GOLDSTEIN, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
(Begin excerpt.)
THE COURT: With that background, I'll enter a decision today. This will be transcribed when I start the decision. I will sign off on it. And then I will issue an articulation hopefully sometime this week.
The determination of whether or not the child has been neglected or uncared for is made by the preponderance of the evidence as of the date of the two petitions. The OTC and neglect petition were filed at the same time. The disposition is made as of the end of the last hearing. That again is preponderance of the evidence in the best interests of the child. This case was not bifurcated, but I'm aware of the difference between an adjudication and a disposition.
The two grounds that were alleged were that the child was denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, and the child's home could not provide the specialized care which the physical, emotional or mental condition of the child required.
Now, I'm aware that Judge Trombley on the OTC rejected the ground of physical illness, but that's a somewhat different ground than those on the neglect petition. He did not find that there was a serious physical illness. In my case, however, focusing on the period immediately after the birth, the hospital period, which is what the OTC relates to, I would find at that time the State has proven both grounds and adjudicate neglect and uncared for. I don't think anyone denies that the period in the hospital before the OTC was of great concern to everybody, even the two doctors don't really quarrel that at that point the child CT Page 5471 was at risk. But now it's much later, and time has gone by, and I have to consider the matter not because of what happened at the time of the OTC back in October, but what's the situation as of the last hearing date here.
Judge Trombley emphasized in his OTC, based upon what he heard, which is somewhat less than what I heard, that the prime goal of the DCF process, the court process, was to reunite the child with the mother. And I don't quarrel with that as a goal at all. In fact, he set up extended visitation, which over the period has been cut back, and again emphasized that he wanted to see the mother, perhaps the father, reunited together. And I support that goal. The question is when.
Both doctors observed visitation, but came to different conclusions. And both have different directions for this case. I find that Dr. August was too optimistic. But I find that Dr. Sadler was too pessimistic for me at this stage in the relationship between the parents and the child.
My hope is that the mother and child can be reunited at the grandparents' home, or at a home established with David. That is possible if some of the concerns expressed by Dr. Sadler show improvement. But I must tell you, that if there is no improvement, particularly by the mother in her relationship with the child, DCF will probably file for termination. That's out there. But that's not what I have to decide today, and I'm not suggesting it. And I believe that Judge Trombley noted that possibility. I think that it was his decision which talked about six months and possible termination. But I take no position on whether termination is appropriate now or even then.
Now, I could at this point in the best interests of the child return the child to the mother with an order of protective supervision, but I don't think that supervision would be adequate in view of some of the concerns raised by the court-appointed evaluator Dr. Sadler.
So I find that in the best interests of the children — of the child, that they should remain for the time being in the custody of DCF, and I so order. However, there should be a new set of specific steps. And what I think ought to happen, if it's at all possible, both doctors seem to have some reservation about whether they could get mother to follow through on some of the recommendations, but what I think ought to happen is an CT Page 5472 evaluation of the current narcolepsy, including effective medicine, which could include caffeine.
The original diagnosis was some years ago, '95 or '98, I can't remember, but it was some years ago. While mother thinks it's under control, her tardiness seems to be related to that condition. The doctors seem to suggest that individual therapy for the mother to address their concern about her personality difficulties would be appropriate. Both expressed doubt that she would cooperate. But she said if the Court orders it, she would do it. And I will order that under Jeffrey C.
I think there ought to be expanded visitation after all this time. I believe there's one and a half hours for the mother each week. And of course there's visitation for the father. Now, it started with four times a week. It was cut down on my order, to make it clear, and it appears that the orders ware entered by agreement. I think at one point the child was subject to infection if she were out, and the order was reduced, and reduced again. I can't remember offhand what the basis was. But it was by agreement, and it made sense. But it was never expanded back out again. So I think there ought to be visitation, single or joint. To the extent that it's supervised, I think that the Waterbury — Greater Waterbury —
MS. PAUL: Family Services.
