IN RE: Alex D. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In accordance with General Statute 46b-124 and Practice Book 32a-7, the names of the parties of this case are not to be disclosed and the records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and only upon order of the Superior Court.

The cases regarding Alex D. and Kayden D. present petitions of neglect filed by the Department of Children and Families on November 25, 2009.

The petitioner represents that the above referenced children are neglected within the meaning of Connecticut General Statute 46b-120 in that they are being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally.

A history of the file reveals that on November 25, 2009, DCF filed a petition of neglect on behalf of said children.   On September 22, 2010, DCF filed for an order of temporary custody on behalf of said children.   The order of temporary custody was granted on September 22, 2010 and the temporary custody of the children was vested in the children's paternal grandfather, David D., and his partner, Ruth K. The children still remain in their custody as of the date of the trial.   On September 29, 2009, the order of temporary custody was consolidated with the neglect petition trial scheduled for October 15, 2010.   The parents, at the commencement of the trial, while not agreeing to sustain the order of temporary custody, did not challenge the maintenance of the order of the temporary custody pending the disposition of the neglect trial.   In addition, the mother withdrew her motion to strike the order of temporary custody petition at the trial date of October 15, 2010.

The matter of the neglect petition was tried to this court commencing on October 15, 2010 and ending on November 3, 2010.   The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families was represented by an assistant attorney general.   The mother and father of the children were both present during the trial and each was represented by an attorney.   The children were also represented by an attorney at the trial.   The children also had a separately appointed guardian ad litem who was also present for the trial.   The intervening maternal grandmother was present for the trial.   Finally, the temporary custodians of the children were present for the trial.

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

The court has reviewed the verified petition, heard the testimony of the witnesses produced at the hearing and considered each full exhibit.   The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the trial reveals the following facts which were proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

At the trial, the parents each entered a plea of nolo contendere to the allegations in the petition that the children were neglected in that the children were denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally.

The court accepted the mother and father's plea of nolo contendere and adjudicated the children as neglected in that they were neglected in that the children were denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally.   The trial was contested as to disposition.

The father appears to be suffering depression and has not engaged in individual therapy to address those problems.   He is unable to secure appropriate housing for himself and his children.   He has a history of domestic violence with the mother and is facing criminal charges as a result of his actions.   The father continues to have a dysfunctional relationship with the mother.

The mother has a history of substance abuse issues.   She has been referred to numerous services to address those problems.   She has failed to cooperate with and attend the services that have been offered to her by DCF. The mother has also failed to inform DCF of her whereabouts with her location being unknown for approximately seven weeks in May and June 2010.   The mother has also not exercised visitation for the children for significant periods of time.

The mother has submitted a signed “Agreement to Participate In Recovery Specialist Voluntary Program” and is requested that the Court allow her participation in this program.

Both the mother and the father have a long history of domestic violence between them.   There are numerous active protective orders in existence between them including a full no contact protective order issued on August 2, 2010.   Evidence has been presented that the parents have violated the non contact orders that are in existence.

Patricia L., the maternal grandmother, intervened in this case and is seeking the permanent guardianship of the children.   She and her husband testified of their desire to accept the guardianship of the children should the court award it to them.   Both the maternal grandmother and her husband are employed and have a sufficient income.   There are no drug issues with the maternal grandmother.   The maternal grandmother does not have a Connecticut criminal history but does have a child protection history from 1989.   Her husband does not present any concerns.

The children and the mother had previously resided with the maternal grandmother and her husband but on April 20, 2010, the mother called DCF and reported that the maternal grandmother wanted her and her children out of their home citing that their living in the home was too much for her to handle, was causing her stress that was impacting her health issues as well as her marriage.   The DCF social worker than developed a safety plan and the children were placed with their paternal grandfather and his partner where they still remain.   The maternal grandmother in her testimony has denied that she requested that her grandchildren leave her home but acknowledges that she wanted her daughter to leave.   She did agree that the children should go with their paternal grandfather and that she would help them with transportation and assist them in taking care of the children.

The mother and the maternal grandmother have had a tumultuous relationship.   In May 2010, the paternal grandmother received a text message from her daughter's cell phone which reported that the daughter had attempted suicide and was in the intensive care unit of a hospital.   The Plainfield police became involved and located the mother at a Norwich courthouse who appeared to be in a healthy condition with the mother not having attempted suicide but wanting the maternal grandmother to be distressed upon hearing the false information.

Due to the dysfunctional relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother, DCF had requested that the maternal grandmother and her daughter participate in therapy but the maternal grandmother would not participate.

Since approximately June 29th of this year, the mother is residing with the maternal grandmother and her husband.   They have indicated that if they are given the guardianship of the children, that the mother would no longer live with them.

