Opinion
Nos. H12-CP11-013897-A, H12-CP11-013898-A, H12-CP11-013899-A
September 9, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This child protection matter involves the best interests of three children: Geneo P. (d.o.b. January 27, 2006, Geveno P. (d.o.b. March 7, 2007) and Gereno P. (d.o.b. March 4, 2008).
Amy C. is the biological mother of all three children, and Geno P. is their biological father. The parties were never married, but Geno P. has acknowledged paternity of each child. Amy C. was living in Connecticut in the catchment area served by this court when this action commenced. Geno P. is a resident of Florida and has never resided in Connecticut.
The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) assumed a "96-hour hold" on the custody of the children on May 4, 2011. DCF acted pursuant to the provisions of C.G.S. 17a-101(g). The primary concern was that the children had been exposed to domestic violence. On May 6, 2011, Hon. William Wollenberg signed an ex parte order granting the department temporary custody of the three children. Judge Wollenberg found that the children were in immediate physical danger from their surroundings. DCF also filed neglect petitions with respect to each of the children on May 6, 2011 and named Amy C. and Geno P. as the respondents in each petition. DCF alleged the following statutory grounds in each petition: (1) that each child was being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally or morally, and (2) that each child was being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well being.
A preliminary hearing on the order for temporary custody was held in accordance with statute before the undersigned on May 13, 2011. Both parents were present, and were represented by court-appointed counsel. The court confirmed in-hand service upon Amy C. Geno P. waived any defect in service. The court made a finding of service, notice and jurisdiction with respect to both respondents. During the proceedings on May 13th, the parties advised the court that they were contesting the grounds for the removal of the children and the order of temporary custody, but that they wished to waive their right to an evidentiary hearing within 10 days. The court canvassed the parties and found that their waiver of the "10-day hearing" requirement was knowingly and voluntarily made. All of the parties stipulated that the contested OTC hearing would be consolidated with the neglect trial.
A combined order of temporary custody hearing and neglect trial was held before the undersigned on August 1, 2011. Both respondents were present and were represented by their court-appointed attorneys. The petitioner was represented by an assistant attorney general, and the children's interests were represented by their court appointed attorney/guardian ad litem.
At the outset of the proceeding on August 1, 2011, Amy C. indicated that she wished to enter a nolo contendere plea to the neglect allegation that each child had been permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to their well-being. A properly signed and executed written nolo contendere plea was submitted by the mother's counsel. The court canvassed Amy C. and found that her no contest plea was knowingly and voluntarily made after the effective assistance of counsel. The court, after hearing an offer of proof by the petitioner's counsel, found that there was a factual basis and accepted the plea.
Geno P. indicated that he still wished to contest both the neglect allegations and the order of temporary custody. The contested trial/hearing then commenced. The respondent mother and her counsel remained in attendance and participated throughout the proceeding. The court has carefully considered all of the evidence presented at trial and the legal arguments of counsel. The court finds that the facts set forth below were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
FACTUAL FINDINGS (RE OTC AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS)
The respondents intermittently lived together in Florida with the children prior to August 8, 2008. There were allegations, which the father denies, that there were incidents of domestic violence involving Amy C. and Geno P. when they lived together in Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit A, page 8, paragraph 31.) In August 2008, the mother returned to Connecticut from Florida with the three children and began residing at the residence of Amy C.'s paternal grandmother. ( Id.) There was conflicting evidence at trial about the reason that the mother returned to this state with her children. DCF contended that a child protection agency in Florida helped to pay for the cost of the relocation here as part of a "safety plan" due to the respondent father's alleged abuse of the mother. Geno P. denies that he was abusive and testified that he mutually agreed with the mother that she would return to Connecticut with the three boys in order that she could renew her certified nursing assistant's license. After Amy C. returned to Connecticut with the three children she lived for a while with her paternal grandmother, and then resided for a short period of time with the children in a motel through a program funded by a Hartford homeless shelter. (Petitioner's Exhibit B, page 9.) She subsequently moved back in with her paternal grandmother. Amy C. rented an apartment in October 2010. ( Id., pages 9-10.) The mother stopped paying rent the following month and an eviction action was commenced ( Id., page 10.) The mother vacated the apartment as part of a stipulated housing court agreement in April 2011. ( Id.) In April she moved back with the children to the paternal grandmother's home for a short period of time. ( Id.) She thereafter rented rooms in local motels where she stayed with the children. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 4.)