THE COURT: Family Service of Greater Waterbury ought to be involved. It seems to me that the visitation done by them with the mother was progressing very nicely. Certainly to the satisfaction of Dr. August, but not to Dr. Sadler. But she seemed to relate well. The reports are full. They confirmed that the mother hugs and kisses the child as soon as she gets there. And generally the feeding has been okay there, though the child is moving into the — away from the bottle to the cup, the slurp cup or whatever it's called.
MS. MENN: Sippie.
THE COURT: Into the sipping cup which gives the child better control over feeding than the bottle, which has been a problem in the past.
MS. H: No., it hasn't been. CT Page 5473
THE COURT: I think there might be some experiment with the unsupervised visitation at grandmother's and the grandfather.
No one who has been involved in this case thinks that the child is in danger of physical harm.
MS. H: That's right.
THE COURT: It's in the reports. Sometimes they volunteer it when they testify. But we're not merely talking about physical harm, we're talking about psychic harm to the child. I think Sadler is sort of concerned. His view raises the specter of attachment disorder based upon what he saw. I think there ought to be a use of a parent aide, and for both parents family counseling. I think a copy of Dr. Sadler's second report might be sent to the Family Services of Greater Waterbury who is doing the visitation.
And one last remark to the father David. Whatever the issues with the mother, Karin, the father is coming through as concerned and knowledgeable. The file indicates the parents have not reconciled. And far be it for me to suggest that that's what they should do. But it's something they might continue to explore. The father has been —
MS. H: Reconcile? What's he talking about?
THE COURT: — impressive in his visits, and is concerned for the child, and makes his position clear in discussions with the mother about a better way to handle the child.
But I'm not a matchmaker here. It's up to the parties to decide how their lives are to finally spin out.
MS. H: We aren't together.
THE COURT: All right, those are the operating concerns and orders that I make in the case. These are now the orders, the decision of the Court.
The material which will be filed hopefully by the end of the week will simply be an explanation of why I came to these conclusions.
Let's see, we have permanency plans already set, right? CT Page 5474
THE CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: If in order to accomplish my goals a case conference would be appropriate, and it may be in order to do specific steps, I only gave the highlights of my own particular steps, then you could have a case conference on that. Or to accomplish this, a draft specific step might be set up by DCF, circulated to see if there can't be an agreement on that, and then see where we go.
I don't want to spend time now to discuss what happened immediately after birth and for a while after that.
MS. H: Nothing happened.
THE COURT: Or what the final diagnosis of both doctors were. The conflicting opinions of the doctors, just to clarify a point that was made sometime in the past, don't cancel each other out. Now, I'm free to do what I want. The opinions of the doctors are entitled to great weight, and they certainly weighed heavy on me, but I have to evaluate the credibility of each one and determine which one if either are persuasive in terms of resolving the issues in this case. And that's what I did. I probably spent more time reading and rereading of the two doctors' reports to see where they agreed or disagreed than I did anything else.
The doctors, except for the visits, seemed to agree on some of the underlying facts. They obviously came to somewhat different conclusions. So that's where we are.
We won't reconvene again unless people file motions, and they're free to do that, yes.
MS. PAUL: I have a couple things for clarification of the Court, if may. In order for DCF to continue with the Family Services Visitation Center, I need you to order that that visit continue there. I'm asking you to do that, so it can extend. It only goes for a certain portion —
THE COURT: Well, I thought that — I thought the relationship was doing quite well there, frankly, and I would so order.
MS. PAUL: Okay, just so we can get — CT Page 5475
THE COURT: It seems to me that mother was happy there too.
MS. PAUL: We had already asked from the clerk's office for this. I'm going to need another piece of paper that says that you ordered visitation to be at the Family Services office, but I — and I also want to clarify to the Court, they are not willing to do more than one visit a week per client. So we will be looking to your Honor for your recommendation concerning visitation outside of the Family Visitation Center, but also use them on that one occasion.
THE COURT: I also suggested another possibility for visits with them.
MS. PAUL: Okay. And that's a suggested possibility?
THE COURT: Pardon?
MS. PAUL: That will come to us in the form of a suggested possibility?
