Opinion ID: 2194658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Several Case Plans Prepared by DCYF

Text: After filing the neglect petitions in October of 2001, DCYF prepared a series of case plans intended to address its concerns about Amanda's fitness as a parent without removing the children from her home. [4] While the children were in her care, Amanda received public assistance and maintained an apartment in Newport. The goal of the first case plan, dated October 24, 2001, was for Amanda to work on (1) improving her parenting skills; (2) achieving financial stability; (3) assuring home safety; and (4) providing for the children's housing, clothing, food, educational, and medical needs. [5] Amanda refused to sign that case plan. In connection with that first case plan, DCYF caseworker John Bernardo, who had been assigned to Amanda's case in February of 2001, testified [6] that DCYF offered to make available the following services to Amanda: (1) parenting classes to be provided by Child & Family Services; (2) family services to be provided by Project Early Start (a Child & Family Services program); and (3) family counseling to be provided by the Family Preservation program. Mr. Bernardo testified that Amanda failed to participate in the Family Preservation counseling services while the first case plan was pending. Moreover, although she did attend some parenting classes, Mr. Bernardo testified that she did not comply with DCYF's recommendation that she attend additional parenting classes at Child & Family Services. It was further Mr. Bernardo's testimony that Amanda did not complete the Project Early Start program. When DCYF presented Amanda with a second case plan on May 3, 2002, referring her to ( inter alia ) the Family Preservation program, she again refused to sign the case plan, and she told the caseworker that she did not need to work on the issues that the case plan identified. At that point in time, the children were still residing in Amanda's home. Later in May of 2002, DCYF removed the children ex parte after being informed that Amanda had allowed Luis [7] to supervise the children in her absence and that she had tied Brooklyn and Isaiah to a bedpost as punishment. Brooklyn and Isaiah were placed in the care of their paternal grandmother. The testimony of Mr. Bernardo indicates that the two children have since bonded with their grandmother, who is a pre-adoptive parent. Mr. Bernardo testified as to his observations that Brooklyn interacts and talks openly with her grandmother and that Isaiah seems comfortable and happy and speaks frequently in that environment. After the children were removed from Amanda's care, subsequent case plans addressed the goal of reunification. A third case plan, dated July 11, 2002, identified the following as among the objectives for Amanda: (1) the improvement of parenting skills; (2) the provision of a safe and stable environment; (3) learning how to supervise appropriately; and (4) meeting the children's housing, medical, mental health, food, clothing, and educational needs. Amanda refused to sign this third case plan, and she did not complete the tasks described therein. Mr. Bernardo testified that he indicated on the case plan the fact that the mother refused to sign it. He testified that Amanda told him she would not sign the case plan because [s]he didn't trust DCYF and refused to sign documents. On September 4, 2002, after conducting a hearing on DCYF's allegations of neglect, the Family Court formally committed Brooklyn and Isaiah to the care, custody, and control of DCYF. According to the decree issued by the Family Court on that date, Amanda admitted to the allegation of neglect that DCYF had made in that proceeding. Years later, on June 20, 2005, during the termination of parental rights trial, Amanda testified that, when she had admitted to the neglect of her children, she did not understand the charges that she was facing, adding that she knew very little about the legal system. [8] After the children were committed to DCYF custody, DCYF continued to prepare case plans for Amanda aimed at reunifying her with her children. Amanda's fourth case plan, dated February 12, 2003, set forth the same goals as the earlier case plans and added as further requirements: (1) participation in a substance abuse evaluation; (2) mental health maintenance; and (3) abstention from drugs and alcohol. As happened with respect to the earlier case plans, Amanda did not sign this document. Amanda also refused to sign a fifth case plan, dated September 5, 2003. Mr. Bernardo testified that Amanda did not complete the tasks contained in that case plan; those tasks included maintaining a legal source of income and refraining from the use of drugs and alcohol. During the termination of parental rights trial, Amanda testified that she did not realize that the purpose of the case plans was to track her progress. Expressing great frustration with DCYF, Amanda testified that she refused to sign some of the case plans because she felt that she had already completed the requirements that the plans imposed on her. She testified as follows: I was already complying and I had already complied with a lot of it. And I felt like they just didn't see that or they just didn't care and they kept writing it down. Nina Stein, the clinician at Project Early Start to whom Amanda was assigned, testified that, although Amanda seemed familiar with a number of the concepts in the parenting classes referenced in the case plans, her actual parenting skills did not improve during this time because her own mental health needs interrupted her.