IN RE: Avirex R. (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.

For purposes of the matters before the court, a history of the file reveals that on September 29, 2011, a Motion for Order of Temporary Custody and a Neglect/Uncared for Petition were filed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) on behalf of the minor child, Avirex R. The Order of Temporary Custody was granted and thereafter was sustained on October 7, 2011.   Specific steps were ordered by the court on September 29, 2011 as to both respondent parents.   The custody of the minor child was vested in DCF. Amended specific steps were ordered by the court on October 7, 2011 as to the respondent mother.   Service was confirmed as to both parents on October 7, 2011.   Thereafter, the respondent mother and father each filed pleas of nolo contendre as to an adjudication of neglect which were accepted by the court.   Disposition was contested by both parents.   The matter was tried to this court on March 8, 2012.   A Motion for Transfer of Guardianship to the maternal grandmother filed by the respondent mother was also contested and heard by the court on March 8, 2012.   A Motion to Intervene filed by the maternal grandmother was also heard by the court on March 8, 2012 and was ordered denied.

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 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 takes judicial notice of the specific steps ordered by the court pursuant to the OTC as well as the affidavits contained within the file and the court memoranda.

The court heard testimony from Raquel Lopez, a social worker with DCF, Emma Garcia, the paternal aunt and foster parent of the minor child.   The court also heard testimony from Hector Rosario, the respondent father and Deborah Vincent, the maternal grandmother.   Three exhibits were introduced into evidence as full exhibits by DCF. These included the Social Study dated November 23, 2011 (Exhibit A), Status Report dated January 27, 2012 (Exhibit B) and Addendum to Status Report dated March 7, 2012 (Exhibit C).  Because the respondent mother did not testify, the representations in the social studies and affidavits were virtually uncontested and will be considered for dispositional purposes.   The respondent mother introduced the expedited Interstate Compact On the Placement of Children (ICPC) report as a full exhibit (Exhibit 1).

The respondent mother, who is presently 25 years of age, has a Child Protective Services history in New Hampshire involving substance abuse, prostitution, neglect, transience, domestic violence.   The guardianship of her older child was transferred to the maternal grandmother through the Probate Court in New Hampshire.   She is currently experiencing substance abuse and mental health issues.   The minor child, Avirex R., experienced withdrawal from opiates that were abused by the respondent mother.   In addition, the respondent mother has a history of domestic violence history and the case history reflects a physically violent relationship with the respondent father.   She has a criminal history involving a charge of Larceny.   Most recently, she was arrested on January 4, 2012 on a charge of prostitution and interfering with a police officer.   The respondent mother was engaging in services including methadone treatment at the Hartford Dispensary but ceased that treatment.   She tested positive for cocaine on January 7, 2012.   She has not participated in group services at The Hartford Dispensary since December 30, 2011 and missed a scheduled appointment with the clinician on January 19, 2012.   She was referred for services for domestic violence, individual and group counseling at the Wheeler Clinic and signed a release but did not follow up with the referral.   She was discharged for noncompliance.   Of note, the respondent mother has not visited with the minor child since December 23, 2011.   As of March 8, 2012, the respondent mother has not engaged in services nor made herself available for services.

The respondent father has substance abuse including ongoing use of marijuana as well mental health issues.   He has a history of violence in a prior relationship and a history of violence with the respondent mother.   He has a criminal history in the juvenile court and had multiple placements.   The respondent father signed a release and was referred to Wheeler Clinic for substance abuse evaluation, random drug screens and a domestic violence group but did not follow through with the referral.   He was discharged for noncompliance.   He was re-referred to Wheeler Clinic on December 8, 2011 but has not followed through with that referral.   Of note, the respondent father has not had visitation with the minor child since December 22, 2011.   He is currently employed.

The minor child, Avirex R., is presently six months old.   He was born on September 29, 2011 at Hartford Hospital.   He was exposed to opiates ingested by his mother during the pregnancy and experienced withdrawal symptoms after his birth.   He has a need for special care in light of the withdrawal symptoms he experienced and in light of his age and development.   He was discharged from the hospital on October 1, 2011.   On that date, he was placed with his paternal aunt where he has been doing well and thriving.   The paternal aunt has been duly licensed by DCF as a foster parent.   She continues to meet the minor child's needs and has been compliant with the child's visits with the respondent parents and maternal grandmother and with the child's sibling.   He has bonded with his foster mother.   The paternal aunt has also met the minor child's physical, medical and emotional needs.   The paternal aunt also provides daycare services to Avirex's sibling during the week which allows a sibling relationship to develop.

Accordingly, the court hereby finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it is in the best interest of Avirex that he be committed until further order of the court to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.   The court orders that foster placement continue with the paternal aunt.   This will allow the respondent parents to maintain a relationship with their son and resume visitation with him.   The court further orders that an in court review be scheduled in eight weeks.   The court ratifies and adopts the specific steps ordered by the court on September 29, 2011 and the amended steps ordered on October 7, 2011 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.

With regard to the respondent mother's Motion to Transfer Guardianship to the maternal grandmother, the court finds that in addition to the findings above, Avirex has been with his paternal aunt/foster mother since he was three days old.   The paternal aunt clearly has a strong and loving bond with Avirex and is meeting all of his emotional, medical and physical needs.   Further, continued placement with her will allow the respondent parents to continue on with reunification services including visitation with their son.   As such, it is in Avirex's best interest to remain in her care.   Accordingly, the Motion To Transfer Guardianship is denied.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Burgdorff, J.

Burgdorff, Mary–Margaret D., J.