THE COURT: Yes. I don't know how things go there. I don't think the kid was there — I think the grandparents' visitation took place at DCF.
MS. MENN: Yes, that's correct.
MS. Herman: There was one visit at the home of the grandparents, correct, on Christmas.
MS. PAUL: Christmas Day.
THE COURT: That was Christmas Day. That took place in the grandparents' home.
MS. H: Right.
MS. PAUL: With the foster mother and Ms. Dayner present.
THE COURT: I remember that all too well. I remember that.
MS. PAUL: With respect to the recommendations that you're going to make in this decision that you articulated today, you specifically said to us the individual counseling of mother's will be under Jeffrey C. Are you making any of the other CT Page 5476 specific steps Jeffrey C. orders? And could you clarify that in your decision so we know exactly — I heard — Everybody hear what I heard? That that individual counseling is Jeffrey C., but I didn't hear any others.
THE COURT: I'll tell you why —
MS. PAUL: No, I just need to know.
THE COURT: No. Just to make it clear for Karin, because I think both or one of those doctors indicated that therapy would be useful for the mother. They thought, they weren't sure, but the mother said she didn't want to go.
MS. PAUL: Right.
THE COURT: So there was a further discussion, and she said, well, if the Court orders it, I'll go. So the Court is now ordering it.
MS. PAUL: Could the Court —
THE COURT: And it may not last very long, because the evaluator may say she doesn't need it or whatever.
MS. PAUL: Could I ask the Court to clarify to the mother what Jeffrey C. means?
THE COURT: Well, that's a court order that you go, assuming that it's still appropriate for you. If the therapist says, no, it's not going to work, that's a different thing. But they have to find the appropriate therapist, and if you don't go, then you would be subject to arrest, order of contempt. But worse than that, they could come in and move to conclude the case by moving for termination. Nothing is happening —
MS. H: Nobody wants to see me.
THE COURT: If the Court ordered it, you would go.
MS. PAUL: Could the Court clarify to mother sanctions that are attached to an issue of contempt?
THE COURT: Well, I think I — well, I believe I could fine her, or put her in jail. CT Page 5477
MS. PAUL: So that she understands.
THE COURT: But I think the more glaring possibility is if she doesn't do it, because both therapists were in favor it, with the very degree of expectation to go. Mother thinks it's not useful, but would do it if I thought it was. And I'm saying I think it is, and do it.
To just — even to explain Sadler's review of the visitation, it's a very subtle review that he made, very, very subtle, and it would be helpful if she could review that with a therapist to indicate what the situation is.
I would also send a copy of Sadler's report to the Family Service people doing — visitation people, because that second report is basically only on the — on the activity during the visit. I'm inclined to think that he saw the visit in Waterbury as opposed to DCF.
MS. PAUL: No, both at DCF.
MS. Herman: Your Honor, could you clarify or make some comment about — my client obviously will obey the Court's order. However, she does not have the ability to pay for individual therapy, and how is that going to be addressed? Does the Court have any thoughts on how that should be addressed?
MS. PAUL: May I? The — there will be some sliding scale options, certainly, according to her income, that we can offer to her.
THE COURT: Are you still working at Patco?
MS. H: Yes. Just —
THE COURT: But that's not a big paying job. You're not going to retire on that.
MS. H: No, I wasn't planning to. I was going to school with this job, but because of this, this has totally ruined my entire life.
THE COURT: You actually — CT Page 5478
MS. H: I was engaged in school.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. Well, if there's no way to pay for it, you can't do it, then that obviously is a major problem.
MS. H: Well, that was the reason why I said if the Court orders it, thinking that if the Court orders it, it would get paid for. Otherwise, I can't. I was hoping to put my money into my daughter's needs and being a mother. That was —
THE COURT: Well, DCF will try to explore the sliding scale which can start at zero. So we'll see what they can do.
MS. H: All right, yes, I'll do it.
MS. HERMAN: Can you clarify what you mean by expanded visitation, or is that going to be clarified in your written memorandum?
