Adoption: The Gift of a Nurturing Home

Leigh Ryan, Esq. is an attorney with Maya Murphy, P.C., a full service law firm with offices in Westport, CT and New York City. Ms. Ryan is licensed to practice law in Connecticut and New York.

Connecticut telephone number: (203) 221-3100; New York telephone number: (212) 682-5700; Firm url: www. Mayalaw.com; E-mail: LRyan@Mayalaw.com

As children, many of us dreamt about having a family of our own, about our significant other, marriage, a house and children. But as we grow older, we realize that dreams do not always materialize in the way we thought they would. Families are no longer expected to be comprised of a mother, a father and 2.3 children. Just as the definition of family has changed, so have the requirements for adoption. Many adoption agencies and courts no longer discriminate based upon marital status, age, religion or race.  They have recognized that these differences do not affect a potential parent’s ability to be a good parent.

Along with the recognition that each potential parent is different, comes the fact that each child in search of a home is different. Many of the children available for adoption are in foster care and are there because their biological parents could not care for them. As a result, many suffer from physical, emotional and mental challenges.  Currently, there are 129,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. More than two-thirds of children in foster care are aged 6 or older, and more than half are minorities. In Connecticut, over 4,000 children are in the care of the State Department of Children and Families due to abuse, neglect or abandonment.  And, they are all searching for one thing: A loving and supportive home environment.

Adopting a child can have significantly positive effects on that child’s life.  Studies have shown that adopted children score higher than their middle-class counterparts on indicators of school performance, social competency, optimism and volunteerism. The 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents indicated that adopted children were more likely to read every day as a young child, more likely to be sung to or told stories, more likely to participate in extracurricular activities and have above-average performances in reading, language arts, and math, than that of the children of the general population.

Adopting a baby or child can be one of the most rewarding experiences of your life and one of the most amazing gifts to a child. However, the process can be complicated and involve various federal and state laws. It is important to have a Connecticut adoption lawyer to represent you in the adoption process.

Any questions about this posting or confidential inquiries concerning the subject matter may be directed to Attorney Leigh H. Ryan.

Adoptive Children and Communications with their Biological Parents

Leigh Ryan, Esq. is an attorney with Maya Murphy, P.C., a full service law firm with offices in Westport, CT and New York City. Ms. Ryan is licensed to practice law in Connecticut and New York.

Connecticut telephone number: (203) 221-3100; New York telephone number: (212) 682-5700; Firm url: www. Mayalaw.com; E-mail: LRyan@Mayalaw.com

One of adoptive parents’ principal concerns is that of the role of the biological parents. Can a biological parent change their minds about the adoption? Can the biological parents communicate with the adopted child? Can the adopted child ever find out information about his/her biological parent(s)? All these questions can be nerve-racking for individuals who wish to adopt.

The reality is that in all states, the biological parents have a period of time in which they can revoke their consent to the adoption. In Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 45a-719 allows for a birth parent to file a petition to set aside an order voluntarily terminating parental rights at any time before the entry of the final adoption decree. However, a biological parent’s ability to revoke may be terminated in cases of abandonment, failure to support the child, or abuse and neglect. Once the court issues a final decree of adoption, a birth parent’s consent becomes final and irrevocable.

After a final adoption decree, it is possible for the adoptive child and biological parents to communicate. The extent of that communication can be negotiated prior to the final adoption decree. In some cases, biological parents and intended adoptive parents enter into what is known as a Cooperative Postadoption Agreement.  This is a written agreement between either or both birth parents and an intended adoptive parent(s) regarding communication or contact contacteither or both birth parents and the adopted child. It is in the Cooperative Postadoption Agreement that the extent of involvement of the birth parents can be defined.

In the case of Cooperative Postadoption Agreements, the identity of the biological parents is known.  However, generally, adoption records are sealed and only non-identifying information is provided to the adoptive parents or adopted child (if he/she is an adult) upon request. This non-identifying information includes (1) age of biological parents in years at the birth; (2) heritage of the biological parent or parents; (3) education stated in the number of years of school completed; (4) general physical appearance of the biological parent(s); (5) talents, hobbies and special interests of the biological parent or parents; (6) existence of any other child or children born to either biological parent of the adopted or adoptable person; (7) reasons for placing the child for adoption or for biological parental rights being terminated; (8) religion of biological parent or parents; (9) field of occupation of biological parent or parents in general terms; (10) health history of biological parent or parents and blood relatives; (11) manner in which plans for the adopted or adoptable person’s future were made by biological parent or parents; (12) relationship between the biological parents; (13) any psychological, psychiatric or social evaluations; and (14) any other relevant non-identifying information.  

In the event that the adoptive parents or adopted adult child wishes to learn the identity of the biological parents, written consent must first be obtained from the person whose identity is being request. Therefore, the identity of the birth parents (if not already known) will remain unknown unless the birth parent(s) consents.

Given the significant impact that contact with biological parents can have on the adopted child, it is important to have an attorney who is well versed in adoption law. Any questions about this posting or confidential inquiries concerning the subject matter may be directed to Attorney Leigh H. Ryan.

Navigating the World of Connecticut Adoption

Leigh Ryan, Esq. is an attorney with Maya Murphy, P.C., a full service law firm with offices in Westport, CT and New York City. Ms. Ryan is licensed to practice law in Connecticut and New York.

Connecticut telephone number: (203) 221-3100; New York telephone number: (212) 682-5700; Firm url: www. Mayalaw.com; E-mail: LRyan@Mayalaw.com

Deciding to adopt is one of the most joyous times in one’s life. However, navigating the legal field surrounding adoption may seem daunting. Having a basic understanding of how the process works can alleviate unnecessary stress.

Adoption is the legal process that establishes, by court order, the legal relationship of parent and child. Connecticut law provides for adoption by three different means: 1) stepparent adoption; 2) relative adoption; and 3) statutory parent adoption (through the Department of Children and Families or an approved child-placement agency).  In Connecticut, the law does not provide for direct adoption between intended adoptive parents and biological parents.

The most common type of adoption in Connecticut is stepparent adoption. This is when the spouse of the child’s parent wishes to adopt the child.  In the case of adoption by a relative, the person seeking to adopt the child must not be more than three generations removed from the child and be related to the child by blood or adoption.  Statutory parent adoption is where a child is placed for adoption through either the Department of Children and Families (DCF) or an approved child-placing agency. In all situations, prior to adoption, the child’s biological parent(s) must either have passed away or have had terminated their parental rights.

Termination of parental rights is a process in and of itself.  It is where a parent’s parental rights are terminated by court order, and the court completely severs the legal relationship of parent-child, terminating with it all rights and responsibilities. Once parental rights are terminated, the child is free for adoption. In order to being the adoption process, an application for adoption is filed with the probate court.

The court is required to determine the best interests of the child. As such, the court may require that an investigation be completed, and a report submitted to the court for review prior to holding a hearing on the application for adoption. An investigation is mandatory in cases of co-parent or relative adoption. The purpose of the investigation is to ascertain the overall needs of the child and the abilities of those adopting to meet those needs. Generally, the cost of that investigation will fall on the adoptive parents.

At the hearing, if the court believes that the adoption is in the best interests of the child, it will approve the application. The law prohibits a denial of the application solely due to the adopting parent’s marital status, race, color or religion.

Attorneys armed with an understanding of applicable statutes and case law can best advise clients regarding adoption proceedings. Any questions about this posting or confidential inquiries concerning the subject matter may be directed to Attorney Leigh H. Ryan.

Bullying In Schools: Are We Doing Enough to Protect Children?

Bullying In Schools:  Are We Doing Enough to Protect Children?

By: Michael D. DeMeola, Esq.

On September 22, 2010, Seth Walsh should have been skateboarding or playing baseball, listening to his new favorite song, perhaps, or talking on the phone with friends.  He should have been happy and care free.  After all, Seth was only thirteen years old, an age when children should be laughing and dreaming of the endless opportunities that lie ahead.  Instead, Seth Walsh was lying beneath a tree in his backyard unconscious, no longer breathing.  He had just hung himself.  After spending the next week on life support, with his mother looking on, Seth ultimately died.

