IN RE: Gabriel Q. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PERMANENCY PLAN

A Motion for Review of Permanency Plan has been filed in this matter by the Department of Children and Families (DCF).

The subject minor children are Gabriel Q. (d.o.b. February 5, 2008) and Precious Q. (d.o.b. April 10, 2009).   They were adjudicated as neglected children, and committed to the custody and guardianship of DCF, by this court on June 20, 2013.   Audrea Q. is the mother of both children.   Keith Q. is their father.   The parents are married to each other, although an action for dissolution of marriage is reportedly pending.

The permanency plan filed by DCF recommends termination of parental rights and adoption.   Both parents initially filed objections to the plan.   However, counsel for Keith Q. subsequently withdrew the father's objection.

A contested hearing on the proposed permanency plan and the mother's objection to it was held before the undersigned on January 9, 2014.   Counsel for DCF, the attorney for the minor children, Audrea Q., and her lawyer participated in the hearing.   Keith Q. and his attorney did not attend the proceeding.

The court has carefully considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing and finds that the facts recounted below were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

DCF assumed temporary custody of Gabriel and Precious pursuant to an administrative “96–hour hold” on January 22, 2013.   The department acted after Audrea Q. and Keith Q. were both arrested on domestic violence charges following a physical altercation at the family home on that date.   (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 3.) This court issued an ex parte order of temporary custody on January 25, 2013, which was sustained at a hearing held on January 29, 2013.  (Id.).

The children, who both have autism and who both experience significant developmental delays, have been in DCF-licensed foster care continuously since January 22, 2013.   Specific steps orders to facilitate reunification were issued by the court to both parents on January 22, 2013.   Audrea Q.'s specific steps orders were subsequently modified by the court on June 20, 2013.

An extensive history of domestic violence between Audrea Q. and Keith Q., the mother's history of significant mental health and substance abuse problems, and unsuitable physical conditions in the family home prompted DCF to remove the children and initiate this neglect proceeding.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p 2–3.)

A DCF social study credibly described the domestic violence incident and the conditions in the family home on January 22, 2013.   It noted:  “This incident included [mother] stabbing father with a butter knife and the children being found walking in the blood from the incident.  [Mother] was reported to have been the aggressor, and therefore [mother] was arrested and incarcerated.”   (Id., p.2.) Keith Q. was also arrested on that date and was charged with breach of peace.  (Id., p. 31.)   The DCF social study also noted:  “The physical conditions of the home were not appropriate as there was no food, no sheets or blankets and the house was filthy.”  (Id., p 2–3.)

Credible evidence introduced during this hearing proved that Audrea Q. and Keith Q. have had an extensive history of domestic violence during their relationship.   Audrea Q. told the court's psychological evaluator during July 2013 that Keith Q. had physically abused her in the past by striking her in the face, dislocating her jaw, knocking out her teeth, burning her with cigarettes and kicking her in the abdomen while pregnant.  (Mother's Exhibit 5, p. 6.) The mother also informed DCF that she and the children were not safe around Keith Q. (Petitioner's Exhibit A., p. 16.)

Following the parties' arrests on January 22, 2013, the criminal court issued full “no contact” protective orders that prohibited Audrea Q. and Keith Q. from having any form of contact with each other.  (Id., p. 14–15.)   The no contact provisions of the protective orders were subsequently rescinded by the criminal court on May 23, 2013.  (Id., p.15.) However, on April 3, 2013, while the full no contact provision of the court's order was still in place, Audrea Q. was observed entering an automobile with Keith Q. following a court hearing.  (Id.) Although both parents subsequently denied to DCF that this occurred, this court finds the evidence to be credible.   The court finds that on April 3, 2013, more than two months after the serious domestic violence incident that led to the children's removal, the parties violated the protective order by being together in the same automobile.

