IN RE: Sofia W. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In accordance with General Statute § 46b–124 and Practice Book § 32a–7, the names of the parties involved in 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.

On February 1, 2011, a 96–hour hold was invoked on behalf of the minor child, Sofia W. On February 4, 2011, a Motion for Order of Temporary Custody and a Neglect Petition were filed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF).  The Order of Temporary Custody was granted on February 4, 2011 and was sustained on February 9, 2011.   Specific steps were ordered by the court on February 4, 2011.   The custody of the child was vested in DCF. The respondent mother and father each filed pleas of nolo contendre as to an adjudication of neglect, specifically abuse at variance with history, on December 2, 2011 which was accepted by the court.   The respondent father was permitted to stand silent with respect to said allegation as requested by his attorney.   Disposition was contested by both parents who seek immediate reunification of the minor child with the respondent mother.   The matter was tried to this court on March 9, 2012.   A Motion For Order to Allow Unsupervised Visitation filed by the respondent mother was also contested and heard by the court on March 9, 2012.   DCF was represented by an assistant attorney general.   The respondent parents were each present during the trial and each were represented by an attorney.   The minor child was represented by an attorney.   The maternal grandmother was also present having been granted intervenor status by the court on March 22, 2011.   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 are no other actions pending in any other court affecting the custody of the minor child 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 as well as the history of the file.   The credible and relevant evidence submitted during the trial reveal the following facts which were proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

The court heard testimony from Freda Griffin, a social worker with DCF and Amy Amato a clinician with Community Health Resources.   Five exhibits were introduced into evidence as full exhibits by DCF. These included the Social Study dated March 21, 2011 (Exhibit A), Status Report dated November 29, 2011 (Exhibit B), Status Report dated March 25, 2011 (Exhibit C), Permanency Plan dated December 2, 2011 (Exhibit D) and Status Report dated January 10, 2012 (Exhibit E).   A Family Enrichment Report dated November 30, 2011 was introduced as a full exhibit by respondent mother as Exhibit 1. Because the respondent parents did not testify, the representations in the social studies and affidavits were virtually uncontested and will be considered for dispositional purposes.   The court takes judicial notice of all memoranda of court hearings as well as the specific steps and the Psychological Evaluation.

The minor child, Sofia W., is presently thirteen months old.   She was admitted to the Connecticut Children's Hospital on January 31, 2011 at six weeks of age.   She presented with unexplained respiratory failure and was limp, unresponsive and bleeding from her nose.   Further examination showed multiple fractures to the left distal femur.   She was subsequently admitted for observation.   According to Dr. Livingston, the injuries were diagnostic for inflicted injury due to violent handling.   Sofia was residing with and in the care of the respondent mother and the acknowledged father at the maternal grandmother's home during the relevant times when the minor child suffered the injuries.   The minor child was discharged from the hospital on February 2, 2011.   The respondent mother acknowledged pulling the minor child by the knees multiple times.   The acknowledged father admitted swinging the minor child by the ankles multiple times.

The acknowledged father at the time of the OTC was subsequently ordered removed in light of the respondent mother's identification of the biological father on 11/18/2011.   The court reopened the finding of paternity and revoked the acknowledgment of that father based on material misrepresentation of fact.   Paternity of the respondent father was confirmed by way of paternity testing requested by the respondent mother.   A judgment of paternity was accepted.   The respondent father was cited in on the neglect petition.

The respondent mother, who is presently 20 years of age, has a history with regard to her mental health including homicidal and suicidal ideations and self-mutilation.   She has a suggested diagnosis of Dysthymia (Rule Out Major Depressive Disorder in Partial Remission), Dependent, Avoidant and Compulsive Personality Traits (Rule Out Personality Disorder) and Somatoform Disorder.   She has been engaged, and continues to be engaged, in reunification services which include parenting classes and group counseling.   She intends to seek recommended individual counseling as well.   She has demonstrated cooperation with and commitment to the reunification services which include parenting services and child development relevant to the minor child's developmental needs.   She continues to reside with her mother, the maternal grandmother.

The respondent father, who is presently 20 years of age, has not fully engaged in the services ordered by the court nor has he signed a substance abuse release.   He has been participating in the visitations with the minor child.

With regard to the dispositional issue before the court, based upon a fair preponderance of the credible evidence presented, the minor child cannot be reunified with the respondent mother at the present time.   The court notes that Sofia sustained serious injuries when six weeks old while in the care of the respondent mother at the respondent mother's home where she continues to reside.   Credible reasons as to how those injuries were inflicted upon Sofia have never been adequately explained by the respondent mother.   As such, there was a failure on the part of the respondent mother to appropriately supervise and protect her child.   The court is encouraged that the respondent mother has made significant progress with the reunification services provided to her and notes that she is well on her way on the path of reunification.

Accordingly, the court hereby finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it is in the best interest of Sofia that she be committed until further order of the court to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families who shall be her guardian.   The court orders DCF to begin unsupervised visitation with the mother immediately.   Said unsupervised visitation is ordered to take place at the home of the m4ternal grandmother who is a support for the respondent mother.   DCF is hereby given the discretion to determine the scheduling of said unsupervised visitation between the respondent mother and the minor child.   The court further orders that an in court review be scheduled in four weeks.   The court ratifies and adopts the same specific steps ordered by the court on February 9, 2011 as to the respondent mother and on December 2, 2011 as to the respondent father as the final steps as a part of the disposition of this case. By virtue of the commitment of the minor child as part of this order, the order of temporary custody is terminated.

The respondent mother's motion for order to allow unsupervised visitation is denied.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Burgdorff, J.

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.