Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treatment Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court record shows mother submitted letter claiming rehab completion; provider contradicted the claim
Summary
Saint Francis Ministries testified that a letter Laquisha Stotts submitted to suggest she completed inpatient treatment was falsified; the provider told the permanency specialist the mother had not completed inpatient rehab, and email records from the provider were admitted as exhibits.
Saint Francis Ministries told the High Plains Child Protection Court that a document filed by Laquisha Stotts purporting to show completion of court‑ordered inpatient substance‑use treatment was not accurate and that the treatment provider reported the mother had not finished the program.
Tiffany Brown, a permanency specialist with Saint Francis, testified that Stotts sent a cover letter and attached a certificate the mother said documented completion. Brown said she made a collateral contact with the treatment provider, Serenity, and received an email chain contradicting the certificate. Brown described the provider’s response on the record: the provider said Stotts had not completed the program and had been discharged.
The petitioners offered the email chain and the provider’s response as exhibits. The court admitted those documents (listed as petitioner exhibits SS9 and 12 / 11 and SS8 depending on the case record). Brown said the admitted email chain showed the provider’s version contained more detail and did not support Stotts’s claim of completion.
Brown told the court Stotts attempted inpatient treatment three times and was discharged or left before completing a full 30‑day program in multiple instances. “She says she could not find a provider that would accept her into their program, and she would not be finished with inpatient before the final hearing,” Brown testified when recounting Stotts’s explanation to staff.
Why it matters: Saint Francis used the provider‑verified correspondence to question the mother’s compliance with a specific, court‑ordered component of the family plan of service. Completion of inpatient treatment was a recurring court condition tied to the department’s reunification and visitation decisions.
What the record shows: The court admitted the provider email chain and the letter Stotts submitted; the provider’s response in the record explicitly said she had not completed the inpatient program. The court will consider those documents along with other evidence at the continued hearing on Feb. 4.
