|
The Appellate
Court affirmed an adjudication of neglect in the interesting case
of Brianna C., where the main reason for removal and foster
care placement was the father's paranoid schizophrenia resulting
in psychotic episodes. The child was born in September 2004, and
the Department of Children and Families ("Department") removed her
in early October 2004, after the respondent mother voluntarily went
to a domestic violence shelter with her infant, leaving the psychotic
father and her home behind. At the shelter, the mother informed
the Department's social worker that she was afraid of the child's
father (with whom she resided) because of the father's psychiatric
condition, for which he stopped taking his medication. Despite the
mother's voluntary action, the Department filed its neglect petition
and removed Brianna pursuant to an ex parte order of temporary custody
in late December 2004.
At the
commitment trial, the court agreed with the Department that although
the child was not at anytime in immediate physical danger - the
child was neglected and therefore should be committed to the Department.
The Gravamen of the petition stemmed from the Department's concerns
for the baby's well-being, emanating from the father's failure to
adequately treat his psychiatric condition, coupled with the mother's
failure to recognize that the father's behavior could be hazardous
to the child and her inability to protect the child adequately from
the father's actions. It was apparently the potential for harm to
the child due to the father's un-medicated condition - not any harm
actually realized, that convinced the court to order the commitment.
The first
issue presented on appeal was whether the court abused its discretion
in finding that it was in the child's best interest to commit her
to the Department. Both the mother and the child's attorney argued
that even after an adjudication of neglect, the trial court should
have allowed the mother to retain custody of Brianna with protective
supervision. The appellate court would not substitute its discretion
for the trial court - choosing to avoid answering the question of
whether a constant twenty-four hour per day, year-round relationship
with the mother, with the potential possibility that she would be
unable to prevent injury at the father's hands, outweighed the eight
hours of daily unsupervised visits that the mother was granted.
Choosing the "better" solution, the court found that the father's
previous unpredictability, and the severity of his psychiatric condition,
allowed it to affirm the difficult decision rendered by the trial
court.
The court
also agreed that the Department had made reasonable efforts to keep
the child with the respondent mother before seeking custody. Despite
noting that the trial court found that the Department "didn't do
everything that it reasonably could have done to prevent removal
from the home," the court cited a litany of programs and services
offered to the mother by the Department, the sum total of which
equated to a "reasonable effort" in this case.
This
case may be found on the Judicial Branch website at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP98/98ap73.pdf
JES (1/07)
|
