IN RE: Julian H.1 (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter concerns the interests of Julian H., a child who was born on September 14, 2010, and who has been in the temporary custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) since shortly after his birth.   The child's parents are Natasha C. and Juan H. The mother and father are not married to each other.

On September 16, 2010, DCF assumed temporary custody of Julian pursuant to the “96-hour hold” provisions of C.G.S. § 17a-101g.   On September 20, 2010, DCF filed an ex parte motion for an order of temporary custody, and neglect petitions.   The court (Wollenberg, JTR) found after ex parte review that Julian was “in immediate physical danger” from his surroundings and ordered that the child's temporary care and custody be vested with DCF. All of the allegations in this case are based on the theory of “predictive neglect.”   In 2006, two children who resided with the respondents sustained serious injuries that were found not to be accidental in nature.   The mother and father were subsequently arrested and convicted on the charge of Risk of Injury to a Minor.

Based on the history of the prior physical abuse case, DCF alleges in the present matter that Julian would be subjected to immediate physical danger if permitted to live in the parental home which the respondents presently share.   The current petitions filed by DCF allege the following grounds of neglect under C.G.S. § 46b-120(8)(B) and C.G.S. § 46b-120(8)(C) with respect to each respondent:  (1) that the child is being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally;  and (2) that the child is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well being.

At a preliminary hearing on September 24, 2010, the court (Keller, J.) sustained the order of temporary custody, without prejudice, pending the outcome of a consolidated neglect trial and contested order of temporary custody hearing.

A consolidated neglect trial and contested OTC hearing was held before the undersigned on diverse dates between September 30, 2010 and December 13, 2010.   All parties appeared at the trial/OTC hearing and were represented by counsel.   The court has carefully considered all of the evidence and testimony that was offered during this proceeding and finds that the facts set forth below were proven at the trial/OTC hearing.

FACTUAL FTNDINGS

On August 2, 2006, one of Natasha C.'s sons, Gregorio C., was diagnosed with serious injuries that included a fractured skull, fractured left tibia, cut tongue and many bruises and scrapes.  (State's Exhibit W.) The examining physician at the hospital suspected that the child had been physically abused.   Gregorio C. (d.o.b. August 24, 2004) was almost two years old.   At that time, in addition to Gregorio, Natasha C. had two other sons, Xavier C., (d.o.b. June 25, 2003) and Alexis H. (d.o.b. December 30, 2005).   Natasha C. and the three children resided then with Juan H., who was the biological father of Alexis H. DCF assumed temporary custody of Gregorio, Xavier and Alexis on August 2, 2006.  (State's Exhibit W.) A DCF narrative indicates that on August 3, 2006, Xavier “spontaneously disclosed” that [Juan H.] had thrown Gregorio against a wall and had “hit Mommy.”  (State's Exhibit H, p. 6.) On August 8, 2006, it was determined that Alexis had suffered a fractured left tibia prior to the removal, and while in the care of his mother and stepfather (State's Exhibit X, State's Exhibit, p. 13.)   Gregorio, Xavier and Alexis were subsequently committed to DCF as neglected children.

Natasha C. arrived at the hospital on August 2, 2006 approximately five hours after Gregorio was taken there.  (State's Exhibit W.) In a sworn written statement that Natasha C. gave to Detective P.J. Clark of the Hartford Police Department on August 3, 2006, the respondent initially claimed that Gregorio had injured himself on July 31, 2006 when he fell down eight steps in the apartment building where the parties lived and landed on a stroller that had been placed at the bottom of the stairs.  (State's Exhibit I.) Subsequently, on September 7, 2006, Natasha C. gave a second sworn statement about Gregorio's injuries to Detective Clark.  (State's Exhibit U.) In that statement, the respondent referred to the child as “Gregory” and averred:  “I am giving this statement to Detective Clark because I want him to know the truth.   I lied to him the first time because I was scared and I thought that if I told the entire truth that my ex-boyfriend, Juan [H.] would hurt me again.   Juan [H.] has been very violent towards me on a couple of occasions and he has left bruises on my body.”  (State's Exhibit U, p. 1.) The respondent also stated:  “As far as the injuries to Gregory, I noticed that each time I left to go to work or to my families (sic) I would return home later and Gregory would have a new injury to him.   When I had asked Juan [H.] about the injuries he never gave me a clear answer.   I do recall that the day that Gregory may have hurt his leg I went over to my brother's house to borrow some money and left Juan [H.] home with Alexis, Gregory, Xavier and three young boys from the neighborhood.   The three young boys were playing video games with Juan [H]. When I returned a short time later the three boys were still there and Juan [H.] then asked me if Gregory got hurt when Juan [H.] was downstairs messing with the car earlier.”  (State's Exhibit U, p. 1.)

