Court Upholds Youth Services Commitment of Disabled Son to Facility
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 05, 2017
Estate Estate Wills & Probate Divorce & Family Law Family Law
Summary: Blog post about the rights of a neglected child in probate proceedings.
To speak with an experienced probate law attorney, please contact the experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
In the case of In re David O., the Connecticut Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS), filed an action against a mother pursuant to Connecticut family law, which governed adjudication of uncared-for children and their appropriate disposition. After a judicial determination that a child is uncared for, neglected, or dependent, the court has available three possible options from which to choose regarding custody of that child: (1) to commit the child to the commissioner of children and youth services; (2) to vest such child or youth's care and personal custody in a third party until the child reaches the age of 18; or (3) to permit the natural parent to retain custody and guardianship of the child with or without protective supervision by the Department of Children and Youth Services. The DYCS sought to have the mother's child placed in a residential treatment facility.
The youth was a 17-year-old child with special educational needs. He suffered from cerebral palsy and behavioral deficits. He refused to live with his mother. His mother contended that the placement of her son in a residential facility violated his rights guaranteed by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court ordered the youth committed to the care and custody of DYCS for a period of 18 months. The court observed that the youth could not be committed without his consent after he reached his 18th birthday. The court noted that the youth was in need of specialized care and emphasized that without an immediate placement, it would not be in his best interests to go into society without appropriate skills and training. The court found that the DYCS established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that commitment of the youth to DCYS services was in his best interests.
The court ordered that the youth was to be committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Youth Services for a period not to exceed 18 months. Both the petitioner and the guardian ad litem maintain that a commitment to DCYS is in the best interests of David O.; both strongly urge the court to enter an order of commitment. “David O. will be eighteen years of age in a few days; he refuses to return to his mother's home, and that home clearly cannot meet his special needs” said the court. “As the guardian ad litem stresses, commitment is in the best interest of David O. because it will serve to ensure stability in the placement of the child as well as appropriate long range planning and provision for this young man (which hopefully will include, beginning well in advance of his twenty-first birthday, suitable community based, independent living preparation) to age twenty-one.”
If you have any questions or would like to speak to a probate law attorney about a will, trust, or estate matter, please contact the experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
Source: In re David O., 1992 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2694 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 1992)
