to address her emotional and behavioral needs.   She is currently attending outpatient therapy at The Village.   Litza does well when she takes her medication on a consistent basis and is in a structured and consistent environment.   She is receiving this at her current placement at the safe home at The Village where she is doing well and continues to stabilize.

With regard to the dispositional issue before the court, based upon a fair preponderance of the credible evidence presented, the court finds that the commitment of Liza to the care and custody of the department of children and families is in her best interests.   There is ample credible evidence before this court that the legal guardian is not able to control Litza's behaviors nor provide the structure and consistency that Litza clearly needs.   She has failed to fully engage in the services provided to her by DCF to assist her in managing Litza's behaviors.   She has failed to ensure that Litza takes her medication.   It is clear that she is easily manipulated by Litza.   She has interfered in Litza's placement with her uncle to the extent that it caused a disruption of that placement.   It is abundantly clear to the court that Litza needs to be in a structured environment where all of her needs are being met and where she has clear expectations as to what is expected of her including the assurance that she takes her medications on a consistent basis.   It is clear that the legal guardian is not able to do this on a consistent basis at the present time.   The court is mindful that the legal guardian requested Litza's removal from her home.   The legal guardian fails to acknowledge nor does she appear to understand the negative impact this has had on Litza.   The court, therefore, finds it is clearly not in Litza's best interest to be placed back in the legal guardian's home at this time.   The court notes that mother and father are in agreement with Litza's commitment to the care of DCF. The court further notes that her Guardian Ad Litem is also in support of her commitment.   As he astutely pointed out in his Affidavit, there is a major concern of another incident occurring that will lead to another removal from the legal guardian's home.   The court shares the same concerns especially in light of the legal guardian's failure to grasp the necessity of providing a structured and consistent environment for Litza as well as her failure to fully engage and participate in the services provided to her.

Therefore, in considering the best interests of Litza, the court hereby finds by a fair preponderance of the credible and probative testimony, and the documentary evidence, that Litza has been neglected in that she has been uncared for due to her specialized needs.   Accordingly, it is in the best interest of Litza that out of home placement is necessary.   Continuation in the home of the legal guardian would be detrimental to her welfare.   She is ordered committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families who shall be her guardian until further order of the court.   DCF is hereby given the discretion to determine the scheduling of visitation between Litza with her family.   The court further orders that an in court review be scheduled in three months.   The court confirms and orders as final the specific steps previously filed with the court.   Significant within these steps is the obligation of the legal guardian to fully engage in all services ordered in the steps and to fully cooperate with DCF.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Burgdorff, J.

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.