2011 Ct. Sup. 21340
Nos. CP 11-002391, CP 11-002392, CP 11-002393Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Juvenile Matters at Stamford
October 4, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO MODIFY DISPOSITIVE ORDERS OF PROTECTIVE SUPERVISION TO COMMITMENT
SOMMER, J.
In accordance with General Statute § 46b-124 and Practice Book 32a-7, the parties involved in this case shall not be disclosed, and the record and papers of the case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.
Background
This family has prior DCF history and has been known to the department since 2006, including multiple substantiations of emotional neglect and physical neglect and abuse. The most recent case filed by the department on June 18, 2009 involved an adjudication of neglect and 12 months of protective supervision. DCF closed the case in December 2010. It included the older siblings Jimmie S. and Latisha S. Specific steps ordered by the court on August 27, 2009, required the parents, inter alia, to participate in counseling and make progress toward identified treatment goals of learning how domestic violence and using illegal substances affects parenting skills, submit to substance abuse testing and treatment, not engage in substance abuse, consistently and timely meet the children’s physical, educational, medical and emotional needs including keeping appointments with the children’s medical, psychological and educational providers and cooperate with the children’s therapy. Inadequate housing, shortage of food and clothing, lack of appropriate hygiene, chronic truancy and unaddressed mental health issues have persisted for years in this family despite previous department intervention. Jimmie, who has since turned 18, had a history of truancy and involvement as delinquent in the court system. Latisha had a history of truancy, hygiene issues, unaddressed anger management and marijuana use. The parents continue to use illegal substances, fail to use resources provided to them to care for the children and have historically not followed up to insure that the children attend school and psychological therapy. CT Page 21341
Facts Relating to Current Neglect and Motion to Modify Disposition Latisha
On February 4, 2011, the Stamford Police answered a call to the Springer-Gay home. Sixteen-year-old Latisha was on a rampage having thrown a rice cooker at the wall and broken the bathroom door off its hinges. Latisha, who was four months pregnant refused to attend school or remain in the home. She reported that her father, addicted to crack, is very verbally abusive toward her and has recently relapsed. Mother confirmed that father relapsed and was using crack cocaine. Mother and father both did not want Latisha to remain in the home because of her out of control behavior. They also told the department that they were unable to provide care for Latisha. Mother has refused to exclude father from the home despite his drug use even to safeguard the children. At the time Latisha disclosed that she was four months pregnant, she also admitted that she had continued to use marijuana during her pregnancy.
On February 8, 2011, the department filed Ex Parte Orders of Temporary Custody and Neglect Petitions on behalf of the minor children, Latisha, 12/28/94, Jatisha (5/06/97) and Solomon (3/29/98) and Jeanette (1/26/01). As noted above, the department removed the older sister Latisha when the parents refused to allow her to remain in the home on February 4, 2011 because they were unable to control her behavior. On February 25, 2011 the court vacated the Orders of Temporary Custody, adjudicated the remaining three children neglected and issued orders of protective supervision for nine months. In April 20, 2011 father who had been non-compliant with drug treatment services, was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, possession with intent to sell and use of drug paraphernalia. As of that date mother continued to test positive for marijuana and had failed to follow up with the referral of her children for mental health therapy. The children in the parents’ care continued to be chronically truant and demonstrate disruptive behavior in school. Based On this information, the department moved to reopen and modify the dispositive order of protective supervision to commitment. The court conducted a hearing on June 9, 14, July 7, 19, and 28, 2011.
The court conducted a hearing on the petition for neglect as to Latisha on June 10, 2011, at which time it heard evidence of the parents’ continued substance abuse, unaddressed mental health issues and failure to follow up on Latisha. Latisha was adjudicated neglected and CT Page 21342 committed to the department by decision of the court dated June 30, 2011. She was then placed in Mi Casa, a residential facility where she could receive prenatal care and counseling and continue her education before and after the birth of her child in late July 2011.
At the time the court adjudicated Jatisha, Solomon and Jeanette as neglected on February 25, 2011 mother and father signed specific steps agreeing:
1. Not to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or medicine. The petition alleges despite numerous outpatient drug treatment programs and a recent inpatient program, father continues to use cocaine and marijuana. Mother continues to use marijuana.
2. Not get involved with the criminal justice system. On April 20, 2011, father was charged with possession of controlled substance, possession with intent to sell and use of drug paraphernalia.
3. Get and maintain adequate housing and legal income.
4. Cooperate with children’s therapy. Mother did not complete Jatisha’s intake at Child Guidance until April 22, 2011, a month after it was scheduled. This also resulted in further delay of intake appointments for Solomon and Jeanette.