THE COURT: No, it isn't. But I think this — but I thought that the parties could consider that, and obviously I'm giving some direction to DCF, and you can confer with them, or case conference on what might be appropriate. I've indicated that the kid's not in physical danger. I suggested some of it could be unsupervised. And I suggested that some of it could take place at the grandparents' house.
MS. PAUL: Okay.
THE COURT: These are all suggestions. But I'm not — you know, I'm not the therapist.
MS. PAUL: Can I ask the Court on an issue of clarification, it is my recollection of the testimony under Dr. Sadler, and I think it's the cross examination of Attorney Menn, where he said the child would be in immediate danger if the Court — I just bring that to your attention, that I think — because I think your earlier statement, and of course the Court is going to rule as you rule, I respect that, was on the issue of expanded visitation, it was discussed in the testimony, and that from my recollection — do you have the same recollection?
MS. H: He just said she wasn't going to be in immediate danger though. CT Page 5479
MS. PAUL: Could you explain "immediate danger."
MS. HERMAN: Your Honor, you ruled on this. I don't think we're engaging in argument.
MS. McMAHON: I thought he said no.
MS. MENN: He did say that.
MS. PAUL: Sorry?
MS. MENN: I think he did say she would be in danger.
THE COURT: Did he say —
MS. McMAHON: My recollection was the exact opposite. She would not be.
THE COURT: I can't hear.
MS. H: She would not be.
THE COURT: Say again?
MS. McMAHON: My recollection was he had said she would not be. Because we asked him about expanded visits, and he said there wasn't a problem.
MS. PAUL: Imminent danger re unsupervised visits, not expanded visits. The expanded visit statement was —
THE COURT: I don't think anybody addressed the difference between expanded or not, but —
MS. PAUL: We asked the doctor —
THE COURT: Everybody — I'll check the notes again. But the — at the OTC, one of the doctors there, the pediatrician, I think, said no physical harm. And obviously Dr. August said no physical danger.
MS. HERMAN: So did Dr. Martinez.
THE COURT: I thought Dr. Sadler indicated no physical danger. CT Page 5480
MS. HERMAN: So did Dr. Martinez in the written report.
MS. PAUL: No.
THE COURT: The only information you got is if Karin overslept in the morning, there might be some crisis during that period for the child. That was the only intimation that that was a problem. Because I think he said the problem was not that she — not that she sleeps too long, but she doesn't wake up. I'm not sure I understood that distinction. But I understand sort of what he is talking about. If she's in a deep sleep and doesn't wake up, the kid could be, you know —
MS. H: That's — my parents —
THE COURT: That can be controlled. I don't see any problem. You don't leave knives around guns around.
MS. HERMAN: Your Honor, the problem here, as you can see, DCF's definition of what expanded visitation is, or might be, is probably going to vastly differ from what my client thinks it is, and from what your Honor anticipates it to be.
THE COURT: Let's see how it practically works out in terms of the specific steps.
MS. PAUL: Then let's schedule a conference immediately.
MS. MENN: Conference, as soon as possible.
THE COURT: That's why I suggested a case conference.
MS. HERMAN: And in addition, if you could clarify in terms of expanded visitation, whether or not your Honor thinks it's appropriate for any of that expanded visitation to be at the Department of Children and Families, because it seems like you're trying to take it out of that venue. Which I think would be appropriate.
THE COURT: You know, I would have been naive to suggest that I don't have some control over DCF but — and I'm not sure why they shifted to Waterbury. It's closer to where she lives, I understand that.
MS. PAUL: There was a motion by the child's attorney to reduce CT Page 5481 visits and have it supervised because of the reaction of the child in the visit.
MS. HERMAN: I think the child's attorney will bear me out in saying the reason for that no longer exists.
MS. MENN: The reason I filed the motion initially was when the child —
THE COURT: DCF went on the infection, filed one on the infection.
MS. MENN: Not in this case. This wasn't that case.
THE COURT: Yes, I saw it. It was cut back twice.
