Opinion ID: 2556516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CINA Determinations

Text: The four children in this case were referred to the Department in June 2005 following allegations of neglect. At that time, there was no food in the home, the children were dirty, and the school-aged children were not attending school regularly. The Department also had to remove Ms. B's older son, Dion, from the home following concerns that he had sexually assaulted his younger siblings. It assisted Ms. B and the Children in moving to an emergency shelter placement, and provided them with Family Preservation Services. Thereafter, the Department provided several types of assistance to Ms. B and the Children, including:  securing and moving mother and children into transitional housing,  providing furniture for the home,  securing food stamps and providing emergency food services even after food stamps were awarded,  transporting mother to medical appointments,  providing in-home parenting instruction,  referring Ms. B for vocational training at the Department of Rehabilitative Services (DORS), and  arranging individual and family counseling. The Department also arranged and paid for a psychological evaluation of Ms. B. That evaluation was conducted by Dr. Sybil Smith-Gray, who determined that Ms. B's cognitive functioning indicates her problem solving abilities to be in the mildly retarded range[.] Smith-Gray observed that these limitations resulted in an affect driven problem-solving approach, meaning that Ms. B. relies heavily upon her feelings in arriving at conclusions and making decisions about any given situation because she has difficulty in carefully thinking through possible solutions. Smith-Gray opined that Ms. B.'s cognitive limitations are capable of impinging upon her ability to sustain adequate care for her children over time without external support and intervention. According to the Department, Ms. B was largely unresponsive to its initial efforts. She never attended DORS or counseling, and she let her Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) benefits lapse. She also allowed unauthorized adults to move into her home and exposed the Children to drug use and sexual activity. The Children's school reported that the Children would attend class with an obscene body odor, dirty clothes, and roaches crawling out of their book bags. . . . [Jordan and Davon's] behavior was out of control with their peers. All of the children appear to have speech impairments that Ms. B. refused to address, as well as taking the children for their annual physicals. The final straw for the Department came on February 4, 2007, when Ms. B.'s oldest daughter, Shirley, attempted to use a knife to intervene in a fight between her mother and Mr. T. For the Children's safety, the Department removed the Children and placed them in emergency shelter care. Two days later, a juvenile court authorized the continuation of shelter care placement. One month after the Children were removed from their mother, the juvenile court determined that Shirley was a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA). [3] The court found that the home [was] chaotic with domestic violence, lack of sexual boundaries and drug use by several people that are there most of the time including her father. Indeed, Shirley admitted that her father and his siblings had used drugs in her presence. Moreover, the court recognized that Ms. B. is cognitively limited[,] and the services DSS recommended [to Ms. B.] were available and in place but not used with the exception of the Section 8 housing voucher. The court later made the same findings with regard to Davon, Jordan, and Cedric, and also designated them as CINA. At this time, the permanency plans for all four children were designed for reunification.