On May 4, 2011, DCF was contacted by an employee of the Head Start program where Geneo, Geveno and Gereno were enrolled. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 4.) The employee informed DCF that the mother was homeless and had been staying in different motels with the three boys from night to night during the past week. ( Id.) The employee stated that when the mother accompanied the children to school on May 4, 2011, she was observed to have two healing black eyes and scratches and bruises on her face. ( Id.) DCF's investigative protocol about the Head Start employee's report notes: "Mother is homeless [and] has been residing in different hotels from night to night for the past week. Caller's concern is that when she spoke with mom yesterday she said she wasn't sure if she would be able to afford another night's stay [and] when she came to the school today she had yellow bruising under both her eyes [and] scratches on her chin. Caller is concerned for [domestic violence]. Mother admitted she is overwhelmed [and] desperate as her family has given up on her. When caller encouraged her to [possibly] send the boys to the father, she said no as they were all she had. She also denied that she was hurt by her [boyfriend] [and] said the bruising was caused by the boys while they slept [because] all of them including [boyfriend] were sleeping in the same bed. Caller said mom often appears with hickeys all over her neck as well [and] wonders if this behavior is taking place in front of the boys."( Id.)
Following the report, a DCF investigative worker spoke to the children and the mother. The worker later wrote about her conversation with five-year-old Geneo. "He was hesitant to speak to this social worker stating that his mother told him not to tell. Geneo eventually indicated that mother's boyfriend was staying with them at the motel and he was awakened in the middle of the night by screaming that was coming from outside the room. His mother, and her friend, name unknown, returned to the room and mother had marks on her face." (Petitioner's Exhibit A, page 3, paragraph 3.)
The DCF investigator interviewed Amy C. on May 4, 2011. The social worker observed that the mother had two yellowing bruises under her eyes and a yellowing bruise above her right eye. She also had a yellow and green bruise on her left jaw line that was approximately an inch and a half long. (Petitioner's Exhibit A, page 4, paragraph 12.) During the interview, Amy C. claimed that one of the boys had kicked her and another had elbowed her when they slept together. ( Id.) The mother told the worker that her "friend with benefits," a man named Larry, stayed one night at the motel with her and the children. ( Id., page 5, paragraph 5.) Although the mother stated that she had known Larry for six months, she claimed that she did not know his last name. ( Id.) The DCF investigator's affidavit states: "Mother denied any physical incident with Larry while she was staying in the motel. Mother stated that she does not know Larry's last name, doesn't know his date of birth, where he lives, did not know if he had a job or any other information about him. She was aware that he had children, but knew nothing about them, including their names, and did not know the name of their mother. This social worker voiced serious concerns regarding mother's lack of information regarding Larry, as she was allowing him to stay in the room with her and the boys, and be in the same bed with them." ( Id., pages 5-6, paragraph 17.)
The investigative social worker's affidavit indicates that Amy C. said on May 4, 2011 that she had only a few provisions for herself and the children and didn't know where they were going to stay. ( Id., page 6, paragraph 21.) The mother also informed DCF then that she had approximately $600 ( Id., Page 5, paragraph 15) and was attempting to find a motel she had heard about where she could stay for approximately $100 per week. ( Id., page 6, paragraph 21.) DCF invoked the 96-hour hold on May 4, 2011 based on the belief that the children were being exposed to conditions injurious to their well-being. The evidence at trial established that DCF doubted mother's account about the cause of her injuries, especially in light of the conflicting details that Geneo had related to the worker. DCF also doubted the respondent's claim that she knew no biographical information about Larry, despite the fact that she permitted him to stay with the family at the motel and sleep in the same bed with the children and her.
During the interview on May 4, 2011, Amy C. told DCF that she had been subjected to domestic abuse by Geno P. when they lived together in Florida. The following entry appears in the petitioner's investigative protocol: "Mother indicated that she was residing with the father of her boys, [Geno P.] until 2008, when child protective services gave her an ultimatum and she left the home with the children. The case was open for concerns of ongoing domestic violence, medical neglect and concerns regarding mental health. She was homeless, she went to stay in a shelter with the boys, then she went to stay with her father and his girlfriend." (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 8.) The investigative protocol also notes: "Mother and father have not been together since 2009, father was abusive. She had black eyes, bruises for no reason. He wouldn't like what she was doing, not answering him or not doing something around the house; he would hit her or beat her for not answering him or not doing something around the house. This all started the day Geneo was born; father went into the hospital and said Geneo was not his because he was too white. The hospital had to call security and have him removed from the hospital." ( Id.)