5. Take care of the children’s physical, education, medical and emotional needs including keeping the children’s appointments with their medical, psychological, psychiatric and educational providers.
The school records for Jeanette, Solomon and Jatisha, Exhibits A, B and C, reflect that three children perform below grade level and engage in disruptive behavior. The petitioner maintains that the children suffer from failure of the parents to provide for the children’s physical, CT Page 21343 educational and emotional needs for such an extended period of time that the children are substantially behind academically. As a result, despite apparent ability and support from the schools they are chronically impaired both socially and emotionally. Solomon and Jatisha attend Trailblazer Academy, a charter middle school which provides smaller classes, individual guidance and individualized learning programs. TrailBlazer Academy is a charter middle school run by Domus, a community youth agency which provides services to children and their families. In addition to reviewing the school records for Jatisha and Solomon, the court heard testimony from Steve Paul, director of Social Services at Trailblazer Academy and Family Advocate (FA). Mr. Paul serves Trailblazer Academy as a guidance counselor and social worker. He is familiar with the family through a lengthy history with Domus related to the older children.
Jatisha
In the current school year, Jatisha had hygiene issues, both odor and dirty clothes. She also has encopresis. Her IEP indicates she has oppositional defiant disorder. As the family advocate, Mr. Paul contacted the parents and provided extra clothes following the Trailblazer dress code of khakis and polo shirts. He has provided food for the family a number of times, most recently on May 23. Jatisha’s hygiene problem has resolved since she and her brother have been released from KIC and in general, the parents have been more responsive since then. However, Jatisha continues to exhibit problem behavior at school, refusing to attend or remain in class. Jatisha does not respond to intervention by adults. When Mr. Paul and her father tried to talk to her after she threatened to stab a teacher last year, she used obscene language to her father and asked Mr. Paul to call DCF.
In addition to personal care and behavior issues, Jatisha is also behind academically, from March 21, 2011 to May 22, 2011, Jatisha scored below grade level in science and social studies and received 3 D’s in the 4th quarter. Jatisha’s April 4, 2011 8th grade performance report states that “Jatisha is below grade level in reading and writing, won’t complete work depending on her mood, and needs redirection. Aggressive interaction with peers, respecting others property and attendance are issues. The report notes that she rarely turns work in on time or CT Page 21344 complete, still struggles with work problems, is inconsistent, not organized and loses focus. When not motivated, she will purposely get sent out of class. Jatisha’s low reading ability and lack of focus/organization negatively impact her academic progress.” As an eighth grader, Jatisha was reading at third grade level. Although some progress is noted, in general the report states, “Jatisha’s difficulty with word recognition, reading comprehension and writing mechanics limits her ability to access grade level curriculum.” There is continuing concern that “Jatisha does not exhibit age appropriate social/emotional skills with peers, Jatisha’s behavior affects her ability to fully access the curriculums.” Jatisha has a detailed education accommodation plan. Her record also includes a comprehensive assessment dated June 4, 2010, which assesses protective factors and risk factors. Under risk factors, the assessment notes that Jatisha often argues with her parents and siblings, will sometimes make poor decisions and wander away from home without telling her parents and siblings, has a difficult time maintaining peer and adult relationships, will act out and be unable to focus on school when upset or frustrated. The protective factors somewhat overstate and in some cases, misreport such as psychological, safety, living situation, medical and self-care. Walking out of school and fighting with her siblings has resulted in legal trouble. She has been exposed to violence in and out of her home, will wet herself when upset and sometimes comes to school in a dirty and foul smelling uniform. Jatisha has a history of neglect, exposure to drug and physical abuse. The June 4, 2010 assessment identifies the following Youth and Family Needs: transportation, public assistance, early intervention services, psychiatric evaluation, transitional services, and youth recreational and family substance abuse services. Housing is absent from the list presumably because Jatisha inaccurately reported that she had her own room and felt safe. The evidence indicates that she did not have her own room or even her own bed and that as of June 2010, due to the continued presence of the pit bulls in the girls’ bedroom, the family home was safe. It was also inaccurately reported that Jatisha was receiving counseling at the Child Guidance Center.
Jatisha accumulated numerous disciplinary incidents cutting class and leaving school grounds (12/10/10), 5/27/10, disrupting class with bullying language 12/09/10, 12/06/10, bringing alcohol to school and sharing it with other students 11/19/10, disrupting class by fighting in class, at least twelve incidents of disrespect of teacher, pushing another student. Jatisha’s social, emotional behavioral and academic issues were also noted in the September 27, 2010 Functional Behavior Assessment. A Position Support Form, 12/28/10, lists strategies to help Jatisha deal with the above issues.