MS. DAYNER: That's when initially Judge Trombley ordered four visits a week, we asked if it could be twice a week for two hours, and then the child's pediatrician, Dr. Dettmer, wrote a letter saying that she supported that because the child was a premature infant and would be exposed to infection if brought out four times versus two.
THE COURT: From the four to the two. And then there — there were two changes.
MS. PAUL: Then there was a subsequent change as a result.
MS. MENN: I asked then for a cutback when she was an infant, and she was in such distress and she was crying. Now I can represent to the Court, that's not the situation now.
THE COURT: I thought, right. Right.
MS. MENN: It's not the situation now.
THE COURT: In a sense, the aging of the child works pro and con in this case.
MS. MENN: Very true.
THE COURT: The older she gets, the more she can protect herself with respect to the mother. But the longer she stays away from mother, you're back into the problem that Sandler raised of attachment disorder. Whether she would fixate on the parent aide CT Page 5482 that does the supervision in Waterbury, I don't know. I'm between a rock and a hard place. If this kid were four or five years, old, some of these issues would simply go away.
MS. PAUL: Donna, do you have a date for a conference?
THE CLERK: Yeah. We could do it on March 26 at 3:30.
MS. MENN: We have a TPR trial.
THE CLERK: Okay.
THE CLERK: April 2d 9:30 or 3:30.
THE COURT: I made specific notes on visitation. One of them — one of those was the winter season, the doctor suggested that the kid not be moved around with the infection going around.
MS. DAYNER: That was the initial one when we asked if it can go to twice a week two hours versus four times one hour.
THE COURT: All I'm saying, despite comments to the contrary, that's what I remember as one bf then. Second one at this point, I'm blank.
THE CLERK: April 16, 12:30.
MS. HERMAN: Can we do it any later?
MS. McMAHON: I can't do the afternoon that day.
MS. HERMAN: Another question, as we push this conference out further and further —
MS. PAUL: We'll act independent of that.
MS. HERMAN: Okay.
MS. PAUL: We will offer you something immediately.
MS. HERMAN: Okay.
MS. PAUL: All right?
MS. HERMAN: Yup. CT Page 5483
MS. PAUL: I have no — DCF is not disputing that — I mean, it's been directed to us to do it. I think we'll have some disagreement perhaps along the way about how much, where, when. But that's fair comment at least at this point. We'll give — we will bring to the table an increased visitation.
THE COURT: From my perspective up here, even though as I said, not so much to think that I don't have some authority over DCF, I don't know what the resource is, intact, out there. I don't know whether a parent aide would come in or whether there are agencies that go in. There was not an MST. There was another one of — a family agency that went into the house and stayed there for a while.
MS. PAUL: Do we have a time on, for instance, a trial morning where we would start the trial a little later and do like a 9 to 10:30 date, like on a Monday or Tuesday, since those are our trial dates here. (Scheduling discussion omitted.)
THE COURT: Let me make it clear, that these are my suggestions. But I'm really not somebody walking by the courthouse, so that to the extent that some of these things can be accomplished, without risk to the child, they don't need to come back to me to clear it, so that they can expand the visitation. I mean, after all, it was four times a month set by a judge from the bench, so that —
MS. H: No, less than four times.
THE COURT: They may be able to do some of these things before we have that case conference. They don't have to come back and clear it with me. I've already made my decision.
MS. MENN: Your Honor, I have a request to make of the Court. When Ms. H determines who her therapist is going to be, I would ask that the Court service officer be informed and a copy of Dr. Sadler's second report be sent to her therapist.
MS. PAUL: I would like to see the whole report —
THE COURT: I would send both. I would send all three.
MS. MENN: Okay, fine.
THE COURT: Two of Sadler's — you know, their observations, CT Page 5484 except for Sadler's second one, they're pretty similar, particularly about the events that occurred after birth. They pretty well have now come to an agreement that it's a postpartum situation.
MS. PAUL: So you're referring —
THE COURT: They both agree that she doesn't have a psychosis, she's got a personality problem. And that was clear between the various reports.