On December 19, 2007, Juan H. was convicted on the felony charge of Risk of Injury to a Minor in connection with the physical abuse of his stepson Gregorio C. A sentence of 10 years, suspended after three years to serve, and three year's probation was imposed.  (State's Exhibit B.)

Evidence introduced during this trial indicated that a total of six family violence protective orders and restraining orders have been issued against Juan H. during the past four years.  (State's Exhibit BB.) These domestic violence orders list two women other than Natasha C. as protected parties (State's Exhibit BB.) There was also evidence during trial that on February 14, 2006, approximately six months prior to the date when Gregorio was injured, Natasha C. claimed to police that Juan H. allegedly kicked in the door of an apartment where Natasha C. was staying with her sister and engaged in disruptive and threatening behavior.  (State's Exhibit V.) Natasha C. was convicted on February 28, 2008 on the charge of Risk of Injury to a Minor.  (State's Exhibit C.) This conviction resulted from her initial false statement to the police investigator about Gregorio's injuries, and her failure to protect the child and obtain timely medical treatment for his injuries.   After a brief period of incarceration and residence at an alternative incarceration center in Waterbury where she received substance abuse and other treatment, Natasha C. was sentenced in 2008 to a suspended sentence and three years' probation.  (State's Exhibits C and E.)

In May of 2008, Natasha C. began individual counseling with Milagros Montalvo-Stewart, L.C.S.W., a therapist at the V.O.I.C.E.S program in Wethersfield.   (State's Exhibit E.) Ms. Montalvo-Stewart wrote in a letter to DCF, and testified credibly during this proceeding, that the respondent mother related some very explicit accounts of serious acts of domestic violence that Juan H. committed against her, sometimes in the presence of the children.  (See State's Exhibit E.) Natasha C. also told the therapist about incidents directly involving the children:  “While she was at work one day she received a call from him to come home.   She did so and found that one of the kids had a bump on their head.   When she asked Juan what happened, he made her feel like she was exaggerating and went on to beat her for asking what happened to the child.   A couple months later she received another phone call at work from Juan, Juan was again ordering her to come home right away.   She describes walking into her house and hearing Gregorio screaming.   She states that she attempted to walk by Juan and go straight to where Gregorio was.   Juan grabbed her and would not allow her to tend to her child.  “He proceeded to rip [the] phone out of the wall and beat her.   He did not allow her to go near her child for three days and it was on the third day that she was able to sneak out of the house, go to the mother's home and call for help.”  (State's Exhibit E, p. 2.)

Ms. Montalvo-Stewart testified credibly during this proceeding that the respondent mother's domestic violence counseling at V.O.I.C.E.S. began in May 2008 and ended on January 29, 2009.   Ms. Montalvo-Stewart testified credibly that Natasha C. made progress in treatment and had greater understanding about the dynamics of domestic violence.   Ms. Montalvo-Stewart also observed that when she worked with Natasha C., the mother was cooperative during the therapy sessions, and was adamant about not wanting domestic violence in her life.   Per the therapist, the respondent appeared to be fearful and anxious when she spoke about the incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Juan H.

Unfortunately, Natasha C. missed 10-12 therapy appointments, and V.O.I.C.E.S. ultimately terminated the mother from the program for that reason.   When Natasha C. stopped attending the program, the therapist believed that the mother still needed to do additional work on the issue of domestic violence.   Ms. Montalvo-Stewart testified that she found the mother's accounts about Juan's abusive and controlling behavior to be credible.   The therapist also specifically testified that although Natasha C. had been abused by her father as a child, she clearly delineated during the therapy sessions which abuse had been perpetrated by her father, and which abuse had been perpetrated by Juan H. The court accepts Ms. Montalvo-Stewart's entire testimony, and her letter dated May 29, 2008 (State's Exhibit E) as probative and credible evidence.   Based on the clear and credible testimony of Ms. Montalvo-Stewart, the court rejects the respondent mother's claim at trial that Ms. Montalvo-Stewart somehow misunderstood or misinterpreted what Natasha C. had said to her during the 2008 therapy sessions.