On May 5, 2011, DCF Social Worker Melissa Bahre, and Jennifer Heil, a DCF domestic violence consultant, met with Amy C. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 14.) The meeting was arranged for purposes of conducting a domestic violence assessment, preparing a safety plan and sharing information about domestic violence with the mother. During the meeting, Amy C. expressed fear of Geno P., and claimed that she had previously been victimized by him. In a subsequent memo to DCF, Ms. Heil noted: "Mother expressed significant concerns regarding Father's [p]atterns of coercive control. She stated that Father's patterns of coercive control include the following behaviors: Stalking her; Physical Violence — strangling her, punching her, hitting her, kicking; Using their children as a weapon; Threatening to kill her; Threatening to kidnap the children; Intimidation and abuse in front of family members, i.e. Mother reported he smashed her head into a table in front of her grandmother . . ." ( Id., pages 14-15.)
Amy C. denied during the meeting that her current boyfriend Larry had been abusive or controlling. ( Id., page 15.) Ms. Heil observed the respondent's black eyes and other injuries. Amy C. told Ms. Heil that her injuries were sustained when Larry accidentally elbowed her and the children accidentally kicked her while they were sleeping. ( Id.)
In her subsequent memo to DCF, Ms. Heil opined: "Based on the information presented, there are concerns that Mother's [boyfriend] (Larry) may be abusive. It is suggested that Mother's reluctance be contextualized as Mother may be reluctant to share specific information regarding Larry for fear of escalating the risks, she may also be economically dependent on him to pay for the motel room/shelter and/or she may fear that sharing information will impact the cps case. She is likely more vulnerable as a result of her trauma [history]. Ongoing assessment is warranted." ( Id.)
With respect to mother's claims about Geno P., Ms Heil wrote: "Based on the information presented, it appears as though Father has engaged in a pattern of severe abuse and control of Mother. There are concerns that Father will perceive systems such as DCF as a threat to his control over the family and/or retaliate against Mother because of DCF involvement. Therefore, it is suggested that family interventions focus on safely increasing the family supports and reducing the risks to the children/family. This includes gathering information regarding father's cps [history], criminal [history] mental health, substance abuse and [history] of any orders of protection." ( Id.)
The court credits the evidence that Amy C. told Ms. Heil and Ms. Bahre during the May 5th meeting about serious acts of domestic violence that she claimed had been perpetrated against her by Geno P. However, shortly afterwards, Amy C gave a contradictory statement to DCF. A DCF social study prepared by Ms. Bahre on June 14, 2011 notes the following: "When mother decided to return to Connecticut, she knew that [Geno P.] was struggling, he was on unemployment, and he was not helping with the children, and he was not supportive to her. DCF in the State of Florida was involved and wanted mother to return to Connecticut, they had contact with her paternal grandmother . . . and she said she could take mother and the boys into her home. Mother stated DCF did not want her with [Geno P.] because there were concerns regarding domestic violence. Mother indicated that DCF closed the case and she remained in Florida. Later Mother and Father agreed that she was working with a program that assisted her with paying for the tickets to Hartford, Connecticut and [Geno P.] paid for the remaining balance. Mother denies there was ever any domestic violence prior to her moving to Connecticut, however, in past interviews [she] indicated ongoing domestic violence." (Petitioner's Exhibit B, page 9.)
Amy C. pled no contest and elected not testify at trial. The court did not have the opportunity to observe her demeanor as a witness. However, based on the evidence presented at trial, the court does not find her to be credible. The court finds her claims about the cause of her injuries, and that she does not know the last name of her boyfriend, to be implausible. Amy C.'s accounts about the incident at the motel in May were directly contradicted by the credible statement given to the DCF social worker by her son. Similarly, her widely conflicting statements to DCF about domestic violence in Florida also cause the court to doubt her overall truthfulness. This court is mindful that the victims of domestic violence will sometimes recant their testimony, or protect their abusers, for a host of reasons, that can range from economic dependency, to fear of reprisal. However, the court finds that the statements that the mother made to DCF about her current boyfriend, Larry, and about the children's father, Geno P., to be ongoing evidence of her poor parental judgment, her general lack of veracity when dealing with DCF, and her impaired ability to protect her children, and to put their needs ahead of her own.
In both his statements to DCF, and during his sworn testimony at trial, Geno P. denied that there were any incidents of domestic violence while the mother and children lived with him in Florida. He also denied that the mother relocated to Connecticut due to concerns about domestic violence during the time that they resided together. Rather, Geno P. testified that the mother and he mutually agreed that she would return to Connecticut with the three children in order that she could renew her license here as a certified nursing assistant. During his testimony, the father acknowledged that DCF in Florida helped to pay the cost of the mother's relocation to this state in 2008.