MS. PAUL: So the Court is indicating that all of Sadler's, all of August, and all of Martinez go to mother's individual therapist?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. PAUL: All of them?
THE COURT: If it's set up.
MS. PAUL: Not just parts of them.
THE COURT: Can I order a court neurological evaluation for the narcolepsy at our expense?
MS. PAUL: At whose expense?
THE COURT: Well, I don't care your expense or my expense, but not hers. She went to a doctor before and there was a hint that she may have seen somebody after that.
MS. HERMAN: She did.
THE COURT: But I don't know.
MS. HERMAN: It's in the record.
THE COURT: August may have sent her to somebody, but it isn't clear. I don't know who does the evaluation. That's my problem.
MS. PAUL: We had asked her to go to some —
MS. DAYNER: To a neurologist. But she didn't want me to refer her. She told me she had her own neurologist, Dr. Bobowick, that CT Page 5485 she has seen in the past. I don't know if that's who diagnosed her narcolepsy back a few years.
THE COURT: See if you can work it out that we pay for it.
MS. PAUL: Meaning Judicial?
THE COURT: Well, meaning DCF. But if it's court-ordered and that's where it has to come from, then we'll pay for it. I don't know what they do to diagnose this, the condition. I know that August had spine tests done in his office, and I don't believe it was in this area.
MS. HERMAN: No, it wasn't.
MS. PAUL: No. That's all psychological testing.
THE COURT: It was a personality problem, so to speak.
THE CLERK: Who sets this up? Who would set this up? Do you want me to set it up? I don't know of any neurologists.
THE COURT: Before you set it up, just see who's going to pay.
THE CLERK: Okay. But I wouldn't even know who to call.
MS. H: Dr. Sadler would know.
THE COURT: Pardon?
MS. H: I said Dr. Sadler could refer you to somebody. Because he —
THE CLERK: I just don't know if they'll do our work. They usually want us to pay for it.
THE COURT: Well, unless we're going to pay. Who is the original doctor, Karin?
MS. H: My doctor?
THE COURT: '95, '98, whenever it was.
MS. H: Well, it's — he's not the diagnosing doctor, he's my neurologist, Dr. Bobowick. However, he was not the diagnosing CT Page 5486 doctor. I went to a sleep study and that's where they find if you have narcolepsy. And that was done in New Haven.
THE COURT: Where do you go?
MS. H: On Long Wharf.
THE COURT: If you could find out who the other one was, give it to your lawyer and then she'll call it in.
MS. PAUL: Judge, I have some familiarity with this from another case, and I believe we're going to need a neurologist or someone of similar credentials to make a recommendation for not only their assessment, but then to have a follow-up concerning this sleep study.
MS. H: It's a respiratory doctor.
THE COURT: It revolves around that issue. Both of them talk about it.
MS. PAUL: We can clarify it.
THE COURT: The mother has been taking coffee as a sufficient — sufficient control of the narcolepsy because of the caffeine. Interesting.
MS. H: Dr. Bobowick follows me.
THE COURT: Certainly I wouldn't have any problem if caffeine is enough to do it, so that — she has declined to take the prescription and says she gets relief from caffeine. Fair enough. But then it keeps coming up she's tardy, she's late, she comes on time. It's a mixed bag. So — it's a mixed bag. So it would be helpful to clear that up and see what she might have to take. She really doesn't like to take pills.
MS. H: How does that relate to me having my baby, tardiness? I don't — I just don't understand how are you relating the narcolepsy? Why are you including that? I mean, I just don't get it.
THE COURT: It's an issue raised by the psychologist, and I think others, and that would have an impact on the safety of the child if it were with you and you went into a deep sleep. There CT Page 5487 was one episode in which you were driving, and which the concern was whether you had fallen asleep. I think you indicated you pulled off the road.
MS. H: Yeah.
THE COURT: And knew it was coming.
MS. H: Right.
