IN RE: Sandriona B. (2010)

DECISION ON MOTIONS TO INTERVENE FILED BY CONNIE S. RAINS, SHIRLANE A. REDDICK AND DEBRA L. BUTLER

I

BRIEF FACTS

Stephanie B. is the mother of Sandriona B (date of birth:  2/18/05), Kaahliyah S.¹ (date of birth: 1/6/06), Loretta T (date of birth: 12/24/07) and the twins Beverley T. and Shirley T. (whose dates of birth are 10/15/08).   Sandriona's father is Anthony F., Kaahliyah S.'s father is Cornelius S. and Earl T. is the father of Loretta, Beverley and Shirley T. The children were all removed from mother on a ninety-six-hour hold on December 19, 2008.   Orders of Temporary Custody were issued by the court and subsequently sustained.   The children were adjudicated as neglected and committed to the Department of Children and Families (hereafter ‘DCF’ or ‘the department’) in April 2009.   Petitions for the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) for each of the children were filed by the department on October 14, 2010.   No date has yet been set for the Termination Hearing.

Three people with an interest in becoming involved with this case filed Motions to Intervene in this matter.   After hearing briefly from them and other parties on October 27, 2010, the court agreed to take the Motions on the papers.

It should be noted that since the court agreed to take the Motions on the papers DCF has filed a “Case Status Report-Relative Assessment” dated November 10, 2010.   The court has not considered that assessment in coming to this decision since neither the movants, not any other party, had the opportunity to be heard on the contents of the assessment.

Connie S. Rains

Connie Rains is the paternal grandmother of Kaaliyah S. A Motion to Intervene for the purpose of being considered as a resource for Kaaliyah was originally filed by Ms. Rains on September 14, 2009 and denied.   Ms Rains filed a new Motion to Intervene on February 5, 2010.   After discussion, including an agreement by the department to consider her as a placement resource, her Motion was marked off on March 3, 2010.

Ms. Rains filed a new Motion to Intervene on October 18, 2010, which the court will accept as a Motion to Intervene in the TPR proceedings since that is the current posture of this case.   The Motion was filed on a court form and all the boxes are checked.   The effect of checking all the boxes is that she has asked to intervene both as an interested third party and as a blood relative to Kaahliyah and for both the limited purpose of temporary custody of Kaahliyah and for the purpose of seeking permanent guardianship of the child.

In court Ms Rains stated that she wanted to be considered as a resource for all the girls, however her written Motion relates only to Kaahliyah and the court will only consider that written motion.

Shirlane A. Reddick

Shirlane Reddick describes herself as the aunt ² of each of the children Sandrion, Kaahliyah, Loretta, Beverley and Shirley.   She filed a Motion to Intervene on October 18, 2010.   In it she indicates that she wishes to intervene for the purpose of seeking permanent guardianship of the children.   The court will treat that Motion as a Motion to Intervene in the TPR Proceedings.

Debra L. Butler

Debra Butler filed a Motion to Intervene as an interested third party in the cases of all the children.   She does not claim relative status.   She does not indicate the purpose for which she wishes to intervene on the form she completed but had advised the court on October 27, 2010 that she wanted to be a placement resource for all of the girls.   The court will treat that Motion as a Motion to Intervene in the TPR proceedings.

Additional facts are:

1. Mother has filed two Motions requesting transfer of Guardianship of all the children.   Both are dated September 14, 2010.   One Motion seeks a transfer of all the children to Ms Reddick and one seeks a transfer of all the children to Ms Butler.

2. Since Ms. Butler is not a relative, guardianship can only be transferred to her by the department if she becomes licensed as a foster parent.   She is in the process of becoming licensed but, as of October 27, 2010 that process had not been completed.

3. None of the children have recently disrupted from, or (as far as this court is aware) are about to disrupt from, their most recent placement.

II

DISCUSSION

Connecticut Practice Book section 35a-4 provides:

a) In making a determination upon a motion to intervene by any grandparent of the child or youth, the judicial authority shall consider:

(1) the timeliness of the motion as judged by all the circumstances of the case;

(2) whether the movant has a direct and immediate interest in the case.

(b) Other persons including, but not limited to, siblings may move to intervene in the dispositional phase of the case and the judicial authority may grant said motion if it determines that such intervention is in the best interest of the child or youth or in the interests of justice.

(c) In making a determination upon a motion to intervene by any other person, the judicial authority shall consider:

(1) the timeliness of the motion as judged by all the circumstances of the case;

(2) whether the movant has a direct and immediate interest in the case;

(3) whether the movant's interest is not adequately represented by existing parties;

(4) whether the intervention may cause delay in the proceedings or other prejudice to the existing parties;

(5) the necessity for or value of the intervention in terms of resolving the controversy before the judicial authority.

