A Superior Court judge who found that the Connecticut Department of Children and Families failed to “see” a legally blind disabled teen who was killed in 2016 when he fled a foster parent and walked into traffic awarded $2.5 million in a lawsuit filed in the case.
The case was filed against DCF and Community Residences, Inc. on behalf of the estate of Michael Shore, who was 14 years old when he died, court records show.
In addition to being legally blind, Michael, called “Mikey” by the court, was also diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, binge eating disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder, according to the court ruling by Judge J. Parkinson.
Mikey read at a fourth-grade level at the time of his death, according to information Parkinson included in the ruling.
Parkinson wrote in the ruling that Mikey “had an estimated 61 more years to live. That is 61 more years of beatboxing and listening to old music. Sixty-one more years of enjoying playing video games and watching old movies. Sixty-one more years of spending time with his family, wearing business suits, and enjoying having his thirst for knowledge quenched.” Parkinson concluded that for Mikey’s loss of the enjoyment of life, the court “fairly and justly awards $2,000,000.”
However, Parkinson wrote, Mikey’s estate also sought damages for conscious pain and suffering before his death.
“Mikey’s passing occurred when he was hit by a minivan traveling at a high rate of speed. After this first collision, Mikey remained alive because he crossed over to the opposing travel lane, after which he was hit by another motor vehicle,” the judge wrote.
As Mikey suffered conscious pain and suffering, “his estate is entitled to compensation for the time that he suffered before he passed. This court fairly and justly awards $500,000 for his conscious pain and suffering before his death.”
Parkinson also detailed in his ruling that Mikey was beloved and initially “was a bubbly, happy and energetic boy. He was charming, charismatic and very personable. He showed good manners and was caring toward others. Mikey was very curious and loved to ask questions,” and he was a talented beatboxer and enjoyed listening to old music. He liked video games, playing cards and engaging in outdoor activities, and “had a love for watching old movies and could quote lines from his favorite movies, including The Shawshank Redemption.”
The ruling does not find fault with Community Residences, Inc., or CRI.
“We are happy to see that DCF has finally been held accountable, said attorney David G. Hill, who represented CRI. “Our hearts and prayers go out to this family for their loss. We can only hope that certain steps are taken by DCF to make sure this does not happen again.”
Elizabeth Benton, a spokesperson for the office of Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, said, “We are reviewing the decision and evaluating next steps.”
Peter Yazbak, director of communications for DCF said, “We have just been notified of this judgement and have no comment at this time.”
The Flood Law Firm, which represented Michael Shore’s estates, said, “Mikeyʼs family respects and appreciates the Courtʼs decision and its finding that the failures at the Department of Children and Families caused Mikeyʼs untimely death.
“DCF never accepted responsibility for its conduct or for Mikeyʼs death. The decision makes clear that no one is above the law and that institutional failures and avoidable neglect will not be ignored or excused,” the firm’s statement said.
“A careful examination of what happened to Mikey should shock and anger everyone. Mikey was a wonderful kid and was deeply loved by his family and friends. His life mattered. Our hope and the familyʼs hope is that the Courtʼs decision will lead to changes at DCF so that no other family has to endure this kind of pain and loss. The family asks for privacy at this time.”
The judge wrote that the teen’s behavior deteriorated after his parents separated, times which his family described as him being in the “red zone” or “taking a turn,” and that family noted he could “turn red in the face and ball up his fists in anger,” at other times he would “become very stoic and expressionless with no way to reach him.”
The judge also noted the teen had three times engaged in violence toward others and “was also known to run away from home.”
The teen stayed at the Children’s Center of Hamden for almost a year, where he was restrained five times. “Restraints are used on a child when a child cannot calm down and risks injury to themselves or others” and in “extreme situations,” Parkinson wrote, noting that an order was out in place so that the teen’s father could no longer visit him.
After going home, the teen, who was born with a heart defect, received some services, although not all that were recommended. His behavior escalated, the judge wrote, and he was “adversely affected” by his sister’s cancer diagnosis.
In the summer of 2016, Mikey was arrested after he threatened to kill his mother and destroyed property at his home and also was referred to DCF, the judge wrote. After stays at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and Natchaug Hospital for two weeks, he was placed at the Wheeler Clinic S-Fit program, according to the ruling.
The teen’s mother told DCF that she was “uncomfortable with having Mikey back home due to his behavior, the lack of appropriate in-home services that had previously been provided and the results thereof,” specifically highlighting the teen’s “threatening homicidal comments toward his mother and sister,” the ruling said.
The teen spent four months at Wheeler, a longer stay because of “severe behavioral issues.” A clinical care manager from the Connecticut Behavioral then recommended Ädelbrook for Mikey, a residential facility for children with autism, which had space for him, the ruling said. DCF did not place him there, Parkinson wrote.
Then in August 2016, DCF completed its Therapeutic Foster Care Eligibility Instrument, or TEI, which concluded that Mikey was eligible for therapeutic foster care, the judge wrote.
However, he wrote, “the TEI was inaccurate and incomplete, and an example of this, among others, included that it listed zero psychiatric hospitalizations in Mikey’s lifetime” when he had been hospitalized six times in his life for violent behaviors and threatening to harm others.
The TEI must be accurate because it is used to determine whether a child is eligible for therapeutic foster care, the judge wrote, and “before completing the TEI, DCF should review the child’s prior records. DCF did not review all of Mikey’s prior records before completing the TEI.”
“Upon DCF’s involvement with Mikey, they kept an electronic ‘running narrative’ which contained their notes. The running narrative contains a note that concurrent planning as a last resort will include exploring congregate care as an option,” he wrote.
The judge noted that CRI was contracted with the state to recruit foster parents for the children in custody of the state but only receives information regarding the children they place directly and exclusively from DCF.
“DCF did not have all of Mikey’s records when they referred Mikey to CRI for placement,” Parkinson wrote. “DCF did not have all of Mikey’s records either because they never sent the releases out to be processed or the records were not yet received.”
Also, he wrote, DCF makes the decision to place a child in foster care and CRI is mandated to accept and place that child, and in this case, the teen’s mother sent a letter to DCF saying he should not be in therapeutic foster care, instead urging DCF to place him in a residential setting. A clinical care manager assigned to Mikey’s case also expressed concerns to DCF about the plan, he wrote.
“It was planned that Mikey would be placed with foster mom in September 2016, but the placement did not occur until Nov. 30, 2016. The placement was delayed because DCF wanted to ensure Mikey had the appropriate services in place before he was placed,” Parkinson wrote.
A behavior assessment report issued in November 2016, included aggression, screaming, swearing, property destruction, non-compliance, threats to harm others and bolting,” the judge wrote.
Mikey’s death
Mikey was placed with a foster mom in November 2016, and by mid-December, DCF was informed that Mikey’s behaviors have been increasing, including dysregulation, anxiety and him being tearful.
On Dec. 22, 2016, Mikey, his foster mom, and her son went to the barber and Mikey became angry about the candy/trail mix he had struggled to open. After a call to a CRI employee, Mikey exhibited threatening behavior toward the foster mom, “cursed at both of them, and said that no one cared about him,” the judge wrote.
Mikey left the car and slammed the door so hard that foster mom thought he had shattered the window. The CRI worker advised the foster mom to give him some space to calm down. The foster mom reported that Mikey was over 6 feet tall and over 200 pounds and that she would not have been able to defend herself. She watched Mikey walk away and he never came back, Parkinson wrote.
The foster mom made a missing person report, but at 5:35 p.m., a report was made that a pedestrian had been struck on Route 8 in Naugatuck.
“Mikey was hit by several motor vehicles,” the judge wrote. “One eyewitness described that Mikey ‘suddenly bolted out into the right lane and came to a sudden stop.’”
“Mikey ran across the highway and was struck by a Dodge Grand Caravan minivan traveling at a high rate of speed. After being hit by the minivan, Mikey continued to cross the highway and made it to the opposite side where he was then hit by another car, a Jeep Cherokee. Route 8, where this incident took place, was dark with busy traffic conditions,” Parkinson wrote.
“The drivers of the motor vehicles both told police that it did not appear that Mikey was trying to hurt or kill himself but rather ‘looked as if he was completely surprised to see the car,’” Parkinson wrote, also noting the medical examiner’s report revealed that Mikey sustained blunt impact injuries to his head, torso and extremities including skull fractures, brain lacerations, rib fractures, lacerations to his lung, aorta, spleen and liver, and left elbow dislocation.”
DCF was not advised of Mikey absconding until after his death, the ruling said.
Parkinson wrote that “in this court’s view … the breach comes in ‘dribs and drabs.’ The breach started when DCF failed to even read what was available to it. For example, the witnesses who were there at the time admit that DCF’s own documentation is inaccurate; to wit, the TEI. All witnesses agreed that the TEI was a very important document, as it was a tool used to find Mikey eligible for therapeutic foster care. The inaccuracies led to DCF finding Mikey eligible for therapeutic foster care when in fact he was not, according to their own tool once the accurate data was inputted.”
“Further, DCF’s record keeping was lackluster to say the least. The running narrative at times contained pertinent information, yet this information was either not read by the workers completing the important documents such as the TEI and 10-day plan or was simply ignored. Moreover, the running narrative was either not ‘running’ or simply stopped having entries inputted until after Mikey died,” he wrote,
“DCF argues that even if the TEI was not completely accurate, there were numerous meetings where more information about Mikey was shared. This may be true, but none of the witnesses could testify as to what was shared,” the judge wrote. “More importantly, DCF points out that by all accounts, the placement was a good fit for Mikey. By this, DCF must be highlighting that the foster mom and Mikey got along well and Mikey enjoyed living there. This information that the foster mom and Mikey were personally a good fit is only half of the picture. Mikey’s particular needs and issues, including bolting, was the other crucial part” and “the documents provided to the foster parent did not include this pertinent information.”
In sum, “DCF breached its duty to provide ‘careful supervision’ of Mikey by failing to review his prior records, failing to use what information it did have to make accurate eligibility determinations regarding the level of care and services he needed and failing to provide the recommended services in his FBA. These failures led to him being placed in a therapeutic foster home with inadequate services in place to deal with his many issues, including his bolting,” he wrote.
The judge also noted that, this court finds “that the plaintiff has proven both cause in fact and proximate cause. Cause in fact exists because if Mikey had not been placed in TFC, then he would not have been in the position to be alone on a highway.”
“The state highlights in its brief a comment made in the running narrative to the effect that there was a discussion about placing Mikey in a residential placement. Yet throughout the entire trial, not one DCF witness testified that a residential placement was ever truly considered for Mikey,” he wrote. “To be clear, the court is not shifting the burden of proof, which clearly and unequivocally falls squarely in the plaintiff’s lap. The court is not saying that DCF’s lack of evidence makes it negligent. Not at all. It is the failures or omissions of DCF that make it negligent, the failure to receive and review Mikey’s prior records, the failure to pass on crucial information to its contracted agency and, thus, the foster mother, the failure to input correct information into its own assessment tool — the TEI — and the failure to provide the ABA (applied behavior analysis) services recommended in the FBA.”
Ultimately, DCF failed to “see” Mikey, the judge wrote.