On April 5, 2013, Audrea Q. informed her probation officer that she had moved out of a domestic violence shelter and relocated to the home of her mother in Brooklyn, Conn. (Id., p. 5.) When the probation officer subsequently visited the maternal grandmother's home, she was told by a household member there that Audrea Q. did not reside there.  (Id.) When the probation officer returned to that address on May 20, 2013, Audrea Q. was not present.   A resident there told the probation officer that she was not sure if Audrea Q. lived there.  (Id.) The court credits this evidence, and finds from it that during April and May 2013, Audrea Q. made a misrepresentation to her probation officer about the location where she was living.   All of the foregoing evidence led DCF to suspect that Audrea Q. was not being candid with the department about her whereabouts, and her contacts with Keith Q.

While in police custody following her arrest on January 22, 2013, Audrea Q. attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself in her cell at the Putnam police station.  (Mother's Exhibit 7, p. 1.) She was hospitalized for a week thereafter in the psychiatric unit at the Day Kimball Hospital.  (Id.)

Audrea Q. has experienced a number of serious traumatic incidents during her life.  (Mother's Exhibit 5, p. 6–7.)   She attempted to commit suicide several times prior to the most recent incident in January 2013.  (Id., p.7.) She has a history of involvement with the juvenile justice system and adult criminal justice system that is credibly recounted on pages 5 and 7 of Mother's Exhibit 5, and on pages 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Exhibit A. She has been diagnosed with the following psychiatric conditions:  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Depressive Disorder NOS, Alcohol Abuse, and Cannabis Abuse.  (Mother's Exhibit 7, p. 2.) Audrea Q. told the court-appointed psychological evaluator on July 5, 2013 that she was applying for social security disability benefits due to “Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, paranoia and anxiety.”  (Mother's Exhibit 5, p. 5.) She has been prescribed several psychiatric drugs, including an anti-psychotic medication, an anti-depressant medication, and two anxiolytic medications, for those conditions.  (Id., p. 15.)

It was also proven at this hearing that Audrea Q. has an extensive history of substance abuse that has at times included the misuse of alcohol, and the illegal use of marijuana, cocaine and oxycodone.  (Mother's Exhibit 5, p. 13, and Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 9.) On May 22, 2013, Audrea Q. rendered a urine screen that was positive for THC, cocaine and oxycodone.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 9.) She also tested positive for marijuana use on June 16, 2013, and a hair test given the following day “was positive on all three panels.”  (Id.)

Dr. James Connolly, the court-appointed psychologist who evaluated Audrea Q. on July 5, 2013, found the mother's account of her substance abuse to be less than forthright.  (Mother's Exhibit 5, p. 19.)   In the report that he filed with this court on August 26, 2013, Dr Connolly wrote:  “It was my overall impression that her description of her substance abuse was somewhat minimizing and disingenuous.   She said in recent years alcohol was her principal drug of choice.   She told me, however, that her last use of alcohol was in January 2013.   She acknowledged that she had a positive test for the presence of illegal drugs in April 2013.   She was insistent, however, that she had not used any illegal drugs since January 2013.”  (Mother's Exhibit 5, p. 8.) Dr. Connolly further noted:  “There are various indications in the records that she had at least an intermittent problem with use of cocaine and even crack cocaine, but during my interview, Audrea sometimes attempted to leave the impression that her only major substance abuse issue was with cannabis.   It is my impression ․ that her current problems with substance abuse are related to her relationship with her husband, Keith [Q.], who appears to be her primary source of supply for illegal drugs in recent years.”  (Id., p. 19.)   The psychologist also opined that “․ Audrea's substance abuse problems are substantially exacerbated during those times that she is living with [father].   I also believe that if she reunites with Keith, Audrea is likely to relapse into active substance abuse.”  (Id.)

The court found the foregoing observations and professional opinions of Dr. Connolly to be accurate and credible, and accepts them as proven fact.

Dr. Connolly credibly opined that Audrea Q. has a strong desire to reunify with Gabriel and Precious, and that she is very attached to both children.   (Mother's Exhibit 5, p.19–20.) He recommended in his August 26, 2013 evaluation report that DCF should continue its efforts to reunify the children with their mother.  (Id.) But he also credibly observed in the report:  “The obstacles to this reunification are quite substantial, however, and a high level of monitoring will be required in order for reunification to take place.   In particular, it will be necessary to monitor the following adverse circumstances:  a resumption of illegal drugs by Audrea, her failure to comply with psychotropic medications, and her resuming her unstable and abusive relationship with Keith [Q]. Any of these circumstances are likely to lead to the interruption of the reunification process.”  (Id., p. 20.)