CT Page 21345
Solomon
Solomon just completed seventh grade at Trailblazer Academy. Solomon also regularly refuses to go to class and has behavioral issues with peers. However, Mr. Paul stated if Jatisha and Solomon were enrolled in any other school, they would have been expelled. Although Solomon showed some improvement academically, he continues to demonstrate significant deficits and emotional issues that impair his learning progress. Exhibit C. Solomon has a detailed program accommodation and modification plan which is part of his individual Education Plan (IEP). Solomon’s PPT report dated January 11, 2011 identifies Solomon’s strengths. It also indicates deficits in passage comprehension, spelling, word problems, reading fluency and written expression excerpts indicate, “He becomes easily frustrated with his lack of retention . . . difficulty with written directions . . . does not perform well with oral and open ended test questions . . . needs enormous amount of coaxing in order to complete work . . . Solomon’s response to tough work, negative attention or situations that challenge him is the most concerning behavior. Has very little on task behavior in class . . .” Weaknesses in reading and writing negatively impact Solomon’s performance in academic areas and require special ed support. Solomon had 20 unexcused absences and was tardy 9 times through May 11, 2011. Solomon’s chronic truancy has prevented him from academic progress and achieving the goals of his IEP.
The Trailblazer Academy file also includes the following summary of behavioral incidents in which she and Solomon were involved over three weeks in May and June 2011:
Solomon
On 5/24/11 — Was sent out of Science classroom for cursing and causing a disruption.
On 5/24/11 — Walked out of English class for no apparent reason and began to wonder hallway for about one hour before going with Family Advocate.
On 5/25/11 — Refused to enter Science class and began causing a disruption in the hallway by banging on lockers and not following directions. It took one hour and a half before going with Family Advocate.
On 5/26/11 — Refused to enter Science class and stated several times that “I don’t have to follow rules.” Duration time of incident 1 hr.
CT Page 21346
On 6/01/11 — Refused to enter English class. Duration time of incident — 1 hr.
On 6/07/11 — Skipped Science class and wandered hallway. Duration time of incident — 2 hrs.
On 6/08/11 — Sent out of Science class after threatening another student. Solomon stated “I will cut you nipples off, fry them and eat them.” Refused to follow directions and sat with Family Advocate for the remainder of the day.
On 6/09/11 — Refused to follow directions and was sent home for the day.
Jatisha
5/19/11 — Refused to enter Science class. Proceeded to wonder hallway for one hour.
5/24/11 — Refused to enter Science class.
The school administrators report that during the 2010-2011 academic year on average both Jatisha and Solomon have at least one incident per week with trouble staying in the class. The nature and the frequency of these incidents are disturbing because they have occurred for so long and with such frequency. Not only do they confirm that both children have chronic behavioral and emotional issues which interfere with their ability to learn and function even in the supportive academic setting of Trailblazer Academy, it also appears that these negative behaviors are accelerating in severity and frequency. Mr. Paul described the demeanor of both Solomon and Jatisha as a “rollercoaster”. He has observed that they appear “to feed off each other” in their disruptive behaviors and mood swings. By the end of the school year, children’s grades had improved somewhat and the parents had also become more involved. Instead, they received repeated therapeutic support at each disciplinary incident. As noted above, these incidents increased during May and June. Mr. Paul, also reported however, that neither Jatisha nor Solomon will talk about home.
Mr. Paul said that he has discussed Jatisha’s and Solomon’s behavior problems with the parents during the past school year at least every other day, enlisting them to come to school on occasion. Even these interventions are not always successful. Recently on May 12, 2011, Mr. Paul called father to come to school because Jatisha threatened to stab a teacher. Jatisha responded to her father CT Page 21347 with profanity and asked Mr. Paul to call her DCF worker. According to Mr. Paul and as noted above, Solomon exhibits similar disruptive behavior, refusing to attend and/or disrupting class and using obscenity. In describing the roller coaster like behavior of both children, the fact that they often come to school upset at the same time and feed off each other Mr. Paul feels that the source of their upset and disruptive behavior is related to conditions at home. Faculty and staff at Trailblazer Academy will continue to work with Solomon. However, Jatisha will be in 9th grade in September 2011. She is ill equipped socially, emotionally and academically to navigate high school without negative impact on herself and those around her. The evidence presented to the court reflects that this is the result of the parents’ failure to provide a stable safe home with structure to insure that she attends school and counseling. Mr. Paul testified that since the children were removed to Kids in Crisis the parents have been more responsive and recently attended family night at the school but the above behavioral and academic problems persist for both Jatisha and Solomon.
