DCF Claims Parents Unfit for Lack of Educational Care and Attention

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of In re Amurah B., the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) filed petitions alleging that parents had neglected their children because they were being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally. The parents denied the DCF’s allegations and moved to dismiss the claims against them.

DCF contended that the evidence was sufficient to establish neglect, because during the relevant adjudicatory period each child was denied proper educational care and attention in that she did not attend their school regularly, and thus was deprived of the opportunity to access the educational opportunities scheduled for her. In Connecticut, education has long been recognized as being fundamental to the well-being of a child. Connecticut has for centuries recognized it as her right and duty to provide for the proper education of the young. Education is so important that the state has made it compulsory through a requirement of attendance. The parents responded that the children received adequate educational attention during the period at issue as evidenced by their grades and consistent promotions, so that the evidence of non-attendance at school could not be sufficient to support the petitions. The court held the evidence, which included numerous instances of absences and tardiness for each of the children, coupled with either a decline in grades or an assertion by the school that increased attendance would have resulted in higher grades, if credited, could establish that each child had in fact been subjected to a negative impact as a result of nonattendance and/or tardiness at school. Accordingly, that aspect of the parents' argument could not support the motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss was denied. The DCF's objection was sustained. While parental rights may be of like importance, there is an additional consideration involved” said the court. “The parents' constitutional right to the care and custody of their children must be balanced against the rights of their children to an adequate home and education.” (Emphasis added.) In the Matter of S.D., Jr., 549 P.2d 1190, 1200-01 (Alaska 1976).

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: In re Amurah B., 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 595 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 12, 2010)