|
In an
important decision that reverberates as an ongoing warning to the
state's child welfare agency, the Appellate Court upheld a motion
for contempt against the state Department of Children and Families
("Department") for noncompliance the court orders regarding the
care of a child in the Department's care. The essential element
in the case was whether the Department's noncompliance of court
orders was willful, or merely negligent.
The case
revolves around Leah, a girl who, along with her brother, had allegedly
been abused and neglected by their parents. The Department took
custody of Leah via an order of Temporary Custody in April 2003,
alleging that her parents had failed to cooperate with physicians'
and the Department's recommendations despite Leah's extensive mental
health history (which included a diagnosis of bipolar disorder,
violent and destructive behavior, violence toward animals, previous
psychiatric hospitalizations, suicidal and homicidal ideation, etc.).
Despite court orders mandating therapeutic, residential placement,
the Department continued to place Leah in a nontherapeutic foster
home. In November 2003, Leah's mother filed a contempt motion against
the Department for failure to provide services outlined in previous
court orders and that the Department had delayed the reunification
of the family. The Superior Court found the Department in contempt
and ordered the commissioner to pay $500 to Leah's mother to assist
with attorney's fees.
On appeal,
the Department first contended that the lower court's orders were
"ambiguous." The court disagreed, indicating that under the standard
necessary to hold a party in "indirect civil contempt," an appellate
court must reverse only if the trial court abused its discretion.
Willfulness is the standard of conduct upon which a party must be
judged in order for a finding of contempt to be exercised by the
court. Here, the court ordered the Department to undertake specific
steps to ameliorate the child's condition and to make her safe.
In an ironic twist - the Department had taken custody of Leah because
the parents had failed to follow many of the physicians' and department's
recommendations regarding Leah's care and then did not undertake
any of the steps it had mandated for the parents. The court found
that the Department repeatedly failed to take action on Leah's behalf
as mandated by the court - and thus it is in no position on appeal
to claim that contempt is an unreasonable punishment for "lack of
success" regarding Leah's care.
The Department's
second point on appeal was that the court abused its discretion
by finding the Commissioner in contempt because there was insufficient
evidence in the record to support a finding of contempt. This claim
was rejected, as the court noted that the record revealed the Department
was well aware of Leah's specialized needs when it took her into
its care in April 2003. For seven months, the Department transferred
Leah from one nontherapeutic foster home to the next - for a total
of four nontherapeuetic foster care placement, where she remained
a danger to herself and others. The court seemed incensed with the
Department's failure to provide Leah with mental health treatment,
failure to provide her foster parents with adequate support, failure
to provide her parents with counseling classes designed to educate
them on how to raise a child with severe mental health issues, and
made no effort to facilitate counseling between Leah and her brother.
The case
may be accessed by going the Judicial Branch website at www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP96/96AP271.pdf
(JES
7/06)
|