And just days earlier on the other side of the country, Tyler Climenti, an eighteen year old student at Rutgers posted what would be his last Facebook message, “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry.” Later that night Tyler took his own life as well- throwing himself into the dark and frigid water of the Hudson River.

            In September, 2010, within nineteen days, four teenagers from around the country committed suicide.  William Lucas, from Greensburg Indiana was only fifteen, Asher Brown from Houston Texas was thirteen.  Like Seth, Billy hung himself.  Asher shot himself in the head with one of his step-father’s guns.  The common link?  All four had been relentlessly tormented at school.  Shining new light on what has become a national epidemic, these cases illuminate the devastating and increasingly deadly effects of bullying.  There is some debate over whether bullying is a new phenomenon or whether children are simply reacting differently.  Whatever the case may be, one thing is clear- we must take action to protect the destruction of more innocent lives.

            The Department of Education recently entered the fray, releasing a “Dear Colleague” letter in which it urged school districts to address bullying within the classroom, providing school administrators with guidance on how to end harassment.  Additionally, within the last couple of years, many states, including New York and Connecticut, have passed anti-bulling legislation.  At what point should a school district be held liable when it fails to prevent bullying?  The answer to that question is not clear-cut.  Indeed, parents face several legal challenges when they pursue a case.

            For instance, in 2008, the Superior Court at New Britain held that parents of a Berlin High School student could not maintain a negligence cause of action against the school district, the administrators or the child’s coach.  In Dornfried v. Berlin Board of Education, et al, Robby Dornfried’s parents alleged that while a freshman and sophomore at the high school, and a place-kicker on the varsity football team, their son was subjected to “incessant bullying, harassment, intimidation and was the victim of threats and/or acts of violence” by his teammates.  They further alleged that school administrators, the guidance counselor, even Robby’s coach, knew of the problem, but did nothing to stop the behavior.  Robby eventually sought medical treatment and ultimately transferred to Northwest Catholic High School halfway though his sophomore year. 

Analyzing whether the principal of governmental immunity barred suit, the Court recited the general rule that a municipal employee may be liable for the misperformance of ministerial acts, but has qualified immunity in the performance of governmental acts- those performed wholly for the benefit of the public and supervisory or discretionary in nature.  Agreeing with the defendants, the Court found that the supervision of school children, not only during school hours, but at extra-curricular events such as football practice or a football game is a discretionary matter.  It next addressed whether it was appropriate to apply any of the exceptions to the immunity doctrine.  Generally, there are three.  First, liability may be imposed for a discretionary act when the alleged conduct involved malice, wantonness or intent to injure.  Second, liability may be imposed for a discretionary act when a statute provides for a cause of action against a municipality or municipal official for failure to enforce certain laws.  Third, liability may be imposed when the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm.  Ignoring the first two exceptions, the Court addressed whether Robby was an “identifiable person subject to imminent harm” under the law.  Citing Supreme Court precedent, Judge Trombley, found he was not, explaining the only identifiable class of foreseeable victims the courts have recognized is that of school children attending public schools during school hours.  The Court ultimately held that although participation in school sponsored athletic programs is most likely encouraged, the participation is on a purely voluntary basis and, therefore, governmental immunity barred Robby’s negligence claims. 

            Earlier this year the Superior Court at New Haven reached a different conclusion in a bullying case.  In Esposito v. Town of Bethany, et al, the father of an elementary school student brought suit against the Town of Bethany, the Board of Education and the Bethany Public School District alleging negligence.  The student, Christina, was allegedly teased on a regular basis and at one point another student threw a ball at the back of her head during recess.  Christina sustained severe injuries “leaving her with an acquired brain injury and severe optical dysfunction.” 

