Incident Reports

Incident 2 - Retribution: In February 2007 we welcomed three girls to our "pre-adoptive" home. At 13, the oldest had taken care of her younger sisters for years. She was warm, smart, funny and talented, if scared and angry. We live in one of the worst school districts in the state and we wanted to offer her an alternative to public school. We attended an open house at, and subsequently applied to, an independent school. She filled out a lengthy application, wrote an essay, took a standardized test, and she was accepted! A few months later, she entered the 8th grade in one of the worst schools in CT. What happened?

• Our application to the independent school had been encouraged - even celebrated - by everyone associated with our case (e.g., social workers, supervisors, behavioral health professionals, support group members, CAFAP representatives).
• We felt that the child might benefit from formal tutoring over the summer and we asked DCF to help defray the cost. We had signed a financial agreement with the school accepting full responsibility for her tuition and expenses of over $25,000 per year.
• My request for tutoring assistance went unanswered. I knew that the social worker had forwarded our request directly to the Program Supervisor, so I attempted to reach this woman by phone and email. I could have accepted a "no", but she never replied.
• As the summer wore on, I wrote a letter of complaint to the Commissioner, which eventually found its way to the Director. I received a phone call from his assistant inviting me to attend a meeting with him. When I arrived, the room was full of four or five of his subordinates. He threatened not to allow the child to attend the school. No one could speak in her behalf or mine - they were all subordinate employees.
• The day before the start of school, he contacted me to say that DCF would not permit her to attend the private school. She would, instead, attend one of the worst middle schools in the state of CT.
• He was fully aware that we had signed a financial agreement with the school and that we would be "on the hook" for a year of tuition whether or not she attended the school.

This employee of DCF had a position that allowed him to deliver retribution for the fact that I had complained to the Commissioner. His power was unchecked. He did not care how his actions would affect the child. He cared about getting even.

Who has been served?

1. Only the ego of a very small man. Perhaps the question should be: who has been hurt?

Incident 1 - Deception: From the moment we attended our first DCF open house, we knew that we were not cut out to be foster parents. We wanted to adopt children and we explicitly expressed our wishes. On  November 7, 2008 we accepted the placement of two children whom we had hoped to adopt. On Sunday, March 21, 2010 we learned that they would be returned to their biological mother. What happened?

• The children were initially placed in a Spanish-speaking foster home; they do not speak Spanish. The then 3-1/2 year old could not communicate with his "care takers." Problems arose as a result of this (mis)placement and, ultimately, the children needed to be moved within 24-hours.
• On November 6, 2008, in a telephone conversation with the children's social work supervisor, I was assured and reassured (as was our FASU worker) that the case was associated with minimal legal risk; that the legal risk was just an "administrative technicality."
• Immediately sensing that something was not right, I signed the Placement Agreement noting that "no information was provided." On several occasions, I requested a Disclosure Meeting. My requests went unanswered.
• In March 2009, attending the ACR, we learned for the first time that the case was - and always had been - associated with the highest level of legal risk, but still we were told that the TPR would be filed and that the case was strong.
• In September 2010, after the case had been passed across two social workers and four social work supervisors, we learned that the case for TPR was weak at best.
• Over the following six months, while we waited, we were accused (per a recent conversation with a FASU social work supervisor) of attempting to coerce the biological mother into surrendering her children, of sabotaging the relationship between our five-year-old son and his biological mother, and of not being team players. Although the claims are entirely untrue, they were never brought to our attention. We did not have the opportunity to respond. 
• Although she is required to visit monthly, in the nearly 17 months since the children were placed, we have had only one visit from thier social worker.
• Until last week, our repeatd requests to have the children picked up and returned on time, have been wholly disregarded. 
• Our FASU worker and the supervisors within her Unit have been helpful, courteous and kind. We wish to sincerely thank them for their courtesy.

Our situation was entirely avoidable. These children should NEVER have been placed in our home. Their needs and ours were an absolute mismatch. We were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision with regard to their placement. An initial deception - which was likely a reaction to the need to move them within 24 hours - led to a cascade of events that has devastated our family.

Because the biological family will be reunified this will be recorded, by DCF, as a successful outcome. Our older daughters - who have already lost much too much - are losing their brother and sister. Our youngest daughter will be removed from the only parents she has known to be reunited with a stranger.

Who will be served?

1. The only individual who has the right of recourse under the law: the biological parent.
2. The DCF record: another successful reunification. Get out the cameras and call the press!