On April 13, 2009, Natasha C.'s parental rights to Gregorio C., Xavier C., Alexis H. and Christopher H. (a child born to the respondents on April 12, 2007) were terminated by the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters.   Juan's H.'s parental rights with respect to Alexis H. and Christopher H. were also terminated then.

Near the end of 2009, Natasha C and Juan H. resumed their relationship.   They began residing together at an apartment in Hartford in February 2010.  (State's Exhibit H., p. 8.)

Julian H. was born on September 14, 2010.   After the child's birth, a social worker at Hartford Hospital contacted DCF (State's Exhibit H, p. 3.) The social worker from the hospital informed the agency that there was no suspicion of substance abuse by the mother and that Natasha C. had been compliant with prenatal care.  (State's Exhibit H, p. 13.)   Julian weighed eight pounds at birth and there were no reported health issues.   There were no concerns about Natasha C.'s interaction with the baby.  (Testimony of DCF Investigative Social Worker Tamara Sanchez.)   The hospital social worker's call to DCF was apparently prompted by the mother's statements that her parental rights to four children had been terminated, and that those cases were related to domestic violence.  (State's Exhibit H, p. 13.)

DCF Investigative Social Worker Tamara Sanchez interviewed Natasha C. on September 15, 2010.   Ms Sanchez testified during this proceeding.   Details of her interview were also recounted in a sworn affidavit dated September 20, 2010 that was introduced into evidence at the trial (State's Exhibit H).  During the interview, the respondent mother admitted to the investigative social worker that Juan H. had engaged in prior domestic violence towards her, but claimed that “the worst that Juan H. had done to her was to shove her around.”   (State's Exhibit H., p. 11.)   Natasha C. said that father had “smacked her” a couple of times, but she denied that the police were ever involved, or that the children were ever present when the father was abusive towards her (State's Exhibit H, p. 11.)   The investigative social worker inquired about the injuries Gregorio C. had sustained in 2006.   The worker's sworn affidavit notes:  “Mother reported that she knows what happened from the police report.   ISW asked mother to specify what happened.   Mother stated that Gregorio C. was being fussy one day, and father took him out of the chair and placed him down hard, and this is how the child hurt his leg.   Mother stated that she believes in her heart that it was an accident.”  (State's Exhibit H., p. 11-12.)   Natasha C. also claimed to the investigative social worker on September 17, 2010 that she had been told by an attorney to lie about the previous domestic violence in order to enhance her chances of getting custody of her children.   (State's Exhibit H., p. 21.)

Ms. Sanchez also interviewed Juan H. on September 15, 2010.   During the interview, the respondent father denied to the worker that he had engaged in domestic violence towards Natasha C., and he also denied a history of substance abuse.  (State's Exhibit H, p. 13-14.)   Juan H. was also questioned on September 15th about his arrest on the risk of injury charge in 2006.   The investigative social worker's sworn affidavit notes in pertinent part:  “Father stated that he was not stable at that the time.   Father stated the child was taken to the hospital and there were allegations that he caused injuries to the child.   Father stated that mother was arrested due to manipulation, but there was no evidence.”  (State's Exhibit H, p. 13.)   The court found Ms. Sanchez' testimony and sworn affidavit to be credible evidence.

Based on the respondents' prior history with DCF, the father's history of domestic violence toward the mother and other domestic partners, the serious injuries that had been suffered in 2006 by Gregorio and Alexis, and the petitioner's belief that the mother was minimizing Juan H.'s abusive behavior and could not keep the infant safe, DCF invoked a “96-hour hold” prior to Julian's release from the hospital.   The petitioner subsequently filed the OTC applications and neglect petitions that are currently before this court.   Since DCF assumed the child's temporary custody, both parents have visited Julian regularly, and have interacted with the child appropriately during those contacts.

While he was incarcerated, Juan H. earned his GED degree, and took many courses that were offered to him through the Department of Correction.   (Father's Exhibits 1-17.)   He successfully completed an 11-session domestic violence group program, a “Beat the Street” Tier I substance abuse program, an anger management program, an “Embracing Fatherhood Program,” a “Bridges to Freedom Program” and several religious studies programs.  (Father's Exhibits 1-17.)   Juan H. obtained employment approximately one year ago at a commercial maintenance program.  (Father's Exhibit 12.)   He works as a service technician approximately 50-65 hours per week and earns $12 an hour.  (Testimony of Tamara Sanchez.)   A letter from the respondent's employer describes him as an eager and responsible employee.  (Father's Exhibit 12.)

