IN RE: Stephanie (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Memorandum of Decision on a Motion to Review and Approve a Permanency Plan filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families for the child Stephanie I. The child, through court appointed counsel objects to the plan.   No alternative plan was proposed in the objection.   The Court grants DCF's Motion to Approve the Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption and the objection to the plan is overruled.

On March 20, 2012, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) invoked a ninety-six-hour hold on Stephanie I., whose date of birth is March 25, 2003.   On March 23, 2012 DCF filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order of Temporary Custody (OTC) and Neglect Petition on behalf of Stephanie I. On March 23, 2012, the Court granted DCF's Ex Parte Motion for Order of Temporary Custody.   The OTC was sustained on March 30, 2012.

The neglect trial started on October 4, 2012, and was continued until October 11, 2012, when testimony concluded and final arguments were heard.   On October 26, 2013, this Court filed a trial memorandum adjudicating the child neglected and committed the child to DCF until further order of the court.   On January 3, 2013, a permanency plan was submitted to the court and on March 18, 2013, that plan was approved for reunification.   On October 23, 2013, the permanency plan that is the subject of this decision was filed.   The objection to the plan was filed November 18, 2013.   On December 12, 2013, a Motion for the Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem for the Child was granted by the Court.

The hearing on this matter was held on February 11, 2014.   The mother, Margaret I., and the minor child, Stephanie I., were represented by counsel.   The guardian ad litem for the child was also present.

The Court, after having reviewed the permanency plan, the objection, and after hearing all the testimony at this hearing and having reviewed the exhibits, makes the following findings based on credible and relevant evidence submitted by a preponderance of the evidence.

Stephanie I. has been in her current placement since April of 2012.   She resides with Ms. Ahearn and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Montville, in a one-family house in Stratford.   She shares a bedroom with Ms. Ahearn's daughter, Jawlissa, who is her best friend.   She has become a part of that family.   She is doing well in school and is medically up to date.   They see to it that she participates in outside activities and functions.   They are willing to maintain the relationship between Stephanie and her mother.   They have provided the most stable environment Stephanie has known.   She continues to see Sharon Kutner, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, at the Child and Family Guidance Center in Bridgeport.   She has been Stephanie's therapist since April of 2012.

Stephanie has deep feelings for her mother and wants to have contact with her mother.   She wants to have play dates and sleep over her mother's house so she can check on her.

Ms. Kutner testified that it was her opinion that an open adoption would be the most therapeutic outcome, emotionally and psychologically for her client.   She stated that Stephanie had told her recently that she did not want to be adopted.   Stephanie did not want to make her mom unhappy.   According to Ms. Kutner, Stephanie presents as parentified.   She wants to go home to her mother and take care of her mother once her mother has rehabilitated herself and her mother's home is safe.   Ms. Kutner indicated that Stephanie is amenable to an open adoption if that was the choice rather than to have no contact with mom.

Ms. Kutner testified that Stephanie has become more guarded in therapy as the child believes that what she says in therapy will be used in the court case.   Ms. Kutner wrote in her letter dated Nov. 8, 2013, “Although she became very guarded about her concerns about biomom, Stephanie still acknowledge biomom becomes emotional, teary, cries at the end of visits, still talks about adult topics w/ her which further increases S's parentified behaviors and anxieties, especially fears about mom's emotional stability if she is not returned to her.”   Ms. Kutner feels that Margaret I., Stephanie's mother, has been involved in inappropriate conversations with Stephanie that led to emotional ramifications like bedwetting and having difficulty sleeping.   Ms. Kutner stated “It's not in the child's best interest to be privy to what's going on with adult issues.”   She also testified that Stephanie would not be devastated by an open adoption and the fact that if it was shown that there was no change in the contact status with her mother, that would give Stephanie some emotional relief.

