CRAWFORD, JUDGE.
(Court opened at 10:01 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning. This matter is a hearing on an order of temporary custody. On December 31, 2004, Department of Children and families invoked a 96-hour hold on behalf of Charde T. On January 4, 2005, the Department filed a petition for an order of temporary custody.
The respondent, Gwendolyn Q., the paternal grandmother and legal guardian, contested the OTC, and at the hearing the father, Anthony R., did not challenge the OTC. In support of the petition DCF alleged the following:
Charde was in immediate physical danger if she remained in the home, predicted neglect, and the guardian's inability to protect the child. The issue whether the order of temporary custody should be vacated or sustained, the Court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence:
Respondent, Gwendolyn Q., is the paternal grandmother of Charde and the mother of Irving R., Charde's father. Gwendolyn has provided babysitting services in her home for the last four years for approximately eight to ten children. Charde, who is age twelve, has been living with her grandmother, the respondent since December 1999.
On March 14, 2001, Charde's mother was arrested for stealing. At that time she did have with her Charde. Charde's mother left in May or June 2001. The Probate Court appointed the respondent, her grandmother, as her guardian.
On December 31, 2004, social worker Jessica Noel responded to a call on the after-hours care line; December 31st was a state CT Page 3982 holiday and the offices of DCF were closed. The complaint came because Mr. J. had reported to the police department the following; that he had taken his daughter, who is age seven, to the emergency room. Allegation that Anthony R., the respondent's son, had touched her inappropriately.
The allegation as reported by Mr. J. was that Mr. R. had called his daughter inside, pulled her pants down, pulled down her panties, spread her butt cheeks and told her her butt was cold. He did not put anything in her butt but her butt did hurt. She then pulled her pants up and Mr. Irving R. buttoned up her pants.
On December 31, 2004, Irving R. gave a statement to officer Pedberecnak at the Waterbury Police Department. He informed the officer that his mother, the respondent, had told him on December 30th that one of the girls said he was babysitting; had told her that he had touched her. He said he knew who the girl was, and she had been going to his mother's for about two years. He informed the officer that his mother told him that what the girl's father had related to her. He then told his mother his version of what had happened.
R. gave the officer his version of the incident. He indicated that all the kids were outside playing and he was outside with them. He then went into the house to check on the cooking. The child came into the house and into the living room, and the Court notes not in the kitchen where he said he had gone to check on his cooking.
He then went into the living room, sat on a chair, called the child over. He knew the other kids were outside. He told her to pull down her pants and her underwear which she did. He looked at her front, touched her butt and did not put anything inside of her. He looked for a short time, and she pulled her underwear and pants back up and then she fixed her clothes and went back out to play.
Officer testified that during this time Mr. R. was crying a lot and indicated that he and his mother had talked a lot. He also informed the officer that he had been through this before and it has been haunting him for a while.
At the hearing, respondent denied talking with Mr. R. about the incident indicating they never talked about it. However, a review of the statement she gave to Officer Sampson, which had been CT Page 3983 admitted by agreement. At that time she informed Officer Sampson that she had spoken to her son, Irving R., about the allegation, that Irving R. denied it, and he says he avoids the child because she does not tell the truth all the time. She also indicated at the hearing that she tried to talk to the child's father a second time after talking with her son, Anthony R.
Officer testified that when he asked her directly whether she supervised her son, Mr. R., she never answered that question. She only stated that someone was in the house every day.
Respondent also gave her version of what was related to her. In her statement she indicated that the father of the child whom she was babysitting told her that Irving had pulled down the pants and panties, looked at the child's genitals, and she inquired of the father, Mr. J. whether he had taken the child for an exam; and, again, the Court would note the nature of that question given the statement of the allegation as to what Mr. R. had done. It isn't clear what he had done was pulled the pants down and looked at her genitals why there would be a need to take the child for an exam.
