IN RE: Cody R.1 (2013)

RULING ON MOTION TO APPROVE PERMANENCY PLAN

Pursuant to General Statutes § 46–129(k) and Practice Book § 35a–14, the motion to approve the permanency plan and transfer guardianship filed by the Department of Children and Families on September 11, 2013, is denied without prejudice.   On the existing record, the court cannot find that DCF has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed plan is in the child's best interest.   DCF is ordered to file a revised plan within sixty days and address the following issues or concerns in greater detail or specificity.

The proposed plan calls for reunification with the father, emphasizing the positive, supervised visitations between the child and the father since May 2013.   The evidence indicates, however, that in order for these visitations to take place it was necessary to acquire a modification of a Lifelong protective order issued against the father precluding him from having any contact with the mother or the child.²  The social study indicates that additional modifications of this protective order must be “explored” with the father's probation officer in order to accomplish any unification.   The terms of this protective order were not provided to the court.   Consequently, the record is unclear as to what specific provisions of the protective order must be “explored,” what exactly will have to be done in order to accomplish the necessary modifications or what is the likelihood that these modifications can be achieved.

The court previously granted DCF's motion that reunification efforts between the father and the child were not required.   The court has not issued specific steps directed to the father.   He was not in court when the motion to approve the permanency plan was considered, and therefore, specific steps were neither presented nor considered at that time.   The father does not have full-time employment and presently resides in a boarding house.

The permanency plan advances a “concurrent plan” to transfer the child's guardianship to the paternal grandmother.   However, the paternal grandmother previously had custody of the child and his brother, N.D. See n.2. The paternal grandmother expressed difficulty managing the two brothers.   The record indicates that the child regresses when with his brother as they engage in aggressive, defiant and destructive behavior when together.   Consequently, DCF removed the child from the paternal grandmother's care and placed him in a foster home.   He has been in foster care since June 2013.   The court also notes that the paternal grandmother resides with N.D., her daughter, and her daughter's two children, ages three and five.   The mother's trailer home has two bedrooms.

Therefore, DCF's motion to approve the permanency plan and to transfer guardianship is denied without prejudice and DCF is ordered to file a revised plan within sixty days.

So ordered this 16th day of October 2013.

STEVENS, J.

Presiding Judge

Bridgeport Juvenile Court

FOOTNOTES

FN2. Although neither explicitly addressed in DCF's motion or supporting documents, nor by the parties during oral argument, the record indicates that when the child was born, the mother was fifteen years old and the father was twenty-four years old.   The court takes judicial notice of the fact that in March 2009, the father was convicted of sexual assault in the 2nd degree and sentenced to twelve years incarceration, suspended after serving fours years, and ten years probation.   The protective order against the father precluding him from having contact with the mother and the child issued from this criminal case.   Consequently, the first contacts between the father and the child began with the supervised visitations in May 2013.   The court also notes that the child has an older brother, N.D. The mother of the child and N.D. are sisters..  FN2. Although neither explicitly addressed in DCF's motion or supporting documents, nor by the parties during oral argument, the record indicates that when the child was born, the mother was fifteen years old and the father was twenty-four years old.   The court takes judicial notice of the fact that in March 2009, the father was convicted of sexual assault in the 2nd degree and sentenced to twelve years incarceration, suspended after serving fours years, and ten years probation.   The protective order against the father precluding him from having contact with the mother and the child issued from this criminal case.   Consequently, the first contacts between the father and the child began with the supervised visitations in May 2013.   The court also notes that the child has an older brother, N.D. The mother of the child and N.D. are sisters.

Stevens, Barry K., J.