Geno P. is a resident of Florida, and works as a long-distance truck driver. His employment as a truck driver requires him to be on the road and away from his residence for several days at a time. Geno P. testified that since 2008, when the mother returned to Connecticut with the three children, he drives here from Florida approximately every two months to see his sons. He testified that he will rent a room, and stay in the area for four or five days, when he comes for these visits.
Geno P. testified during the trial that he pays child support informally to the mother in the amount of between $150 and $200 per week. Earlier, the father informed DCF that he sends money to the mother but does not know what she does with it. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 18.) The respondent did not introduce any documentary evidence, such as canceled checks or receipts, to support this claim about his child support payments. His wage statement for the week of April 24, 2011 through April 30, 2011 was introduced into evidence. It indicates that earned gross wages that week in the amount of $792.60 and net weekly income of $559.51 from his employment as a truck driver. (Father's Exhibit 4.) The wage statement also indicated that Geno P. had received gross annual income through that date in the total amount of $13,847.55. (Father's Exhibit 4.)
Geno P. claimed that he resides with his father in Mims, Florida. He wishes to have the children reside with him at his father's home. Geno P. introduced six photographs into evidence that depict rooms in his father's residence. (Father's Exhibit's 5.) He testified that if the children are returned to his custody, he will reside at his father's home with the three children. Geno P. also testified he plans to switch from long-distance hauling to local routes that will enable him to be home every day. He testified that he will rely on his girlfriend to help care for the children while he works and will receive assistance from his father in taking the children to school when he is unavailable.
The father introduced excerpts from DCF's investigative protocol into evidence during the trial. (Father's Exhibit 2.) One entry noted: "Father stated that he has ongoing contact with his children and comes to visit them every 2-3 months. The last time he visited was in March, he was up here for a week. Social worker Marshall questioned if he had any concerns in regards to his children last time he was here. He stated that the children made comments that they did not like how the mother talks and yells at them. His children told him that they want to move to Florida to be with him. He stated that lately, his children have been calling him more frequently. He stated that the boys had commented that they are scared of the guy that mother is with, and that they told him the guy she is dating is scary, and expressed having some fear of him. The children call mother's [boyfriend] a monster and told him that he pulls his eyelids down. He stated he thought the [boyfriend] was horsing around. He stated that the boys tell him this over the phone and don't share too many details because mother is around them when they are on the phone." ( Id.) The petitioner's investigative protocol also indicates: "Father stated that things seemed to be fine until mother met this guy, somebody that is violent towards her. He stated he has never seen the violence, but he heard it from a maternal uncle." ( Id.)
In May 2011, Geno P. spoke with DCF about his last visit with his sons in Connecticut during March 2011. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 18.) "Father stated that when he came up in March 2011, mother was staying in an apartment, when he comes to visit he rents a room and the boys spent about a week with him. He stated that he is not sure where mother is living because he did not go to her home."( Id.)
The court observed Geno P.'s demeanor while he testified, and has also had the opportunity to compare his in-court testimony with other evidence, and with a financial affidavit that the respondent filed with the court on May 12, 2011.
The court has taken judicial notice of that financial affidavit, which the respondent swore to under oath and presented to the court on May 12, 2011 in support of his request for court-appointed counsel in this matter. Based on that financial affidavit, this court found on May 12th that Geno P. was unable to afford an attorney, and appointed counsel to represent him in the pending matter. In his sworn affidavit, the respondent represented to the court that he had gross monthly income of $1,300, and net monthly income of $1,100. (Emphasis added.) The respondent's financial affidavit of May 12, 2011, which was notarized by a court clerk, was contradicted by his wage statement for the week ending April 30, 2011 (Father's Exhibit 4.) That wage statement indicated that Geno P. earned gross weekly income of $792.60 and net weekly income of $559.51. ( Id.) The wage statement also revealed that during the first four months of this year, the respondent father received total gross wages of $13,847.55, and total net wages of $10,015.75. The court finds that the wage statement (Father's Exhibit 4) accurately reflects the income that he earns from his employment as a truck driver. The court finds that the respondent listed a considerably lower wage figure on the financial affidavit that he submitted to the court on May 12, 2011. The court infers from the foregoing evidence that Geno P. misstated his income in order to qualify for a state-funded, court-appointed lawyer.
