IN RE: Patrick G.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This case presents a Motion to Open and Modify Disposition filed September 24, 2009 by the petitioner, the Department of Children and Families seeking to modify the disposition of this case from the current order of protective supervision to commitment.   In addition, this case also presents a Motion to Transfer Guardianship filed September 29, 2009 by the mother seeking to transfer guardianship of the minor child to the child's maternal grandmother.

The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the General Statutes and the Practice Book. The court has jurisdiction in this matter.   There is no other action pending in any other court affecting the custody of the child known to the court.

A history of the file reveals that on August 22, 2008, DCF filed a petition of neglect on behalf of the above subject child.   On January 21, 2009, the child was adjudicated neglected and protective supervision was ordered for a period of six months.   On May 27, 2009, protective supervision was extended for an additional three months to expire on October 21, 2009.   On September 22, 2009, DCF invoked a 96-hour hold on the child and filed an order of temporary custody on behalf of the child on September 24, 2009.   The order of temporary custody was granted on September 24, 2009 and later sustained on September 29, 2009.   The custody of the child was vested in DCF. On September 29, 2009, the court ordered an extension of the protective supervision until further order of the court.   The child is still in the custody of DCF.

A hearing on said motions was held on two separate days ending on September 9, 2010.   The Department of Children and Families was represented by an assistant attorney general.   The mother and father were each represented by their own attorneys.   The minor child was represented by an attorney who also served as his guardian ad litem.   The maternal grandmother was also present for the hearing as an intervening party.

The court has reviewed the evidence produced at the hearing and heard the testimony of the witnesses.   The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the trial reveals the following facts.

The child, Patrick G. was born on July 21, 2008 and is two years old.   One day after his birth, DCF became involved with his family after receiving a referral reporting that the parents, Bethany K. and James G. were involved in domestic violence as well as substance abuse issues.   The Department filed a neglect petition on August 22, 2008 as a result of concerns of domestic violence, substance abuse use of the mother and father, as well as involvement by the parents with the criminal justice system.   On January 21, 2009, the child was adjudicated neglected with protective supervision ordered.   The protective supervision was extended on May 27, 2009 and on September 29, 2009 until further order of the court.   On August 12, 2009, the parents were arrested as a result of engaging in a verbal and physical altercation in which the father was injured.   The mother was intoxicated at the time of the incident.   The Danielson Superior Court issued a Protective Order prohibiting any form of contact between the mother and the father.   An order of temporary custody was sought on September 24, 2009 and subsequently sustained on September 29, 2009.   The order of temporary custody was sought after a DCF social worker on September 22, 2009 observed the child playing near a window inside the home and was unable to make contact with either in the home.   The social worker notified the State Police to gain access to the building due to the concern that the child was alone in the apartment with no signs of any adults in the home.   The father than appeared stating that he had been at his place of employment and admitted that the mother was in his home with the child.   Both parents admitted that they were aware that they were not suppose to have any form of contact pursuant to the Protective Order and as such both parents were arrested for violating said order.   Ultimately, the Protective Order was revoked by the Superior Court on April 27, 2010.

The mother is a convicted felon.   Her previous criminal charges include threatening in the third degree, assault in the third degree and robbery in the second degree.   She was incarcerated from October 2009 until January 2010 when she was released to a transitional living house.   However, she failed to comply with the transitional program and was returned to prison to complete the remainder of her sentence.   Her anticipated release date is November of 2010.   She has long standing substance abuse issues, domestic violence as well as involvement with the criminal law.   The father also has long standing domestic violence, substance abuse issues, as well as involvement with the criminal law.   His arrest record goes back to 1995 and includes charges for larceny, breach of peace, interfering/resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, assault, violation of a protective order, failure to appear and criminal trespass.   He also violated his probation for driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended and incarcerated for a few days in July 2009.   He is on probation at the current time.   The mother and the father are not requesting that the court return the child to them at the present time.   They have both expressed through their respective attorneys their desire that the court grant the mother's motion to transfer the guardianship of their son to the maternal grandmother, Charlene K.

The Department is opposed to the transfer of guardianship of the child to the maternal grandmother, Charlene, for a number of reasons.   The Department's concerns include the following:  The maternal grandmother's home has been in foreclosure and the maternal grandmother has not presented appropriate information to the Department's satisfaction that the matter has been resolved;  the maternal grandmother has a previous history with DCF which resulted in approximately seven unsubstantiated reports and with two substantiations as well as a previous placement on the Central Registry;  the maternal grandmother was uncooperative and irate with a social worker from the Department;  the maternal grandmother exercised poor judgment in allowing an individual with a criminal record to reside in her home.   In addition, the Department asserts that the father has not been consistent in his agreement that the maternal grandmother be given the guardianship of the child.

In regard to the foreclosure action, the respondent mother introduced as an exhibit the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch case summary which shows that the foreclosure action against the maternal grandmother was dismissed by the court on May 10, 2010 and as such is no longer pending.

In regard to the previous DCF history of the maternal grandmother, seven of the reports were unsubstantiated and with one substantiated report being for educational neglect and one for physical neglect and inadequate supervision.   The Department presented a dearth of information regarding the substantiated reports.   It appears that they involve her children when they were older due to behavioral and schooling issues.   No evidence was presented that as a result of the substantiations, the Department sought any court action including seeking an order of temporary custody or the filing of a neglect petition.   As to the placement on the Central Registry, the mother presented as an exhibit, correspondence from the Department of Children and Families, Central Registry Only Review Results dated February 16, 2010.   This reports that as a result of the appeal by the maternal grandmother of the substantiations of abuse or neglect, a review of the placement on the Central Registry has been conducted and it has been determined that the maternal grandmother does “not pose a risk to the health, safety, and/or well being of children ․ and are not placed on the Department's confidential Central Registry.”

