‘Predictive neglect doctrine’ in Connecticut CPS case

Predictive neglect has been the cause of severa cases of family separations by CPS that we have showcased. Now, the Connecticut Supreme Court has issued a ruling to that affects mentally ill parents.

“In 2002, a Torrington area mother lost custody of her newborn daughter because the woman appeared to be mentally ill.

That set the stage for a 10-year court battle over the efforts of the mother and the father of her subsequent children to retain custody of their two boys, Joseph W. and Daniel W., now aged 7 and 6, respectively.

The state Supreme Court, in a recent decision that has implications for parents with mental-health problems, has overturned the ruling of a trial-court judge who found that there was “a potential risk” of neglect to Joseph and Daniel if they were returned to the parents.

This is called the doctrine of “predictive neglect.” The state’s highest court didn’t disturb that doctrine, but the justices did say the trial judge should have used a higher standard of proof. The court remanded the case back to the Child Protection Session of Superior Court in Middletown for another trial, probably later this year.

The high court found that the problem under the “potential risk” standard, is that the Department of Children and Families could prevail in these cases even if only a very slight risk of neglect, say 10 percent, was established.

The justices said that was too broad.

“We conclude, therefore, that the trial court must find that it is more likely than not, if the child remained in the current situation, that the child would be ‘denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally,’ ” Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers wrote.

The “potential risk” standard just leaves it wide open – it could be anything,” said the father’s lawyer, David Reich of Middletown. “That’s a pretty low standard.”

After the mother’s first child, Kristina H., was removed, the couple failed to tell DCF that the mother was pregnant again, and the couple went to Pennsylvania to have Joseph.

As was the case with Kristina in Connecticut, the emergency room staff in the Lackawanna County hospital said the mother was exhibiting “bizarre behavior.” The staff also reported that the father was completely lacking in insight into the mother’s condition and the implications for Joseph’s safety. The parents also failed to provide accurate information about their housing and financial status. The Pennsylvania authorities contacted Connecticut DCF.

During 2005, Joseph was removed from the parents and placed into foster case in Connecticut.

In 2006, Daniel was born, and DCF again moved to gain custody. During a trial on DCF’s neglect petitions, the mother pleaded “nolo contendere,” or no contest, meaning she didn’t admit or refute the charges. It has the same effect as a guilty plea. The father, meanwhile, presented no evidence, and Daniel was removed.

Afterward, the Appellate Court ruled that the judge in the 2006 case erred by not giving the father an opportunity to enter a plea. A new trial was held, after a which a new judge again ruled in favor of DCF based on the predictive neglect doctrine.

It was here that the state Supreme Court found that the standard of proof was too low. The justices ordered that the higher standard be used in the next trial.

Reich said the father is prepared to care for Joseph and Daniel independently of the mother, if necessary.

Asked if the father was a fit parent, Reich said, “I believe so. There has never been a direct finding of abuse against him.”

The children have been living in foster care for most of the last 10 years, with visits from the parents.”

State High Court Ruling May Affect Parents With Mental-Health Issues

[The Hartford Courant 7/2/12 by Josh Kovner]

REFORM Puzzle Piece

 10 YEARS of court battles and the biological father never had a ruling against him! How does this fit with ANY supposed foster care standard? Was their daughter was adopted through foster care as they only mention regaining custody of the boys?Were the parental rights of the father terminated for the daughter?