Opinion
No. CP07-007734-A
May 27, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
In accordance with General Statutes § 46b-124 and Practice Book § 32a-7, the names of the parties involved in this case are not to be disclosed and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.
On April 10, 2008, the court, Dooly, J., issued bench orders of temporary custody for Arielyz C., Stephanye C., Karielyz C. and Angelica M. The children were removed from the care and custody of their mother and father and their temporary care and custody was placed in DCF. In issuing the orders of temporary custody, the court found that the children were in immediate danger from their surroundings, and, as a result of said conditions, the children's safety was endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings was necessary to ensure their safety. The court also found that continuation in the home was contrary to the welfare of said children and that DCF made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of said children. (Judicial notice taken of April 10, 2008 bench OTC, the court's findings of reasonable efforts and orders). Neglect petitions were filed in January 2008, and on April 10, 2008, as a result of respondent mother's failure to appear, the court, Dooly, J., defaulted mother and adjudicated Arielyz, Stephanye and Karielyz neglected. No disposition was ordered. (Judicial notice.)
At the preliminary hearing on April 17, 2008, the parents did not consent to the sustaining of the orders of temporary custody. A hearing date of April 22, 2008, was selected for trial on the motions for orders of temporary custody. The contested temporary custody hearing took place on April 22, 23, 30, 2008, May 6, and 12, 2008, in accordance with General Statutes § 46b-129. DCF was represented by an assistant attorney general. The minor children were represented by an attorney who also appeared as their guardian ad litem. The mother was present during the hearing and was represented by an attorney. The respondent father of Arielyz, Stephanye and Karielyz, Efrain C. was present during the hearing and was represented by an attorney. The respondent father of Angelica M. was represented by an attorney and both were excused from the trial by the court, Dooly, J.
The petitioner introduced sixteen exhibits during the hearing. At the request of the state and by way of a motion for judicial notice, the court took judicial notice of the chronology of the proceedings, certain filings and submissions of pleadings, petitions, social studies, statement of facts, affidavits, status reports, evaluations, and of hearings court memoranda, and of dates and content of the court's findings, orders, rulings and judgment as specifically outlined in paragraphs 1-24 in the state's April 21, 2008, motion for judicial notice. At the request of the respondent mother, the court took judicial notice of a January 15, 2008, social worker affidavit, a motion for contempt filed by the state on February 14, 2008, and a February 21, 2008, court update filed by DCF social worker Vanessa T. The three items were added as paragraphs 24-26 to the state's motion for judicial notice. The respondent mother introduced six exhibits. Respondent father, Efrain C. did not introduce any exhibits. The attorney for the minor child did not introduce any exhibits.
The state called twelve witnesses to testify in this trial which included an expert witness, Janet Murphy, APRN, PNP who is a pediatric nurse practitioner employed with the Child Sexual Abuse Evaluation Clinic at Yale New Haven Hospital, and Brenda Concepcion, who was qualified as an expert in social work. The mother did not testify in the hearing, however she called one witness. The respondent father, Efrain C. did not testify in the hearing nor call any witnesses. The attorney for the minor child did not call any witnesses to testify in the hearing. The court did not apply any adverse inference as a result of the respondents choosing not to testify.
II. FACTS
The court, having conducted the hearing in this case, having heard the testimony of the witnesses, having examined the exhibits and having reviewed the evidence, hereby finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the orders of temporary custody should be sustained. Arielyz C. was born on April 7, 2002 and is six years old, Stephanye C. was born on March 21, 2003 and is five years old, Karielyz C. was born on January 19, 2004 and is four years old and Angelica M. was born on October 14, 2005 and is two and a half years old. The mother of all four children is Barbara L., the father of Arielyz, Stephanye and Karielyz is Efrain C., and the father of Angelica M. is Gualberto M.
