July 1, 2024
AC 47076
Father appealed a trial court decision adjudicating his child, P. M., as neglected. The case stemmed from evidence that P. M., born in August 2022, suffered severe malnutrition and other health issues due to being fed a homemade, plant-based formula. The formula was created under the guidance of a naturopath, Neha Kaushik, but the parents did not follow standard well-baby care, including regular checkups with a doctor. P. M. had not seen a medical professional for at least three months. By five and a half months, P. M. was diagnosed with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and severe malnutrition, resulting in him being underweight and resembling a two-month-old despite being older. Tests revealed nutrient deficiencies, and he was hospitalized. Medical experts linked the homemade formula to P. M.’s failure to thrive.
The Commissioner of Children and Families filed a neglect petition, citing the parents' failure to provide adequate care and follow medical advice, including resisting a blood transfusion for P. M. The trial court found in favor of the Commissioner, concluding that the homemade formula lacked essential nutrients, and the parents’ failure to adhere to medical guidance contributed to P. M.’s condition. As a result, the court imposed six months of protective supervision.
I. M. appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the neglect finding. He contended that there was no proof of denial of care or harm to P. M. The Connecticut Appellate Court rejected the argument and upheld the trial court’s decision. The court considered whether the case had become moot due to the expiration of the six-month supervision period but applied the collateral consequences exception. The court noted that the neglect finding could have future repercussions, such as in proceedings to terminate parental rights.
On the merits, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It concluded that there was sufficient evidence that P. M. had been neglected. The court highlighted the homemade formula’s deficiencies, which directly led to P. M.’s severe malnutrition. The parents’ failure to regularly take P. M. for medical checkups meant that his health issues went undetected for too long, exacerbating his condition. Expert testimony from Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital doctors and a dietician confirmed that the homemade formula was nutritionally inadequate and contributed to P. M.’s failure to thrive.
The appellate court emphasized the trial court's credibility assessments, finding the medical experts’ testimony more reliable than that of the naturopath, Kaushik. The court agreed that the parents’ actions—or lack thereof—led to the child’s neglect. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, reinforcing that the child’s well-being was the paramount concern and the neglect finding was supported by sufficient evidence. The six-month protective supervision order remained in place.
