| |
Neglect/Insufficient
Evidence/OTC
Respondent mother appealed trial court’s determination
that her children were neglected and should be committed to the
Department. The mother contended that there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding of neglect and that the trial court improperly
applied the doctrine of predictive neglect in adjudicating her children.
The respondent’s youngest child, a newborn, was removed from the
mother when the baby was three days old. The Order of Temporary
Custody was later vacated and the baby returned to the mother’s
care, with the neglect petition still pending. Four months later
the court began the neglect trial. The mother argued that because
the baby was removed when she was only days old, the state’s only
viable neglect theory, and the only legal basis for the court’s
neglect adjudication was that of “predictive” neglect. Given that
the OTC was ultimately vacated and the mother actually cared for
the child for the next several months without incident, the application
of a “predictive neglect” doctrine was inappropriate. The appellate
court pointed out that Practice Book Rule 35a-7 provides that, for
purposes of adjudication, the trial court is limited to evidence
pre-dating the filing of the neglect petition. The appellate court
also found that there was substantial evidence that both of the
respondent’s children were neglected at the time the petition was
filed. The mother’s rights to an older child had recently been terminated
and the court documented the mother’s longstanding inability to
maintain adequate housing, comply with mental health treatment or
refrain from illicit drug use. The same evidence was also sufficient
to warrant a dispositional finding of commitment.
|
