Opinion
No. W10-CP07-015304-A
October 17, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
THE COURT: This matter that has been conducted over the past two and a half days is as a result of, specifically, the motion filed by the attorney for the minor child on July 8th, 2008 and father's motion filed thereafter July 14th 2008.
The burden is initially on the respondents in this case — the attorney for the minor child and the father — to show cause for commitment no longer exists. The standard is a fair preponderance of the evidence.
The shift would then go to show that placement — if the Court so finds, the shift would then go to placement with the natural parents is not in the best interests of the child.
The parameters of the hearing were set by the provisions of the statute Section 46b-129m, as enacted by the legislature, and Practice Book Section 35a-14c as established by the judges of this state.
In connection with the conduct of this hearing, the Court recognizes the father's frustration. To the extent father believes the Court had any purpose, other than the orderly presentation and conduct of this proceeding, he is mistaken. The Court is constrained by the law and the rules to hear evidence that is relevant to the matters at hand. The Court believes it has done so.
The Court has examined and considered the evidence presented. All findings are by a fair preponderance of the evidence unless otherwise specifically noted.
The Court heard testimony from nine witnesses over the past two days, closing arguments today. The respondent father introduced one exhibit. The attorney for the minor child introduced three. The State presented no witnesses or exhibits.
The Court finds credible, in particular, the testimony of Erin Smith-Green and Jack Brandner. As this hearing was a dispositional hearing, whether Michelle was neglected or not is not before this Court. However, the Court does note that this case was initiated and predicated upon a disclosure by Michelle of sexual abuse by father and, from there, this case has progressed. The Court acknowledges that Michelle did recant that allegation.
Based on the Court's reading of Judge Foley's decision, the cause for commitment did not rely upon any finding that there was, in fact, abuse but was based on a finding of neglect for Michelle being denied proper care and attention emotionally and morally.
The finding appears to have been, in large part, predicated upon the need for the family to receive counseling and to learn to support Michelle. The Court wholeheartedly agrees with the comment from Jack Brandner that DCF involvement did unite the family and it got them counseling they could have used regardless of the reason for the same. Mr. Brandner further found that it was a benefit to the family that they learned through the incident.
Mother, in her testimony, grudgingly, admitted she did benefit from counseling.
The Court finds cause for commitment no longer exists, as the counseling has created a family bond and greater understanding of each other's viewpoints. See Exhibit C-3.
As to the best interests of the child, based on the evidence presented, the Court finds it's in her best interests to return home and to do so today.
The Court understands that it is DCF protocol to transport the child to the home. The Court hereby relieves the Department of that obligation and orders that the family is to gather Michelle and her belongings and bring them to her home.
As to whether or not to order protective supervision, the Court has struggled with this decision. The Court would like to see counseling continue. However, the Court notes that Ms. Smith-Green testified she did not believe Michelle would continue in therapy if the Court revoked commitment.
The Court has weighed the animus the family and Michelle feel toward DCF and the benefit that would likely be gained through a couple of months, at most, of counseling. The Court has imposed a couple of months limitation due to the upcoming sixteenth birthday of Michelle.
The Court has concluded that any likely benefit from continued therapy for such a limited period of time is outweighed by the anger and animosity that would be engendered by reason of the continued involvement of the Department. Accordingly, the Court is not ordering protective supervision and is ordering that this case be closed at this time.
Accordingly, the Court finds the attorney for the minor child has, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, met its burden to show cause for commitment no longer exists and that it's in the best interests of the child to be placed with her natural parents.
As to the relief sought by respondent father in his motion, that relief has been afforded by the Court's granting of the earlier-filed motion by the attorney for the minor child and, therefore, the Court does not reach father's motion and finds it moot.
In terms of the counseling costs, the Court does find specific steps were ordered by the Court by Judge Bear on September 26th, 2007. The steps did require counseling by the parents.
The Court is ordering DCF to pay an amount towards the outstanding unpaid bills the parents continue to receive for counseling sought by the parents after the date the steps were ordered, provided that the counseling was provided by Mr. Brandner and/or Ms. Smith-Green.
As no evidence was submitted of the remaining balance owed by the parents, other than a comment made in closing that the cost was approximately $1,500, the Court is limiting the amount of the outstanding bills for counseling to be so paid by DCF to $1,500 and the parents shall remain liable for any amount in excess thereof.
To facilitate the payment of such bills, the Court is ordering the attorney for the minor child and/or the attorney for the mother to obtain the invoices from the counselors and to provide the same directly to Assistant Attorney General Torres. The Department shall make any payment directly to the provider.
Nothing in this decision, obviously, obviates the need for the Department to pay for counseling ordered by Judge Wilson on 9/8/08.
It is so ordered.