Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Marcus A.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This matter comes before the court on two motions. Firstly, the Department of Children and Families (Department or DCF) has filed a motion for a Review of Permanency Plan requesting a revocation of commitment and transfer of guardianship of the child to the maternal aunt and her husband. In the father's cross motion he is seeking a revocation of commitment and placement of the child in his care. The court finds that notice has been given in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes and Practice Book. The court finds it has jurisdiction in this matter. There are no other actions pending in any other court affecting the custody of the minor children. The court held a hearing regarding the contested issues on January 13, 2012 and February 2, 2012. Both parents were represented by counsel as was the child. During the hearing the court heard testimony from Jen Zirolli, DCF social worker; Allison McKee, Hockanum Valley Community Council evaluator; Jane Noel, Kids Matter; three police officers from the East Windsor Police Department; Chris Savenko, former hotel manager; Amanda D., the father's present roommate; Page Bogda, Children's First; and Megan Donnelly, Hockanum Valley Community Council clinical treatment counselor. The court also heard from the present foster parents. The court received and reviewed numerous exhibits by the parties.
All facts are found by a fair preponderance of the evidence and weighed subject to the best interests of the child standard.
The department filed a neglect petition on behalf of Marcus and his maternal half sister on December 9, 2009, due to on-going domestic violence issues between mother and Marcus' father. Marcus' sister's father has never appeared in court and has been defaulted. On February 2, 2010, mother and Marcus' father entered pleas of nolo contendere and both children were placed under an order of protective supervision for a period of six months with mother having sole care and custody. Parents were ordered to comply with specific steps. Protective supervision was extended over a period of time in an attempt to have the parents comply with the specific steps. However, due to continued non-compliance, on November 4, 2010, the children were committed to the care and custody of DCF after the court granted the Department's motion to modify disposition. Both children were placed in a relative foster home. On August 25, 2011, consistent with the filed permanency plan, the court transferred guardianship of Marcus' sister to the maternal aunt and her husband by way of an agreement by mother and a default of the child's father. As to Marcus, his father objected to the transfer of guardianship and is seeking that the child be returned to him. While this matter has been pending, Marcus has resided with his sister in the maternal aunt's home.
Put succinctly, father has only recently begun a treatment path that is consistent with the original orders of the court from February 2, 2010. He was first seen by the clinical evaluator on November 30, 2011. It was recommended that he engage in individual counseling focused on anger management, domestic violence, and relapse prevention. At the time of this hearing he had seen his individual counselor on six occasions and she testified that he will need to remain in treatment for six to eight months. He presently appears engaged in his treatment goals. Father is employed and lives with two other roommates in a two-bedroom apartment. There was testimony that the roommates are leaving the apartment and it is unknown whether or not the father will be allowed to assume the lease on the apartment or if he will be able to afford it on his own salary. Father has an extensive criminal history and is presently on probation and in compliance. His supervised visits with his child are going extremely well. The witness from Children's First testified that father is very engaged and has a good bond with his child. He is affectionate and nurturing. He has not missed any visits and has never appeared under the influence nor presented in an aggressive or threatening manner. From the court's observations Mr. A. presents very differently today than from his previous court appearances. His demeanor is more respectful and subdued. He appears to be more willing to cooperate with service providers. He has reestablished a relationship with his child. He has maintained his sobriety and seemingly receptive to continued treatment. Also to his credit, although he is not the biological father of Marcus' sister he is considered the psychological father and wishes to attempt to maintain contact with her through his supervised visits.
Marcus is almost five years old. He has lived with his maternal aunt and uncle for over fifteen months. He is enrolled in the Head Start program and doing well socially and academically. Jane Noel, his clinician, testified that when Marcus started counseling he was aggressive, hitting others, banging his head, and yelling. He has made significant improvements in regards to his behaviors and emotional stability. He is doing much better socially and behaviorally. He feels safe in his present environment. Ms. Noel does not recommend separating Marcus from his sister at this time because he is very bonded to her as well as his aunt. She feels it would be better to transition Marcus when father has demonstrated a longer period of treatment and she is able to observe Mr. A and the child together, something she has not yet done.
Child's mother is in agreement with the transfer of guardianship. Her mental health issues have impacted negatively her ability to provide a nurturing and stable home. She has not yet demonstrated a consistent level of treatment that would lead the court to believe she is able to care for her children.
The maternal aunt and her husband have provided the children with a safe and emotionally secure environment. The children are making exceptional gains in school. They are happy and comfortable in this placement. The aunt and uncle have a close bond with the children and will care for them long term if necessary. They have been providing supervision during the mother's visits and are requesting father's visits continue to be supervised by an independent third party.
Having considered carefully all of the above and other evidence presented during the hearing this court enters the following orders:
1. Father's motion for revocation of commitment and reinstatement of guardianship is denied.
2. The Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to effectuate the permanency plan.
3. The permanency plan for a transfer of guardianship to the maternal aunt and her husband is in the best interest of the child.
4. The proposed guardians, Christine and Charles A. are suitable and worthy care takers.
5. The permanency plan is approved as being in the best interest of the child:
Therefore the reasons for commitment no longer exist and his commitment to DCF is revoked. Permanent guardianship of Marcus shall be transferred immediately to Christine and Charles A., jointly.
6. Father shall have supervised visits with the child every other Sunday beginning March 4, 2012, for four hours from 2 pm until 6 pm at the home of the paternal grandparents. Paternal grandparents together or independently shall pick up and drop off the child at the maternal aunts' home without participation by the father. Father shall not be left unsupervised with child during these visits until such time as father's counselor and child's therapist agree that visits may be unsupervised. If guardians agree with the therapist's recommendations, father shall have the same visitation as noted above or as agreed upon by the guardians and the father. Father shall sign appropriate release so that his counselor may discuss his progress with child's therapist and guardians. Father shall cooperate with child's therapist if she recommends joint counseling.
7. If paternal grandparents are unable or unwilling to provide supervised contact then father may have two hours of supervised visitation every other weekend on either Saturday or Sunday at Children's First. Father shall be responsible for the cost of visitation.
8. Christine and/or Charles A. shall have discretion to terminate the visitation at the home of the paternal grandparents if there are any concerns about the welfare of the child and they have addressed their concerns with the paternal grandparents.
9. Father may have telephone contact with the child on alternating Sundays, on the Sunday he does not have visitation with the child. Said call shall be between 7 pm and 8 pm. Guardians may have discretion to terminate call if there are any concerns regarding welfare of the child.
10. Visitation with the mother will occur at the discretion of the guardians. They shall have the discretion to terminate the visitation if they have any concerns regarding the welfare of the child. If guardians end mother's supervised visitation, mother shall have supervised visits at a third-party agency such as Kid's Safe one time per week for two hours. Mother shall be responsible for the cost of supervised visit.
SO ORDERED
SIMON, JUDGE
Simon, Jorge A., J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: T11CP09013558
Decided: February 28, 2012
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)