Section 46b-129 Connecticut General Statutes (2010 supp) provides in relevant part:

(B) Any person related to a child or youth may file a motion to intervene for purposes of seeking temporary custody of a child or youth more than ninety days after the date of the preliminary hearing.   The granting of such motion shall be solely in the court's discretion, (except that such motion shall be granted absent good cause shown whenever the child's or youth's most recent placement has disrupted or is about to disrupt.)

(C)(4) Any person related to a child or youth may file a motion to intervene for purposes of seeking permanent guardianship of a child or youth more than ninety days after the date of the preliminary hearing.   The granting of such motion to intervene shall be solely in the court's discretion, except that such motion shall be granted absent good cause shown whenever the child's or youth's most recent placement has disrupted or is about to disrupt.   The court may, in the court's discretion, order the Commissioner of Children and Families to conduct an assessment of such relative granted intervenor status pursuant to this subdivision.

The court will consider each of the individuals Movants separately:

1.Connie S. Rains

As Kaahliyah's grandmother Ms Rains is accorded a special position under the Practice Book section 35a-4(a) as the court is directed that it shall consider only the timeliness of the motion and whether the movant has a direct and immediate interest in the case in making a determination upon a motion to intervene.   This is in contrast with the court's mandate in the case of motions to intervene filed by persons who are not grandparents where the court may grant such motion after considering whether “such intervention is in the best interest of the child or youth or in the interests of justice” (Sec 35a-4(b) Connecticut Practice Book after considering the five considerations set out in Sec 35a-4(c) (supra ).

Ms Rains has filed her motion in a timely fashion and the court can assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary ³ that, as Kaahliyah's grandmother, she has a direct and immediate interest in the case involving her granddaughter.   Certainly she has filed motions to intervene on several prior occasions which would suggest intense interest in the case.

Notwithstanding the preference shown to motions to intervene filed by grandparents, Section 46b-129 Connecticut General Statutes makes it clear that the granting of such motion (whatever the relationship of the movant to the child) is solely at the discretion of the court (unless the child's placement has recently disrupted or is about to disrupt, in which case the court must find good cause not to grant the motion).   There is no indication that Kaahliyah's placement is in jeopardy.

The court takes judicial notice of the fact that, despite the objection raised by the department which states that Ms Rains was assessed in 2009 and found not to meet “the minimum qualifications for relative placement” her motion to intervene filed in February 2010 was marked off on March 3, 2010 based on the department's undertaking to consider Ms. Rains as a placement resource for Kaahliyah.   Unless that undertaking was made in bad faith, whatever the defect in 2009 was at least reviewable in March 2010.

The court notes that Section 35a-4 Connecticut Practice Book does not mandate that the court consider “the necessity for or value of the intervention in terms of resolving the controversy before [it].”   The court understands that to mean that it may, in its discretion, consider granting Ms. Rains' Motion to Intervene even though it seems likely that she will ultimately not be found to be a suitable resource for her granddaughter.

ACCORDINGLY Ms Rains' Motion to Intervene in the case involving her granddaughter Kaahliyah S. is GRANTED for both the limited purpose of seeking temporary custody of Kaahliyah and for the purpose of seeking permanent guardianship of the child.

2. Shirlane A. Reddick

As previously indicated the exact relationship of Ms Reddick to the children is unclear to the court.   She is clearly not a grandparent and so does not enjoy the special consideration afforded to Ms. Rains.   Furthermore, since mother has filed a motion seeking a transfer of guardianship of all the children to her the court finds that her interest is adequately represented by an existing party.

ACCORDINGLY Ms Reddick's Motion to Intervene is DENIED.

3. Debra L. Butler

Ms. Butler is not a blood relation of any of the children and so could not be considered as a resource unless licensed by the department.   In addition, since mother has filed a motion seeking a transfer of guardianship of all the children to her the court finds that her interest is adequately represented by an existing party, and possibly by the department.

ACCORDINGLY Ms Butler's Motion to Intervene is DENIED.

ESCHUK, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court is using the spelling of this child's name as it appears on the birth certificate and the Motions to intervene and not as spelt in other pleadings and on the docket where it is spelled “Kahliyah.”.  FN1. The court is using the spelling of this child's name as it appears on the birth certificate and the Motions to intervene and not as spelt in other pleadings and on the docket where it is spelled “Kahliyah.”

FN2. She has not completed the form indicating whether she claims to intervene as a blood relative or is asking to intervene as an interested third party..  FN2. She has not completed the form indicating whether she claims to intervene as a blood relative or is asking to intervene as an interested third party.

FN3. There was relatively little testimony, although the department indicated that they had assessed Ms Rains in 2009 and found that she did not meet the minimum qualifications for relative placement..  FN3. There was relatively little testimony, although the department indicated that they had assessed Ms Rains in 2009 and found that she did not meet the minimum qualifications for relative placement.

Eschuk, Cara F., J., J.