The maternal grandmother minimizes the severity of the mother's substance abuse problems.   When questions by the assistant attorney general as to the mother's substance abuse difficulties, the paternal grandmother responded as follows:  “I take it there is a problem but I personally don't see that the problem is as big as it is made out to be.”   She further testified that “it is not as bad as it's being made up to be.”

The paternal grandfather, David D. and his partner Rita K. have had the custody of both children since April 2010, first under a family agreement and then under an order of temporary custody.   They do not have any child protection history and have no Connecticut criminal record.   The paternal grandfather is currently unemployed but is receiving unemployment assistance and is seeking employment.   During the approximate last six months, they have provided a stable and appropriate home for the two children.   They have also acknowledged their desire to accept the guardianship of the two children should the court award the guardianship to them.

The clinician for the child, Alex D., testified that she believed that moving Alex from his current placement to his maternal grandmother house would set him back therapeutically.   Her correspondence to DCF in September 2010 was entered as an exhibit.   In the report, the clinician finds that Alex's mental health diagnosis is adjustment disorder and that since living with his paternal grandfather and his partner, Alex has made progress in his therapy.   The clinician also reports that the mother is “overloaded with past on-going challenges due to untreated substance and mental health issues.”   She also reports that the mother “has been observed by this clinician on multiple occasions being liable, erratic and unpredictable resulting in Alex becoming unstable.”   She recommended that the child should remain in his current placement with contact between his parents being structured and supervised.

Alex's clinician also testified as to a family session she was conducted with the children and the grandparents when the mother disrupted the session seeking to take the children home that resulted in police intervention and a very tumultuous scene which upset the children.   She also testified that Alex believed that if he were to live with his maternal grandmother, that his mother and father would also be living with him.

The attorney for the minor children argued to the court that the children's guardianship should be vested in the children's maternal grandmother, Patricia L. and her husband, Dennis L.

The guardian ad litem reported to the court that it was her position that it was in the children's best interest that their guardianship be vested in the children's current temporary custodians, the children's paternal grandfather, David D., and his partner, Ruth K.

The mother and the father have entered nolo contendere pleas to the allegations in the petitions that the children have been neglected.   Neither of the parents is requesting that the children be placed with them recognizing that their life circumstances at the present time do not enable them to appropriately parent their children.

The children are fortunate to have maternal and paternal grandparents that have provided assistance to them in the past and are willing to do so in the future.   The court does not doubt that they love their grandchildren and are willing to make sacrifices on their behalf.

The court does find that the guardianship of the two children shall be placed in the paternal grandfather and his partner whom the court finds suitable and worthy.   The children have had their lives disrupted as a result of their parents' difficulties.   They have had stability for the past six months living with the paternal grandfather and his partner and are doing well in their care.   In addition, Alex is making progress in his counseling and credible testimony was given by his therapist that a disruption in his current living arrangement would set back the progress he has attained.

In addition, the guardian ad litem believes that it is in the children's best interest that their guardianship be placed in their paternal grandfather and his partner.

The court appreciates the maternal grandmother and her husband's willingness to offer themselves as a resource for the children finding it to be a sincere request that is motivated by their love for the their grandchildren.   However, the maternal grandmother's difficult relationship with the mother as well as her minimization of her daughter's substance abuse problems detracts from the potential success of the proposed placement.   In addition, the children have previously been placed with the maternal grandmother and her husband but unfortunately, it disrupted.   The court anticipates that the maternal grandparents will maintain a relationship with the children.

Accordingly by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the court finds that the children Alex D. and Kayden D. have been neglected in that were denied proper care, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally.

In reference to the disposition, the court finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the following disposition is in the best interest of the children.   The court hereby orders that the care, custody and guardianship of the children, Alex D. and Kayden D., be vested in the paternal grandfather, David D., and his partner, Ruth K., as co-guardians whom the court finds to be suitable and worthy of such responsibility.   The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families shall provide protective supervision for the children for a period of three months from the date of this judgment.   During the period of protective supervision, the guardians shall not allow unsupervised contact between the children and their parents.   The order vesting the guardianship of Alex D. and Kayden R. shall survive the expiration of the protective supervision.   The court hereby approves and orders as final steps the specific steps attached hereto as part disposition of this case.

By virtue of the transfer of guardianship of the children as part of this order, the orders of temporary custody are terminated.   In addition, as the order of temporary custody is terminated and the guardianship of the children has been transferred, the mother's participation in the Recovery Specialist Voluntary Program is left to the discretion of the program.

BY THE COURT

Graziani, J.

Graziani, Edward C., J.