Jeanette
Jeanette Springer Gay, the youngest child in the family, was enrolled in the 3rd grade at Northeast School for the 2010-2011-academic year. She receives 1.5 hours of remedial reading daily. Gina Frederick, Northeast School social worker, testified that she had reviewed Jeanette’s cumulative file containing attendance records, grades and disciplinary action reports. She testified that she is concerned about Jeanette and Jeanette’s file, she was chronically truant as a result of twenty-four unexcused absences during the 2010-2011 school year. The parents claim to have contacted the school when Jeanette would be absent but the school does not have a record of the calls. School policy requires a doctor’s note to excuse a child’s absence. There is no record of medically excused absence. Some absences were due to Jeanette missing the bus. Others were unexplained or result of suspension of bus privileges which resulted in Jeanette’s suspension. At the time of Jeanette’s bus suspension, the school notified parents of their responsibility to provide alternate transportation for Jeanette which they failed to do.
Ms. Frederick testified that on June 2, 2011, Jeanette came to her crying and reported that her mother told her that DCF was going to remove the children from their parents. Jeanette was upset because she thought this was due to her actions bullying other children on the bus. She asked that DCF leave her brother Solomon and sister Jatisha. Ms. Frederick reassured Jatisha that this was not the reason CT Page 21348 DCF was involved with her family. She has also counseled Jeanette about bullying behavior. Jeanette presents to Ms. Frederick as generally well behaved in class, but completely unmotivated and extremely sad. She complains about not having basic needs at home such as bed linens and food and that her home has rats. At various times during the past winter and spring, Ms. Frederick has given Jeanette clothing because her clothes were too small. At the parents request she has also given Jeanette food through the Foodbank Backpack program every Friday. Her teachers are concerned because she is performing below her ability and her grade level and falling further behind. For example during Battle of the Books, a school wide event to encourage reading, Jeanette read only one book and refused to do the work related to the program. Jeanette told Ms. Frederick she didn’t know why she pushed and bullied other children although she admits picking on children who are younger. Lunch and recess as well as bus transport are difficult times for Jeanette to manage her anger. Ms. Frederick has worked with Jeanette on anger management strategies. In order to foster better peer relationships for Jeanette, Ms. Frederick facilitated a camp sponsorship through Person to Person. It is not clear whether she attended the camp. From her counseling of Jeanette, Ms. Frederick concluded that the lack of food, household contamination and general stress of the family situation affects Jeanette socially, emotionally and academically. Jeanette’s personal reading plan indicates weaknesses in word identification, literal and inferential comprehension and writing. In addition to in class instructional focus, literacy tutoring and summer school were recommended in 2009 and 2010. The parents failed to follow up to assure that Jeanette received these academic services. In June 2011, Jeanette scored 418 out of target score of 600-800 on the Scholastic Reading Inventory Test (SRI). The school again made recommendations for addressing Jeanette’s significant reading deficits. The parents again failed to follow up. As of May 10, 2011, Jeanette’s teacher wrote to Jeanette’s parents because she had not been able to reach them by telephone and they had not returned her messages regarding Jeanette’s academic needs. Jeanette’s report cards indicate that parents failed to attend any scheduled parent teacher conferences for Jeanette.
The following factual findings which appear in the court’s June 30, 2011 Memorandum of Decision regarding Latisha are repeated here because they are relevant to the court’s consideration of the petition for neglect as it relates to Jatisha, Solomon and Jeanette.
DCF social worker Stephanie Accino testified both mother and father have chronic substance abuse habits. At the time of the report to the department regarding Latisha, mother admitted smoking marijuana and reported the father recently relapsed and was using crack cocaine. CT Page 21349 Mother has continued to test positive for marijuana. On March 8, 2011, father tested positive for marijuana, cocaine and PCP, confirming that he had relapsed despite previous intervention including inpatient drug treatment last year. Ms. Accino testified that Dr. Carlson reported that father was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. His most recent treatment which began in March 2011, consists of medication management and individual substance abuse counseling. Father was required to participate in individual substance abuse counseling at Liberations, Inc. which he has failed to successfully complete. He has further refused to be tested and admits to continued drug use.
On April 20, 2011, father was charged with multiple drug charges including possession with intent to sell. He had not been attending counseling as required at DuBois Center and had not been medication compliant. The above findings reflect lack of progress or even effort toward minimal compliance with the specific steps.