Margaret I., Stephanie's mother is still employed and resides in her condo.   She has stated that she wants to be reunited with Stephanie and go to Nebraska.   She started sending boxes of household goods there.   Mother was issued specific steps.   She is compliant with visitation but there are issues regarding her interaction with Stephanie.   Stephanie told her foster parent that while at a picnic with her mom, her mom introduced Stephanie to a man whom her mom said that she was going to marry.   Stephanie then became worried and started wetting a little and became anxious.

Margaret I. did participate in parenting classes.   With regard to substance abuse treatment, Margaret I. was in treatment for about a year.   That treatment was ended in May of 2013.   Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOP) was recommended.   She did not do anything until January of 2014, when she went for an evaluation at South West Community Health.   She has not contacted them to schedule the start of treatment.   Margaret I. tested positive for oxycodone and hydrocodone on a hair test in April 2013.   She provided DCF with a Bridgeport Hospital Emergency Discharge, State's Exhibit F, to show she had been prescribed those drugs.   That visit to the hospital was 2 weeks after the hair test.   She has also tested positive for alcohol, Valium and Diazepam.   She took a hair test in September which was positive and a test in November which was negative.   She is not compliant with substance abuse treatment.

With regard to mental health treatment she did engage in some treatment at Catholic Family Charities.   She stopped going when she owed the money for copays.   DCF was willing to help her apply for Husky Insurance but she did not want it because she was going to Nebraska.   It was also recommended that she receive psychiatric care, but she refused to go.   She denied having any kind of mental health or medication management problems.

According to Ms. Ludy Mingot–Cesar, the DCF Social Worker assigned to this case for over 2 years, testified that Stephanie objects to being adopted.   That Stephanie said “․ she wants to go home to motivate mom to get into treatment so she can go home permanently.   She is very loyal and really actually told us that she wouldn't be telling us much about what's happening with mom with the visits because she doesn't want mom to get into trouble.   She does not want to hurt mom and want to be adopted.”   When asked why DCF is pursuing a plan for adoption, she said “Stephanie has also said that she feels very safe where should be willing open adoption where she can keep an eye on mom.”

“Connecticut's permanency planning statute was adopted with the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.  “Congress sought a remedy for children who, after removal from their parents, were languishing in foster care rather than being placed in adoptive homes.”   In re Darien S., Conn.App. 169, 174 (2004).  “As a condition for state access to federal funding, these (federal) statutes require the states to engage in permanency planning for children in temporary state custody.”  Id., p. 175.   Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(c), state courts must hold permanency plan hearings to consider the status of each child within 12 months of the child's placement in foster care.

“The framework for permanency planning in this state is contained in Conn. General Statute § 46–129(k) and Practice Book § 35a–14.   When a motion for a permanency plan is contested, DCF has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed plan is in the child's best interests.   General Statute § 46b–129(k)(1);  Practice Book § 35a–14(d).  The court is mandated to approve a permanency plan “that is in the best interest of the child ․ and takes into consideration the child's ․ need for permanency.”   General Statutes § 46b–129(k)(2);  Practice Book § 35a–14(e).  “At a permanency plan hearing ․ the court shall review the status of the child, the progress being made to implement the plan, determine a timetable for attaining the permanency plan, determine services to be provided to the parent if the court approves a permanency plan of reunification and the timetable of such, and determine whether the commissioner has made reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency plan.”  General Statutes § 46b–129(k)(3);  see also Practice Book § 35a–14(e).”   In Re Hailey Sue P., Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Willimantic, Docket No. W10CP11–016135–A (April 22, 2013;  Dyer, J.).

The Court finds that based on the following:  Mother's failure to acknowledge and address her mental health and substance abuse issues;  Her failure to refrain from inappropriate conversations about adult issues which cause Stephanie to become anxious and cause behavioral issues;  The relationship between Stephanie and her foster family and the relationship between the foster family and Margaret I., that it is in the best interest of the child that the Court approve the Permanency Plan of Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption.   The Court will find that DCF has made reasonable efforts to achieve the plan.   The objection to the plan is denied.

By the Court

Burton A. Kaplan

Senior Judge of the Superior Court

Kaplan, Burton A., J.