Regarding the petitioner's claim that the maternal grandmother was uncooperative and irate with a social worker from the Department, the first social worker who had the case from August 2008 until approximately November of 2009, did find the maternal grandmother to be cooperative and did not express any dissatisfaction with her conduct.   The second social worker who had the case from that time gave testimony as to two telephone incidents as to the maternal grandmother's inappropriate behavior but acknowledged that her conduct has since improved.

In regard to the maternal grandmother exercising poor judgment in allowing a person to reside in the house with a criminal history along with the child, evidence has been presented that when DCF informed the maternal grandmother that said individual had a criminal record and should not reside in the house in August 2009, the maternal grandmother agreed to the Safety Plan issued on August 9, 2009 and complied with that request.

In regard to the claim that the father has not been consistent with his agreement to the maternal grandmother being given the guardianship of the child, testimony was presented that the father was concerned about the limitation of his visitation with the child, considering that the maternal grandmother would not allow him to visit with the child if he was under the influence of alcohol.

Evidence was presented that the maternal grandmother has had a strong and healthy relationship with Patrick from the time of his birth.   She has consistently remained a part of his life.   DCF has acknowledged that the child is bonded with the maternal grandmother.   Testimony was also presented by a DCF social worker that when the child visits with his maternal grandmother, he is excited to see her and that she exercises appropriate supervision during her visits.   In addition, in regard to the past two years of DCF involvement in this case, no claim is made that the child has ever received inappropriate treatment by the maternal grandmother.   During the involvement of DCF in this case for the past two years, the maternal grandmother has offered herself as a resource for the placement of Patrick.   DCF did place the child with her at times during the past two years and had previously requested that the mother and child reside with the maternal grandmother under a safety plan.   DCF also requested that the maternal grandmother supervise the contact between the child and his parents.   The DCF social worker for the family who had the case from August 2009 until November 2009 testified that she had no safety concerns for the child living with the maternal grandmother and that the maternal grandmother was cooperative and would do anything to ensure the child's care.   She was not aware of anything in the record to indicate that the maternal grandmother was not an appropriate person to care for the child although she was aware that the maternal grandmother's previous DCF history was an obstacle to the transfer of guardianship.   She also testified that the child is bonded with his maternal grandmother.

The maternal grandmother testified that she is a Certified Nurses Assistant and has been employed since 2002 in a nursing home.   Due to her having recent back problems, she has been unable to work at the present time.   She anticipates that she will be able to return to work in approximately six weeks and would make appropriate day care arrangements for Patrick if she were given the responsibility for his care.   The maternal grandmother also completed and submitted to DCF on August 17, 2010 a request to be licensed as a foster home.

The guardian ad litem and attorney for the child requested that the court not commit the child to the custody of DCF but transfer the guardianship of the child to the maternal grandmother.

The testimony is unequivocal that the child has had a strong relationship with the maternal grandmother from the time of the child's birth until the present time.   The child and the maternal grandmother are well bonded to each other.   The maternal grandmother has offered herself to DCF to be a placement resource for the child, an offer that was accepted during the course of this case numerous times by DCF. With DCF approval, the child has resided with the maternal grandmother who was also utilized as a visitation supervisor for the child.   The maternal grandmother has provided appropriate care for the child and the child is emotionally attached to her.   It is in the child's best interest to have his guardianship transferred to the maternal grandmother.   The court does not believe that the concerns expressed by DCF rise to the level that the court should order the child committed to DCF. The court does find that maternal grandmother is suitable and worthy of the responsibility of being given the guardianship of the child.

It is the courts hope that the mother and the father continue to avail themselves of services and programs to address their problems that have necessitated the involvement of the State of Connecticut in the life of their child, especially if they seek reunification with their son in the future.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court hereby denies the Motion to Modify Disposition filed on September 24, 2009 by the petitioner which sought to modify the disposition of this case from the current order of protective supervision to commitment.   The court hereby grants the Motion to Transfer Guardianship of the child filed on September 29, 2009 by the mother seeking to transfer the guardianship of the child to the child's maternal grandmother, Charlene K. The court hereby orders that the care, custody and guardianship of Patrick G. be vested in the maternal grandmother, Charlene K. The court finds that the maternal grandmother, Charlene K. is suitable and worthy of such responsibility.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall provide protective supervision for the child for a period of nine months from the date of this judgment.   During the period of protective supervision, the guardian shall not allow unsupervised contact between the child and his parents.   The guardian may supervise the visitation or allow the supervision to be by a party acceptable to her.   In addition, the maternal grandmother is ordered, during the period of protective supervision, to cooperate with DCF home visits, either announced or unannounced and for visits by the child's court appointed attorney and guardian ad litem.   The maternal grandmother is also not allowed to have any other person reside in her home without DCF prior approval and to immediately advise DCF of any other changes in the composition of her household.   The order vesting the guardianship of Patrick G. shall survive the expiration of the protective supervision.

As the court has ordered the transfer of the guardianship of the child to the maternal grandmother, the outstanding orders of temporary custody issued by the court on September 29, 2009 are hereby vacated.

BY THE COURT

Graziani, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.