For similar reasons, the court finds that Geno P.'s testimony about the amount of child support he pays to the mother lacked credibility. As noted, the respondent testified on August 1, 2011 that he informally pays Amy C. between $150-200 per week for support of the children. The respondent did not introduce any records, receipts or canceled checks in court to support his testimony about his support payments for the children. Significantly, the sworn financial affidavit that the respondent filed with the court on May 12, 2011 indicated that he had monthly expenses of $1,035, plus a monthly credit card payment of $40, for total expenses of $1,075 per month. He averred that this left him with only a $25 surplus from his claimed net total monthly income of $1,100. The respondent did not list any child support payments or arrearage amounts in that sworn affidavit. Although one DCF social history quoted Amy C. as saying "that every time father sent money she would put some aside . . ." (Petitioner's Exhibit B, page 9), a DCF social worker wrote in an affidavit that on May 4, 2011 the mother stated that she had ". . . recently filed for child support." (Petitioner's Exhibit A, page 8, paragraph 29.) Although the court credits evidence that the respondent father purchased some gifts and other items for the children that he brought to a visit on May 16, 2011, the court finds from the forgoing evidence that the father's financial support of the children was not at the level of $150-$200 a week as he testified at trial.
The financial affidavit supplied to affiants at the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters does not have a specific listing for child support or alimony payments. However, it does have a line for "other" expenses on the financial affidavit, and it also has a space where affiants can list various debts or financial liabilities. It has been this court's experience that parties who seek a court-appointed attorney due to indigency frequently list their child support obligations, and sometimes their child support arrearages, on their affidavits. Given the significant amount of child support that the father claimed to be paying to the mother, the court questions why he did not mention those alleged payments on his May 12, 2011 sworn financial affidavit.
The wage statement from April 2011 that Geno P. entered into evidence indicates that his address is on Macchi Avenue in Oakland, Florida. (Father's Exhibit 4.) The respondent father's May 12, 2011 sworn financial affidavit to the court states that his address is on Pima Trail in Groveland, Florida. The DCF investigative protocol contains the following significant entry concerning the location of Geno P.'s residence: "Father called SW Marshall back later in the morning and provided PGM's name as Bridgette W. . . . and stated that he lives with her at [number] Pima Trail, Groveland, FL 347736. SW Marshall stated that she was confused . . . he then stated that PGF lives at [number] Harry T. Moore Ave., Mims, FL 32754. Father stated that he lives at both addresses and receives mail at both addresses. He stated that if the children are returned to his care, they will live with PGF." (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 18). During trial, Geno P. testified that he lives at both the Groveland, Florida and Mims, Florida addresses, but that he will stay with the children at his father's home in Mims, Florida if his sons are restored to his custody. The court recognizes the transient nature of the father's employment as a long-haul truck driver. But the court found that the father's various statements to DCF and the court about where he physically resided were less than forthright, and of doubtful veracity. Based on this evidence, the court finds that there is great ambiguity about where, and with whom, these children would actually reside if they were sent to Florida.
The DCF investigative protocol also recounted that on May 16, 2011, Geno P. had a supervised visit with his three sons. During that visit, the father was overheard telling the children that he would be giving their mother "a lot of money to buy a house." The worker interrupted the respondent and advised him that he should not make false promises to the children because they were in an emotionally vulnerable state. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 28.) In a subsequent conversation with the worker, the father indicated that he understood that he should not "make any false promises" to the children. ( Id., page 34.)
All of the forgoing evidence leads the court to find that Geno P. is not credible, and that the court cannot rely on the truthfulness of his testimony or his out-of-court statements about this case.
The court's inability to trust the representations made by either respondent in this case has complicated its task of determining whether or not Amy C. was exposed to domestic violence by Geno P. when the respondents and the children resided together in Florida prior to 2009. The court was further impeded by the lack of substantive documentary evidence from sources in Florida about the respondents' involvement with police and child protection agencies. The father introduced documents from the Florida Department of Children and Families. (Father's Exhibit 5.) That evidence consisted of reports about child protection investigations of the respondents that the agency conducted in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. The information contained in those reports was scant. None of the investigations by the Florida DCF resulted in judicial action. ( Id.)
In a cover letter dated July 7, 2011 that was sent to the father's attorney when the Florida Department of Children and Families forwarded the investigative reports, a paralegal from that agency wrote: "If after reading the investigative reports you would like a copy of the case chronological notes, please fax (or mail) your written request . . ." (Father's Exhibit 1). It is unknown if those notes were ever requested, and they were not introduced into evidence during trial.
