In Re Ashley S., (Feb. 22, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2265
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 2000
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2265 (In Re Ashley S., (Feb. 22, 2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Ashley S., (Feb. 22, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2265 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an action for Termination of parental rights brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"). The respondents, Kristen S. and Jeffrey H., are the biological parents of Ashley, Jason and Nicholas.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 24, 1997, DCF filed neglect petitions alleging that Ashley, Jason and Nicholas were neglected in that the children were being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally and that the children were being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well being. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120 (8)(B)(C).

On March 24, 1997, the court granted an order of temporary custody with regard to all three of the children.

On April 27, 1998, the court adjudicated the children neglected and committed them to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.

On March 2, 1999, DCF filed a petition for termination of parental rights of Kristen S. and Jeffrey H. With regard to Kristen S., DCF alleged that the children had been found a prior proceeding to have been neglected and that the mother had failed to achieve such a degree of rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the children, she could assume a responsible position in their lives. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112 (c)(3)(B).

With regard to Jeffrey H., the petition alleged that he has abandoned the children in the sense that he has failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the welfare of the children. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a-112 (c)(3)(A).

On April 27, 1999, Jeffrey H. voluntarily consented to termination of his rights and the court entered an order terminating his parental rights with regard to all three children.

FACTUAL FINDINGS CT Page 2267

The court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.

The children were originally committed to DCF because the condition of Kristen's home was unsafe for the children, and Kristen lacked the necessary parenting skills to feed, bathe and supervise her children.

DCF offered Kristen numerous services to aid with reunification. Specifically, she was provided Individual therapy at North Central Counseling and Support Connections (now North Central Counseling Services), Psychiatric Services, NCCS Young Parents' Support Group, South Windsor Human Services parenting classes, Literacy Volunteers America GED preparation, Town of Enfield Board of Education GED preparation classes, Town of Enfield job placement and training program, New Britain YMCA Playgroup, Dialectical Behavior Therapy Group, NCCS Parenting With Care, Psycho Educational Group, Psychological, Parenting and Psychiatric Evaluations, a Diagnostic Cognitive Processing and Educational Achievement Evaluation, a Supervised Visitation Program at NCCS, which included hands-on parenting education, supervised visitation at AMPS, Inc., which included individualized parenting instruction, and supervised visitation by DCF.2

Accordingly, Kristen was offered parenting classes and programs, job training and job placement programs, numerous psychological and psychiatric evaluations and supervised visitation with parent education components.

Kristen was evaluated by many psychologists and psychiatrists including Dr. Robert Meier, Dr. Stephen Greenspan, Dr. Kathleen Bradley, Dr. Marvin Zelman and Dr. Kathleen Bonal. Based on the evaluations, DCF repeatedly attempted to determine what Kristen's mental health issues were and how best to address her problems.

In 1997, Dr. Meier performed an individual psychological evaluation of Kristen and an interactional evaluation with Kristen and her children. He found that Kristen had trouble setting limits for all the children. Her parenting style seemed to have little sensitivity to the children's developmental level or feelings and her interventions were inconsistent, not well timed and not adequately specific or concrete. As will be discussed more fully below, DCF attempted to address these findings by providing ongoing parenting instruction to Kristen CT Page 2268 during her multiple visits on a weekly basis with the children.

Dr. Zelman conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Kristen in March of 1998, which consisted of separate interviews with Kristen and the children and a family session with Kristen and her three children together. In June of 1998, Dr. Zelman made a provisional diagnosis for Kristen of mixed personality disorder and learning disability and recommended that she engage in psychological testing to help establish a specific cognitive diagnosis. The psychological testing that Dr. Zelman recommended was subsequently performed by the Institute of Living. After reviewing the test results, Dr. Zelman testified at trial that these results confirmed his diagnosis of personality disorder and learning disability. Dr. Zelman also testified that mother's mental health problems reduce her capacity to parent because she has very limited tolerance, is easily angered, acts out on her impulses and conducts herself improperly. By way of example, he stated that while he was conducting a court sanctioned evaluation of the children, Kristen made approximately twenty harassing calls to his office during the evaluation.

He described the interactional session as chaotic. Kristen was constantly feeding the children during the session and food was all over the floor. One of the children's glass fell on the floor and one of the other children fell on his face and then wandered around unattended. Finally, Kristen became so exhausted that she began to hyperventilate. She then sat down and did not attend to or supervise her children. Dr. Zelman testified that based on the interactional session that he observed, it would be frightful to think of this mother home alone with these three children.

Dr. Zelman recommended that Kristen engage in psychotherapy which is a service that DCF provided to Kristen through NCCS.

In July of 1998, DCF asked Dr. Kathleen Bradley to perform a Diagnostic Cognitive Processing Educational Achievement Evaluation of Kristen. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the cognitive abilities of Kristen and help determine the best methods to assist her in learning parenting skills. All of the parties agreed that she had problems in-taking data and processing information. After this evaluation was completed, DCF met with respondent and her counsel to identify goals and reassess proper services for Kristen. Goals were set at this meeting and Dr. Bradley's recommendations were subsequently sent to Ann Tuller at AMPS, who incorporated the recommendations into CT Page 2269 AMPS parent training with Kristen.

It is clear from the foregoing that there was an ongoing effort by DCF to assess mother's mental health issues and to attempt to address those issues by providing appropriate services.3

In addition to the numerous evaluations that were performed in order to identify proper services for Kristen, DCF also arranged for her to engage in individual and group therapy. From April of 1997 through October of 1998, Kristen engaged in therapy with Joan Prior from NCCS. At the time of Kristen's discharge from this program, Ms. Prior described her as depressed, anxious, lacking structure, engaging in poor self-care, and showing disregard for harmful consequences.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Juvenile Appeal (83-BC)
454 A.2d 1262 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)
In re Luis C.
554 A.2d 722 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
In re Nicolina T.
520 A.2d 639 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
In re Michael R.
714 A.2d 1279 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
In re Antony B.
735 A.2d 893 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ashley-s-feb-22-2000-connsuperct-2000.