Opinion ID: 1314674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: results of first improvement period

Text: A hearing on the success of the improvement period was held on November 10, 1987. Ms. Laudermilt testified for the D.H.S. and explained that she had been involved with Carlita and her family during the improvement period which was originally granted on April 28, 1987. Ms. Laudermilt explained that there had been daytime visitation between the child and her parents two to three times per month. Ms. Laudermilt stated that the D.H.S. had experienced no difficulty during the home visitation and explained that the appellant and Robert B. had taken Carlita to the playground and had hosted a birthday party for her. With regard to gradual reintegration back into parental custody, Ms. Laudermilt stated that the prior visits had been of two to three hours duration and suggested that subsequent visitation be increased to six to eight hours with D.H.S. workers present 50 to 60 percent of the time. Ms. Laudermilt testified that Carlita takes a while to make up to [the appellant and Robert B.] and it will be an hour before she will even go to them and play, especially with Robert. Ms. Laudermilt also discussed physical confrontations and arguments between the appellant and Robert B., with the appellant being physically aggressive toward Robert B. Ms. Laudermilt explained that she and Bea Lahita had both received telephone calls from the morning to late hours of the night during the previous six months in which Robert B. had complained that the appellant was fighting with him or locking him out of the house. Ms. Lahita expressed her opinion that the relationship between the parties had not significantly improved and that it would not be in the best interest of the child to return to the home at that time. At the conclusion of the hearing, the lower court stated that due to the lack of updated psychological reports and evaluations as a basis to determine whether Carlita would be safe in the home environment, the improvement period would be extended for an additional six months. An evaluation of the appellant and Robert B. was conducted by social worker Laurie Taylor, and a report dated December 3, 1987, was submitted. Ms. Taylor found that the appellant and Robert B. lacked a clear understanding of the legal ramifications of Carlita's placement and that the appellant and Robert B. associated her placement with the ongoing personality problems between the appellant and Ms. Laudermilt. Ms. Taylor found the appellant and Robert B. to be angry, bitter, and disillusioned about the custody situation. The thrust of Ms. Taylor's report was that the parties' home was adequate for raising children and that they possessed all necessary furniture. Home visitation by Ms. Taylor was varied as to time and notice, and no problems were encountered with the couple or with neighbors. Ms. Taylor noted the conflict and adversarial relationship between the appellant and Ms. Laudermilt, recognized that such a relationship made appropriate work with the family difficult, and suggested a change of D.H.S. caseworkers. Dr. Charles Hewitt, psychologist, also evaluated the appellant and Robert B. and submitted several reports to the D.H.S. Dr. Hewitt had been involved with the family through termination proceedings held on behalf of Justin and had previously evaluated the parties. He reported that the appellant was functioning in the borderline range with some indication of low average cognitive functioning, but stressed that she was not mentally retarded. Dr. Hewitt noted serious personality difficulties suffered by the appellant with noticeable abusiveness and insensitivity. He also stated that the appellant loves her children but has personality problems which interfere with her ability to manage their difficult behavior. He recognized the adversarial relationship between the appellant and Ms. Laudermilt and stated that such conflict may interfere with D.H.S. attempts to assist the family. Dr. Hewitt recommended the continuing use of homemaker services and suggested that an effort be made to reintegrate Christopher and Carlita into the household. Dr. Dennis J. Maceiko, psychologist, also evaluated the appellant and submitted reports dated April 1986 and October 1988. [8] In his first report, Dr. Maceiko found that the appellant had a very low frustration level and was easily agitated. He felt uncomfortable allowing the appellant to have custody of Justin or Christopher and also felt that, due to the appellant's intense explosions, Carlita's safety was in jeopardy while she remained in the home. Dr. Maceiko's second report, dated October 5, 1988, was based upon a July 16, 1987, visit with the appellant and Robert B. Dr. Maceiko noted anger and poor impulse control in the appellant. He stated that she quickly varied from cooperative to quite irritable during the interview, that she had difficulty dealing with stress, and that her frustration tolerance level was very low.