Unfortunately, Audrea Q. suffered a relapse on September 13, 2013.   She had been drinking cognac for two days and ingested large quantities of her prescription Abilify and Vistiril pills (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 9–10.)   She was taken to Day Kimball Hospital, where she tested positive for marijuana, and also admitted to staff there that she had smoked the substance.  (Id., p. 10.)   Audrea Q. had been attending substance abuse treatment prior to September 13th and enrolled in a partial hospitalization program known as the Quinnebaug Day Treatment Program after her relapse.  (Testimony of Audrea Q., Mother's Exhibit 7, p. 1.) A discharge summary from the Quinnebaug program indicates that mother was admitted there on October 4, 2013 and was discharged successfully with a “good” prognosis on November 21, 2013.  (Id., p. 3.) The discharge summary credibly indicated that Audrea Q. was not taking psychotropic drugs on the date of admission (October 4th), and had stopped taking them two weeks prior to that date.  (Id., p. 1.) There was also credible evidence that when she was taken for treatment to Day Kimball hospital on September 13, 2013, Audrea Q. told hospital staff that she was living with Keith Q. (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p 12.)   The court found all of the foregoing evidence to be credible.   Unfortunately, this evidence proved another occurrence of each of the three “adverse circumstances”—resumption of drug use, failure to take prescribed psychotropic medications, and the mother's continuation in her relationship with Keith Q.—which Dr. Connolly warned could impede the mother's chances for successful reunification.

There was credible evidence at hearing that Audrea Q. has made improved efforts to comply with her specific steps orders and reunification services since her relapse on September 13, 2013.   As noted above, she has completed the Quinnebaug Day Treatment program on November 21, 2013.  (Mother's Exhibit 7.) She underwent a mental health and substance abuse evaluation at Perception Programs, Inc. on December 30, 2013 and began a once-a-week, 10–week–long relapse prevention program there on January 6, 2014.  (Mother's Exhibit 6.) Since November, Audrea Q. has cooperated with training from Sheryl Waring, a behaviorist retained by DCF to assist and train her to deal with the behaviors sometimes exhibited by Gabriel and Precious.  (Testimony of Amy Gilman.)   She also successfully completed a four-session “Anger Aside” program offered at a community-based agency known as TEEG (Mother's Exhibit 2.) She has received counseling about domestic violence.   There was no evidence that the mother has abused illegal drugs since September 2013.   DCF social worker Amy Gilman testified that Audrea Q. complied with a hair test in October 2013 that was negative for illegal drugs.

Audrea Q. has visited her children as often as permitted by DCF since the children were removed from parental care in January 2013.   Her visits with the children are supervised.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 19–20.)   DCF filed a motion to suspend mother's visitation in May 21, 2013, after she reacted angrily to a DCF social work aid during a visit and allegedly made inappropriate comments to that individual.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 20.)   Audrea Q. was not allowed visits for approximately one month.   Her visits resumed in June 2013.  (Id.) after mother agreed to cooperate with the psychological evaluation.  (Id.) Audrea Q. has visited the children regularly since then, under the supervision of Connecticut Behavioral Health Services.   Dr. Connolly disagreed with DCF's belief that interaction between the mother and her children was not productive.  (Mother's Exhibit 5, page 20.)   Dr Connolly observed Audrea Q.'s interaction with the children during the psychological evaluation last July. He found the parent-child interactions to be positive in nature, with the mother evidencing a strong attachment to, and “constructive concern” for, Gabriel and Precious.”  (Id., p. 20.)

Regrettably, Audrea Q. is very distrustful of both her DCF Social Worker and her probation officer.   The mother testified during this hearing that she doesn't speak with her worker.   She alleged to Dr. Connolly during the psychological evaluation last July that her DCF worker and her probation officer were colluding against her.  (Mother's Exhibit 5, page 12.)   Although Dr. Connolly did not find Audrea Q. to be delusional, he noted her “extreme interpersonal negativism and defensiveness,” and her “highly negative framing of her social relationships” which he believes also extends to some of her service providers (Id., p. 18.)