THE COURT: We just want clarification. And I'm saying, if the doctors say she takes coffee, that's good enough, that's as good as the medicine, that's fine with me. But I just want to be sure. It came up again, as I referred to earlier, where they said the problem was not her sleeping, but whether she wakes up. That is, whether she wakes up in time, to minister her baby; is the baby crying, for example, or sick. I don't know the answer. That's why I would like to clarify.
MS. H: I wake up with an alarm clock. I mean, I wake-up just like you.
THE COURT: Whatever. But that's something I want to explore. You asked me why. I was concerned about it, and that's it. There was the car incident and repeated references to your coming in late. Other places you were right on time. And then they ruled out some by indicating those were three o'clock appointments, rather than morning appointments. But I don't know. The answer is, I don't know. But I'm not trying to box you in.
MS. H: How can you relate my medical health upon my, umm, — whether or not I have — I can, umm, have a baby? You're saying any person that has a medical illness can't have a child.
THE COURT: I'm not going to —
MS. H: I thought you can't use anything against me in my medical history.
THE COURT: I'm not looking for your medical history. I just want to clarify the narcolepsy.
MS. PAUL: We need to clarify through counsel, Attorney Herman, if we understood mom to have got her insurance that she was paying independently, if she is eligible to go get DSS assistance CT Page 5488 based upon just the insurance alone she needs to do that. You know, process it.
MS. HERMAN: Like Husky?
MS. PAUL: Yeah. I don't know that she qualifies for that. But we need to get that set up first, or this is not — none of this is going to fall in line, so.
MS. H: I went that step.
THE CLERK: Get an independent neurologist to be paid after the fact by the Court? That's going to be the problem.
MS. PAUL: That's why I'm saying this. If she needs to be ready to go to DSS to see if she is acceptable for minimal assessment issues.
THE CLERK: If they're not, perhaps DCF could provide subsidy.
THE COURT: See, I don't know the answer. That's why I tossed it out to you people. All I'm saying, is that I would much prefer that she not be obliged to pay a significant amount of it.
MS. PAUL: Well, I think that what we need, I'm asking the Court to be clear what the mom is — she needs to know that she needs to go to DSS.
(AN OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE BETWEEN MS. HERMAN AND MS. H.)
MS. HERMAN She's telling me —
MS. H: I already did.
MS. PAUL: She may be qualified differently, because she had been paying her own independent insurance. It's wise to go down there, put it all on the table and have them deny her so we know it's taken care of.
MS. H: I didn't pay an insurance at that time.
THE COURT: You're sitting here trying to push out the various problems — CT Page 5489
MS. PAUL: She's going to walk out of the courtroom and not believe that she has to go to DSS.
MS. HERMAN: She's already gone. She believes it.
MS. PAUL: What date?
MS. HERMAN: I don't know. Take a look at the paperwork.
MS. PAUL: 10/03. When did she lose her insurance?
MS. H: I lost my insurance, let's see, April of '03.
MS. PAUL: Okay. All right, we need to — can we get a copy of this, and we'll help verify that. Make sure that she should not go back and reapply, all right.
THE COURT: Let's see what they can come up with.
MS. H: The money I make, it would be different if I had my daughter in custody.
MS. PAUL: Before we leave, let's get a copy of that, all right.
THE COURT: Some of these things clearly have to be worked out within my goals. I've set some goals here, which I think will work in favor if they're accomplished of the mother. The goal of the State is, if appropriate, to return the kid to the mother. That was Trombley's position, and that's mine. And after all, I'm the Christmas judge.
All right, then we're done. I think we're adjourned until Wednesday.
THE CLERK: Wednesday. We don't have anything on for tomorrow.
NO. L15-CP02-007724-A
IN RE: KRISTINA HASEMANN
CERTIFICATE
I, Robin M. Mitchell, hereby certify that the within and foregoing contain an accurate and complete transcription of my stenographic notes, as requested, taken on this 15th day of March 2004, to the best of my knowledge and ability.
Dated at Litchfield, Connecticut, on this 30th day of March 2004.
Robin M. Mitchell, RPR, CSR
CT Shorthand Rpr. No: 00315
NCRA No.: 048734
CT Page 5490