Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** IN RE ASHLEY S. ET AL.* (AC 20655)
Lavery, C. J., and Landau and Pellegrino, Js. Argued November 30, 2000--officially released February 6, 2001 Counsel

Kristen S., pro se, the appellant (respondent mother). Nina F. Elgo, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Opinion

LAVERY, C. J. The respondent mother appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her three children, A, J and N.1 On appeal, the respondent contends that the decision of the trial court is not factually or legally supported by the record.2 We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court. In a comprehensive memorandum of decision, the trial court set forth the following facts and procedural history. On March 24, 1997, the commissioner of chil-

dren and families (commissioner) filed neglect petitions alleging that A, J and N were neglected. On that date, 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. The children originally were committed to the custody of the commissioner because the condition of the respondent's home was unsafe for the children and because the respondent lacked the necessary parenting skills to feed, bathe and supervise the children. The department of children and families (department) offered the respondent numerous services to aid with reunification, including parenting classes and programs, job training and job placement programs, numerous psychological and psychiatric evaluations, and supervised visitation with parent education components.3 The respondent was evaluated by many psychologists and psychiatrists. On the basis of these evaluations, the department repeatedly attempted to determine what the respondent's mental health issues were and how best to address her problems. In 1997, Robert Meier, a psychologist, performed an individual psychological evaluation of the respondent and an interactional evaluation with the respondent and her children. Meier found that the respondent had trouble setting limits for the children, that her parenting style demonstrated little sensitivity to the children's developmental level or feelings, and that her interventions were inconsistent, not well timed and not adequately specific or concrete. In 1998, Marvin Zelman, a psychiatrist, performed a psychiatric evaluation of the respondent, which consisted of separate interviews with the respondent and the children and a family session with the respondent and the three children together. In June, 1998, Zelman made a provisional diagnosis of mixed personality disorder and learning disability and recommended that the respondent engage in psychological testing to help establish a specific cognitive diagnosis. This testing subsequently was performed by the Institute of Living. Zelman testified that the results of these tests confirmed his diagnosis of personality disorder and learning disability. He testified that the respondent's mental health problems reduce her ability to parent because she has very limited tolerance, is easily angered, acts out on her impulses and conducts herself improperly. Zelman recommended that the respondent engage in psychotherapy, which is a service that the department provided to the respondent through the North Central Counseling Services (NCCS). In July, 1998, the department asked Kathleen Bradley, Assistant Research Professor at the A.J. Pappanikou Center for Disabilities Studies at the University of Connecticut, to perform a diagnostic cognitive processing

educational achievement evaluation of the respondent. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the cognitive abilities of the respondent and to help determine the best methods to assist her in learning parenting skills. The department subsequently met with the respondent and her counsel to identify goals and to reassess proper services for the respondent. Goals were set at this meeting, and Bradley's recommendations were sent to Ann Tuller at AMPS, Inc., who incorporated the recommendations into AMPS parent training with the respondent. The court found, on the basis of the foregoing, that there was an ongoing effort by the department to assess the respondent's mental health issues and to attempt to address those issues by providing appropriate services. The court further found that in addition to the above services, the department arranged for the respondent to engage in individual and group therapy. From April, 1997, through October, 1998, the respondent engaged in therapy with Joan Prior from NCCS. Upon the respondent's discharge from this program, Prior described the respondent as depressed, anxious, lacking structure, engaging in poor self-care and showing disregard for harmful consequences. Prior recommended that the respondent engage in a dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) group, which the respondent began in November, 1998. In the spring of 1999, the respondent also began individual therapy with Susan Fitzpatrick, another therapist at NCCS. Fitzpatrick testified that when she began seeing the respondent, she found her to be impulsive and depressed and diagnosed her with a mood disorder and attention deficit disorder.4 With regard to reunification, the court found that the department offered the respondent multiple visits on a weekly basis with her children. Specifically, between August, 1997, and January, 1998, the respondent attended a YMCA play group with J where she was able to observe two teachers and model their behavior. Between April and July, 1997, the respondent visited with N in his foster home. From August, 1997, through June, 1998, the respondent was able to visit with N and A once a week under the supervision of the department, and she was provided feedback during these visits by the supervising department worker. Between November, 1997, and September, 1998, the respondent was able to visit with all three of her children together on a weekly basis under the supervision of Penny Lemery from NCCS. Lemery provided the respondent with oneon-one parenting instruction during the visits and with feedback after the visits. The respondent requested that the supervised visitation with Lemery cease because the respondent perceived a personality conflict. The respondent was then offered supervised visitation, with a parent education component at AMPS, Inc., between September, 1998, and March, 1999. During these visits, the staff at AMPS, Inc., continued to work with the

respondent to teach her proper parenting techniques. The court found that, despite the enormous resources that were utilized to provide the respondent with handson parenting instruction and education, the respondent's ability to parent the children safely, if anything, deteriorated over time.5 On March 2, 1999, the commissioner filed petitions for termination of parental rights of the respondent. The petitions alleged that the children had been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected and that the respondent 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. See General Statutes

Download In re Ashley S..pdf

Connecticut Law