However, there was other evidence presented to this court that offers greater illumination on this issue. Ernest Jones, a social worker with the Florida Department of Children and Families spoke with a Connecticut DCF social worker on May 6, 2011. Mr. Jones was not the worker assigned to the respondents' cases, but he provided information from his agency's records about the cases there involving Amy C. and Geno P. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 20.) According to those records, Geno P. admitted to a Florida DCF social worker in 2008 that he had hit Amy C. after Geneo was born in 2006. ( Id.) The Florida records also indicated that the respondent returned to Connecticut from Florida with the three children in 2008 with the assistance of Florida DCF. ( Id.) The court finds that the foregoing evidence supports claims that Geno P. had been physically abusive to Amy C. during their domestic relationship in Florida, and that her return to Connecticut with the children was part of a "safety plan" with Florida DCF to distance the children and her from the respondent father. Although Geno P. denied the foregoing at trial, the court found this evidence to be credible, and accepts it as fact.
The petitioner's investigative protocol also recounts an incident that was observed by a DCF social worker at the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters courthouse in Hartford on May 13, 2011, prior to a scheduled hearing in this matter. The protocol notes: "Upon this SW exiting the elevator there was a very loud commotion and this SW could hear a male speaking very loudly and was being very disruptive. As this SW entered the floor it was observed that the male, who was later identified as father, was in mother's face and was yelling at her. Mother stood there listening to father and crying. This SW reached for mother from behind and guided her away from father to a private cubicle. As this SW was speaking to mother in the cubicle, the father came over to the entrance and stood there. The SW asked that he leave the area immediately and he asked who this SW was. This SW told the father to leave the area immediately and he would be addressed as soon as this SW was done with mother. He left the immediate area and this SW asked mother why she did not wait outside until the court hearing began as we discussed. She said she didn't think that he would act like he did. As this SW was meeting with mother, several Marshals were called to the floor because of the incident. This SW asked a Marshal to stand with the mother so that further incident did not occur. This social worker introduced herself to father and went to meet the AAG in the pre-hearing." (Petitioner's Exhibit C, page 25).
The court credits the foregoing evidence about the father's behavior at the juvenile courthouse on May 13, 2011. The court finds it significant that the father angrily confronted the mother in a public hallway at the courthouse, and that he subsequently returned to the cubicle, stood there, and questioned the social worker who had intervened in an attempt to remove the mother and defuse the volatile situation. The court finds that this evidence supports claims that the respondents had a turbulent relationship in Florida, and that Geno P. had previously engaged in acts of domestic abuse and control of the mother.
ADJUDICATION RE ORDER OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY
The court finds as proven by a preponderance of the evidence that in early May 2011, Amy C. was the victim of a domestic assault perpetrated by her paramour, Larry. This incident occurred at night outside a motel room where the mother, Larry and the three young children were all staying together. Larry inflicted visible facial injuries upon Amy C. that included two black eyes and bruises and scratches. This assault occurred in close proximity to the three children, who are five, four and three years old. There was credible evidence that the child Geneo heard the incident as it was occurring and observed his mother's injuries when she and Larry returned to the motel room.
Credible evidence at trial proved that Amy C. permitted Larry to stay in the motel room and to sleep in the same bed with the three boys and her. When a DCF social worker attempted to interview Geneo, he informed the worker that his mother had told him "not to tell." Subsequent to the assault and DCF's involvement with the matter, Amy C. has consistently insisted that her injuries were accidentally inflicted, and has steadfastly refused to tell DCF social workers and a domestic violence coordinator Larry's last name, or to divulge any other information about him. The court finds that the mother's ongoing lack of candor with DCF about the assault, and the perpetrator, has impeded the petitioner's efforts to protect the respondent, and her three children, and to reunify Amy C. with the children.
The court finds that the children were in immediate danger of physical injury and emotional harm at the motel on or about May 4, 2011. The respondent mother subjected them to possible physical injury and emotional harm by exposing them to Larry, and the domestic assault that he committed upon her. The mother, who claims not to know Larry's last name, exercised poor parental judgment when she permitted him to stay in the motel room, and sleep in the same bed, with the boys and her. After she was assaulted and DCF became involved, the respondent mother compounded the danger to the children and failed to protect them by consistently refusing to divulge Larry's name or any other information about him. This impeded DCF's investigation and attempts to protect the mother and the children. By denying that she has recently been the victim of domestic abuse by Larry, and earlier by Geno P., Amy C. has demonstrated that she has little insight either about the dynamic of the domestic violence in her life, or about the extremely detrimental physical, emotional and moral effect that it can have on Geneo, Geveno and Gereno.
