| |
This
case is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding
custody and guardianship of Karl J. to the child's paternal aunt
and uncle. At issue was whether the court abused its discretion
in determining that it was in the best interests of the child to
remain in the care and custody of his paternal aunt and uncle. Finding
no abuse of discretion, the appellate court affirmed the judgment
of the trial court.
The respondent
in this case is the biological mother of Karl J. In October 2000,
the child was removed from his home on a 96-hour hold following
a report that he was left unsupervised for extended periods of time.
The court granted an order for temporary custody, adjudicated the
child neglected, and placed him in the custody and guardianship
of his biological father under an order of protective supervision.
On March 22, 2001, the court vacated the order of protective supervision.
In August 2001, the father learned that Karl J. had been sexually
abused by a family member, and moved him to his paternal aunt and
uncle's home in Florida. On December 7, 2004, the respondent filed
an application for reinstatement of guardianship, which was eventually
consolidated with the father's petition to transfer custody and
guardianship to the paternal aunt and uncle. Following a seven-day
trial, the court denied the respondent's motion for reinstatement
and granted the father's petition to transfer custody and guardianship.
After
reviewing the record, the appellate court found ample evidence to
support the trial court's finding that it was in the best interest
of the child to remain with his aunt and uncle. The evidence before
the court-which included testimony from a licensed clinical psychologist
who evaluated the respondent, the child's mental health therapist
and guardian ad litem, and a mental health specialist who evaluated
the child-showed that while in the care and custody of his aunt
and uncle, Karl J. had made significant improvements in his emotional,
psychological, and physical well-being. The child had bonded with
his aunt and uncle, had made significant improvements in speech,
behavior and in dealing with his reactive attachment disorder, and
had adamantly expressed a desire to remain in Florida with them.
Testimony from the aunt revealed that she quit her job to care for
the child on a full-time basis. For these reasons, the judgment
of the trial court was affirmed.
The case
may be accessed by going to the Judicial Branch website at http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP458.pdf
--Justin
Taylor, law student intern.
|