Lack of safe and adequate housing is a chronic problem. The family has a history of living in a shelter for nearly a year. As of the subject hearing, the family home consists of three bedrooms shared by an adult sibling and the three younger children. The living room has been converted to a sleeping area for the parents. As a result, there is no common family living space except the kitchen. DCF workers have observed mattresses on the bedroom floor without sheets and a strong odor of animal waste in the bedrooms. The unneutered adult pit bull dogs and litter of pit bull puppies remained in the home. Both parents state they are unable to maintain gainful employment due to disability. Other than disability payments and public assistance, the family has no visible means of support. The parents struggle to provide basic necessities for their children.
Mother has stated she will not put father out of the house despite his drug use in order to safeguard the children.
Georgia Adams, guardian ad litem for all three children submitted a report and testified that based on her observation mother loves her children and has demonstrated improved efforts to meet their needs given the circumstances of the parents’ addiction, mental health and poverty. However, the GAL is concerned that the circumstances are so overwhelming it may not be possible for her to meet her children’s basic needs as well as their individual educational and therapeutic needs.
The parents have been referred or been offered services by the Department of Children and Families. They have failed to follow through CT Page 21350 to assure that the children receive counseling. The children’s failure to be effectively and consistently engaged in counseling contributes to the behaviors they demonstrate including impulsive conduct, anger, poor academic performance, negative peer relationships and depression. These problems are chronic and their negative effect on the children’s social, emotional and educational development has increased and will only become worse as the children age.
This court affirms that poverty itself is not a ground for a finding of neglect. It is not the lack of money which has caused the children to be chronically truant, unprepared to participate in their education when they are in school, to complain of lack of food and demonstrate persistent disruptive behavior. Nor does poverty excuse the parents’ decision to keep 7-9 pit bull dogs in a small apartment, the apartment’s unsanitary conditions and Jatisha’s poor hygiene.
The mother and father have unaddressed mental health and substance abuse issues which are of such long duration and so pervasive they have affected the parents’ ability to provide any semblance of order and structure in the home. They were living in an apartment which was not clean, adequate or safe when the department became involved. They either refused or simply failed to follow up on the department’s referrals for subsidized housing. They failed to attend and effectively engage in substance abuse treatment. DCF made a referral for IFP, but the IFP caseworkers refused to accept the referral due to the unsanitary condition of the home and the extent of the family mental health issues.
As stated above, mother has told the department that she will not remove father from the home. Father has an extensive history of substance abuse and has been unsuccessful in maintaining sobriety despite participation in both inpatient and outpatient treatment. In March 11, 2011, he completed a substance abuse evaluation at Liberation Programs, Inc. where he tested positive for cocaine and marijuana. Liberation Program’s, Inc. recommended that father attend Early Abstinence group for eight weeks, Family Group once a month and individual counseling twice monthly. He was non-compliant with services and was arrested for possession, possession with intention to sell and use of drug paraphernalia in April. Father’s failure to demonstrate his ability to maintain sobriety contributes to the instability of the home environment and the stressful living situation for these three children. Continued drug use by both parents in this case is injurious to the physical, emotional and educational well being of the children.
The children wish to remain together as a unit. The department and CT Page 21351 social service providers have made extensive efforts to enable these parents to provide for their children so that the family can remain intact. The family has received referral to therapeutic counseling, supportive housing services, food and clothing. Although the most recent report in July was that the home was somewhat cleaner and that Jatisha’s hygiene was addressed, the children remain in a home where both parents continue to use illegal substances. Both parents and their children have unaddressed mental health issues. In the case of the parents this prevents them from caring for the children’s physical, emotional and educational needs. In the case of the three children, addressed emotional and anger management issues have contributed to their educational deficits. The children’s chronic truancy cannot be understated in its impact on their educational and emotional well being. If the history of lack of compliance with services or the chronic truancy was not as extensive as it is in this case, a further period of protective supervision might be warranted. However, the court finds that the parents have been given many opportunities to provide for their children’s basic needs and comply with the specific steps ordered by the court. This pattern of neglect has already had significant negative impact on Jatisha, Solomon and Jeanette. This impact may be irreversible if allowed to continue. At this point, the children are running out of time. It is extremely regrettable that neither parent has demonstrated the ability to change their behavior to meet the needs of their children despite having been given ample time and offered services. The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that commitment is necessary to assure that the children receive the educational and psychological care necessary to their well-being in a safe and healthy environment. The court grants the department’s motion to modify the orders of protective supervision and finds that it is in the best interest of Jatisha S., Solomon S. and Jeanette S. that they be committed to the Department of Children and Families.
CT Page 21352