In response to Connecticut’s anti-bulling legislation, which became effective July, 2002, the Town of Bethany adopted a comprehensive anti-bullying policy.  The Plaintiff’s pointed to that policy arguing that the school failed to follow it and, thus, their acts were ministerial rather than discretionary in nature.  The Court framed the issue as whether, “…a detailed method of behavior was laid down for administrators and teachers for dealing with bullying depriving them of any judgment or discretion, or that, actions were dictated to deal with the problem that involved merely the execution of an established policy.”  Leaving this question unanswered, the Court ultimately erred on the side of caution, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present the facts at trial. 

Later in its decision the Court addressed whether the “identifiable person subject to imminent harm” exception would apply if the school’s actions were in fact discretionary.  In doing so, the Court hinted at expanding its view of the doctrine in the context of school bullying.  The Court interpreted prior case law as suggesting that the only identifiable class of foreseeable victims is that of school children attending school during school hours, but went on to suggest, “[b]ut if a clearly identifiable person, child or adult, is exposed to imminent harm then the exception could apply also if that individual is exposed to imminent harm,” continuing, “an individual may be identifiable for purposes of the exception to qualified immunity if the harm occurs within a limited temporal and geographical zone, involving a temporary condition.”  In ruling in Christina’s favor, the court also noted that the appellate courts have relaxed the “identifiable person” portion of the analysis as it pertains to school children stating simply, “they are a foreseeable class to be protected.”  The Court concluded it must assume a similarly protective attitude will be applied in examining the “imminent harm” requirement stating, “bullying is condemned by state statute, children must attend schools, children are not as capable of defending themselves, they are vulnerable in the entire school area where unsupervised conduct prevails, and the bullying concept includes… a particular child subject to these acts.”

Whether a victim of bullying will be successful in bringing a claim against a school district will depend heavily on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the theory of liability, the state in which the claims are made and the causes of action asserted.   As set forth above, in Connecticut governmental immunity may preclude recovery altogether unless the victim can demonstrate the application of an exception is appropriate.  Should you have any questions regarding your particular circumstances, please do not hesitate to call our office.  Michael D. DeMeola is an attorney with Maya Murphy, P.C., and welcomes all inquiries.  He can be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100 or by email at mdemeola@mayalaw.com.

U.S. Department of Education Takes a Strong Stance Against Bullying

Leigh Ryan, Esq. is an attorney with Maya Murphy, P.C., a full service law firm with offices in Westport, CT and New York City. Ms. Ryan is licensed to practice law in Connecticut and New York.

Connecticut telephone number: (203) 221-3100; New York telephone number: (212) 682-5700; Firm url: www. Mayalaw.com; E-mail: LRyan@Mayalaw.com

On October 26, 2010, the United States Department of Education (“DOE”) sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to Boards of Education throughout the United States (the “Letter”). The Letter addressed an ever present and growing harmful trend in many schools: Bullying. As outlined by the DOE, “[b]ullying fosters a climate of fear and disrespect that can seriously impair the physical and psychological health of its victims and create conditions that negatively affect learning, thereby undermining the ability of students to achieve their full potential. “This Letter comes in the wake of recent tragic reports of several young people taking their own lives as a result of repeated bullying and taunting for being (or being perceived as being) gay.

With this Letter, the DOE highlighted that bullying in schools or at school sponsored functions is never to be tolerated, and that a school district’s delay in taking immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred may result in the school district’s violation of the victim’s civil rights.  The effects of student-on-student harassment and bullying are severe, and include lower academic achievement; increased anxiety; low self-esteem; depression; deterioration of health; feelings of alienation; absenteeism; self-harm; and suicidal ideation.

Within the DOE, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) enforces several different federal anti-discrimination statutes, including but not limited to, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”) ; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”); and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“Title II”).  While these statutes protect students from harassment by school employees, it also protects students from harassment by other students. Such conduct, when sufficiently serious, can create a hostile environment leading to negative consequences for the victims. Consequently, when peer bullying or harassment is based on race, color, national origin, sex or disability, a school district’s failure to act appropriately in preventing this type of conduct, could result  in the school district’s violation of the victim’s civil rights and lead to legal liability.[1]

The statutes enforced by OCR do not explicitly protect against religious discrimination.[2] However, many religious groups face discrimination based on “actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” which is protected under Title VI, and enforced by OCR. The same principle can be applied to those discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.  While the statutes do not protect against discrimination based on sexual preference, they do protect against gender-based harassment, which includes sex and sex-stereotyping (i.e., failing to conform to the stereotypical notions of being a man). [3]

But what is harassment? And when does a school district’s action (or inaction) rise to the level of violating a student’s civil rights.  In the Letter, OCR defined harassment as including verbal acts and name calling; graphic and written statements  (which may include cell phones or internet use); or other conduct that may be psychically threatening, harmful, or humiliating.  As outlined by the Letter, school districts are responsible for incidents of harassment, when the school district knew or should have known that the harassment was occurring. 

The Letter also outlines the responsibility of school districts, which includes: 1) immediate action to investigate the incident; 2) if discriminatory harassment has occurred, the school must take steps calculated to end the harassment; 3) eliminate the hostile environment; and 4) prevent the harassment from recurring.

Further, the Letter discusses the appropriate steps that should be used to end harassment, including: 1) separating the accused harasser and the victim; 2) providing counseling for the victim and/or the harasser; 3) taking disciplinary action against the harasser; 4) ensuring students and their families know how to report any subsequent problems; 5) conducting follow-up inquiries; and 6) offering training to school personnel, students, and/or the community concerning discrimination and harassment.

In addition, the Letter stresses the importance of not penalizing the victim of the harassment. For example, if separation is required between the harasser and the victim, the school should not require the victim to change his/her class schedule.  Doing so would validate the harasser’s actions and/or create fear of reporting harassing behavior.  The Letter also emphasizes the significance of looking past the “label” (i.e., teasing or hazing) and rather encourages school districts and administrators to look at the nature of the conduct itself, as that will define the responsibilities of school districts.

Over the past several years, many states have adopted anti-bullying laws, including Connecticut and New York. These laws set forth mandatory procedures a school is required to take upon notice of such incidents. However, a school’s responsibility does not begin and end with those procedures.  The school districts must ensure that its policies and procedures protect the victim’s civil rights.

President Obama recently established an Inter-agency Task Force on Bullying. In conjunction with that, the Obama administration hosted its first ever National Bullying Summit and launched the Stop Bullying Now campaign, the It Gets Better Project, and a national database of effective anti-bullying programs.   For more information on bullying, please review the following:

The Trevor Project

BullyingInfo.org

It Gets Better Project

If you are someone who has been a victim of bullying or harassment or know of someone who is being bullied or harassed, please speak up.  At Maya Murphy, P.C., we have decades of experience dealing with Education Law, harassment or bullying, Special Education Law, and discrimination– often in situations where they run concurrently.  We handle all types of issues, in a broad geographic area, which includes Westport, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, and the entire Fairfield County area.

---

[1] While this article addresses civil liability, it should be noted that bullying can have criminal implications for both the bully and his or her guardians. 

[2] Other statutes, not enforced by OCR, protect against discrimination on the basis of religion.

[3] The DOE letter addresses laws enforced by OCR only. It does not address a school district’s legal obligation under other federal, state or local laws, which may impose additional obligations on schools.

Fired Teacher Sues for Wrongful Discharge and Defamation

A former middle school teacher who was wrongfully terminated by his employer suffered insult upon injury when he was defamed by his principal following his departure from the school, a new lawsuit alleges.

The physical education teacher – who previously had been praised as a “distinguished teacher” by the school – was continually harassed and berated by his supervising principal before ultimately being terminated, as the lawsuit sets forth.  Even after the teacher’s departure from the school, the abuse continued – culminating in the principal making a series of specific, baseless, outrageous statements to the teacher’s former colleagues.

The case is currently pending in the Superior Court in and for the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, and has attracted local media attention (see below).  Any questions concerning this matter should be directed to Attorney H. Daniel Murphy at hdmurphy@mayalaw.com.