IN RE: Larry B.1 (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE NEGLECT

The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The minor child was born November 1, 2012 to the biological parents Sharlice C. and Larry B. At the time of the child's birth, father was incarcerated and mother had all of her older children previously removed from her care.   Mother suffers from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and severe Bipolar Disease;  mother's compliance with treatment only occurs when she is incarcerated.   Mother is subject to violent behavior toward others and herself and up until the filing of the November 13, 2012 neglect petition ² mother has never substantively acknowledge her significant mental health and behavioral issues nor engaged in sustained beneficial treatment, except when incarcerated.

The depth and length of mother's propensity toward violence cannot be overstated.   Exhibits G–P offer credible evidence of mother's pathology.   In a November 12, 2012 report, Dr. James Connolly, in addition to identifying and discussing mother's PTSD, Bipolar I Disorder and alcohol abuse then goes on to opine:

[Mother] is a seriously mentally ill individual who is highly resistant to receiving necessary services to address her mental illness.   The dangerousness of her uncontrolled and aggressive behavior concerning herself, other adults and children in her care should not be underestimated.  [Mother] is chronically and intermittently subject to states of extremely aggressive behavior but when not in one of these states, she is likely to be cooperative, engaging, and in some instances actually charming.   She solicits the sympathy of many people who note the remarkable incongruity between her apparently reasonable and constructive behavior when she is not her rage states and her lengthy record of criminal offenses related to interpersonal aggression.   This has unfortunately caused persons involved in the child protection system to sometimes under-react to the danger [mother] presents.   In addition to the mixed hypomanic/depressed states during which [mother] represents a significant danger to herself and others, she is also subject to recurrent acutely depressed states during which time she is unable to move from her bed and attend to her basic personal activities.   By her own acknowledgment and according to her treatment history, [mother] also has a significant problem with alcohol abuse.   Her use of alcohol is likely to increase the seriousness of her rage states and the likelihood that she will do serious harm to herself or others during these states.   Another factor which increases the dangerousness of her rage behavior is her extensive history as a child and adolescent as a victim of abuse.   This abuse involves at least one incident of sexual abuse as well as recurrent severe physical abuse by her biological father.   The combination of [mother's] seriously uncontrolled and aggressive behavior and her remarkably powerful resistance to mental health services render very low the likelihood of her rehabilitation to a point where she could be considered a reliable caregiver for a child at any time in the foreseeable future.

Petitioner's exhibit S, p. 17

Petitioner's exhibits E, supports Dr. Connolly's conclusions.

The petitioner alleges in the Nov. 13, 2012 neglect petition that the minor child was denied proper care and attention pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b–120.   Given that the minor child was twelve days old at the time of the filing of the neglect petition and no specific allegations were raised during that limited time period, the doctrine of predictive neglect applies.

Our supreme court in In re Joseph W., restated our appellate court's previously articulated doctrine of predictive neglect:

“[t]he [petitioner in a neglect proceeding], pursuant to [§ 46b–120], need not wait until a child is actually harmed before intervening to protect that child ․ This statute clearly contemplates a situation where harm could occur but has not actually occurred.   Our statutes clearly and explicitly recognize the state's authority to act before harm occurs to protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected and not just children whose welfare has been affected ․ The doctrine of predictive neglect is grounded in the state's responsibility to avoid harm to the well-being of a child, not to repair it after a tragedy has occurred ․ Thus, [a] finding of neglect is not necessarily predicated on actual harm, but can exist when there is a potential risk of neglect ․” (Citations omitted;  emphasis in original;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Kamari C–L. [122 Conn.App. 815, 825 (2010) ].

In re Joseph W., 305 Conn. 633, 644, 45 (2012).

Based on the credible testimony and evidence elicited at trial, the court finds that the petitioner has met her burden of proof under the doctrine of predictive neglect.   It is more likely than not, that if the minor child were to have remained in his mother's care he would have been denied proper care and attention given mother's extreme and untreated mental and emotional issues and her inevitable propensity toward violence.

Moreover, the father was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the neglect petition.   His incarceration resulted from choices and decisions he made that precluded him from providing his newborn son with proper care and attention.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court hereby adjudicates the minor child neglected.

Disposition

The court must next consider what is in the child's best interest moving forward.   In arriving at a disposition the court is not limited to events and factual allegations that precede the filing of the neglect petition.

On or about January 14, 2013, mother, after engaging in yet another verbal phone battle with the father, (in which she claims he verbally baited her which caused her to become upset), sent father a phone video/text in which she can be seen covering the baby's face with a cloth and messaging in the video that she has the ability to kill the baby.   Father or his mother (paternal grandmother) contacted DCF and expressed concern about the child's safety.   Police and DCF responded to mother's home.   Mother's intensive family program therapist was also on the scene.   Although the infant was unharmed mother was extremely upset about father's lack of involvement in her life and expressed an inability to continue to care for the child by herself.   She requested DCF to take the child from her care and after discussing it with mother, DCF invoked a 96–hour hold.³  Prior to the 96–hour hold, mother was in telephonic contact with father and her mood fluctuated throughout the conversation as did her level of attention to and care of the minor child.   Upon being handed the requisite 96 hour paperwork, mother became irate and out of control.   Police who had left the home were re-summoned out of concern for the safety of mother and others.   The child was transported to the DCF office but within hours, mother arrived at the DCF office demanding to have access to the minor child.   Mother became increasingly angry and out of control in the DCF office and she tried to kick in an elevator in an attempt to gain access to the office.   Mother eventually left the building.   Father was present at the DCF office during mother's tirade.   Subsequently police interacted with mother for the third time that day back at the house and mother was taken to Midstate Hospital for a possible overdose.   Days later, on or about Jan. 17th, mother reappeared at the DCF office to talk about her parent-child visits.   Once again, mother became angry and began screaming and cursing.   The child and relative foster mother were present and as mother escalated the baby was removed from the room due to safety concerns.   Mother threatened to kill the supervising DCF social worker and ultimately poked the supervisor in the eye.   Police were summoned and mother was arrested.

Mother is presently incarcerated and therefore not a placement resource for the minor child.   Father, in addition to having a volatile history with mother is a convicted felon with a criminal record for possession of a pistol, assault, violation of protective order, violation of probation and failure to appear convictions.  (See respondent exhibit F.) At the time of the January 2013 removal, father had been released from prison for approximately one month.   Father, in spite of his turbulent past with mother, the alarming video/text and his witnessing mother's January 2013 explosive outburst at the DCF office, nonetheless told DCF there was no need for any type of safety planning if the child were placed with him;  mother's access or contact with the minor child would not require supervision of any kind.

Since his release from prison, the petitioner has discussed with father three areas of concern, (in addition to the domestic violence between the father and mother):  (1) his alleged drug use and therefore a need for him to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and if necessary any recommended treatment, (2) a need for him to attend parenting education and/or parenting counseling sessions and (3) anger management treatment.   The credible trial testimony of the DCF social worker, Karen Weiss, and petitioner's exhibit R clearly reflect what father needed to do to become a plausible placement resource for his child;  father has done nothing to address the identified issues nor has he followed through with any of the proffered services.

Therefore the court concludes that it is in the minor child's best interest to commit the child to the care and custody of the petitioner.   Said commitment shall continue until further order of the petitioner until further order of the court.   The preliminary specific steps ordered by the court on January 15, 2013 (petitioner's exhibits C and D) are hereby made final specific steps.

Bernadette Conway, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN2. In addition to the filing of neglect petition on November 13, 2012, the petitioner subsequently filed a coterminous petition on May 23, 2013.   At trial on February 4, 2014, the petitioner proceeded only on the November 13, 2012 neglect petition and orally represented an intention to withdraw the coterminous petition.   For adjudicative purposes therefore the petitioner is limited to allegations occurring up until the filing of the Nov. 13, 2012 petition..  FN2. In addition to the filing of neglect petition on November 13, 2012, the petitioner subsequently filed a coterminous petition on May 23, 2013.   At trial on February 4, 2014, the petitioner proceeded only on the November 13, 2012 neglect petition and orally represented an intention to withdraw the coterminous petition.   For adjudicative purposes therefore the petitioner is limited to allegations occurring up until the filing of the Nov. 13, 2012 petition.

FN3. The court, Santos, J., vested temporary custody of the minor child with DCF on January 15, 2013.   The child has remained under said order of temporary custody to date..  FN3. The court, Santos, J., vested temporary custody of the minor child with DCF on January 15, 2013.   The child has remained under said order of temporary custody to date.

Conway, Bernadette, J.