Audrea Q. has two older children who are not in her care.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 38.)   Keith Q. has an older child who is not in his care.   That child resides with his biological mother in the Bronx, New York. (Id.) Gabriel and Precious do not have visits with these half-siblings.  (Id.) Keith Q. did not participate in this proceeding.   He did not visit with Gabriel and Precious between January 22, 2013 and April 4, 2013.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 32.)   Since April 4th, he has visited with the children, under supervision, for one hour each week.  (Id.) The social history indicates that he is often late for the visits.  (Id.) He is affectionate with the children, and his interaction with the children is appropriate during the visits, although he has experienced difficulty managing the children when their behavior becomes difficult.  (Id., p. 33.)

With the exception of supervised visitation, the father has not engaged in any services offered to him by DCF, despite the requirement in his specific steps orders that he do so.   Keith Q. was referred by DCF for substance abuse evaluation and screening last year on dates in May, June, and July, but did not attend any of those appointments.  (Id., p. 27.)   DCF referred the father for domestic violence counseling, but he did not contact the service provider.   (Id., p. 31.)   As noted above, the court has found that Keith Q. violated the full no contact order that precluded mother and father from having any contact with each other.   The court finds that Keith Q. has failed to cooperate with significant provisions of his specific steps orders.   The court also finds that the father has not engaged in any of the appropriate reunification services offered to him by DCF, with the exception of supervised visitation.

Audrea Q. testified during the hearing on January 9, 2014 that she has filed an action for the dissolution of her marriage to Keith Q. With the exception of this testimony, no other evidence concerning the pending dissolution action (such as court records, or copies of pleadings, court orders, or judgments) was entered into evidence during this proceeding.   The court was not informed when or where the dissolution action was filed, and the court received no other evidence about the procedural history, or current status, of the parties' pending domestic relations case.   The court will assume that Audrea Q.'s testimony about filing the dissolution proceeding is accurate.   But the court does not credit this evidence as substantive proof that Audrea Q. intends to permanently end her relationship with Keith Q., or to live separately from him.   Audrea Q. made misrepresentations about the place of her residence to her probation officer, and about her contacts with Keith Q. to DCF. Her violation of the criminal protective order in April 2013, her statement at Day Kimball Hospital on September 13, 2013 that she was living with Keith Q., and her disingenuous statements about substance abuse to Dr. Connolly, all lead the court to doubt the veracity of Audrea Q.'s claim that she has ended her relationship with her husband.

Gabriel is five years old.   He will celebrate his sixth birthday early next month.   Precious is presently four years of age.   She will turn five on April 10, 2014.   As noted previously, the children have been in foster care continuously now for nearly one year.   Although Gabriel and Precious reside in separate DCF-licensed foster homes, the foster parents are a mother, and her adult daughter, who live one block from each other.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A., p. 36.)

When Gabriel and Precious were removed from the parental home by DCF, they were non-verbal, did not know how to eat food with utensils, and displayed significant behavioral problems, that included aggressive and self-injurious behaviors.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 3, and p. 36–37;  Mother's Exhibit 5, p. 10.)   Neither child was toilet trained, and both were behind on their immunizations and their routine medical and dental appointments.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A, p. 3 and 18.)   Both children had an autism spectrum assessment at the Connecticut Children's Medical Center last July, and both were diagnosed with autism.  (Id., p. 39.)

Gabriel also has a partial hearing loss and requires hearing aids, which he has difficulty wearing.   He is a special education student at the Natchaug Elementary School.   He recently starting to speak in complete sentences, and also uses some American Sign Language that was taught to him by his mother (Id., p. 40.)   He has now been potty trained.   However, the DCF study notes that Gabriel is “significantly delayed,” has “limited verbal skills,” and “struggles with peer interaction, appropriate play and aggression.”  (Id.) Gabriel has been receiving services from the Justice Resource Institute since June 2013.  (Id., p. 41.)

Precious remains non-verbal, and has not yet been toilet trained.   She attends the Windham Autism Program at the Windham Early Childhood Center where she has a one-on-one aide.  (Id., p. 42.)   She also receives assistance from the Justice Resource Institute.   She has engaged in aggressive and self-injurious behavior.  (Id., p. 42–43.)   However, the DCF social study dated September 25, 2013 noted a significant decrease in those behaviors.  (Id., p. 43.)

