DOCKET NO.
					 	:	SUPERIOR COURT
					:	FOR JUVENILE MATTERS
IN RE 				             	:	AT WILLIMANTIC
S	 					:	July 6, 2001

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
I.  INTRODUCTION
	S, the child committed under the above-entitled petition (“S”), respectfully requests, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 17a-16, that this Court issue an injunction against the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Children and Families (“the DCF”) barring DCF from transferring S to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS).  S requests that the injunction remain in place until such time as DCF secures an appropriate placement for S which she would be legally entitled to have continued by DMHAS.   S  also requests that the court order the DCF to comply with its legal obligation to provide her with an appropriately supported community-based placement.  

	S requests injunctive relief  because DCF’s current plan for her is to transfer S to DMHAS on or before July 17, 2001, her 18th birthday.  This action would deprive S of her  statutory right to receive a placement that is clinically indicated and appropriate to her needs.  Conn. Gen. Stat. §17a-3 (2000).  S’s  clinically identified placement needs require a  therapeutic 24 hour supported community-based placement.  The Department’s actions in transferring S’s case to DMHAS deprives S of her civil right to the placement she is entitled to receive from DCF.  DCF’s actions also have and will expose her to inhumane and undignified treatment in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §17a-16.
II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND
	S is a seventeen year old multiply disabled youth raised by the DCF for the last decade.  She has been horrifically sexually abused, and has significant mental health issues.  (Hall Psychosexual Evaluation 2/10/99; Treatment Plan, 2/21/01, Exhibit 1-2).   She is currently diagnosed as having a bipolar disorder, borderline personality traits, OCD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, ADHD and possible  post-traumatic stress disorder.   (Treatment Plan, 2/21/01; Letter from W to Tigeliero, 4/01/01, Exhibit 2,9).  S’s disabilities manifest themselves in frequent episodes of assaultive and aggressive behaviors. (W Affidavit, Exhibit 3).
	DCF’s responsibility for S dates back to 1991.  (Mot. For Extension of Commitment and Rev. of Permanency Plan at 2, 1/30/01, Court Record).  On April 8, 1993, the court granted a Order of Temporary Custody after DCF had applied for a ninety-six hour hold for Sdue to her mother abusing her.  (Study for Ext. of Comm. at 1, 1/8/97; Study for Ext. of Comm. at 1, 4/9/96, Court Record).  On that same date, the court committed S to the care and custody of the Commissioner of DCF.  (Study for Ext. of Comm. at 1, 1/8/97; Study for Ext. of Comm. at 1, 4/9/96, Court Record).   Since 1993, DCF has placed S in more than 24 placements, including eight foster homes, eight inpatient hospitalizations, six shelter placements, and two group homes placements.  (Study for Ext. of Comm. and Rev. of Perm. Plan at 3, 1/30/01, Court Record.) 
	During that time, DCF has repeatedly stated that reunification with S’s family was not recommended due to the danger such a placement  presents to S. (Study for Ext. of Comm. at 4, 1/8/97; Mot. For Ext. of Comm. and Rev. of Perm. Plan, at 3, 1/30/01; Study in Support of Perm. Plan and Ext. of Comm. at 4, 1/19/00; Study for Ext. of Comm. at 5, 3/3/98; (Court Record);  Treatment Plan, 2/21/01; 8/28/00; 2/29/00; 9/2/99; 3/2/99; 3/1/98 (Exhibit 2, 4-8).  DCF also implemented supervised visitation with S’s family after unsuccessful visits home.  (Study in Support of Perm. Plan and Ext. of Comm. at 4, 1/19/00;Case Status Report, 8/18/99; (Court Record);  Treatment Plan, 2/29/00; 9/2/99 (Exhibit 5,6)).  Despite DCF’s consistent position that S should not return home, DCF has placed her with her family since June 25, 2001.
	S’s oppositional behaviors are so severe that her needs cannot be met in a foster home although they can be met in a professionally staffed community-based home. (Affidavit M; Affidavit W; Letter from W to Tigeliero of 4/01/01, Exhibit 10,3,9).  S does not require institutionalization because her needs can be met in a community-based placement which provides supportive professionally staffed services. (Affidavit M; Affidavit W, Exhibit 10,3).
	On January 17, 2001, S was hospitalized at Yale New Haven Hospital.  Since that time, she has been without the therapeutic placement DCF has recognized as clinically indicated and essential to meet  her  needs. (Affidavit M, Exhibit 10).  Since 2/13/01, S has been housed at two emergency shelters placements in spite of DCF’s recognition that such placements are inappropriate for her. (Affidavit W, Exhibit 3).  During this period of time Ss emotional condition has steadily deteriorated. (Affidavit  M; Affidavit W, Exhibit 10,3).  The conditions at the last shelter placement were degrading and inhumane.   S was forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor in the residents’ lounge.   During this time, S was arrested twice for aggressive and assaultive behavior. (Affidavit W, Exhibit 3).  Additionally, S is a special education student, who has not graduated from high-school, and whose educational program is disrupted each time DCF moves her placement. 
	On April 1, 2001, Gwen W, S’s therapist, wrote to S’s DCF worker outlining S’s fragile psychiatric state and urgently recommending that DCF immediately place S in a “small community-based” therapeutic home with 24 hour staffing, where she would be accepted unconditionally.”  (Letter from W to Tigeliero, 4/01/01, Exhibit 9).  There is no contrary opinion  in S’s DCF records establishing any other type of residential placement as clinically necessary for S.
	Ms. W warned DCF regarding the effect the unstable living arrangements had upon S and further stated: 