Respondent also stated that she did not believe it would happen because he was never in the house unsupervised; however, when again asked directly whether she supervised him she did not respond.
In the statement that Mr. R. gave to the officer were slightly different from what was relayed by respondent, his mother, and also what was relayed by the child's father; however, nowhere in his statement does he mention that there were other adults around.
Irving R. was convicted of sexual assault in the second degree and sentenced on November 6, 1992 to ten years, execution suspended after serving three years and five years probation. He was released sometime in 1995. Prior to respondent, Gwendolyn Q., performing babysitting services she was a licensed — her home was licensed for foster care.
In 2000, her grandson who is Irving R.'s son was convicted of sexual assault. There's a different version as to the number of children involved. The social worker indicates that there were two victims, and Ms. Q. indicated there was one victim. But in any event, there was the conviction of sexual assault and the CT Page 3984 victims were foster kids. One, if you believe her version. Two, the court is more persuaded by the social worker's version that there were two victims who were placed who were foster children in her home.
There doesn't appear to be any disagreement that those foster children were removed. Approximately three months after their removal in 2000, Irving R. moved into respondent's home. He was living in the basement for approximately three years. He assisted in caring for the children who were in the home for whom she was providing the babysitting services. It was undisputed that respondent knew that Irving R. should not be around, her version, foster care children.
It is reasonable to conclude that knowing that he was a registered sex offender, knowing that previously there had been his son convicted for sexual assault involving foster care, and knowing that she was providing babysitting services for children; that the children would be at risk having Mr. Irving R. around, and it's also reasonable to conclude that all children in her home, while he was present including the child, Charde T., would be at risk.
Respondent also indicated that her grandson never told her about what had happened. There was extensive questioning concerning that prior incident involving the grandson. However, the Court notes that this grandson is the son of Anthony R., that the respondent, herself, had been arrested in connection with the incident and placed on special probation accelerated rehabilitation. The Court is not persuaded that she was not aware of what happened given that she, herself, had been arrested and placed on probation.
The social worker did testify that she did have a discussion with respondent about the prior incident of sexual abuse, and the respondent minimized it and indicated that her son, Irving R., should not be penalized all his life, and that the child who was the victim of the assault looked older. It was also uncontradicted that DCF had provided — there was a service agreement and DCF had conveyed information that he should not be around any children.
Social worker also testified that in responding to the home where she found Irving R. in the basement and the conversation with him, he also indicated that he should not be punished CT Page 3985 forever in connection with the incident. So it appears that respondent, Gwendolyn Q., and the accused, Mr. R., seems to believe that somehow they are being punished. This, however, is not about the punishment of Mr. R. but the protection of the children involved.
There was testimony concerning the prior incident, with the grandson in 2002, when Charde was eight years old. She had not been removed from the home at that time. However, neither side questioned as to the reasons why she was not removed. Counsel had urged speculation as to a number of reasons as to why DCF did not remove, but any reason is valid including they made a determination that somehow it was not necessary. But as I previously indicated, nothing was presented so the Court cannot conclude that somehow the failure to remove at that point in time is indicative of any of the reasons as to why the child was removed on this occasion.
Currently, the Department of Children and Families has arranged visitation and has arranged for a child guidance counseling as to Charde. Social worker testified that the respondent questioned why the child had to go to counseling.
Presently, Mr. R. is being held in lieu of one hundred thousand dollar bond, and obviously at first glance he is currently not in the home; however, this is prior to any adjudication concerning the allegations. I do recognize that his mother, respondent, stated that he could not make bond; however, there are any number of things that can occur including bond reduction, and he might post bond.
So, the fact that currently, because he is being held, it is a pre-trial matter. It's not been adjudicated. He has not been sentenced, but more importantly, given the attitude of both Mr. and Ms. Q. as to whether he should be punished forever, given her failure to not have him in the house knowing at a minimum that he should not be around foster children, not translating that into he should not be around any children that she is babysitting, leads the Court to conclude that she is incapable of protecting Charde or any other children from him.
