In re Leah S., 17737.
| Decision Date | 18 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 17737.,17737. |
| Citation | 284 Conn. 685,935 A.2d 1021 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re LEAH S.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Joseph Rubin, associate attorney general, with whom were Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Tammy Nguyen-O'Dowd, assistant attorney general, for the appellant (petitioner).
Susan B. Carr, Waterford, for the appellee (respondent mother).
ROGERS, C.J., and KATZ, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and SCHALLER, Js.
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether certain specific steps issued by the trial court to the department of children and families (department) to facilitate the reunification of a minor child and her parents constitute sufficiently clear and unambiguous court orders so as to support a judgment of contempt. The petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment finding the petitioner in contempt for wilful failure to comply with the trial court's orders that she implement certain specific steps concerning the care of Leah S., the minor child of the respondent parents, Victoria S. and Joseph S.1 In re Leah S., 96 Conn.App. 1, 898 A.2d 855 (2006). On appeal to this court, the petitioner claims that: (1) the specific steps issued by the trial court were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to support a finding of contempt; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the petitioner wilfully had disobeyed the orders; and (3) the trial court's articulation exceeded the permissible scope of an articulation and must be disregarded on appeal. We conclude that the trial court's orders were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to support a judgment of contempt, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal depict a deeply troubled child. Leah initially was taken into the petitioner's custody on April 9, 2003, pursuant to a ninety-six hour hold after a school counselor reported allegations of abuse and neglect by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a neglect petition and sought temporary custody of Leah based, in part, on the determination that the respondents had failed to follow through with recommended counseling services, medication and other services offered by the department, despite Leah's extensive mental health history.
The trial court granted the petitioner's ex parte motion for temporary custody of Leah on April 11, 2003, and issued specific steps to govern the department's care of Leah.2 The court ordered the department to: Thereafter, on May 9, 2003, the respondents consented to the petitioner's temporary custody of Leah, waiving their right to a contested hearing on the order for temporary custody, and the court again ordered the department to take the same specific steps necessary to provide for Leah's needs.
Pursuant to department policy, Leah received a multi-disciplinary screening on May 14, 2003. The screening process took into consideration Leah's extensive mental health history, as well as her daily migraine headaches. In the screening report, a social worker recommended that Leah be placed either in therapeutic foster care or in a residential facility due to her mental health needs. Leah remained, however, in a nontherapeutic foster home and the department arranged for Leah to receive counseling from the Wheeler Clinic bimonthly to address her behavioral problems. Although the Wheeler Clinic provided monthly medication management services to Leah, she did not receive psychiatric treatment for her underlying mental illnesses. Leah's specialized needs exceeded her foster families' abilities to care for her adequately and in September, 2003, she entered her fourth nontherapeutic foster home, where the department's reports indicate that she continued to demonstrate aggressive and disruptive behavior.
In October of 2003, the respondents and the department reached an agreement concerning the neglect petition whereby the respondents entered pleas of nolo contendere to the allegation that Leah was uncared for due to their inability to provide specialized care to address Leah's mental health needs.3 The court then committed Leah to the petitioner's custody and ordered the department to comply with the specific steps first issued in April to promote the family's eventual reunification. The court also augmented the orders on the preprinted form by issuing supplemental orders that the department "facilitate counseling between Leah [and her twin sister] to resolve sibling difficulties" and that the respondents "[c]ooperate with child(ren)'s therapy, including sibling counseling, when appropriate." There was no in-court discussion of residential placement for Leah, and residential placement was not enumerated as a specific step.4
The Wheeler Clinic recommended residential placement for Leah on October 13, 2003.5 Meanwhile, Leah remained in a nontherapeutic foster home and the department documented Leah's deterioration in foster care, possible overmedication and estrangement from her family, along with a social worker's recommendation that Leah be moved to a safe house or shelter until a residential placement could be made. The department provided other services to Leah during this time, including ongoing treatment with the Wheeler Clinic, a referral to a program to provide support to her foster parents, a consultation with a nurse to address Leah's possible overmedication, and a referral to an extended day treatment program, for which Leah was on a waiting list.