Both respondents are currently on probation, and their respective probation officers testified at this proceeding.   Both Natasha C. and Juan H. are currently in compliance with the terms of their probation.   However, according to the credible trial testimony of Probation Officer Roberta Phillips, Juan H. tested positive for marijuana when urine screens were administered to him on July 27, 2010 and September 21, 2010.   His subsequent tests in October and November were negative for illegal drugs or controlled substances.

At the direction of his probation officer, Juan H. enrolled in November 2010 in a group domestic violence program at the Wheeler Clinic in Hartford which is known as the Explore Program.   He also underwent substance evaluation there.   Juan H. began attending the Catholic Charities/Village for Children & Families Fatherhood Initiative Program on September 25, 2010.  (Father's Exhibits 16-17.)   Earl W. Gardner of the Village for Children & Families and Carlos Soler of Catholic Charities are instructors at the Fatherhood Initiative Program.   They both testified on behalf of the respondent, and spoke positively about his participation in the program.   Both men believe that Juan H. is presently demonstrating the interest and insight that would enable him to function positively as a father.   Mr. Soler observed that Juan H. seems willing to change, accept constructive criticism and reaches out to experts who could assist him.   The court found the testimony of both Mr. Gardner and Mr. Soler to be sincere and credible.

During the latter stages of this trial, Juan H. indicated his willingness to enroll in and complete an intensive, 24-week domestic violence program for “batterers” that is known as the Non-Violence Alliance (NOVA) program.

Natasha C. previously worked at a fast food restaurant and a retail store and is currently employed at a telemarketing firm.   She has been enrolled in the Sawyer School in its medical assistant program, where she was described as a top student.  (Respondent Mother's Exhibit's 1-3.)   Although the mother did not complete the V.O.I.C.E.S. program, there was evidence at trial that on October 20, 2010, Natasha C. resumed therapy with Ms. Montalvo-Stewart for domestic violence counseling.

A central issue in this case following the removal of Julian in September 2010 has been the unwillingness of both respondents to give full authorizations to DCF that would permit the agency to share information about Juan H. and Natasha C. with all service providers, and to request and receive information about the respondents' treatment from their service providers.   DCF Social Worker Anita Patel testified that she was assigned this case in October 2010.   Ms Patel testified credibly that the authorization she received from the respondent mother to contact V.O.I.C.E.S. is limited in scope to requests by DCF about the mother's attendance, and the frequency of therapy appointments.   As a result, DCF cannot presently gauge whether or not the respondent understands and acknowledges the magnitude of the domestic abuse and physical abuse issues in her relationship with Juan H., and whether or not she is making substantive progress in those areas.   DCF believes that such information is crucial, because the mother minimized the level of domestic violence last September, and articulated her belief then that Juan H. had accidentally injured Gregorio.   Similarly, Ms. Patel testified that Juan H. has refused to sign a release of information form that would allow the agency to sufficiently confer with and receive feedback from the Explore Program in which he enrolled this past November.   In response to a question from the child's attorney, Ms. Patel opined at trial that it is essential for both parents to acknowledge not only the domestic violence in their relationship, but also the injuries that were previously sustained by Gregorio and Alexis, and how those injuries were caused.   The court credits that opinion.

Jennifer Heil, a domestic violence consultant retained by DCF, also testified at trial.   Her consultation note was entered into evidence (State's Exhibit X).  Ms. Heil did not speak with either respondent, and her report was based only on a review of DCF and V.O.I.C.E.S. records, plus a discussion with the investigative social worker.   Her report notes in part:  “Based on the information available, this consultant has significant concerns for the safety of Mother and the child if father was to have unsupervised access to the child ․ Father's behaviors fit into the profile of an extremely high risk family violence perpetrator who perceives his family as possessions.”  (State's Exhibit X, p. 13.)   Ms. Heil recommended that DCF support Natasha C.'s return to Ms. Montalvo-Stewart “to support mother in having a safe place to process the trauma and abuse.”  (State's Exhibit X, p. 13.)   The consultant also recommended that Juan H. undergo a batterer's assessment and participate in the intensive NOVA domestic violence program.  (State's Exhibit X, p. 13.)   The court credits Ms. Heil's opinions and recommendations.