The Court is not persuaded that if he makes bond or is released under any circumstances that Ms. Q. will ensure, even though she stated if ordered to do so or if need be, she could get an order. The thing is not whether or not the Court issues an order as to CT Page 3986 him not being there but whether she recognizes that given that he is a convicted sex offender, that he is registered, that he registered his address as her home, given the attitude that they don't believe that he should be punished for the rest of his life, the Court is not persuaded that she will ensure that he not be in the home, so that any children in the home be protected.
There was also some discussion concerning restraining orders and protective orders. The Court will note that at times the terms were used interchangeably; however, the restraining orders are issued out of Civil Court may be issued ex parte subsequently followed by a hearing. The protective orders are issued in connection with a criminal case and those are issued subsequent to the arraignment, and there was testimony that DCF did inquire and make contact with the prosecutor concerning the issuance of a protective order after Mr. R. was arrested. The guardian ad litem for the child in summation urged the Court to sustain the order.
The State is required to prove by fair preponderance of the evidence that custody should be vested in the commission of the Department of Children and Families on a temporary basis, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 46b-129(b), because Charde is in immediate physical danger from her surroundings, and as a result of said conditions, her safety is endangered and removal is necessary to ensure her safety.
After consideration of the testimony and the exhibits admitted, the Court finds that the petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Charde is in immediate danger from being in respondent's home and her immediate removal from the home is necessary to ensure her safety. The Court therefore issues the following orders:
The order of temporary custody is sustained.
The Department of Children and Families must ensure that there is no risk of being abused either sexually or physically in the current foster home placement.
The Court also issues the following steps as to Gwendolyn R-Q.:
Respondent is ordered to keep all appointments set by or with the Department of Children and Families; cooperate with the Department concerning home visits whether announced or unannounced; any visits by the CT Page 3987 child's court-appointed attorney and/or the child's guardian ad litem; to keep the Department informed as to her whereabouts, also keep her attorney and the child's attorney informed as to her whereabouts.
She is to participate in any counseling and make progress towards any identified treatment goals concerning parenting and individual counseling. She must accept and cooperate with in-home support services referred by the Department. Any recommended service providers for parenting and individual counseling, in-home services and any other referrals and those referrals are to be provided by the Department of Children and Families.
Any subsequent orders issued by the Court concerning evaluations or testing, she must cooperate with those and cooperate with any protective order and/or other appropriate safety plan as approved by the Department.
She is to sign any releases authorizing the Department to communicate with the service providers; to monitor the attendance, cooperation, and progress towards identified goals and for any use in further proceedings concerning the order of temporary custody before the Court.
She is not to use any illegal drugs or medication not prescribed by a qualified health care provider. She is not to violate the laws of this state or any other state. The Court recognizes that there is currently a criminal case pending and that the AR was revoked. But there is to be no further involvement with the criminal justice system outside the matters that are pending.
She is to immediately advise the Department of any changes in the composition of their household and ensure that the changes would in no way compromise the health and safety of children. If there is therapy ordered for Charde, if required by the provider, she is to cooperate. She will visit the child as often as permitted by the Department.
The Department is ordered to take all necessary measures to ensure the child's safety and well-being; to provide case management services to the respondent and to the child; to refer the respondent to any appropriate services for individual therapy as otherwise needed and to monitor the progress and compliance. DCF is also ordered to monitor the welfare of the child and the CT Page 3988 circumstances surrounding her care. They are to provide the respondent with written dated notice of all referrals to service providers and retain the copies of such notices for the court, and they are to implement all recommendations made by the service providers.
That concludes this matter.
Judge Juliett L. Crawford
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcription of the tape recording of the above-referenced case, held in Superior Court Judicial District of Middlesex, Middletown, Connecticut, on January 21, 2005 before the Honorable Juliett L. Crawford.
Kathleen Dion Court Recording Monitor
CT Page 3989