|
One of
the most difficult questions in the child protection realm is whether
poverty - specifically the lack of quality, affordable housing (with
appropriate furnishings), is a ground upon which the state can remove
children and maintain commitment. In Patricia C., the Appellate
Court indicated that the lack of appropriate housing conditions,
coupled with an indication of a mother's inadequate attempt to seek
reunification with her children, were sufficient grounds to maintain
commitment and affirm a permanency plan that included long-term
foster care. In addition, the court affirmed a trial court's denial
of a motion to revoke commitment despite the questionable legal
adequacy of the trial court's decision.
The state
Department of Children and Families ("Department") removed the respondent
mother's two minor children via an order of temporary custody in
March 2000. Subsequently, the juvenile court adjudicated the children
to be neglected in August 2000 and committed the children to the
custody of the Department. The commitment was extended on several
occasions. In May 2004, the trial court held a hearing with respect
to the Department's motion to maintain commitment - as well as the
respondent's motion to revoke the commitment. At the time, the mother
claimed she had met the criteria for reunification - specifically
that she had obtained adequate housing and maintained weekly contact
with the children by way of daylong Sunday visits. Per oral decision,
the trial court determined that although the respondent had obtained
an appropriate sized domicile (two bedroom apartment), the respondent
failed to obtain sufficient furniture. Due to the lack of appropriate
furniture, and because the respondent had not actively sought reunification
with her children, the court concluded it would be in the children's
best interest to remain with their foster family, and approved the
permanency plan thereby denying the mother's motion to revoke the
commitment.
The appellate
court reviewed the record and affirmed the trials court's position
holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the custody
of the foster parents. However - from a legal standpoint, the appellate
court maintained that in order to revoke commitment, the respondent
needed to first prove that no cause for commitment existed, and
that the Department failed to meet its "best interest" burden.
Here, the trial court failed to explain, either in its original
oral decision or upon a motion for articulation, whether a cause
for commitment continued to exist. Rather than remand the case back
to the trial court for such an articulation, however, the appellate
court moved directly to the second prong of the appellate review
test, finding that on the basis of the trial court's clear and unequivocal
findings that it was in the best interest for the children to remain
with their foster parents. In an interesting footnote, the court
indicated that the trial court's duty is to "first identify the
basis for its factual finding with respect to the issue of whether
a cause for commitment exists." Then, the court indicates that "[o]nly
if it finds that the party seeking the revocation of the commitment
has proven that no cause for commitment exists should the court
then proceed …" to the "best interest" prong. Yet after implicitly
chastising the trial court in this case for failing to include "all
of the necessary factual findings …" - the appellate court ignores
its own dicta and proceeds ahead to solely examine the "best interest"
factor.
The court
proceeds to affirm the trial court's decision based on two social
studies introduced and social worker testimony adduced at the hearing.
The critical evidence that carried the day appeared to be the instability
surrounding the housing and house furnishings, combined with the
mother's lack of employment and her unwillingness to seek counseling
for depression.
The case
may be found on the Judicial Branch's website by going to: www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP93/93AP100.pdf
(JES)
|
