IN RE: Jazlynee C.1 (2011)

SUMMARY RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS

On August 2, 2010, an order issued vesting guardianship with the maternal grandmother with nine months of protective supervision.   Pending before the court are two motions filed by the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Family Services (“DCF”).  The first motion seeks an order authorizing DCF to acquire temporary custody of the child Jazlynee C. On October 1, 2010, the court issued a preliminary order granting this motion and a hearing was held on October 8, 2010.   At this preliminary hearing, the statutory right to an evidentiary hearing within ten days was waived.   The evidentiary hearing on the order of temporary custody was scheduled and held before the undersigned on December 10 and 21, 2010.   At the hearing, the court also received evidence on the second motion pending before the court which is DCF's motion to open the dispositive order of protective supervision and modify it to an order of commitment.

The evidence presented to the court was conflicting.   The evidence that was particularly conflicting came from the testimonies of Astrid R., the DCF social worker, and the witness, Jazzy F., called by the maternal grandmother.   Although the court declines to make an adverse inference, the grandmother's decision not to testify precludes the court from considering her testimony as part of its evaluation of the conflicting evidence.   After reviewing and weighing the evidence, the court credits the evidence offered by DCF. Based on this evidence, Astrid R. conducted a home visit to the maternal grandmother's residence on September 30, 2010 and found the child playing outside the residence alone and unattended.   On the basis of this evidence, the court also finds that the state has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was placed in immediate physical danger by the grandmother's conduct warranting the child's removal to ensure her safety.   The order of temporary custody, therefore, is sustained.

DCF's motion to open the order of protective supervision and change it to an order of commitment is granted.   The court concludes that DCF has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that an order of commitment is in the child's best interests based on a variety of factors, including the high traffic level in the grandmother's home, the high activity level of the child, and the facts supporting the order of temporary custody.

Therefore, the order of temporary custody is sustained and the motion to open the dispositive order of protective supervision and modify it to an order of commitment is granted.

So ordered this 19th day of January 2011.

STEVENS, J.

Stevens, Barry K., J.