Credible evidence, which was set forth with specificity on pages 36 and 37 of the DCF social study, proved that Gabriel and Precious are adjusting well in their respective foster homes, and are well-cared for by their foster parents.  (Id., p. 36).   The social study also credibly recounts that the two foster parents are “․ bonding with the children and have been patiently working with the children in various aspects of their development.”  (Id.)

DCF also proved during this proceeding that it has offered appropriate services to Gabriel and Precious, Audrea Q. and Keith Q. since the date when the children were placed in the department's custody.   Those services are set forth with specificity throughout Petitioner's Exhibit A, and are also partially summarized in a listing on pages 44–45 of that exhibit.   That summary is incorporated by reference here.   The court finds that the services which DCF and other service providers offered to the parents and the children during the pendency of this case constituted reasonable efforts by the department to facilitate the reunification of this family.

DISCUSSION

The legal burden of proof in this matter rests with DCF. The department must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged permanency plan is in the best interests of the minor children.  C.G.S. 46b–129(k)(1).  “At a permanency hearing ․ the court shall approve a permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child or youth and takes into consideration the child or youth's need for permanency.   The child or youth's health and safety shall be of paramount concern in formulating such plan.”  C.G.S. 46–129(k)(2).   The statute also states:  “At a permanency hearing ․ the court shall review the status of the child, the progress being made to implement the permanency plan of reunification and the timetable for such services, and determine whether the commissioner has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan.”   C.G.S. 46b–129(k)(3).

The undersigned has carefully reviewed all of the evidence in accordance with the provisions of C.G.S. 46b–129(k).  The court is mindful of the evidence that proved Audrea Q. has a strong feeling of attachment to Precious and Gabriel, and that she has recently made some progress in her rehabilitative efforts.   But the court finds that DCF has proven by a preponderance of all the evidence that the permanency plan of termination and adoption is in the best interests of each child.

In January 2013, Gabriel and Precious were placed into state foster care after they were found living in deplorable conditions in the family home, following a serious domestic violence incident there.   The children have been in foster care now for nearly one year.   During the past 12 months, Keith Q. has not cooperated with DCF, or with certain specific steps orders issued by this court.   The father refused to attend domestic violence counseling and a substance abuse evaluation.   Both parents have violated the criminal court's family violence no contact protective order, and have misled state authorities about their contacts with each other.   There was credible evidence that during September 2013—eight months after the children were removed, and approximately four months ago—the parties were living together.   The evidence established that the mother was living with the father in September despite telling Dr. Connolly in July that Keith Q. had subjected her to serious acts of physical abuse, and despite informing DCF that neither she, nor the children, were safe in the father's presence.

Although Audrea Q. testified about her intention to divorce Keith Q., this court is not convinced that she would not return to live with him in the future.   If the children were then in her care, there is a substantial likelihood that they would be exposed to acts of domestic violence perpetrated by their parents.   Furthermore, the mother's actions during the first nine months of the past year, and particularly the events that occurred on September 13, 2013, prove that Audrea Q. does not have sufficient insight about, or control over, the domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health problems that have historically interfered with her capacity to adequately care for Gabriel and Precious.   The court finds that Audrea Q. and Keith Q. cannot safely parent these children at the present time.

Gabriel and Precious are five and four years old respectively.   Each child has significant developmental delays.   They have been in foster care now for nearly a year.   The court finds that children have the immediate need to be placed in a safe, stable and secure home environment, where their significant needs can be properly addressed.   The court finds that their parents cannot presently offer such a home.   The court cannot predict when in the future either parent might be able to do so.   Given their ages, the length of time they have already spent in foster care, and the totality of the evidence recounted above, the court finds that it would not be in the best interests of Gabriel and Precious to allow additional time for further parental reunification efforts.

ORDERS

The proposed permanency plan is APPROVED.   The court has found that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and achieve the permanency plan.   The objection filed by Audrea Q. to the proposed permanency is OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Dyer, J.

Dyer, Richard W., J.