In In re Kaurice B., 83 Conn.App. 519, 522-23, 850 A.2d 223 (2004) the Appellate Court explained DCF's burden of proof in a contested OTC hearing: "The party seeking a change in custody, in this case, the [petitioner], must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that custody should be taken from the parent and vested in the commissioner on a temporary basis under the criteria established in § 46b-129(b). In In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 189 Conn. 276, 296, 455 A.2d 1313 (1983)."
In Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394-94, 440 A.2d 952 (1981), the Supreme Court defined fair preponderance of the evidence standard as follows: "`Fair preponderance of the evidence' was properly defined as `the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing force in your mind.' The court charged that the standard has been satisfied with respect to a fact if all the evidence considered fairly and impartially evinces a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the fact is true."
Respondent mother, Barbara L. has a long history with DCF dating back to January 2004, and although the court took judicial notice of proceedings and filings dating back to 2004, the court finds that the relevant history for determining whether the children were in immediate risk of physical harm at the tine of their removal on April 10, 2008, dates back to December 20, 2007, when DCF invoked the first ninety-six hour hold after the children had been in mother's care for almost two years, after the children had been returned to her and protective supervision had expired in March 2006.
The relevant presenting issues in this case include the respondent mother's history of substance abuse, mental health issues, mother's failure to ensure that the school age children attend school, the children's chronic head lice and disclosures by two of the children that they were sexually abused by the respondent father of Angelica, Gualberto M. The respondent father, Efrain C., while he has made an attempt to be a resource for his children, Arielyz, Stephanye and Karielyz, also suffers from substance abuse and mental health issues which are further compounded by his recent criminal involvement. The preponderance of the evidence clearly demonstrates that respondent mother's untreated substance abuse issues present a serious and immediate physical danger to the children. In addition, father, Efrain C.'s ability to keep the children safe is not born out by the preponderance of the evidence. The respondent father's housing situation is questionable, (Testimony of social worker Vanessa T.), in March 2008, he admitted to "always using drugs," he tested positive for cocaine as recent as April 25, 2008 (Petitioner's Ex. 7, 9), and he has engaged in criminal activity as recent as April 19, 2008. (Testimony of Officer Adam Roscoe, Respondent mother's F.)
Based primarily on allegations of physical abuse, on December 20, 1997, DCF invoked a ninety-six hour hold on Arielyz, Stephanye, Karielyz and Angelica pursuant to General Statues § 17a-101g. On December 24, 2007, DCF filed an ex parte application for orders of temporary custody with respect to all four children. Neglect petitions were also filed on December 24, 2007, in which DCF alleged that the children were denied proper care and attention and were permitted to live in conditions injurious to their well-being. An additional allegation of abuse was alleged as to Karielyz. On December 24, 2007, the court, Wolven, J., granted the ex parte orders of temporary custody with respect to all four children which placed the temporary care and custody of the children with DCF. In issuing its ex parte orders of temporary custody, the court found the children were in immediate danger from their surroundings and as a result of said condition, the children's safety was endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings was necessary to ensure the children's safety. At the preliminary ten (10) day hearing on January 3, 2008, the respondents chose to contest the orders of temporary custody and a hearing date of January 10, 2008 was scheduled at the Child Protection Session in Middletown. The contested orders of temporary custody were held before the court, Graziani, J., on January 10, 2008 and January 11, 2008, in accordance with General Statutes § 46b-129. After having heard the testimony of witnesses and after having examined and reviewed the evidence, the court, on January 15, 2008, held that the orders of temporary custody should not be sustained. The OTCs were revoked and the children were returned home to mother effective January 15, 2008. The state appealed that decision and the appeal remains pending (AC #29432). Although the primary basis for