The court finds that prior to the removal of the children in May 2011, the mother and the children had a transient and somewhat chaotic life here in Connecticut that was very similar to the circumstances that were evident in Florida when Amy C. relocated with the children to this state in 2008.
The court finds that on occasions between approximately 2005 and 2008 in Florida, Geno. P. was physically abusive and controlling of Amy C., and that the couple had a turbulent domestic relationship. The court finds that the Florida Department of Children and Families paid the mother's relocation expenses to Connecticut as part of a "safety plan" to remove the children and her from the troubled domestic situation. This relocation, to which Geno P. did not object, geographically separated the children from him, and has made him physically unavailable to the children for extended periods of the time.
The court finds that in March 2011 — the last time that Geno P. visited the children in Connecticut before their placement in state care in early May the father by his own admission did not know the address where Amy C. and the children were living, and did not go to their home. The court also finds that on dates unknown prior to the children's removal, Geno P. received information that the children's mother had been exposed to domestic violence by her boyfriend, and that his children were afraid of that individual. Geno P. did not make inquiry, or act upon this information, prior to the children's placement in foster care.
Although Geno P. claims that he will live at the home of his father in Mims, Florida, the multiple addresses that he gave to both DCF and the court causes the undersigned to have great uncertainty about where, and with whom, the children would actually reside, or who would be their primary caretaker, if they were sent to live in Florida. There was evidence at trial that the children's paternal grandfather has a felony conviction, and served a sentence of incarceration, for a narcotics offense in Florida approximately 10 years ago. (Petitioner's Exhibit C, pages 26, 27.) It was also indicated at trial that an inter-state study concerning the status of the father, his girlfriend, and other paternal relatives has not yet been conducted in Florida by the DCF agency there.
The court finds as proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the children would be in immediate danger of physical injury if they were returned to the custody of either parent at this time, and that continued removal from each parent's home is necessary to ensure the safety of the children. Pursuant to the provisions of C.G.S. 46b-129(g) and C.P.B. 33a-7, the ex parte order of temporary custody, issued by the court on May 6, 2011, is hereby SUSTAINED.
ADJUDICATION RE NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS
The court incorporates by reference here all of the factual findings that it has previously made in this memorandum of decision.
Amy C. entered a plea of no contest in this proceeding to the allegations that Geneo, Geveno, and Gereno were neglected because they had been permitted to live under circumstances, conditions, or associations injurious to their well-being. The court, after canvass and the petitioner's offer of proof, accepted her plea and found that there was a factual basis for it.
The preponderance of the evidence at trial proved that during the months prior to their removal, the three children experienced a transient and chaotic lifestyle, and were exposed to Larry, the mother's paramour. Larry physically assaulted the mother during a domestic incident at a motel, in close proximity to the three children. Larry had been permitted by the mother to stay in the same motel room where she and the boys were staying, and to sleep in the same bed there with the mother and the children. After this incident, Amy C. further endangered the children by falsely claiming that her injuries were accidentally inflicted, and by refusing to provide DCF with information about her abuser.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Amy C. and Geno P. had a tumultuous relationship when they lived together in Florida. The evidence established that the father physically abused and controlled the mother in Florida, and that the Florida child protection agency assisted Amy C. to relocate with the children to Connecticut as a part of a "safety plan." The court concludes that this relocation was directly related to the parents' tumultuous domestic relationship and acts of domestic abuse by Geno P. in Florida. As a result of the relocation and geographical separation, Geno P. has not been sufficiently available to the children, and he has failed to take steps to obviate the circumstances that necessitated their removal from the mother's care in May.
With respect to each of the three children, the court finds that DCF has proven neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the court finds that each child was permitted to live under conditions, circumstances and associations injurious to his well-being, and that each child was denied proper care and attention, physically, emotionally and morally.
FACTUAL FINDINGS RE DISPOSITION
The court incorporates by reference here all of the factual findings that it has previously made in this memorandum of decision.
All three children have been placed together in a DCF licensed foster home since May 5, 2011. (Petitioner's Exhibit B, page 15.)
