IN RE: Martine A.1 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DISPOSITION ON PETITION FOR NEGLECT AND MOTION TO TRANSFER GUARDIANSHIP

On July 15, 2010, Martine A. was adjudicated neglected, premised mother's guilty plea under the doctrine of nolo contendere and father's “standing silent.”   On that same date, mother withdrew her motion for a transfer of guardianship of the child to maternal grandmother.   Trial on the contested issue as to disposition, as well as on father's motion for transfer of guardianship to paternal grandmother, went forward on July 15, 2010, August 20, 2010, August 12, 2010, December 17, 2010 and December 28, 2010.   An extension was granted for the child's attorney to provide the court with a position statement and that document was filed with the court on January 11, 2011.   The parties were also asked to provide the court with the acknowledgment of paternity that had previously been recorded at the Connecticut Department of Public Health.   Both of the latter have been accomplished and a finding of paternity has been added to the court file.

The child is five years of age.   DCF's intervention occurred as the result of mother's physically abusive reaction to the child's aberrant behavior when the child was 31/212 years old.   The child was then entrusted to his father's sole custody, through the family court.   At some time thereafter, legal custody changed again, apparently returning to mother's and father's joint custody, however, as a result of father's incarceration, the child came to reside with his paternal grandmother.   The child has been well cared-for at his paternal grandmother's home and there is a strong bond between the child and paternal grandmother.   Much of this is due to the extraordinary efforts that have been made by paternal grandmother, including sacrifices of a very personal nature.

During most of the time since the incident for which DCF intervened, mother has resided with her mother, the maternal grandmother.   Mother has maintained regular visitation and contact with the child, including overnight visitation, and mother and the child continue to have close mother-son relationship.   Although the child sometimes rebels against the “rules” of his mother's home, he is bonded to his mother and very much enjoys being with her.

Mother has complied with all of the services and recommendations of DCF, albeit sometimes more slowly and less diligently than expected, and she is continuing to work on following the service recommendations as to parenting and discipline.   DCF is impressed with the progress made by mother and, although it recognizes the close relationship between the paternal grandmother and the child, DCF recommends return of the child to the mother, as does the child's attorney.

In addition to the behavior of mother in the initial incident, DCF's concerns for mother also pertained to her housing as well as employment.   Mother has now moved from maternal grandmother's home into an apartment which she shares with her cousin.   The child has his own room at that residence and DCF finds the residence to be appropriate.   Mother did procure employment, however, it was only a temporary, seasonal job.   Mother is continuing to look for employment.

A good deal of the time devoted to, and a considerable portion of the evidence presented at, this trial revolved around a belief that, because of certain statements the child had made, mother's 8-year-old brother may have engaged in inappropriate touching of the child during the time the child spent at maternal grandmother's home when taking visitation with his mother there.

Subsequently there was a concern expressed that the child may have had a similar experience with a paternal cousin while the child was under paternal grandmother's care.   While the court notes that each of these possible situations is very troubling, the evidence does not reveal anything remotely conclusive, and this evidence affects this court's decision only to the extent that preventative measures should be taken as are set forth below.

One of the very unfortunate observations in this case is that mother and paternal grandmother, both of whom adore the child and want only the best for him, have developed an adversarial relationship with one another.   Certain statements attributed to the child reflect that he has picked up on this and may already be learning to use it in ways that are not emotionally healthy for him.

Father remains incarcerated and is expected to be released in 2012.

Pursuant to the directives of General Statutes § 46b-129(j) and Practice Books §§ 32a-3, and 37a-7 through 37a-12, the court finds that, premised on the standard of fair preponderance of the evidence, is in the best interests of the child that his care and custody be entrusted to his mother, under the protective supervision of DCF. In light of the exclusionary force of that determination, the father's motion to transfer guardianship to the paternal grandmother is denied.

Protective supervision shall be for a period of eight months, terminating on September 23, 2011.   Mother is to continue to cooperate with the parenting education and discipline training services through DCF, and to comply with recommendations associated therewith.   Mother is to continue to accommodate taking the child to therapy sessions.   Mother is to accommodate reasonable visitation, including overnights, with paternal grandmother.   This is essential in order to minimize the effect of the changes in the child's life that this decision brings out.   Neither mother nor grandmother is to allow the child to be in the unsupervised presence of the children about whom there have been accusations during the course of this trial.   While the protective supervision may seem to be lengthy, it is imposed in light of the fact that there will be additional changes in mother's and the child's life in the coming months in that another child is expected.   In light of the demands that are posed by the appearance of an infant into a family's life, the extended time will afford an opportunity for continued attention to be paid to the issues that brought this family into this court.

Custody is entrusted to mother under the above order of protective supervision.   An order of specific steps is attached.

The Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterbury will schedule a hearing as to the protective supervision as is required by statute.

Constance L. Epstein, J.

Epstein, Constance L., J.