the OTC in December 2007, was alleged physical abuse of Karielyz, the evidence demonstrates that mother continued to have substance abuse issues. On December 27, 2007, mother attended a substance abuse evaluation at Project Courage/Casa Hostras. Mother was diagnosed with cocaine dependence. (Judicial notice taken of 1/15/08 social worker affidavit of Victoria T.). Jose T., mother's substance abuse counselor, who has known mother since 2004, (testimony of Jose T.), noted that mother was minimizing the extent of her cocaine problem and recommended that mother enter residential treatment. ( Id.) Although mother agreed with the recommendation, to date, mother has not entered into an in-patient substance abuse program. Mother has a history with Cosa Hostras and therefore, mother's substance abuse counselor, Jose T. was familiar with the insurance coverage mother had. In January 2008, he recommended that mother change her insurance so that in-patient treatment would be covered, however, mother did not follow through on this recommendation. Mother was offered an outpatient program pending the change of her insurance, (Testimony of Jose T., 5/12/08, pp. 15-16), however, there is no credible evidence that mother engaged in the outpatient program in January 2008. Mother contends that DCF failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the children because they failed to pay for the cost of the in-patient treatment. This argument is not persuasive, given the ample testimony that was heard, and this court so finds credible, of mother's do nothing coping style and her repeated failure to follow through with services. Mother's "lack of insurance defense" also fails because when Cosa Hostras offered to assist mother in April 2008, in expediting the change of her insurance coverage to obtain approval of the residential program, mother failed to meet with the Cosa Hostras worker at the DSS office on two occasions in April 2008. (Testimony of Jose T.) Mother was again offered an alternative intensive outpatient treatment program in April 2008, pending insurance approval, however, mother missed her first outpatient appointment which was scheduled for April 21, 2008.
In early January 2008, shortly after the children were removed in December 2007, DCF provided Intensive Safety Planning ("ISP") services through the Bridgeport Child Guidance. ISP services are provided when the children are removed and are provided to mitigate the safety factors which led to the removal of the children. (Testimony of Denisse C.). The ISP worker is required to meet with the family twelve hours per week. The ISP worker is required to mitigate safety factors, ensure that mother has followed through with whatever goals DCF has set for her, and, if mother has her own goals, ISP is there to help mother achieve those goals as well. ( Id.) On January 6, 2008, the ISP worker was assigned to this case and called mother on that same day. ( Id.) She left a message for mother, and on the following day, January 7, 2008, she spoke with mother and set up an appointment to meet with mother on or about January 8, 2008. ( Id.) The ISP worker went to mother's home on January 8 and 9, 2008, and mother was not there. ( Id.) On January 11, 2008, the ISP worker spoke with mother and rescheduled another appointment with mother for January 14, 2008. ( Id.) The ISP worker went to mother's home on January 14, 2008, and mother was not home. ( Id.) The ISP worker made several more attempts to follow-up with mother, however mother never contacted the ISP worker. ( Id.) ISP withdrew from the case because the children were returned home. ( Id.)
The children's chronic head lice remained a problem at this time and Arielyz's absences from school as evidenced by the school attendance records was becoming a problem. (Testimony of Vanessa T., Pet. Ex. 6.) Respondent mother's mental health condition was still a presenting issue at this time and there is no credible evidence that at this time, in January 2008, mother was receiving mental health treatment. Mother had previously been receiving mental health treatment at Optimus Health Care and was known to schedule her own appointments, however, there is no credible evidence that at this time in January 2008, mother had scheduled an appointment with her treating psychiatrist/psychologist, Dr. C. The respondent father, Efrain C., did not appear for the OTC trial held on January 10 and 11, 2008 nor is there any credible evidence that he presented himself to DCF as a resource for the children. In fact, father Efrain C. reported to DCF on December 28, 2007, that while he did maintain contact with his children, he was not able to be a resource for them at that time. (Judicial notice taken of social worker affidavit, 1/15/08.)
