IN RE: James W. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE NEGLECT PETITION

By a petition dated December 2, 2009, the petitioner, commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (hereinafter DCF or department) alleges that the children, James W. and Tyler W., were neglected in that they were being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, or associations injurious to their well-being.   The petitions were served by abode upon the respondents, mother and father.   Both parents appeared and each was appointed separate counsel.   On March 16, 2010, father entered a plea of nolo contendere to the neglect claim.   Mother continued to contest the allegations.   On March 16, 2010, a motion to intervene filed by maternal grandmother and stepgrandfather was granted.   On March 16, 2010, temporary custody of the children was ordered to maternal grandmother.   This order of temporary custody confirmed the status quo as of that date, that is to say, physical custody of the children with grandmother.   The children had been in her care since November 2009.   Subsequently, the matter was tried to the court.   The court heard testimony from nine witnesses and eight exhibits were introduced into evidence.   Having considered all of the evidence, including the demeanor of the witnesses, the court concludes the following by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

James W. was born to the respondents, mother and father, on November 4, 2000.   His younger brother, Tyler, was born to the respondents on March 5, 2003.   Mother and father met in 1999 and were in a dating relationship for approximately three years prior to their marriage.   The parents' relationship has been plagued with reports of domestic violence, as self-reported by the parents.   Mother reported that she left father in 2006 to enter a domestic violence shelter, but left the children in his custody for approximately five months.   The parents then reunited.   For a period of time the parents lived in Michigan.   During this time mother indicated she was raped repeatedly by father, and that he sexually offended against James.   There is no evidence of a substantiation of any of these claims by the Michigan authorities.

The department became involved in June of 2008, due to referrals from the police department, which was concerned with the frequency of domestic violence in the home.   The department attempted to engage the parents in services to eliminate the domestic violence without success.   In July of 2009, the department learned that the parents had an argument, which resulted in mother throwing a fan at father in the presence of the children.   Father acknowledges significant domestic violence, but blames much of it on mother.   In a sworn statement dated November 6, 2009, mother avowed to the family court that she was seeking relief for herself and her children due to domestic violence from father, that he had been verbally and physically abusive to her in the past and currently, and that he has been so several times in front of the children.   She alleged that on that date father threatened to hit her with a baseball bat, smashed a glass lamp cover at her feet, grabbed her by the hair and forced her on the bed saying he was going to rape her, and broke her cell phone in half so she could not call the police.   She indicated that a prior incident resulted in the oldest son jumping on his father's back and punching his father in an attempt to prevent father from hurting mother.  (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Mother reported that this was not the only time the boys had to intervene in a fight between the parents.

James was placed in therapy to deal with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder from reported multiple exposures to domestic violence and the need to intervene.   Tyler was in therapy and referred for anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms caused by the parents' domestic violence, and the multiple disruptions in the household.

While the parents acknowledge the existence of domestic violence, each seems invested in blaming the other.   The purpose of this case is not to assess the culpability of the parents, or to apportion blame between them.  “ ․ [A]n adjudication of neglect relates to the status of the child and is not necessarily premised on parental fault.   A finding that the child is neglected is different from finding who is responsible for the child's condition of neglect.   Although § 46b-129 requires both parents to be named in the petition, the adjudication of neglect is not a judgment that runs against a person or persons so named in the petition;  [i]t is not directed against them as parents, but rather is a finding that the children are neglected ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re David L., 54 Conn.App. 185, 191-92, 733 A.2d 897 (1999).   These children have been exposed to years of parental domestic violence, leading to the children's treatment for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.   The department has proven that the children were permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, or associations injurious to the well-being of the children as of the adjudicatory date.

Dispositionally, considering the best interest of the children, the court notes that the parents did make one significant concession toward improving their children's lot, by placing the children with the intervening maternal grandmother and stepgrandfather.   During this placement the children's behavior improved dramatically, and the therapist for each boy noted significant improvement.   The department wishes the children to remain with grandparents and wishes guardianship rights to be transferred to them.   Father agrees with this.   Mother agrees that guardianship should be transferred, but believes the department and the juvenile court need not be involved.   However, mother threatened in March 2010 to have the restraining order vacated so that the boys could be returned to her, and there would be no legal impediment to reunification with father.   Temporary custody of the boys was given to grandmother to assure that this would not happen.   Parents have a history of violence followed by reunification without lasting reconciliation.   Neither parent has committed fully to rehabilitative services.   Each parent acknowledges that their relationship is troubled and detrimental to the children's well-being, but each feels the other is the more responsible for their difficulties.   Neither is willing to end their mutual involvement, but mutual dedication to corrective services is absent.   The court agrees that the boys should remain in the intervening grandparents' home, but wants the department to remain involved to provide services for the parents and the boys, and also to serve as a support for the grandparents.   Accordingly, the court finds that out of home placement is in the best interests of the boys;  continuation in either parent's home would be detrimental to their welfare;  and orders that the boys be committed to the Department of Children and Families until further court order for continued placement with the intervening grandparents.   Specific steps have been set and filed herewith by the court.   Significant in these steps is the obligation of each parent to engage in individual counseling to identify the sources of domestic violence and to appreciate the destructive effect of domestic violence on their children.   Successful completion of individual counseling is a necessity.   Parents will sign releases so the individual counselors of the parents and the boys (if the boys are then in counseling) may have collateral contact to decide if and when family counseling is appropriate.   While the statutorily mandated steps toward reunification are being pursued, the department is also ordered to pursue a concurrent permanency plan for the boys, which plan calls for the transfer of their guardianship to the intervening grandparents.   This concurrent plan is predicated upon the parents' lengthy history of domestic violence and failed therapeutic and judicial interventions, as well as the apparent concurrence of the parents and grandparents.   This does not prevent the pursuit of an alternative permanency plan should reunification fail and the best interests of the boys mandate a more permanent plan at that time.   Permanency plan dates are to be set based upon the March 16, 2009 order of temporary custody.   A case status conference will be scheduled in January 2011 to assess the reunification efforts and the respective permanency plans.

BY THE COURT

John C. Driscoll, J.

Driscoll, John C., J.