|
In this
controversial case, the parents appealed the trial court's decision
that their child was neglected pursuant to a theory of "predictive
neglect." The parents' contended that absent a history of problematic
parenting or a demonstrated unwillingness on the part of the parents
to accept necessary services, the doctrine of predictive neglect
is inapplicable. The Appellate court rejected the parents' argument
and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The parents'
first child, T.K., was born on November 30, 2005. Shortly thereafter,
the mother told a hospital social worker that she had recurring
thoughts of harming herself and the child and a referral to DCF
was made. DCF initially requested an Order of Temporary Custody
(granted but later vacated) and a corresponding neglect petition,
premised on the doctrine of predictive neglect. Following a four
day trial the court heard much testimony about the parents' history
of mental health challenges, as well as conflicting testimony from
a court-appointed psychologist and the mother's treating psychiatrist
regarding the likelihood that the mother would act on any of her
obsessive thoughts. The court-appointed psychologist offered the
following opinion at trial:
''So,
the question then becomes, well, is there a first time for everything?
And I think that's the root of this, and the answer is yes, there
is a first time for everything. But there is nothing here to indicate
that [the mother] has ever acted on any of these compulsions.
Not saying, I mean, nobody can read anyone's mind and know if
this will occur. What we do know is that these thoughts are clearly
associated with anxiety.''
The court
also heard testimony that both parents were educated and had a history
of employment and were open to supportive mental health services.
Ultimately, the court adjudicated the child neglected as she was
permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations
injurious to her well-being. The court ordered a ordered a six month
period of protective services. The respondents filed this appeal.
The parents
claimed that the court erroneously applied the doctrine of predictive
neglect to the case because the required elements of predictive
neglect are (1) a serious prior history of neglectful or abusive
parenting of one or more children or (2) a serious inability or
unwillingness of the parents to accept, cooperate with or benefit
from services necessary to help them care for their child.
The Appellate
Court rejected the respondents' argument although it acknowledged
that the majority of the predictive neglect cases did in fact concern
families in which older children had been harmed or permitted to
be harmed by a parent. However, the Court held that neither the
legislature nor the case law express such a requirement. The Court
reasoned that if the respondents' arguments were accepted, no firstborn
child could ever be adjudicated neglected under the doctrine of
predictive neglect because the parents could have no history of
prior abuse.
The Court
noted that the state's child protection laws are designed to prevent
injury to the welfare of a child, not to wait until it occurs. Additionally,
the Court held that just because services are accepted does not
mean that a child cannot be deemed neglected under the law.
The Court cited In re Michael D., 58 Conn. App.
124 and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101 for the proposition that the
state has authority to act before harm occurs to protect children.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101 provides that "the public policy of this
state is: To protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely
affected through injury and neglect."
Accordingly, the neglect adjudication was affirmed.
(Sarah Eagan 2/08)
|