On January 15, 2008, DCF again filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of the four children, based primarily on allegations that Stephanye and Karielyz had been sexually abused. Specifically, in late December and early January 2008 after the children bad been initially removed in December 2007, foster mother observed Karielyz making unusual movements with her bottom in her sleep and saying "ouch," and no "daddy," and Stephanye disclosed to the foster mother that she had been inappropriately touched by "papi." This court can reasonably infer from the evidence and testimony and so finds, that "papi" and "daddy" is Gualberto M. Although the primary basis for the OTC filed on January 15, 2008, was allegations of sexual abuse, mother's substance abuse and mental health, the children's chronic head lice, the children's attendance at school remained significant presenting issues at this time, and father, Efrain C. had still not presented himself to DCF. In response to DCF's January 15, 2008, ex parte motion, the court, Wolven, J., ordered a show cause hearing for January 24, 2008 to determine if an order of temporary custody should be issued vesting custody of the children in DCF. (Judicial notice.) On January 24, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation that was made an order of the court and, by agreement, specific steps were ordered by the court, Wolven, J. ( Id.) The stipulation provided that Stephanye and Karielyz participate in a forensic interview. ( Id.) The specific steps ordered on January 24, 2008, and signed by mother, required mother to, inter alia, cooperate with recommended service providers including Project Courage (Cosa Hostras) for substance abuse; submit to a substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations regarding treatment, including in-patient treatment if necessary, aftercare and relapse prevention; cooperate with the children' therapy; cooperate with mental health treatment at Optimus Health Care; cooperate with court-ordered evaluations or testing; make all necessary child-care arrangements ensuring that the children are adequately supervised and cared for by appropriate caretakers; and consistently and timely meet and address the children's physical, educational, medical, or emotional needs. (Pet. Ex. 2.) In accordance with the specific steps DCF was required to, inter alia, provide written notice of noncompliance with these steps to all attorneys. ( Id.) Despite having several opportunities to address her significant extant deficiencies, so that she could maintain her family unit, mother failed to follow through on services and more importantly, failed to comply with court orders, namely, the specific steps ordered on January 24, 2008, and the court-ordered forensic evaluations scheduled for Stephanye and Karielyz. Mother failed to attend a forensic interview scheduled for February 7, 2008. On February 15, 2008, DCF filed a motion for contempt and requested the court to hold mother in contempt for her failure to comply with a court order. At a hearing on March 4, 2008, the court, Dooley, J, ordered that the motion for contempt be consolidated with the neglect trial which was scheduled for May 2008. (Judicial notice.) Mother and father C. were not present at the March 4, 2008 hearing. (Judicial notice.) In the interim, DCF rescheduled the court-ordered forensic interviews of the two children for March 19, 2008. Mother again failed to attend. There is no credible evidence that mother had any reasonable excuse for her failure to attend the court-ordered evaluations. Mother also failed to attend a forensic interview of the children that was scheduled on January 18, 2008. Although the evaluation was not court ordered, mother agreed to attend and, it was in Stephanye's and Karielyz's best interest that she attend. Mother's failure to attend the forensic evaluations demonstrates her lack of insight of the seriousness of Stephanye's and Karielyz's disclosures. In addition, by February 2008, mother still had not entered a substance abuse program, in-patient or outpatient, had not engaged in mental health treatment, head lice was still an issue for the children, Arielyz's attendance at school was getting worse and Karielyz's attendance at head start was not good. (Testimony of social worker Vanessa T., Helen M., and Petitioner's Ex. 6.) After having only been enrolled at G. school since November 2007, by February 2008, Arielyz had already missed approximately twenty-five days of school. (Petitioner's Ex. 6, testimony of Helen M.) Karielyz had been enrolled in ABCD Head Start program from September 2006 until the last date she was physically present, December 2007. (Testimony of Rukiya F-C.) During this time, her attendance was sporadic. ( Id.) Although she was scheduled to attend five days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m., she would attend on average only three days a week. ( Id.). Ms. F-C., the family worker, made several attempts to contact mother to address Karielyz's attendance. ( Id.) Although Karielyz's last physical presence at ABCD was in December 2007, Ms. F-C. tried to contact mother via phone and home visits to get Karielyz back into the program. ( Id.) In January 2008, Ms. F-C. sent mother a letter regarding Karielyz's absence from the program and notified mother that if she did not respond to the letter, Karielyz