[g]iven that S is not presently in a therapeutic living environment, therapy once a week seems inadequate.  More importantly, I do not believe that outpatient treatment one time a week can make a difference in helping S deal with the complexity of issues she needs to deal with in order to gain health.  Coming in for therapy once a week and dealing with tough issues without adequate backup afterwards is, I believe, dangerous and negligent. (Letter from W to Tigeliero, 4/01/01. Exhibit 9).

In response to this poignant letter, DCF failed to provide S with an appropriate placement.
DCF also has failed to pay the bills submitted to it by Ms. W thereby placing her continuation in therapy in jeopardy. (Letter from W to Tigeliero, 4/01/01, Exhibit 9).   
	Although DCF has located a community based-therapeutic placement with 24 hour supervision that is appropriate for S, DCF has refused to place her there. Instead, DCF has allowed S to be warehoused in inappropriate placements damaging to her fragile emotional condition while DCF waits for her to turn 18 and to be transferred to DMHAS.   DMHAS  intends to place S in a loosely supervised apartment in New Britain where her serious mental health needs can not be properly addressed and her disability related assaultive behaviors are most likely to result in her arrest, conviction and ultimately in placement in Niantic Women’s Prison.  (M Affidavit, Exhibit 10 )  Finally, as of the week of June 25, 2001, DCF placed S with her parents, despite DCF’s own findings that the family had abused S in the past and despite DCF’s  recognition that her needs cannot be met at her parent’s  home. (Study for Ext. of Comm. at 4, 1/8/97; Mot. For Ext. of Comm. and Rev. of Perm. Plan, at 3, 1/30/01; Study in Support of Perm. Plan and Ext. of Comm. at 4, 1/19/00; Study for Ext. of Comm. at 5, 3/3/98; (Court Record);  Treatment Plan, 2/21/01; 8/28/00; 2/29/00; 9/2/99; 3/2/99; 3/1/98 (Exhibit 2,4-8)).
	DCF’s current plan for S is to transition her to DMHAS, which  intends to place S in a transitional living apartment in New Britain.  This facility, does not provide adequate supervision for individuals, like S , whose disabilities manifest themselves in assaultive behaviors.  Further, this facility surrounds residents with significant exposure to illegal use of drugs and sexual promiscuity which would present severe danger to S.  (Affidavit  M, 10).  Placement of S in this DMHAS facility  would expose S to an environment  where her serious mental health needs can not be properly addressed and her disability related assaultive behaviors are most likely to result in her arrest, conviction and ultimately in placement in Niantic Women’s Prison. (Affidavit M; Affidavit W, Affidavit 10,3).   Incarceration would be psychologically devastating to S and cause her irreparable harm. (Affidavit W, Exhibit 3).  Placement in the New Britain apartment will cause irreparable damage to S (Affidavit M, Exhibit 10).  No written plans for the location, nature of the placement and supportive services for S’ s placement and medical treatment have been provided to S or her attorneys. 
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
	The failure of defendants to continue to provide S with a professionally staffed community based-placement is in violation of the DCF’s obligation to provide services that are clinically indicated and appropriate to S’s needs. Conn. Gen. Stat. §17a-3 (2000).  Transferring S’s case to DMHAS  eliminates both her right to an appropriate community based-therapeutic placement and as well as jeopardizing her right to such a placement from DCF.
	Currently, DCF is violating S’s right to an appropriate community-based therapeutic placement under state law as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, including, 42 U.SC. § 12132 and 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d), (the “ADA”) and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, and its implementing regulations.  The DCF’s actions are also violative of S’s rights to due process under the equal protection clause of the Connecticut Constitution, Article 1, Section 20 and of the United States Constitution.
IV. CONCLUSION.
	S  requests this Court to issue an order enjoining the Commissioner and the DCF to provide her with a 24 hour, supported, therapeutic, community-based placement, as is clinically indicated and appropriate for her.  S also requests that the Court order DCF to immediately discontinue efforts to transfer her to DMHAS until such time as DCF secures an appropriate placement for S which she would be legally entitled to have continued by DMHAS. On an interim basis, DCF should be ordered to place S in a therapeutic summer program until such time as DCF can secure an appropriate placement for her.
THE CHILD, S ,
By:___________________________
Anne Louise Blanchard
Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.
872 Main Street
Willimantic, CT   06226
Telephone: 860-423-3800
Juris No.:301062

			

CERTIFICATION

	 I hereby certify that a copy of the above Memorandum in Support of Motion for  Injunction and Injunction Order was mailed to all counsel of record on July 6, 2001:

Assistant Attorney General
Superior Court 
Division of Juvenile Matters
81 Columbia Ave.
Willimantic, CT 06226

Attorney, Esq.
Willimantic, CT 06226

         
          	________________________________________

COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT