IN RE AMIT R., No. U06-CP07-006022-A (Jan. 14, 2011)

2011 Ct. Sup. 2930
Nos. U06-CP07-006022-A, U06-CP07-006023-A, U06-CP07-006024-AConnecticut Superior Court Juvenile Matters at Waterbury
January 14, 2011

DECISION ON MOTION TO REVOKE COMMITMENT OF JADA R.
ESCHUK, J.

I. BRIEF HISTORY

The Department of Children and Families thereafter `DCF’ or `the department’) first became involved with this family in 2001 when a referral for inadequate supervision and concerns about mother’s mental health issues was substantiated.

A Neglect Petition was filed on March 1, 2007 together with Motions for Orders of Temporary Custody (OTCs) which were sustained on March 9, 2007. On May 22, 2007 the children were adjudicated as neglected but allowed to return to their mother under protective supervision. On July 18, 2007, the order of protective supervision was modified to commitment and the children have remained committed since then.

Petitions for the Termination of mother’s parental rights were denied on July 26, 2010 (Baldwin J.) after several days of testimony. The fathers of each of the children were defaulted for failure to appear and their parental rights were terminated. There has been no motion to reopen the defaults filed by any of the fathers so that they are no longer involved in these proceedings.

Mother has filed Motions to revoke the commitment of each of these children so that they may be reunited with her.

II. DISCUSSION

CT Page 2931 A. This decision relates only to Jada R. and does not address pending Motions related to Amit and Tyana

The court is aware that Motions to Revoke Commitment have been filed in respect to each of the children. The court heard testimony and argument only in respect to Jada R. The Motions in respect to Amit and Tyana are still pending.

B. All parties stipulated that mother has complied with all requirements and is a suitable parent for Jada R.

It is unnecessary to review the detailed history of this case, which is well set out in the Decision on the Termination of Parental Rights. Suffice it to say that mother has made great progress and has been found to be in a stable relationship.

Jada R. was born on June 7, 2002 and is therefore 8 years old.

All parties stipulated that mother had done all that she should and was an appropriate parent for Jada.[2]

Jada’s Attorney and Guardian ad Litem advised the court that he felt it was in Jada’s best interests for Jada to be reunited with her mother. The department originally objected to the Motions because, while it accepts (and has stipulated) that mother is a suitable person, it considers that she will need support to assist in the reunification process, including counseling and therapy for this child and that a period of protective supervision is essential to protect Jada.

C. Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

Mother now lives in the State of Massachusetts and so the department argued that the court could not revoke the commitment if to do so would transfer the child to Massachusetts without an Interstate Compact agreement from Massachusetts pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) ratified by the State of Connecticut in Section 17a-175 Connecticut General Statutes.

The court has been advised by counsel for the Department of Children and Families that the State of Massachusetts (the `Receiving State’) has now agreed that it will accept Jada R. into the state. It is therefore no longer necessary for the court to consider whether the ICPC is applicable in cases where the child is CT Page 2932 to be placed with a biological parent.

ACCORDINGLY this court finds, pursuant to Section 35a-14A
Connecticut Practice Book that a cause for commitment of Jada R. to the Department of Children and Families no longer exists and finds that it would be in the best interests of Jada R. to revoke that commitment and return her to the care and custody of her mother subject to a period of six months of Protective Supervision which will expire on July 14, 2011.

Mother is to continue to follow her existing Specific Steps insofar as they still apply and to cooperate fully with the Department of Children and Families in Connecticut and its equivalent Child Protective Services in Massachusetts. The Department of Children and Families is directed to provide mother with amended Specific Steps, if necessary, within thirty days of this decision.

An In Court Review will be held on or about June 8, 2011 in accordance with the requirements of Connecticut Practice Book Section 35a-12(b). The Department of Children and Families is directed to provide the court and all parties with an updated social study by May 13, 2011.

SO ORDERED

CT Page 2933