would be dropped from the program. ( Id.) Although Ms. F-C. sent a letter in January 2008, warning mother that Karielyz would be dropped from the program if she did not receive a response from mother, Ms. F-C. did not drop Karielyz from the program. ( Id.) She continued in her efforts to contact mother via phone calls and home visits to no avail. ( Id.) Finally, Ms. F-C. sent out another letter on March 5, 2008, to try to contact mother and again mother did not respond. ( Id.) Karielyz was finally dropped from the ABCD program on March 17, 2008. Head lice was still a problem for the children in January, February and March 2008. (Testimony of social worker, Vanessa T.) Although father Efrain C. made an attempt to address the head lice and school attendance, as of April 10, 2008, the date of the court's bench OTC, the children still had head lice. This court will acknowledge that Arielyz's attendance at school began to improve in March 2008, as a result of father C. taking her school, however, she continued to be tardy on a number of occasions, arriving at school as late as 10:35 a.m. one day. ( Id.) As a result she would miss the tutor that was provided for her and, would miss the reading groups. ( Id.) Furthermore, according to principal M., as a result of Arielyz's numerous absences and tardys, she will probably be retained in first grade. As of April 22, 2008, Arielyz was absent from school forty-seven out of ninety-three days. (Testimony of Helen M.) The school made numerous efforts to contact mother to address Arielyz's school attendance. However, mother did not respond. It was only after the truant officer's referral to DCF, and after a Families With Service Needs petition was filed in March 2008, did father begin to bring Arielyz to school.
By March 2008, mother presented with the same issues and still had not made any progress toward addressing her issues. Mother's pattern of failing to follow through with services was still evident. In fact, after the children were returned home on January 15, 2008, a referral was made to Intensive Family Preservation ("IFP") through Bridgeport Child Guidance. On January 15, 2008, mother met with the IFP worker and signed a service agreement so that services could begin. However, between January 15, 2008 and February 14, 2008, the IFP worker was only able to meet with mother five times. (Testimony of Vanessa T., 4/23/08, pp. 63-64.) The IFP worker had difficulty getting into the home because mother was not at home each time she tried, and mother would not respond to her letters. ( Id.) The case was closed in February 2008, due to noncompliance. ( Id.) In March 2008, mother was re-referred for IFP services through the Boys and Girls Village. ( Id. at pp. 64-65.) There was one successful joint visit in March 2008, with mother, the IFP worker and DCF. ( Id.) Thereafter, mother's pattern of failing to follow through with the appointments continued. ( Id.) The IFP worker would go out to mother's home and mother would not be at home. ( Id.) She would leave mother letters stating what time and date she would be back at mother's home, however mother failed to respond. ( Id.) The service was closed in April 2008 as unsuccessful. ( Id.) Father C., after having not been in contact with DCF, since January 2008, and after having reported to DCF in December 2007, that he could not be a placement resource for the children, in mid-March 2008, for the first time since December 2007, made contact with DCF. This court acknowledges father C.'s efforts to be a placement resource for his children, the court also recognizes and acknowledges that Arielyz's attendance at school did improve in March 2008, when father C. began to take her to school, however, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that father C. has significant mental health and substance abuse issues which prevent him from keeping the children safe. Father C. has significant diagnosed mental health conditions, for which he has been receiving treatment, however, there is no credible evidence that father's mental health condition has stabilized or that he continues to receive treatment on a consistent and regular basis, particularly in light of his positive drug screen as recent as April 25, 2008. In addition, father C. tested positive for cocaine on December 20, 2007, January 22, 2008, February 15, 2008, February 27, 2008, March 18, 2008, March 26, 2008, April 5, 2008 and April 25, 2008. (Petitioner's Exs. 9, 13.) Father C.'s recent criminal activity in April 2008, also gives this court reason to seriously question whether father has been consistent with his mental health treatment. This court finds father's housing situation questionable. The court questions the stability of the children's living situation if placed with father C. It is not clear from the evidence where father C. actually resides, on A. street or with paternal grandfather on C. street. DCF had a difficult time trying to get access to father's home on A. street, and, if father C. wanted to present paternal grandfather's home on C. street as a place where the girls would reside, why didn't he do so when he first resurfaced in March 2008? The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that father C. is not able to offer the children the safety their survival requires, nor was he able to do so on April 10, 2008 when the children were removed.
The forensic evaluation of Stephanye C. took place on April 17, 2008. The interview was conducted by Brenda, Concepcion using the Rapport, Anatomy, Identification, Touch Inquiry, Abuse Scenario, and Closure (RATAC) method. The court did not qualify Concepcion as a certified expert in the area of multi-interdisciplinary forensic interviews of allegedly sexually abused children, because of Porter issues raised by the respondents, which after voir dire, the petitioner could not overcome. The court did qualify Concepcion as an expert in social work. The court allowed Concepcion testify to as to what Stephanye disclosed during her interview and the results of her interview with Stephanye. The court also admitted Concepcion's written report at the request of respondent mother. This court finds Stephanye's disclosures regarding sexual abuse in the interview to be truthful and credible as well as her disclosures to the foster mother and to social worker Vanessa T. What she reported to the interviewer, contains similar disclosures she made to social worker, Vanessa T., and to the foster mother. Therefore this court finds Stephanye's disclosures to be credible and truthful.
State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S.Ct. 1384, 140 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998); See also, CT Page 8877 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S., 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed. 469 (1993).
Karielyz was evaluated by Janet Murphy, APRN, at the Yale New Haven Hospital Child Sexual Abuse Evaluation Clinic. A physical exam of Karielyz was performed by Murphy and her impression was that "Karielyz is a 4 year old, developmentally delayed female. During the anal exam, Karielyz stated `booboo,' pointed to her anal opening, and stated `Poppy.' She then attempted to insert a toy into her anal opening. Physical exam reveals an anal finding suggestive of healed anal trauma. Karielyz attempted to demonstrate anal penetration with a toy during her exam in response to the question `What happened?' She has a physical exam finding that is consistent with healed penetrating anal trauma." Murphy concluded that "[i]n view of this child's behavior and words during the medical exam and her exam findings, I believe it is likely that this child experienced child sex abuse consistent with anal penetration." (Pet. Ex. 12.) Murphy's testimony was consistent with her written report and findings. (Testimony of Janet M.) Based upon the written report and testimony of Janet Murphy, this court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Karielyz was sexually abused.
As of the date of the children's removal on April 10, 2008, mother had failed twice to attend the court-ordered forensic evaluation of Stephanye and Karielyz, she had not entered an outpatient program to address her substance abuse issues, she was not engaged in mental health treatment, head lice was still a problem, although Arielyz's attendance had improved she was still arriving late, and Father C. was still engaging in drug use as evidenced by his toxicology screens. Since the removal of the children on April 10, 2008, there has been no change in mother's and father's circumstances. Mother on April 15, 2008, admitted to relapsing on cocaine and selling herself to pay for her habit. Despite being offered help by the staff at Cosa Hostras, mother had not addressed her insurance coverage issues, and she failed to attend her first outpatient appointment scheduled for April 21, 2008. Father C. had not addressed his substance abuse issues, and there is no credible evidence that he is consistently attending his mental health appointments, in light of his testing positive for cocaine as recent as April 25, 2008 and his involvement with criminal activity on April 19, 2008. Thus, the totality of the circumstances warrant the sustaining of the orders of temporary custody.