The DCF social history dated June 14, 2011 notes that Amy C. ". . . is very bonded with her children and has met their needs up until this most recent incident in which her children were removed from her care due to her inability to provide a safe environment." (Petitioner's Exhibit B, page 21.) It further notes: "Mother is a victim of domestic violence and as a result this prevents her from making safe decisions regarding her children. Mother requires services specific to domestic violence in an effort to gain knowledge about domestic violence, its effects on her personally and the effects it has on her children." ( Id.) The court credits that opinion. The social study indicated that the mother had recently become involved with services offered by DCF and was compliant with them ( Id., page 20.) One of the service providers is the "Integrated Family Violence Program" offered by Catholic Family Services. ( Id.) However, the study also states: "To date mother has refused to provide information regarding her paramour which is a barrier to safety for the children and reunification." ( Id.) The court also credits that evidence. The court finds from the foregoing evidence that it is not in the best interests of the children that they be returned to the care and custody of Amy C. at this time.
Geno P. resides in Florida and works as a long distance truck driver. His work requires him to be gone from his residence several days at a time. The father requests custody of the three children, and has indicated that he will drive local routes so that he can be at home with his sons if they came to live with him. However, he did not switch to the local routes during the approximately two months that elapsed between the issuance of the temporary custody order and the date of trial. The court has found that Geno P. previously engaged in acts of domestic violence against the children's mother. The DCF social study reports that the father is not presently involved with any services, which would have to be arranged through DCF in Florida. The social study notes: "Father minimizes the domestic violence in the relationship with the mother. He flatly refuses to acknowledge any history, although he was confronted with his own self-admission of domestic violence after the birth of his first son. Father is aggressive, manipulative toward mother and fails to admit that he has control issues." (Petitioner's Exhibit B, page 21.) The court credits that evidence. The court also finds from the evidence that there is ambiguity about where and with whom the children would reside if they were presently sent to live in Florida, and who would be their primary caretaker if the father's employment took him away from home for several days, as it continually has in past years. The court has very little information about the father's relatives, and girlfriend, who reside in Florida. The court believes that the father should be involved with appropriate services, and that an inter-state compact study should be conducted by Florida DCF, before any determination is made about the efficacy of sending the children to live with Geno P. in Florida. To date, such a study has not been done. The court finds from the foregoing evidence that it is not in the best interests of the children that they be returned to the care and custody of Geno P. at this time.
DISPOSITIONAL ORDERS
Having found that Geneo, Geveno and Gereno are neglected children as alleged in the petitions filed by DCF, the court further finds by a preponderance of the evidence that it is in the best interests of said children that they be committed to the petitioner. It is hereby ORDERED that each child be committed to the care and custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families.
The court has reviewed and approved "Specific Steps Orders" for each respondent, and the petitioner, to take to facilitate reunification with the children. Copies of said orders were signed by the court on the date of the issuance of this decision. The Clerk of this court shall ensure that copies of the court's "Specific Steps Orders" shall be sent to all parties and all counsel of record.
The Clerk of the Court is further instructed to set dates for the filing of a Motion for Review of Permanency Plans, and for a hearing on said plans, as required by statute, and to notify all parties and counsel of same.
As noted above, there was evidence during the trial that the respondent father inaccurately stated the amount of income that he earned on a financial affidavit that was filed with this court on May 12, 2011 in order to obtain a court-appointed lawyer. The court appointed an attorney to represent him in this matter based on that affidavit. The court ORDERS the respondent Geno P. to file a current sworn financial affidavit with the Clerk of this court within 30 days of the date of this decision. The respondent shall accurately list his current income from all sources, and a complete listing of all of his current assets and liabilities in said affidavit. The respondent, Geno P., shall attach to said affidavit his W-2 form for the calendar year 2010, and his most recent wage statement listing his current total income to date for the calendar year 2011.
The Clerk of this court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum of Decision, a copy of the sworn financial affidavit that Geno P. filed with this court on May 12, 2011, and a copy of his wage statement for the week ending April 30, 2011 (Father's Exhibit 4) to the Supervisory Assistant Public Defender at the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters in Hartford. The clerk shall also send a copy of the respondent father's current financial affidavit, with the ordered attachments, to said Supervisory Assistant Public Defender when it is filed with the court in accordance with this order. The court directs the Public Defender's Office to inquire and determine whether or not Geno P. financially qualified under existing regulations at the time for the appointment of an attorney at state expense to represent him in this matter. If the Public Defender's Office determines that said appointment was improvidently granted by the court because the respondent was "over-income" and did not financially qualify for said appointment at that time, the Public Defender's Office is instructed to file an appropriate motion or pleading in this case seeking recoupment from Geno P. of the costs of his representation in this matter, and/or requesting such other order or relief as it may deem appropriate to suggest to the court.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 9th day of September 2011.
SO ORDERED: