|
(Cite
as: 1993 WL 566662)
Superior
Court of Connecticut, Juvenile Matters.
In
re JESSICA T. FN1
FN1.
Consistent
with General Statutes Section 46b-124 and the practice employed by
our appellate courts pursuant to General Statutes Section 46b-142(b) and
Practice Book Section 2026, the full names of the individuals
involved in this Juvenile Court proceeding are not disclosed herein.
Dec.
20, 1993.
MEMORANDUM
OF DECISION
MULCAHY,
Judge.
*1
Jessica T. was born on April 5, 1983. The
mother of the child is Janet A., date of birth
January 17, 1965; the
father is Paul T., date of birth June 13, 1962.
Jessica
T. was committed to the Department of Children and Youth
Services (DCYS), now the Department of Children and Families (DCF),
as a neglected child on August 31, 1989. FN2
This
petition to terminate parental rights was filed by the Department
on November 18, 1991.
FN2.
The
commitment was extended to September 2, 1992, and thereafter, to
March 2, 1994.
The
termination petition alleges statutory grounds under General Statutes Section 17a-112(b)(1)
(Abandonment:
respondent/father),
(2) (Failure
to Rehabilitate:
respondent/mother),
and, (3) (Acts
of Commission or Omission:
respondent/mother).
NOTICE
AND JURISDICTION
The
petition shows respondent/mother residing at a specified address; the
return of service annexed to the petition indicates that the
mother was served in hand at the said address.
The
named father is shown on the petition as last known
of East Hartford; pursuant
to this court's order of notice, legal publication was placed
in the Hartford Courant. FN3
FN3.
The
newspaper filed an affidavit, with an attached, clipped legal advertisement,
confirming publication in the Legal Notices section on November 25,
1991. On
December 17, 1991, service on both parents was confirmed, on
the record, in court: “mother
in hand; father
by publication.”
The
petition indicates that respondent/mother is of Native American descent: Athabascan
(Alaskan); accordingly,
Jessica T. is an “Indian
child”
and the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 United
States Code, Section 1901 et
seq.,
pertains in this proceeding. FN4
Regarding
notice, the ICWA provides, as follows: “In
any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court
knows ...
that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking ...
termination of parental rights ...
shall notify the ...
Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe, by registered mail
with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of
their right of intervention.”
25
United States Code, Section 1912(a). In
compliance with the ICWA, notices were sent (with enclosed copies
of pleadings) to: Village
Administrator, Native Village of Tyonek, Tyonek, Alaska; and,
Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Family Services Dept., Cook Inlet Region,
Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. FN5
As
per the federal enactment, the aforesaid said notices were forwarded
by registered mail, return receipts requested; the
official court file contains signed green receipt cards for both
of the said mailings.
FN4.
Evidence
was received regarding the applicability of the ICWA. Documentation
was presented from the Native Village of Tyonek, Tyonek, Alaska,
and from the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), Juneau, Alaska Office; the
documents indicate that respondent/mother is registered as one-half Native American
(her mother, also shown as registered, was native Athapascan), and,
that both Janet A. and Jessica A. (as well as
the child's maternal grandmother) are registered on the Tribal Roll
as members of the Athapascan Tribe of the Native Village
of Tyonek. Additionally,
the names of both mother and child are certified by
the BIA as listed in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act roll, with an issued ANCSA enrollment number.
Under
the ICWA, the term “Indian
child”
is defined as meaning “any
unmarried person who is under the age of eighteen and
is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or
(b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and
is the biological child of a member of an Indian
tribe.”
Title
25 United States Code, Section 1903(3). The
term “Indian
tribe”
means “any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community
of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided to
Indians by the Secretary [of the Interior] because of their
status as Indians, including any Alaska Native village as defined
...
[in] the [ANCSA].”
See:
Title
43 United States Code, Section 1602(c).
The
parties hereto have stipulated that Jessica A. qualifies as an
“Indian
child”
under the federal Act and, therefore, that the ICWA is
applicable to these proceedings. See:
Petitioner's
Memorandum Re Applicability of the ICWA,
filed 1/13/93; Trial
Brief,
filed by the child's attorney dated July 30, 1993; and,
Respondent's
Trial Brief,
dated September 17, 1993.
FN5.
The
court file indicates that initially (on or about November 21,
1991) notice of the TPR filing was sent by the
Clerk to: Tribal
Court/Clerk, Athapascan Indian Tribe, A.H.P.N.A., Inc., P.O. Box 823, Cooper
Landing, Alaska. The
certified mailing (return receipt requested) came back with a notation
showing an incorrect, undeliverable address. On
or about 12/30/91, respondent/mother's counsel informed the Clerk of Court
of the correct addresses for purposes of notice under the
ICWA; following
receipt of that information, notices, with copies of the pleadings,
were forwarded as required by the ICWA.
Attorneys
were appointed for both the respondent/mother and the child; the
petition was contested and fully litigated. The
court hereby finds that notice was provided in accordance with
the requirements of law, and that this court has jurisdiction
to adjudicate the instant petition.
STANDARD
OF PROOF
With
regard to “termination
of parental rights,”
the term is statutorily defined as “the
complete severance by court order of the legal relationship, with
all its rights and responsibilities, between the child and his
parent or parents so that the child is free for
adoption....”
General
Statutes § 45a-707(g).
It
is a judicial matter of exceptional gravity and sensitivity. Anonymous
v. Norton,
166 Conn. 421, 430 (1975). Termination
of parental rights is the ultimate interference by the state
in the parent-child relationship and, although such judicial action may
be required under certain circumstances, the natural rights of the
parents in their children “undeniably
warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.”
Stanley
v. Illinois,
405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).
*2
The constitutional guarantee of due process of law requires that
the statutory ground(s) for termination of parental rights be established
by “clear
and convincing”
evidence; not
merely a fair preponderance. Stantosky
v. Kramer,
455 U.S. 75 (1982). Thus,
the standard of proof as mandated by General Statutes § 17a-112(b)
and Practice Book § 1049
is “clear
and convincing”
evidence.
Termination
of parental rights is in two stages: the
adjudication and the disposition. The
adjudicatory stage involves the issue of whether the evidence presented
established, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of one
or more of the statutory grounds as of the date
the petition was filed or last amended (substantively). In
Re Juvenile Appeal (84-AB),
192 Conn. 254, 262 (1984) ; In
Re Nicolina T.,
9 Conn.App. 598, 602 (1987) ; In
Re Luke G.,
40 Conn.Sup. 316, 324 (1985). Only
upon establishment of one or more of the statutory grounds,
in accord with the mandated standard of proof, may inquiry
be made regarding the ultimate best interests of the child.
The
parties have agreed that the ICWA applies to this litigation.
Section
1901, of Title 25 United States Code, entitled “Congressional
findings”,
recognizes “the
special relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes
...
and the Federal responsibility to the Indian people;”
it
reads, in various parts, as follows:
“...
congress, through statutes, treaties, and the general course of dealing
with Indian tribes, has assumed the responsibility for the protection
and preservation of Indian tribes and their resources”
and
“there
is no resource that is more vital to the continued
existence and integrity of Indians than their children and ...
the United States has a direct interest ...
in protecting Indian children who are members of or are
eligible for membership in an Indian tribe”
and
“an
alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by
the removal, often unwarranted, of their children from them by
nontribal public and private agencies and ...
an alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in
non-Indian foster and adoptive homes....”Consistent
with the aforesaid, Section 1912(f) of the federal statute mandates:
“No
termination of parental rights may be ordered ...
in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond
a reasonable doubt,
including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody
of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is
likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to
the child.”
Respondent/mother
has filed, and relies upon, the United States Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Guidelines for State Courts,
Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Federal Register No. 228, pages
67584 thru 67595, November 26, 1979. With
reference to Section 1912(f), and “Standards
of Evidence”,
the federal guidelines state:
*3
“By
imposing these standards, Congress has changed the rules of law
of many states with respect to the placement of Indian
children. A
child may not be removed simply because there is someone
else willing to raise the child who is likely to
do a better job or that it would be ‘in
the best interests of the child’
for him or her to live with someone else. Neither
can a ...
termination of parental rights be ordered simply based on a
determination that the parents ..
are ‘unfit
parents.’
It
must be shown ...
that it is dangerous for the child to remain with
his or her present custodians. Evidence
of that must be ‘clear
and convincing’
for placements, and
‘beyond
a reasonable doubt’
for termination.
(Emphasis
added).
44
Federal Register No. 228, at p. 67593.
FACTUAL
FINDINGS
The
credible evidence presented during the orderly course of the trial
established the following facts.
A.
Factual
Findings As to Events Antedating the Filing of the Termination
Petition
Respondent,
twenty-eight years of age, grew up primarily in the Hartford
area as the youngest of two children; her
mother was of native Alaskan origin and her father was
French Canadian. FN6
She
completed ten grades of formal education and received her GED
in 1985. It
is reported that respondent, around the age of two, moved
from Connecticut to Alaska with her mother and sister, living
there for approximately one year. The
family returned to the Hartford/New Britain area where respondent/mother reentered
local schools. Janet
A. then returned to Alaska for approximately two months at
age fourteen, and later for roughly three months at age
sixteen.
FN6.
Both
of respondent/mother's parents (the maternal grandparents) are now deceased. Respondent's
mother died in 1984; it
is reported that respondent's father was the victim of a
murder when she was approximately seven years of age. Respondent
had two siblings, one of whom died at age three
months.
When
she was fourteen years of age, respondent/mother resided with a
foster family in Connecticut. She
returned to her mother's Hartford home when she was fifteen,
but not long thereafter the family ceased living together. FN7
Respondent
left high school, worked briefly in a fast food restaurant,
and, when evicted from the Hartford apartment, went to Arizona
to live with relatives. She
returned to Hartford in a few months and, around that
time, met the respondent/father, Paul T. Janet A. and Paul
T. subsequently took up residence together and lived at various
times, in a number of states including Maine, California, Alaska,
and Utah. The
couple had been together for roughly three years when Jessica
T. was born in Connecticut in 1983. Shortly
after the child's birth, they moved to California, but were
again back in Connecticut when the child was approximately age
seven months. At
about this time, Paul T. apparently insisted on returning to
California, but respondent/mother, having tired of the frequent moves, and
because of the increasing turmoil in their relationship, remained in
Connecticut with the baby. Respondent/father
has had no significant contact with Jessica T. since that
time and, as stated, his whereabouts have been, and are,
unknown.
FN7.
According
to documentation in the court file, respondent and her sister
were substantially “deserted”
by their mother who left them no means of support.
After
Paul T. left Connecticut, the mother, having no place to
stay with the baby, requested foster placement for Jessica in
late 1983. Around
that time, respondent/mother secured employment at a discount store, met
JD, and began living with him in Hartford; in
early 1984, Jessica T. returned to her mother's care. Janet
A. and JD were married in 1985. The
family resided at a number of addresses in Hartford and
in New Britain; two
sons (Jessica T.'s half-brothers)
were born to respondent/mother from the marriage to JD: Jos.
D., d/o/b, 2/9/85; and,
Jar. D., d/o/b 3/6/88. According
to the mother, JD cared for Jessica a great deal
while the child was very young; also,
apparently two of JD's sisters were close to the family
during this period: BB
and AP. Additionally,
Jessica A. developed and maintained, a relationship with Marie D.,
JD's mother, who was the paternal grandmother of Jessica's two
half-siblings.
*4
The marriage between Janet A and JD was marked by
domestic violence and spousal abuse. In
1987, DCYS received reports of alcohol abuse, dreadful living conditions
in the family's apartment, and at least two referrals regarding
Jessica T. FN8
The
couple separated in May 1988, and a dissolution of the
marriage was finalized in December, 1988. At
some point in 1988, respondent/mother took up residence with BA;
in
December 1988, a referral was received by the agency from
Jessica's school nurse; the
child reported that a scratch on her face resulted from
disciplining by BA. FN9
FN8.
Information
and referrals were received from members of JD's family.
FN9.
Jessica
A. was observed to have a scratched area on her
face the size of a silver dollar. The
child stated that BA disciplined her and her brother with
a belt. When
the DCYS worker confronted the mother with the child's statement,
Janet A. denied that BA was ever allowed to discipline
the children, stating that it was JD who had hit
them with a belt, which was the primary reason she
had separated from him. The
mother stated that JD was physically abusive to both her
and the children. A
month earlier, the child also was observed to have had
a scratch and, at that time, indicated that her brother
“did
it.”
In
mid-January 1989, DCYS received a referral from the principal of
Jessica's school regarding a mark on the child's eye; Jessica
had reported that she had been hit in the eye
and on the backside with a belt. Investigation
revealed that respondent/mother had moved and agency workers were unable
to locate the family. On
March 9, 1989, the Department received an anonymous referral regarding
fading bruises on the child; the
family was located and Jessica stated she had been hit
“awhile
earlier”
by her mother “with
a spoon.”
When
interviewed, respondent/mother denied striking the child, but requested that Jessica
be placed in foster care. The
respondent mother maintained that the child did “not
care about the family,”
wanted everything, was “spoiled”,
and would not “help
out”
(clean her room, etc.); it
was explained to mother that foster placement was utilized as
a “last
resort,”
and that, in the worker's view, the existing problems should
be addressed, initially, through counseling. Although
respondent/mother reportedly agreed to contact the Manchester Community Child Guidance
Clinic, she allegedly informed the agency that she did not
have time to attend counseling sessions, and still wished Jessica
to be placed.
In
April 1989, the child reported that her mother hit her
with “the
thing she uses on the horses”;
however,
Jessica, at that time, did not have any observable marks,
and she did not recall when she had last been
struck. On
May 12, 1989, a DCYS worker, as part of a
continuing investigation, interviewed Jessica T. in the presence of a
police officer, along with members of the school system. Jessica
repeated that her mother had hit her with a riding
crop
FN10
and, upon examination in the nurse's office, healing bruises were
observed on the child's thighs. FN11
The
child stated that she was hit by her mother, not
the mother's boyfriend, and that her siblings were not struck
by the mother. FN12
When
confronted regarding the child's statement, respondent/mother denied hitting the child,
stating that she had little time to devote to Jessica,
because she was busy caring for the baby, FN13
going to school, working, and cleaning the house; the
mother continued to maintain that the child was dreadfully “spoiled”
and, by way of explanation for the bruises, stated that
they might have been caused by neighborhood children throwing objects
at her daughter. It
was explained to the mother that the child would not
be permitted to return home while the investigation continued, and
respondent, reluctantly, signed a voluntary placement;
FN14
however,
later on 5/12/89, the mother rescinded the voluntary placement, insisting
that Jessica be returned home. At
that time, the DCYS worker sought, and obtained, a ninety-six
hour hold. On
or about May 15, 1989, the child was examined by
a pediatrician who found observable linear bruises on the child's
thighs and buttocks to be consistent with the statement of
Jessica that she had been struck with a horse crop.
On
that date (5/15/89), the Department, based on the affidavits of
the physician and the social worker, obtained an OTC which,
following a contested hearing, was sustained on May 23, 1989.
FN10.
During
a portion of her childhood years, respondent spent much time
at a friend's home, where that family kept horses; it
is reported that Janet A. “learned
all about horses”
and apparently developed a degree of proficiency in the care
and grooming of horses. Her
work history includes employment (around the 1989 period) at the
Mounted Police Division of a Connecticut law enforcement agency.
FN11.
Multiple
healing bruises were observed on the top entire left thigh
which went around to the back of the thigh; another
bruise, approximately the size of a half dollar, was observed
on the back of the right thigh.
FN12.
Jessica
stated that her mother had struck her because her brother,
Jos. D., had told the mother that she had kicked
another person. The
child told the social worker that she is hit by
her mother because Jos. D. “lies
and gets her in trouble.”
FN13.
As
stated, respondent's youngest child, Jar. D., was born on March
6, 1988.
FN14.
Respondent/mother
initially refused to sign the voluntary, stating she felt it
would constitute an admission of guilt. At
the time, police authorities were involved and criminal charges were
contemplated; from
the documentation admitted into evidence at this trial, it appears
that Cruelty to Persons and Assault III charges were eventually
brought, stemming from the 1989 allegations.
*5
With the request for the OTC, the agency, on May
15, 1989, filed a neglect petition; the
petition alleged that Jessica was abused, in that she had
non-accidental injuries, injuries at variance with the history given, emotional
maltreatment, and was subjected to cruel punishment; further,
that the child was neglected, in that she had been
permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, and associations injurious to
her well-being. On
August 1, 1989, Jessica T., by agreement of the respondent/mother,
was adjudicated a neglected child (“permitted
to live under conditions, circumstances injurious to her well-being in
that she was inappropriately disciplined”),
and the abuse allegations were dismissed, without findings and prejudice.
As
stated heretofore, Jessica T. was thereafter committed to the Department
on August 31, 1989 (also by agreement of the mother)
for the statutory eighteen month period, which commitment has been
periodically extended and remains in effect.
Prior
to the adjudication and commitment, the court had ordered psychological
evaluations of the mother and the child (with P/C and
P/C with the foster parent). The
order, dated 5/23/89, requested that the psychologist, in addition to
the eleven standard areas of inquiry, determine “to
what extent ..
the mother's cultural ties with her Indian Tribe affect her
child caretaking.”
Dr.
Mantell conducted his evaluation on June 22, 1989; he
stated in a report dated July 10, 1989, the following:
“In
the judgment of this examiner, the mother is presenting significant
difficulties in her attitudes towards child rearing as well as
in her particular attitudes towards this child which interfere with
her ability to develop and discharge an appropriate parental relationship.
There
is no evidence at this time to indicate that the
child rearing practices and problems of the mother are derived
from her native Alaskan cultural heritage.”
FN15
FN15.
With
regard to the mother's native Alaskan background, and the court's
inquiry as to its impact on child rearing practices, Dr.
Mantell's report refers to the following pertinent discourse with the
respondent:
“Janet
was asked about her knowledge of native Alaskan culture. She
did not understand this question. She
was asked whether she speaks a language other than English
and she said she did not. She
was asked if she was taught her native Alaskan culture
and she said she was not. She
remembered being teased as an Eskimo during her Hartford childhood.
She
has only spent a few months in Alaska and appears
to be unfamiliar in a personal sense with its native
language, culture, and practices. She
currently works at a horse stable for the Mounted Police
and said that her children love her work.”
The
psychologist recommended: (1)
the child be committed to DCYS to remain in the
foster home; (2)
respondent/mother be referred for out-patient counseling directed at her child
rearing practices and attitudes;
FN16
and, (3) the out-patient treatment be structured to explore those
child rearing practices to which the child has been exposed
within the extended family. FN17
FN16.
Dr.
Mantell indicated that the anger between mother and child, in
1989, was so strong that they were unable to bridge
it with “even
simple, positive communications and interactions.”
The
psychologist felt that if positive changes occurred showing a readiness
on the mother's part to accept Jessica, and to love
and properly rear her, then such might constitute a basis
for a planned reconciliation. Otherwise,
“the
prospect for mother and child”
would be an eventual “permanent
transfer of guardianship”
or a “termination
of parental rights.”
FN17.
The
psychologist, in 1989, stressed additionally the importance of conducting “a
full child rearing history ...
in order to properly understand the behavior that the child
is ..
exhibiting and the dilemmas that have arisen in the relationship
between mother and child.”
Consistent
with Dr. Mantell's findings, the court, at the August 31,
1989 dispositional hearing, set the following expectations: (1)
respondent/mother to maintain contact with DCYS; (2)
full cooperation with the agency; (3)
visit the child as often as the agency permits; (4)
cooperate with the parent-aide in the home; (5)
continue in individual and family counseling (Dr. Neems); (6)
cooperate with the child's therapy (Manchester Child Guidance); and,
(7) no inappropriate disciplining of the child. The
CIP written expectation form was signed by the mother on
8/31/89, in the presence of her attorney; the
form included the written advisement that failure to comply with
the court established expectations would quite likely result in the
Department's petitioning for termination of parental rights.
*6
Shortly after an initial placement under the ninety-six hour hold,
Jessica T. was placed in the R foster home, where
she has remained to date. Supervised
visitation was established on a weekly basis at the foster
home. Janet
A. visited generally on a regular basis at the foster
home into mid-August of 1990;
FN18
the
supervised visitations at the foster home were usually two hours
in duration. The
foster mother testified that the visits went well, the interaction
between mother and child was favorable, the mother sometimes brought
one or both of Jessica's half-brothers, and the child displayed
signs of affection (hugs and kisses) toward her mother. On
August 10, 1990, unsupervised home visitations (at respondent's home) were
put in place;
FN19
under
the arrangement, Jessica would spend about six hours in her
mother's home during each such unsupervised visitation session. The
child was consistently expressing the wish to be with her
mother and brothers; accordingly,
the Department, acting pursuant to its statutory mandate, was undertaking,
during this period, to effectuate a reunification. On
September 22, 1990, the unsupervised home visits were extended to
twelve hours and, on November 17, 1990, full weekend visitation
was put in place (two days and two nights).
FN18.
According
to testimony, respondent/mother attended approximately fourteen arranged visitations between August
and December 1989; during
1990, the mother attended thirty-nine supervised visitations, missing only four
of those arranged.
FN19.
It
appears that the unsupervised visitation at home was supposed to
commence on August 4, 1990, but was deferred as the
mother travelled out of the country on that weekend with
her husband, BA.
Janet
A. began psychotherapy with Dr. Robert H. Neems on or
about June 29, 1989; the
purpose of the therapy was “to
improve Mrs. A.'s parenting skills so that her daughter could
be returned from foster care.”
FN20
The
therapy addressed several areas of the mother's parenting difficulties, including:
(1)
excessive use of punishment; (2)
inadequate use of praise; (3)
inconsistent discipline; and,
(4) serious misconceptions by the mother regarding her daughter which
had led to a lack of understanding of Jessica's wants
and needs. In
late November 1990, Dr. Neems reported that respondent/mother had made
“minimal
and inadequate progress”
and that any return of Jessica to her mother's care
would require “close
supervision”
by DCYS. The
therapist's assessment was premised, primarily, on the mother's reluctance to
acknowledge that she had mistreated Jessica, and what Dr. Neems
perceived as an overly permissive parenting style on the part
of the mother; in
a progress report dated November 28, 1991, the psychologist wrote:
FN20.
Jessica
T. first met with Dr. Neems on January 2, 1990;
thereafter,
therapeutic contacts included both joint and individual sessions for Jessica
and her mother.
“This
assessment is based upon the writer's work with Mrs. A.
over the past one and one-half years. Mrs.
A. has never acknowledged her mistreatment of her daughter. She
insists that her parenting of her children is adequate despite
the fact that she continues to be laid back in
setting and maintaining limits, which sets up a situation where
the children misbehave and Mrs. A. gets angry with them.
This
pattern of over-permissive parenting has been seen in the office
in the way that Mrs. A. parents her youngest child,
Jar. D. Repeated
attempts to discuss this issue have been unsuccessful.”
In
November 1990, Dr. Neems indicated that there existed “a
strong bond”
between respondent/mother and Jessica T., that they enjoyed seeing one
another, and that the child has looked forward to increasing
visitation with her mother. The
psychologist maintained, however, that respondent's parenting methods allowed “too
much freedom, setting the stage for subsequent disapproval, criticism, and
punishment.”
Such
circumstances, in the therapist's view, placed that child at “significant
risk”
of further physical abuse, and at “some
risk”
of depression. Accordingly,
it was recommended by Dr. Neems that Jessica T remain
committed to the Department for “an
extended trial period”
following the return of the child to the mother's home,
and that both mother and daughter continue in psychotherapy for
the purpose of working on the mother's parenting skills and
to assist Jessica in adjusting to the changes in her
life.
*7
Through DCYS, arrangements were made for respondent/mother to receive the
services and support of a parent-aide through the North Central
Coalition for Children. Parent-aide
contact, and services, began on or about July 20, 1990.
FN21
On
December 20, 1990, it was reported that respondent/mother had met
with the parent-aide approximately three times each month (since 7/20/90),
having missed roughly one-forth of the appointments. FN22
By
December 1990, respondent had developed a good relationship with the
parent-aide and, while the aide had not noticed a great
deal of improvement relative to the mother's parenting skills, Janet
A. had become more open in discussing her feelings, particularly
regarding BA's angry outbursts, his drinking, and her own sadness
about an abusive childhood; the
parent-aide encouraged Janet A. to discuss those issues with Dr.
Neems. In
December 1990, the plan was for visits with the parent-aide
to continue on a weekly basis, with the mother urged
to contact NCCC if she needed additional help. The
parent-aide was to remain involved with the family during the
initial reunification with Jessica.
FN21.
Unsuccessful
efforts were apparently made by NCCC to contact the mother
on 6/27/90, 6/29/90, and 7/3/90.
FN22.
According
to NCCC, the missed appointments were generally the result of
the mother's leaving the home to do short errands before
the parent-aide arrived, and then returning home past the appointed
time.
On
December 21, 1990, the child was returned to her mother's
home. The
reunification necessitated Jessica's transferring to a new school in the
town where the mother resided with her husband, BA, and
the two younger children. The
evidence indicated that the child was not happy either in
the new school or in her mother's home. The
school nurse stated that Jessica was registered in the school
during the December holiday vacation period; after
she began classes, she was seen by the school nurse
on several occasions and was described as a “sad,
very unresponsive child.”
On
one occasion, Jessica fell asleep and told the nurse that
she did not feel well. The
foster mother, who maintained some contact with Jessica during this
period, testified that the child spoke of a number of
babysitters, that she hated the school she was attending, and
that she tried to keep her room clean, but “the
boys made it a mess.”
The
child indicated to the social worker that she helped her
mother with the housework, that she swept, did dishes, and
had mopped the floor; also,
that she often took care of her brothers because her
mother would be talking on the phone at a next
door neighbor's residence. She
also told various adults that her mother “yelled
at her a lot,”
and that at such times, she would often cry. On
March 20, 1991, Jessica T. arrived at the school upset
and crying; she
reported to the school nurse that her mother had “yelled
at her.”
On
March 21, 1991, the child was interviewed by the DCYS
social worker in the presence of the school nurse; she
stated she wished to return to, and reside at, the
R foster home where she would be happier. Both
the school nurse and the social worker testified that the
discussed prospect of Jessica's returning to the R home resulted
in the child's becoming a noticeably happier and more animated
little girl.
*8
In mid-April 1991, respondent/mother requested the placement of all three
of her children: Jessica
T., Jos. D., and Jar. D.; at
or about that time, Jessica T. was returned to the
R foster home. Janet
A. told the worker that she was experiencing financial difficulties,
was losing her apartment, and had “no
one to leave the children with while she worked a
third shift job.”
The
mother stated that she was divorcing BA and was “overwhelmed
as her children did not listen to her.”
FN23
Jessica
T. returned to the R home under the existing commitment,
and her two brothers were placed by DCF under a
voluntary. FN24
FN23.
The
information before the court seems to indicate that during the
period Jessica was home, the mother was undergoing troublesome domestic
problems and that there existed considerable turmoil in the household.
Furthermore,
documentation in evidence discloses that shortly before the requested placement
of her children, respondent was arrested in connection with a
criminal investigation in West Hartford (entirely unrelated to the children
or this case).
FN24.
On
or about July 11, 1991, the two boys, at Janet
A.'s request, were returned to their mother at a Western
Massachusetts address.
Following
the return of Jessica T. to the R. foster home,
extended weekend visitations were discontinued; however,
respondent/mother did visit the child approximately twelve times between April
and December 1991. There
were a number of scheduled visitations when the mother either
did not appear at all, or called and spoke with
Jessica, indicating that she could not keep the scheduled appointment.
FN25
On
August 5, 1991, respondent visited at the foster home while
the Department social worker was present; the
mother refused to communicate with the worker, but spoke with
the foster mother, stating: “It's
up to Jessica-if she can learn to live with the
family.”
According
to the foster mother, the respondent stated she had not
decided whether to sign termination consent forms, became angry, and
left. She
did, however, visit shortly thereafter, on August 10, at the
foster home. Following
an August 29 visit, Jessica revealed that her mother had
inquired of her “if
she thought she could get along with the boys (her
two brothers);”
the
child reportedly stated to her mother, “I
think I'm starting to like Joey a little bit.”
At
a September 12 visit, respondent/mother brought Jessica some clothes and
sneakers.
FN25.
It
is reported that respondent/mother had arranged visitation with Jessica on
April 24 and 27, 1991 to bring her to Riverside
Park, but on both occasions neither showed up nor called
to explain. The
mother did, however, visit with the child on May 1
and 19, 1991.
Difficulties
developed following an unsupervised visitation on October 14, 1991. After
that visit, Jessica T. told her foster mother that respondent
had given her a new telephone number, instructing the child
not to divulge the number to either the foster parent
or agency social worker. The
child became upset and, according to the foster parent, went
into “complete
withdrawal,”
not responding to questions directed to her. FN26
Upon
discussion with the therapist, Dr. Neems, it was the psychologist's
opinion that it was harmful to the child for the
mother to tell her that she must keep secrets from
those persons whom the child had come to trust. Dr.
Neems felt, based on what had occurred, that future visits
between the mother and child needed to be “highly
supervised.”
On
or about October 18, 1991, respondent/mother was advised that with
respect to future visitation, she would be required to telephone
DCF and arrange supervised visits. The
testimony indicated that during the balance of the calendar year
1991, there was at least one visitation in November, and
two visitations in the month of December. As
stated heretofore, the instant petition was filed on November 18,
1991.
FN26.
It
was also reported by Jessica's school teacher that Jessica was
“withdrawn”
and had “shut
down”
on three school days: October
23, 25, and 28, 1991; since
this had never occurred before on successive days, the teacher
telephoned Dr. Neems regarding “concrete
ways to handle the situation.”
*9
Janet A. discontinued the therapy with Dr. Neems around the
end of March 1991, shortly before Jessica returned to the
foster home. FN27
Additionally,
it appears from documentation in evidence that respondent's last contact
with the parent-aide was around March 1, 1991. FN28
With
regard to the court established expectation that the mother not
engage in any inappropriate discipline of her children, there is
no evidence that Janet A. physically abused the child at
any time during the protracted period of commitment, including the
four month period that Jessica had returned home; similarly,
there was no evidence that Janet A. was abusive of
either of the two boys. FN29
FN27.
In
a January 30, 1991 progress report, Dr. Neems stated that
he had seen Jessica T. with her mother twice since
the child's return home. The
psychologist described the child, during both of the sessions, as
looking very sad and expressing very sensitive feelings. The
therapist believed that Jessica's sadness was, in part, because she
missed the “love
and attention she experienced in her foster family;”
he
stated: “she
...
left a foster family that was very warm, loving, and
nurturing and ..
returned to her mother's home where there is an inadequate
expression of love and praise.”
FN28.
The
documents indicate that during the months that the parent-aide worked
with Janet A., approximately nineteen visits actually took place. Although
the initial plan was to provide weekly service, respondent frequently
was not present for a number of the scheduled meetings.
On
January 16, 1991, it was reported that the parent-aide had
only been able to see the mother and child together
on January 11, 1991; apparently
the mother had not appeared for the aide's visit scheduled
for the prior week (1/4/91). On
April 18, 1991, following the March 1 visit, the parent-aide
supervisor wrote respondent/mother referring to the difficulty encountered in contacting
her, and set up an appointment for Friday, April 26.
On
May 3, 1991, NCCC wrote the mother terminating the parent-aide
services, stating that “repeated
attempts on the part of [the aide] to visit you
have proven fruitless.”
FN29.
There
were reports (not direct evidence) concerning disciplinary incidents involving a
stepfather (and the boys) which, at best, demonstrated very questionable
disciplinary practices. DCYS
has received no referrals
regarding the boys during the long period that Jessica has
remained under commitment to DCF. When
the isolated incidents involving the stepfather were disclosed, the social
worker spoke with him about participating in the counseling with
Dr. Neems; the
stepfather agreed to do so, but never did follow through
on the recommended counseling.
With
reference to maintaining contact and cooperating with DCF, it is
the agency's position that over the years respondent was just
minimally cooperative. However,
the evidence indicates that for most periods during the commitment,
the worker, the foster parent, and the therapist were all
aware of where the mother was residing and had recurring
contact with her. The
mother and child visited, and communicated telephonically, on a fairly
regular basis; in
1990, the mother cooperated with the social worker in the
preparation and signing of a service agreement. During
a time of particular turmoil in Janet A.'s domestic situation,
she voluntarily placed the children. Respondent
maintains that at the times she did not wish to
disclose her address or telephone number, she could always be
contacted through her attorney, and had so advised the social
worker. The
agency contends that respondent/mother was generally resistant to the efforts
toward rehabilitation and reunification. It
is stressed that the mother never acknowledged any mistreatment of
Jessica, and that she was not diligent in attending the
periodic administrative planning reviews for her daughter. FN30
Further,
that on occasions, the agency was not made aware of
the mother's address and telephone number, and also that at
certain times, respondent refused to talk with the worker or
to allow the worker to come to her home. FN31
It
is the court's view, based on all of the evidence,
that while the relationship between the social worker and the
mother had become quite strained, this was not a case,
like so many, where the parent's whereabouts were continually unknown
for long periods, where contact could not usually be made
with the mother, and where cooperation was virtually non-existent. The
mother, in this case, did generally maintain contact with both
the child and the agency, as well as with the
foster mother, and did present a plan for Jessica T.
when, following the unsuccessful return home of the child in
1991, it became evident that Jessica could not reside in
her mother's home, given the problems with her brothers and
other difficulties.
FN30.
Respondent/mother
has consistently maintained that she did not physically abuse or
strike Jessica T. To
premise a conclusion of non-cooperation, or a lack of resolve
to work with DCYS, upon the mother's refusal to admit
to something she maintains she did not do, particularly where
criminal charges have been pending, does not seem entirely proper.
With
respect to the planning meetings, however, it has been reported
that Janet A. attended only one administrative review in regard
to the treatment plan for her daughter.
FN31.
There
were two occasions that were specifically referenced in the evidence.
One
was the August 5, 1991 incident when the mother refused
to confer with the social worker, but told the foster
mother, apparently in the presence of the worker, that she
was undecided about signing a consent to terminate. On
May 15, 1991, not long after the child was returned
to foster care, and at a time when the mother's
domestic situation was exceedingly unsettled, the worker met the mother
at home and, as the respondent did not wish to
discuss matters relating to Jessica in the house, she was
asked to accompany the worker over to the adjacent bank
parking lot. At
the bank, the mother stated she was in a hurry,
did not turn off the car engine, and said she
did not wish to talk about future planning for her
daughter at that time.
It
does not appear that respondent/father has had any significant contact
whatsoever with Jessica T. since she was approximately seven months
of age; it
was at that time Janet A. and Paul T. separated,
the father intending to return to California. Although
abode service was effected on the father at the time
of the filing of the neglect petition, he did not
appear in that proceeding and, when this termination petition was
filed, publication was required since his whereabouts were unknown. During
the duration of the commitment Paul T. has not contacted
DCF regarding the child, has not communicated at all with
his daughter, her foster parent, or the social worker, and
has remained whereabouts unknown.
B.
Factual
Events Subsequent to the Filing of the Termination Petition.
*10
After the filing of the termination petition, respondent/mother visited with
Jessica T., on a bi-weekly basis, well into calendar year
1992; recorded
visitations took place on 12/12/91, 12/18/91, 1/2/92, 1/18/92, 2/6/92, 2/12/92,
3/1/92, 3/15/92, 4/5/92, and 5/9/92.
As
far back as the June 22, 1989 evaluation by Dr.
Mantell, the mother had mentioned the child's living in Alaska
with maternal relatives. FN32
Around
January 2, 1992, DCF received a letter from MS, a
maternal great aunt of Jessica T., expressing an interest in
either adopting or obtaining the legal guardianship of Jessica T.
MS
resides in Anchorage and is a native of Tyonek Village
(Athabaskan Tribe); in
her correspondence with the Department, MS stated she believed it
was “important
for Jessica to remain in the extended family [and] to
get to know here culture and heritage.”
Janet
A. expressed her agreement in having the child placed with
MS and requested that if the home of the maternal
great aunt in Alaska was approved, guardianship of the child
be transferred as soon as possible.
FN32.
In
1989, respondent told Dr. Mantell that she yells at her
children because they do not listen to her, but she
does not hit them. The
mother stated that the child (Jessica) accused her because the
child does not want to admit that she herself was
wrong and had simply fallen and hurt herself. When
asked where she would choose to have Jessica placed if
the child could not return home, Janet A. stated she
“would
prefer to see her daughter sent to Alaska to live
with a foster family or with maternal relatives.”
The
mother said that under such circumstances, “maybe
she'll learn her lesson ...
because she won't see me and maybe she'll realize, but
she'll never admit she's wrong.”
Dr.
Mantell, based on what respondent had stated to him, viewed
the mother as preferring to see the child live in
Alaska as a punitive measure; the
psychologist was told by the mother, in substance, that her
daughter was so stubborn,”
even being sent to reside in Alaska was unlikely to
have a constructive impact on her.”
On
or about January 14, 1992, DCF requested the State of
Alaska (Department of Health and Social Services) to conduct an
investigation of the great aunt's home through the Interstate Compact.
Jessica
T. initially expressed some interest in moving to Alaska, and
apparently had received some correspondence from her great aunt; however,
never having been to Alaska, the child understandably questioned what
her life there would be like and how it would
compare to what she experienced (and was experiencing) in Connecticut.
FN33
During
the pendency of the interstate study, Jessica T. continued in
therapy with Dr. Neems with the understanding that the therapist
would be working with the child, the foster mother, and
respondent to prepare Jessica for the anticipated move to Alaska.
FN34
On
or about May 6, 1992, an Interstate Compact transmittal was
received by DCF stating that representatives of the Alaska child
protection agency had been unsuccessful in contacting MS;
FN35
thereafter,
when the Cook Inlet Tribal Council social worker was contacted,
it was indicated that the great aunt remained interested in
taking Jessica.
FN33.
According
to the evidence, Jessica was concerned about the school she
would attend in Alaska, who her friends and family would
be there, and, generally, whether she would be happy living
in that jurisdiction. The
child, quite naturally, was very concerned about leaving her present
school, her friends, and the foster family with which she
had lived for some time, and to which she had
developed a strong emotional attachment. She
was also quite concerned about leaving her mother, possibly not
seeing her again, and about missing her own family.
FN34.
As
previously indicated, respondent/mother had stopped treating with Dr. Neems about
a year earlier, in late March 1991. However
when it appeared that Jessica's placement in Alaska might be
viable, there were a few additional sessions conducted with the
therapist. In
August 1992, Dr. Neems reported:
“The
writer's recent contacts with [Janet A.] consisted of four sessions
with Jessica and [the mother] conducted between April 2 and
July 6, 1992. The
focus of these sessions was on helping Jessica adjust to
the idea of moving to Alaska to live with one
of [Janet A.'s] aunts. [The
mother] was fearful that Jessica would feel rejected that she
was being sent away. She
offered Jessica some information about Alaska, but still couldn't show
Jessica the kind of positive attitude which might give her
a real emotional lift.
FN35.
An
earlier letter from the Alaska agency related the following in
regard to the efforts made to interview MS:
“...
I have had no success in reaching [MS], the person
you requested a home study on for possible placement of
[Jessica T]. On
March 6, 1992, I mailed a letter to [MS] requesting
that she contact me. She
did not respond for two weeks. I
called her and arranged for a home visit on April
7, 1992. Although
our visit was confirmed, [MS] was not at the house
when I arrived there. I
left my card with my phone number, requesting that she
please call. I
did not hear from [MS] for two more weeks. I
called her home on April 24, 1992. She
was not at home. I
left a message for her to call me back. As
of today, April 29, I have not heard from her.”
On
or about July 27, 1992, DCF received the Interstate Study
from Alaska;
FN36
placement
of Jessica in MS's home was not
recommended by the Department of Health and Social Services, Division
of Family and Youth Services, State of Alaska, based on
MS's “apparent
ambiguous feelings and [her companion's] refusal to be interviewed.”
FN37
FN36.
The
Interstate report revealed that MS is a quiet, reserved woman;
she
has been employed for many years as an LPN. MS
was divorced from her husband and raised their three children
practically alone. MS's
mother died when she was approximately eight years old; as
her father was unable to care for MS and her
sisters, they were placed in foster care. MS
recalls, as a young child, picking berries with her sisters,
her father hunting and fishing, and her mother canning vegetables
and smoking fish. MS
married in her twenties; she
and her husband moved to Ketchikan, and eventually settled in
Anchorage. Her
husband was employed as a fisherman and a logger. MS,
in raising her children, spent a great deal of time
with them; she
often took the children berry picking, sleigh riding, and ice
skating. MS
now has a very close relationship with her married daughter
and with one adult son who resides in Tyonek; she
is very supportive of her other adult son who lives
in Anchorage, but not in his mother's home. MS
and her companion own a mobile home located in a
working class neighborhood of Anchorage; the
residence has two bedrooms, so that had Jessica gone to
Alaska, she would have had her own room. The
residence was described as somewhat cluttered and slightly unkempt looking,
but comfortable. MS
related that because of Jessica T.'s age and past experience,
she would not resort to spanking as a means of
a discipline. MS
enjoys fishing and camping and would have included Jessica in
those activities; the
great aunt believes that education is very important, and school
work would have a high priority with MS.
FN37.
The
author of the report refers to ambiguous or unclear feelings
on the part of MS and her companion regarding their
receiving Jessica in their house; that
observation is supported by material contained in the body of
the report, which material would also show a degree of
ambivalence on the part of MS in regard to accepting
the caretaking responsibilities for this child. The
social worker with the Alaska agency reported:
“[MS]
has not demonstrated a strong interest in having Jessica live
with her ...
[MS] appears to have conflicting feelings around having Jessica placed
in her home. She
has never stated that she wants Jessica in her home.”
MS's
companion, who lives in the house, refused to talk to
the Alaska social worker. According
to MS, he “strongly
dislikes social workers.”
The
report indicates that he did not cooperate at all during
the home study process.
Between
June and October of 1992, respondent/mother visited with Jessica T.
on three occasions. FN38
During
this period, there was limited contact with DCYS and the
mother's precise address was unknown to the agency. FN39
On
August 4, 1992, the court, upon agreement of the parties,
ordered a psychological update of mother and child (W/PC) to
be performed by Dr. Mantell; the
evaluation was scheduled for September 15, 1992, but mother did
not appear for the appointment and never called to reschedule.
FN40
After
reviewing the documentation furnished (including the prior evaluation report), and
interviewing the child and her foster mother, the psychologist concluded
that a “seriously
troubled relationship”
existed between the mother and the child due to “both
of their personalities and the distorted attachment process between them.”
On
the information presented, Dr. Mantell characterized the mother as a
“self-perceived
victim whose neglect of the child is probably a replay
of her own unresolved family of origin difficulties and an
unresolved sense of rejection by her own parents.”
The
evaluator felt that child had “multiple
psychological parents,”
but that with respect to the most appropriate of the
various adults available “as
potential guardians,”
the child “should
be placed with the foster parents.”
Dr.
Mantell, in his report, dated September 22, 1992, concluded as
follows: “At
this point, the appearance is that termination of parental rights
[would] be in the child's best interests and that the
child [would] continue to feel a need to see her
mother, in which case an open adoption would be the
preferable course.”
Visitation
by the mother with the child continued through November 1992
and into 1993. FN41
FN38.
On
June 6, 1992, the mother took Jessica home for a
four hour visit; on
that occasion, the child played outside with her brothers. On
July 13, 1992, Janet A. had Jessica for five hours
and took her shopping at a gift shop in Ledyard;
following
this visit, Jessica stated to the foster mother that BA
was no longer residing with her mother. During
a third visit, on or about October 3, 1992, respondent
brought the child to visit MD, the paternal grandmother of
Jessica's two brothers. According
to DCF, this was the fourth visit Jessica T. had
with MD during the three and one-half years she had
been in foster care; prior
to 10/3/92, the mother had taken the child to visit
MD on two occasions, and the foster parent had brought
her to MD's house once.
FN39.
At
this time, Jessica reported to the foster mother that Janet
A. was living in Ledyard with a friend.
FN40.
It
is not entirely clear from the file whether notice of
the 9/15/92 appointment was sent directly to the mother; as
stated, there were times when her current address was not
known to either DCF or the court. However,
the notice and confirmation of the appointments with the psychologist
went to the attorney who represented respondent/mother.
FN41.
The
visits of four hours in duration continued. Apparently
there was no visitation in December 1992; the
mother stated she called the foster mother in December to
advise her that she had been ill and, additionally, that
she was attending school in connection with her employment at
the Foxwoods casino. According
to respondent, the foster family visited Kentucky during the holidays,
and did not return until a few days after Christmas.
*11
Respondent/mother testified that she had been told by Jessica that
she wished to finish school and then “come
home and live with her.”
The
mother is employed at Foxwoods and stated she had attended
school, recently receiving certification as a card dealer at the
casino. She
has arranged to receive counseling from a therapist having background
in, and familiarity with, the Native American culture and its
family practices. FN42
FN42.
The
mother testified that the first appointment had been scheduled. She
also testified that she had, for a period of time,
worked at the casino daily on a 4:30 PM to
8:30 AM shift. At
one point during the trial, her attorney advised the court
that Janet A. had to leave in order to get
to the casino by mid-afternoon, or was in danger of
losing the employment there.
The
DCF plan is to provide the
child with permanency through the adoptive process. According
to the social worker, the child has stated that she
would like to remain in her current school through the
1993/94 school year and wishes to live with “a
nice family,”
visiting with her “mom
once in a while.”
The
child has some understanding of adoption, as one of the
children in the foster family is an adopted child. Jessica
reportedly told the DCF worker that during a recent visit
with her mother, she was asked where she wanted to
live and responded she “did
not know,”
as she found it “difficult
to answer that question to her mother.”
Adoption
by the foster parents is not viable. The
child has been registered by the Department with the Adoption
Resource Exchange; the
agency has indicated that due to the child's Native American
heritage, preference would be given to an Indian adoptive family.
FN43
FN43.
It
has been reported that a Native American family has expressed
a “strong
desire”
to adopt Jessica, and if an adoption was perfected, the
family would allow the child to see her mother under
a specific visitation arrangement. See:
Brief
of Child's Attorney, filed July 30, 1993, p. 10. No
evidence, however, was presented of such development; petitioner
merely established that if termination were granted, preference would be
given to locating an Indian family.
C.
Psychologists'
Testimony
1)
Dr.
R.H. Neems
Dr.
Neems testified that he is a psychologist licensed in the
State of Connecticut. He
received a Master's degree in psychology in 1974 from the
University of South Carolina, and earned his Ph.D. in clinical
psychology from St. Louis University in April, 1982. Dr.
Neems has maintained his own professional practice since 1983, and
has been associated with Hartford Hospital and the Institute of
Living. He
provides therapy to persons in all age ranges, but specializes
in working with children who are in foster care, or
who have been adopted. FN44
Dr.
Neems has no educational background, training, or specialized knowledge in
the area of Native American Indian heritage or culture; accordingly,
he possess no particularized knowledge or information on the Alaskan
Athabascan Tribe, or its prevailing child rearing practices.
FN44.
Dr.
Neems was qualified by the court as an expert witness
in the field of clinical psychology with a specialty in
the area of children that are in placement or adopted.
Dr.
Neems began the weekly therapy sessions with Janet A., individually,
in June 1989; after
approximately six months, the weekly sessions continued with Jessica's joint
participation. The
psychologist was aware of the mother's Native American lineage from
the beginning and knew that such ancestry might present an
issue with respect to custody; however,
it was not until some considerable time after the therapy
with Janet A. was discontinued (actually, during the course of
trial) that he consulted an article entitled “American
Indians and Alaska Native Families: Emigrants
In Their Own Homeland”
(C. Attneave), which is included in a treatise entitled “Ethnicity
and Family Therapy”
(McGoldrich, Pearce, and Giordano).