III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
"If it appears from the specific allegations of the petition and other verified affirmations of fact accompanying the petition and application . . . that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is suffering from serious physical illness or serious physical injury or is in immediate danger from the child or youth's surroundings, and (2) that as a result of said conditions the child's or youth's safety is endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings is necessary to ensure the child's safety, the court shall . . . (B) issue an order ex parte vesting in some suitable agency or person the child's or youth's temporary care and custody pending the disposition of the petition." General Statutes § 46b-129b(2)(B). If requested or on its own motion, the court shall schedule a hearing on the order of temporary custody. General Statutes § 46b-129(f). In the instant matter, the court finds, based on a totality of the circumstances, that on April 10, 2008, Arielyz, Stephanye, Karielyz and Angelica were in immediate danger from their surroundings and as a result of said conditions their safety was endangered and immediate removal was necessary to ensure their safety. The court further finds, based on a totality of the circumstances that there is a continuing need to ensure the children's safety and to return them to respondents would place them at risk. Thus, continuation in the home would be contrary to their well-being. On April 10, 2008, mother had failed to engage in an in-patient or outpatient substance abuse program, mother was not engaged in mental health treatment, mother lacked insight into the seriousness of Stephanye's and Karielyz's disclosures of sexual abuse, as evidenced by mother's failure on three occasions to attend forensic interviews scheduled for the children. Mother failed to address the children's chronic head lice, and Arielyz's and Karielyz's school attendance. Mother's significant substance abuse problem and her mental health condition, and her repeated failure to follow through with services, clearly placed these children at immediate risk of harm on April 10, 2008. As of the last day of trial on May 12, 2008, their was no credible evidence that mother was dealing with her issues, and thus, her failure to do so also places these children at immediate risk of harm. As this court previously stated, it acknowledges father's attempt to be a resource for the children, however, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that he cannot. The court further finds that the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that DCF made all reasonable efforts to prevent removal of these children. Since December 2007, mother had every opportunity by way of services offered by DCF to address her issues. The children were returned to her care on two separate occasions and each time, mother was provided ample services so that she could address her issues to maintain her family unit. She simply failed to do so. "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it."
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS
Accordingly, the orders of temporary custody are sustained as to all four children and shall remain in affect until vacated or modified by the court.
The court further orders:
1) Barbara L. and Efrain C. shall participate in individual clinical evaluations to include interactionals with the children. The evaluation shall be performed by Dr. Eric Frazier.
2) Barbara L. is to enter an in-patient dual diagnosis facility for a period to be determined by the facility, however no less than three to six months. DCF shall have thirty days to locate an in-state facility that will allow the placement of all four children with mother. If such facility is located, the decision when and how to place the children with mother at the in-patient facility shall be made collaboratively between, the facility, Dr. Frazier and DCF. With respect to any dispute that arises as to the placement issue, Dr. Eric Frazier's opinion in conjunction with the policy of the facility, shall be dispositive.
3) If an in-patient facility which allows the placement of the children with mother cannot be located within thirty days, Barbara L. shall immediately enter the in-patient program at Cosa Hostras and supervised visitation shall take place in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-10a.
4) The lack of insurance coverage shall not delay the court's orders regarding in-patient treatment taking effect. If mother's insurance does not cover the cost of in-patient treatment, DCF shall pay for said cost.
5) General Statutes § 17a-111b requires DCF to make reasonable efforts to reunify children with their parents. Accordingly, upon the successful discharge of mother from the in-patient program, and after mother has maintained a period of sobriety for a period of no less than 90 days, intensive reunification services shall begin.
6) Mother shall comply with all discharge recommendations of the in-patient facility.
7) Upon mother's discharge from the in-patient facility, all previously provided in-home services (IFP, etc.) shall again be provided to mother and mother shall comply with said services.
8) Father Efrain C. shall continue with mental health and substance abuse treatment.
9) Supervised visits shall be provided with father Efrain C.
10) Father Efrain C. shall immediately sign specific steps.
11) Stephanye and Karielyz shall immediately be provided therapeutic services.
12) The court orders that the record of the contested orders of temporary custody and exhibits marked as full and judicially noticed, be preserved for use as appropriate in any neglect trial.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
It is so ORDERED this May 27, 2008.