Case: In re Krystal J.
88 Conn. App. 311 (2005) Abuse and Neglect :
Connecticut Appellate Court
April 05, 2005
In a short yet convincing
decision, the appellate court upheld the denial of a respondent
mother’s motion for revocation of commitment of her three children
on the grounds that the mother refused therapy and treatment, as
well as failing to take responsibility for the children’s removal
from her custody. The case stems from events that occurred in August
2000 when the Department of Children and Families ("Department")
invoked a ninety-six hour hold on the mother’s three children and
their older brother in response to the Department’s investigation
into allegations of physical abuse toward the older brother and
verbal abuse toward the three siblings. The trial court granted
the Department’s request for temporary custody in September 2000,
and the three younger children were committed to the Department
in July 2001. Upon commitment, the court ordered the mother to engage
in individual and family counseling for anger management, which
she steadfastly refused to do. In addition, the mother refused to
permit the employees of the Department to enter her home, or the
employees of New York’s child protection agency to enter her New
York home to determine whether the residence was an appropriate
place to rear her children.
In her appeal, the mother
contended that she had no need for treatment and thus refused to
under counseling or therapy save for the court ordered anger management
therapy she underwent pursuant to a criminal court proceeding (undertaken
to avoid criminal sanctions). The record was replete with testimony
from two mental health professionals as well as a counselor who
provided sufficient evidence en masse from which the court could
have found that the mother had not addressed adequately her psychological
and psychiatric issues relating to her anger problem. In addition,
the mother’s claim that the Department’s efforts at reunification
were not appropriate fell on deaf ears due to the numerous instances
where the mother refused to allow inspection, home studies and assessments,
visitation services, etc. The mother’s pattern of refusing the Department’s
offers and refusal of services led the court to conclude that further
efforts at unification by the Department were not appropriate.