*12
Dr. Neems saw Janet A. as having a distorted perception
of her daughter, and responding to Jessica based upon that
misperception, rather than upon a reasonable understanding of the child's
actual and pressing needs. Janet
A., according to the therapist, considers Jessica T. to be
a “spoiled
child”,
motivated by a desire for material things, and therefore, as
having purposely manipulated her placement in foster care by untruthfully
stating that she had been hit by her mother with
a riding crop. Dr.
Neems testified: “Janet
saw Jessica as being manipulative and throwing tantrums, lying about
Janet's behavior towards her in order to achieve the ends
that she wanted.”
The
mother's misperception of this child was addressed, at length, in
the therapy sessions, the psychologist undertaking to help the mother
understand that her daughter was a “scared,
very needy”
little girl who was “suffering
from a lack of appropriate kinds of attention.”
The
mother's misperception was, in Dr. Neems' view, the result of
her own problematic childhood and family background: that
of a severely neglected child, with an alcoholic mother, a
father who abandoned the family, and one left to grow
up in extraordinarily difficult circumstances where she was basically responsible
for raising herself. Dr.
Neems testified.
“Janet
has lacked the ability to understand what Jessica's needs are,
and to understand what Jessica feels, and to respond appropriately.
And
in my ...
view, that's most likely caused by her own very severe
experiences of being neglected as a child ...
Jessica has coped ...
in a fashion a ..
bit similar to Janet by finding other people who could
supply some of her needs and she's formed attachments with
a number of other people within her family, and then
subsequently in foster care ...
much of Jessica's behavior ..
[is] attributable to the lack of Janet's ability to appropriately
meet her needs in terms of appropriate discipline and understanding,
and responding to Jessica's needs.”
In
therapeutically addressing the problematical mother/daughter relationship, Dr. Neems stressed the
need to praise
the child; he
testified:
“I
felt that Janet's praising Jessica was critical to interrupt some
of the negative spiral which occurred between them ..
where Jessica would feel sad and neglected, and would act
up some, and then Janet would respond by punishing her
..
shouting at her ..
and hitting her. And
I felt like it was one thing to teach [the
mother] appropriate discipline, but ..
Jessica's needs, and the needs of the interaction between the
two of them, dictated that Janet really needed to praise
her daughter.”
The
therapist felt respondent/mother, over the course of the therapy, made
“very
slight progress ...
in terms of being able to praise”
her daughter. During
this period of time, however, Jessica's own emotional condition “improved
greatly,”
to some extent as a result of the therapy, but
primarily due to the “high
quality”
foster placement which had provided an environment adequately meeting the
child's emotional needs. Jessica
T., over time, became far less depressed, and her self-esteem
improved substantially.
*13
Dr. Neems agreed with Dr. Mantell that Jessica has a
strong interest in maintaining a continuing relationship with her mother.
FN45
While
the child wants to maintain a relationship with her mother,
and that is important to her, she has a reasonably
clear sense, particularly after the 1990/91 four month experience, that
it is unlikely she could reside, on a regular basis,
with Janet A. FN46
With
regard to a “psychological
parent,”
Dr. Neems observed that Jessica “always
lived in an environment of multiple caretakers”;
he
testified:
FN45.
The
psychologist testified that Jessica T. expressed her strong attachment to
her mother “numerous
times in many different ways.”
Once
such instance was when it was determined Jessica would not
be placed with her great aunt, MS, in Alaska. When
so informed, the child was delighted, stating that she “never
wanted to go [to Alaska] anyway because ...
she was afraid she'd never see her mother again.”
FN46.
Dr.
Neems testified: “..
[Jessica] has a strong desire to maintain some degree of
connection. [She]
also knows that when she returned to live with her
mother for four months, that it didn't work and she's
still sad about that.”
“...
her experience of living in foster care and being attached
to her foster parents, while maintaining some wish to have
a relationship with her mother, is kind of what her
existence has been about ...
Jessica does want to have a relationship with her mother,
but she knows that it didn't work when she tried
to live there and she knows that she can't count
on it working in the future. In
her own mind, if she could stay in foster care
forever, she would be quite happy to do that.”
It
is Dr. Neems' view that respondent/mother still is not in
a position to be the child's primary caretaker, and he
would not recommend that Jessica be returned to her mother's
home: “I
think that by continuing to blame the child for all
the problems ...
[Janet] shows her continued lack of empathy and understanding for
her child's feelings and needs.”
FN47
The
psychologist stated that if the child were returned to her
mother, he felt there would be “a
very serious risk”
of further emotional
harm to Jessica. FN48
With
respect to long term foster care versus termination of parental
rights, Dr. Neems expressed the view that Jessica T.'s “primary
need now is for permanency”,
and therefore, “there's
a very strong argument that the appropriate step is to
terminate.”
FN49
The
psychologist spoke to Jessica about what adoption means and of
finding a family in which she could grow up; the
child clearly stated that she would be sad “if
she could never see her mother, and expressed the preference
to have a home situation where she could live permanently,
comfortably and happily, but where she could also maintain a
relationship with, and a connection to, her mother. Nevertheless,
as between long term foster care and a termination of
parental rights quite probably involving no
future contact with respondent/mother, the psychologist testified he would still
recommend the latter: “I
agree ..
[no future contact with biological mother] would be unfortunate, but
permanency and security and stability are what Jessica dramatically needs.”
FN50
FN47.
The
psychologist indicated: “I
saw no evidence ...
that [Janet] had stopped blaming Jessica for all the problems
that had occurred. She
was still stating things like, ‘if
Jessica wants to get along with the boys and wants
to be a part of the family, then I'll try
to get her back;’
[t]hat
continues to blame Jessica for the problems and continues to
not understand her.”
FN48.
He
explained that Jessica had finally achieved a sense of self-confidence
and of security which she would lose if returned to
the mother; also,
that the child quite likely would become depressed in her
mother's care, which would impact on many areas of Jessica's
life, including her performance in school.
FN49.
Dr.
Neems stated, as follows:
“I
think long-term foster care prolongs [the] uncertainty of the situation,
and would move Jessica another year, two, three years down
the road into being an early teenager when she'll have
to then confront all the crises of adolescence on top
of still dealing with this uncertainty. It's
far better to establish ..
permanency for her now than to subject her to all
the risks of allowing the situation to remain undecided.”
FN50.
Dr.
Neems went on to testify, however, as follows:
Q.
...
obviously this child does love her mother in some fashion.
Is
that true?
A.
The
question of their real relationship versus their wished for relationship
is relative to that point.
Q.
Well,-
A.
She
wants to have a positive contact with her mother. In
fact, they don't have a real positive contact.
Q.
Is
that important to her, to have a positive relationship with
her mother?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
Is
it very important to her?
A.
Yes.
It's
also important to her to not continue to be blamed
for things that aren't her fault. It's
that kin |