|
In this
interesting neglect appeal, the respondent mother argued that despite
her significant psychiatric problems, her newborn son should not
have been adjudicated neglected because at the time the neglect
petition was filed the baby was living with the maternal grandparents.
The
mother, who had a history of psychiatric issues, stopped taking
medication for her psychiatric disorder when she discovered she
was pregnant with her son. The night before his birth, the mother
apparently suffered a psychotic episode and locked herself in a
bathroom at her parents' home. She was violent and required restraint.
She was taken to the hospital where she gave birth. A psychiatrist
who evaluated her on March 1, 2006, the day of the child's birth,
found she was not psychotic but recommended she resume medication.
The respondent refused. On March 3, 2006, an investigative social
worker from the Department of Children and Families visited the
mother in the hospital and worked with the child's grandmother,
a DCF employee, to develop a care plan for mother and child which
relied on supervision of both by mother's parents. Mother reportedly
refused the plan. A psychiatrist evaluating the respondent mother
the same day found she was psychotic and issued an emergency commitment
order hospitalizing mother for up to 15 days. The child was taken
into DCF custody on a 96-hour hold. Ultimately, the trial court
adjudicated the baby neglected by virtue of being denied proper
care and attention.
On appeal,
the mother argued that on March 3, 2006, the child was not neglected
given that he was placed with his grandparents. The appellate court
rejected this argument, upholding the trial court's conclusion that
the grandparents could neither prevent nor control the mother's
psychotic episodes, and there was nothing to stop the mother from
returning to their home when her emergency psychiatric commitment
expired. DCF, therefore had a legitimate concern for the child's
safety. The appellate court further noted that both respondent and
the child's father were institutionalized on the date in question
(father was incarcerated) and therefore there was no one with legal
authority to care for the child.
This
case raises questions about informal relative care arrangements
used in many families. The appellate court appears to reject the
argument that a true arrangement for care of the child existed,
noting that mother had not agreed to the plan. However, the court's
unwillingness to credit the arrangement is interesting, given that
DCF, through its investigative social worker, had endorsed supervision
by the child's grandparents in the care plan it developed the same
day as the 96-hour hold was invoked. Another important aspect of
the decision is the discussion of the possibility for harm if the
respondent mother were released from the hospital. This look somewhat
like the accepted doctrine of predictive neglect, but is interesting
in that it relies on a series of assumptions: that mother would
be released, that she would go to her parents' home and take her
child; that even after psychiatric treatment, she would not permit
her own parents to supervise care of her child as DCF had previously
endorsed.
|