Based on all of the evidence presented, the court finds that Juan H. physically abused Gregorio C. and Alexis H. in August 2006.   The court finds that Natasha C. failed to protect Gregorio and Alexis from Juan H. then, and that she endangered all of her children at that time by exposing them to Juan H., whom she knew to be abusive and violent, and by initially giving a false statement to police about Gregorio's injuries.   The court finds that Juan H. has engaged in serious acts of domestic violence towards Natasha C. and also has had a total of six protective orders/restraining orders issued against him by the courts for incidents involving two other women.   The court credits Ms. Heil's opinion and finds that Juan H.'s past behavior fits the pattern of a high-risk domestic violence perpetrator.

The court finds that Natasha C. is not an accurate reporter, and that she has misstated the truth on several occasions to the police and DCF. Although the mother attempted in September 2010 to minimize the level of father's domestic violence, and to assert her belief that father accidentally injured Gregorio and Alexis, the court finds those statements to be devoid of credibility.   The mother's second statement in 2006 to Det. Clark (State's Exhibit U), which tended to inculpate the father in the abuse of the children and in acts of domestic violence, also included a specific admission by Natasha C. that she had previously given a false statement to the police.   As such, that statement was an admission against penal interest.   The court accords it great credibility for that reason.   Ms. Montalvo-Stewart testified credibly that she had no reason to doubt the disclosures Natasha C. made in therapy about the domestic abuse perpetrated by Juan H. Ms. Montalvo-Stewart, a licensed clinical social worker, observed that Natasha C. appeared to be anxious and fearful when she made those revelations.   Furthermore, there was evidence that Xavier made spontaneous statements that Juan H. had thrown Gregorio against a wall and had hit Natasha C.

The court finds that when Julian H. was born on September 14, 2010, Natasha C. had not completed necessary domestic violence counseling, and lacked insight and judgment about the serious harm that Juan H. had previously caused to the other children, and to her.   Although Juan H. had completed group domestic violence and anger management programs in prison, the court finds that he had not completed the type of intensive batterer's program that both DCF and its consultant believe that he would need to complete before he resides with Natasha C. and the infant Julian.   The evidence established that Natasha C. resumed her relationship with Juan H., and conceived another child by him, approximately eight months after her parental rights to Gregorio, Alexis, Xavier and Christopher had been terminated.   The court finds that while both respondents have taken commendable steps to rehabilitate their lives, neither respondent appears to recognize and acknowledge the magnitude of the father's prior abusive and controlling behavior.   The court bases this finding on the fact that when interviewed by DCF in September 2010, both respondents minimized and prevaricated when providing details about the prior physical and domestic abuse in their familial relationship.   Finally, the court finds that around the time that Julian was born, Juan H. tested positive for marijuana on July 27, 2010 and September 21, 2010.   There was credible evidence at trial that while substance abuse is not the cause of domestic violence, it can exacerbate the risk of it occurring.  (State's Exhibit X, p. 3.)

DISCUSSION

The doctrine of “predictive neglect” has previously been clearly addressed by both the Connecticut General Assembly and the Connecticut Appellate Court.   “Our statutes clearly permit an adjudication of neglect based on potential for harm or abuse to occur in the future.  General Statutes § 17a-101(a) provides:  The public policy of this state is:  To protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through injury and neglect ․ By its terms, § 17a-101(a) connotes a responsibility on the state's behalf to act before the actual occurrence of injury or neglect has taken place.”  In Re Michael D., 58 Conn.App. 119, 123 (2000).   See also:  In Re Jermaine S., 86 Conn.App. 819 (2004).

Our Appellate Court also noted the following in its In Re Michael D. decision:  “General Statutes § 46b-120(8) provides that a child or youth may be found ‘neglected’ who ․ (C) is being permitted to live under conditions circumstances or associations injurious to his well being ․ The department, pursuant to the statute, need not wait until a child is actually harmed before intervening to protect the child.  General Statutes § 46b-129(b) permits the removal of the child from the home by the department when there is reasonable cause to believe that (1) the child ․ is in immediate danger from his surroundings and (2) that as a result of said conditions, the child's safety is endangered and immediate removal from such surroundings is necessary to ensure the child's safety ․ This statute clearly contemplates a situation where harm could occur but has not actually occurred.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted).  In Re Michael D., id.