When no residential placement was forthcoming, the respondent mother filed a motion for contempt on November 21, 2003, alleging that, over a seven month period, the department had failed to provide the services necessary to comply with the specific steps ordered by the court, thereby delaying the family's reunification.6
After a hearing, the trial court found the petitioner in contempt by memorandum of decision on September 30, 2004, and ordered her to pay $500 to the respondent mother for attorney's fees. The court subsequently issued an articulation on June 1, 2005. In its articulation, the court stated that, despite the department's knowledge that Leah had "entered the system with serious mental health problems" and that she was "uncontrollable, disruptive and sometimes violent," the department nevertheless had failed to implement the specific steps ordered by the court in April, May and October, 2003, by failing to: seek a residential placement for Leah, provide her with psychiatric care for her mental illnesses or treatment for her migraine headaches, offer the respondents training on caring for children with mental health issues and facilitate counseling between Leah and her twin sister.
The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's judgment of contempt, claiming that she could not be found in wilful contempt of the court's specific steps because the steps were ambiguous and the evidence was insufficient so as to support a finding of contempt. In re Leah S., supra, 96 Conn.App. at 8, 12, 898 A.2d 855. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, determining that the specific steps "provided ample direction to the [petitioner]"; id., at 11, 898 A.2d 855; that, regardless, the petitioner had a duty to seek clarification of any unclear orders, and that the record "amply supported the court's contempt finding." Id., at 14, 898 A.2d 855. This certified appeal followed.
The petitioner raises three claims on appeal. First, the petitioner claims that the trial court's orders were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to support a finding of contempt because the specific steps document7 is worded in general terms and both the specific steps and the court's supplemental order conferred broad discretion on the department to determine the appropriate services for Leah. Second, the petitioner claims that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that she wilfully disobeyed the court's orders because the specific steps did not explicitly require residential placement or specific mental health treatment and the department provided other counseling and support services to Leah. Third, the petitioner claims that the trial court's articulation exceeded the permissible scope of an articulation and must be disregarded because the motion for contempt referenced only the specific steps issued on October 3, 2003 whereas the trial court in its articulation identified as supporting its contempt order the specific steps issued on April 11, May 9, and October 3, 2003. We agree with the petitioner's first claim, and accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
"Contempt is a disobedience to the rules and orders of a court which has power to punish for such an offense." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Cohen, 222 Conn. 591, 596 n. 5, 610 A.2d 1177 (1992). In reviewing the trial court's finding of contempt, we are guided by standards that limit our review. "[O]ur review [of a finding of civil contempt] is technically limited to questions of jurisdiction such as whether the court had authority to impose the punishment inflicted and whether the act or acts for which the penalty was imposed could constitute a contempt.... This limitation originates because by its very nature, the court's contempt power ... must be balanced against the contemnor's fundamental rights and, for this reason, there exists the present mechanism for the eventual review of errors which allegedly infringe on these rights.... We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Elmer G., (AC 37596).
...court's determination that consent decree on which judgment of contempt was based was clear and unambiguous)." In re Leah S ., 284 Conn. 685, 693, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007).We have imposed similar requirements in violation of probation proceedings. In State v. Boseman , supra, 87 Conn.App. at 16......
-
Birkhold v. Birkhold
...of whether the underlying order is clear and unambiguous is a legal inquiry subject to de novo review. See, e.g., In re Leah S. , 284 Conn. 685, 693, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007). We review the trial court's determination that the violation was wilful under the abuse of discretion standard. See id.......
-
In re Joseph W.
...the parents.... The trial court also may augment the specific steps with supplemental orders." (Citations omitted.) In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685, 696, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007). The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that, pursuant to § 46b–129(b), the parents were provided with specif......
-
Behrns v. Behrns
...persuaded. Recently, our Supreme Court clarified the standard of review applicable to civil judgments of contempt in In re Leah S., 284 Conn. 685, 935 A.2d 1021 (2007). The court explained: "[O]ur analysis of a judgment of contempt consists of two levels of inquiry. First, we must resolve t......
-
2008 Connecticut Appellate Review
...Obama's qualifications to be President. 50. 285 Conn. 528, 940 A.2d 755 (2008). 51. 286 Conn. 17, 942 A.2d 373 (2008). 52.Id. at 38. 53. 284 Conn. 685, 935A.2d 1021(2007). 54. 286 Conn. 132, 138 n.6, 943 A.2d 406 (2008). 55. 288 Conn. 770, 955 A.2d1 (2008). 56. 287 Conn. 731, 949 A.2d 1227 ......
-
2007 Developments in Connecticut Family Law
...58. 222 Conn. 32 (1992). 59. Ramin, supra note 52, 281 Conn. at 353-59. 60. 284 Conn. 459 (2007). 61. 104 Conn. App. 150 (2007). 62. 284 Conn. 685 (2007). 63. Id. at 693. 64. 101 Conn. App. 583, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 902 (2007). 65. Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. App. 326 (2007) (party requir......