Connecticut's case law is also very clear that a neglect finding may issue against a non-abusive parent who knowingly exposes his or her children to contact with a dangerous individual.  In Re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539, 562 (2009), citing:  In Re Antonio M., 56 Conn.App. 534, 543 (2000);  In Re Lauren R., 49 Conn.App. 763, 771-72 (1996);  and In Re Felicia D., 35 Conn.App. 490 (1999).

A very thoughtful and instructive analysis of the predictive neglect doctrine is contained in the decision of Judge John D. Boland in the matter of In Re Olivia O., 2007 Ct.Sup. 19735 (2007).   Referring to the findings of predictive neglect in the Michael D. and Jermaine S. cases, Judge Boland wrote:  “Significantly, both cases involved serious and longstanding criminal activity, family histories of neglect or abuse of older children, and parental inability to respond meaningfully to address the needs which had been identified at an earlier time.   In each case the appellate court deemed DCF claims that neglect could be predicted on the basis of the facts alleged (in Michael D.) or found (in Jermaine S.) to be sufficient to sustain an adjudication;  in neither case did the court articulate what bare minimum of findings would be essential to the upholding of such an adjudication in other and perhaps less dramatic contexts.”  In Re Olivia O., id.

Based on all of the evidence presented in the present matter, this court finds that the doctrine of predictive neglect applies to the facts here.   Juan H. inflicted serious injuries upon Gregorio and Alexis in 2006, and has a significant record of prior domestic abuse behavior.   Despite knowledge of his violent propensities, the respondent mother exposed her older children to Juan H., and initially attempted to mislead the police about the cause of Gregorio's injuries.   In the intervening years, neither party has to date sufficiently addressed through the necessary treatment or programs the serious issues of physical and domestic abuse in their relationship.   Neither respondent has sufficiently acknowledged, nor taken responsibility for, the injuries that were sustained by Gregorio and Alexis, as evidenced by the statements that both gave to the investigative social worker in September 2010.   The court credits the opinion of DCF and its consultant that this must happen before Julian H. can be returned to live in the home where his mother and father jointly reside.

The court finds as proven that Julian H. was in immediate danger of physical injury from his surroundings at the time of his birth, because the child's residence with Juan H. would have exposed him to the possible danger of physical abuse and/or exposure to domestic violence, and because of the unlikelihood that Natasha C. could protect the child from possible physical abuse and/or the exposure to domestic violence by Juan H. The order vesting temporary custody of Julian H. with the Commissioner of DCF is hereby sustained for those reasons.

Also for the reasons recounted above, the court further finds that the petitioner has proven both of the grounds alleged in the neglect petition by a preponderance of the evidence as to both respondents.

With respect to disposition, the court notes that the respondents have continued to remain together as a couple prior to, and during the pendency of, this trial.   In October 2010, Natasha C. resumed, but has not completed, domestic violence therapy with Ms. Montalvo-Stewart.   In November 2010, Juan H. entered, but has not completed, an intensive domestic violence program known as the Explore Program.   He has also recently expressed a willingness to undergo a batterer's assessment and to cooperate with the NOVA program.   Through the date that this trial ended, DCF has been unable to assess the progress made in therapy by either respondent, due to each respondent's reluctance to sign the full authorizations for release of information requested by the petitioner.   The court finds that until both respondents forthrightly acknowledge the fact that Gregorio and Alexis were physically abused by Juan H., and demonstrate successful completion of the domestic violence and other programs stipulated by DCF, it would not be appropriate to return Julian H. to the unsupervised care and custody of his mother and father.

Accordingly the court finds that commitment of the child is warranted by the evidence and is in the best interests of the child, and that DCF has made reasonable efforts since the child's birth to provide services to the respondents to assist with their reunification, and possibly avoid the need for commitment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the minor child, Julian H., be, and hereby is, committed to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   The court will issue specific steps orders to both respondents, and the petitioner, draft copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B, and incorporated by reference herein.   The court further orders that all counsel and parties shall appear at an In Court Judicial Review Hearing before this court at 2:30 p.m. on January 11, 2011 for the purpose of signing said specific steps.   The court will review said specific steps with the parties and all counsel on the record at the hearing on January 11th and shall enter them as final orders of the court at that hearing.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Dyer, J.

Dyer, Richard W., J.