In re Pedro J.C.

• Decision Date: 16 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 36869.,36869.
• Citation: 154 Conn.App. 517,105 A.3d 943
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re PEDRO J.C.

154 Conn.App. 517

105 A.3d 943

In re PEDRO J.C.^*

No. 36869.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 12, 2014.

Decided Dec. 16, 2014.^**

Kathryn Madison, law student intern, with whom was Carroll Lee Lucht, for the appellant (petitioner).

Michael Besso, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, Gregory T. D'Auria, solicitor general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (Commissioner of Children and Families).

GRUENDEL, KELLER and FLYNN, Js.

Opinion

KELLER, J.

During the past few years, tens of thousands of minor children have been caught crossing the United States southern border, causing a problematic surge of illegal immigration. More than three-quarters of the children are from three countries: El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. A significant portion of them are boys between fifteen and seventeen years of age. Many of these unaccompanied minors have been placed with sponsors, usually parents or relatives, where they remain while immigration proceedings are being processed by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).¹ The seventeen year old petitioner, Pedro J.C., who is from Guatemala, is one of these children.

The petitioner appeals from the judgment of the trial court, B. Kaplan, J., adjudicating him neglected and denying his motion for a best interest finding. The court's judgment followed a consolidated hearing on a neglect petition brought by the petitioner and the motion for a best interest finding brought by the petitioner. The claims raised in this appeal concern only the court's denial of his motion for a best interest finding, in which the petitioner requested that the court make two specific findings necessary for his contemplated application to federal immigration officials for abused, neglected, or abandoned special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) under title 8 of the United States Code, § 1101(a)(27)(J) (Supp.2012), part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. ).² On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court relied on insufficient evidence and applied incorrect legal standards when it failed to find, as he had requested, that (1) reunification with one or both of the petitioner's parents is not viable due to the fact that he has been neglected, and (2) it is in the best interest of the petitioner to remain in the United States and not to be returned to his home country of Guatemala. We agree with the petitioner and reverse the judgment of the trial court insofar as it denied his motion.

The following facts, as found by the trial court or as are apparent in the record, and procedural history are relevant here. The undisputed facts in the record include the facts alleged in the amended petition and accompanying summary of facts, which are deemed admitted by the respondent mother, Dominga C.A. (respondent), who was defaulted for failure to appear after confirmation of notice by publication.³

The petitioner, a child under the age of eighteen, was born in 1997 in Baja Verapaz, Guatemala. His family is of Mayan ethnicity, and members of that group suffer from discrimination in Guatemala.

The petitioner's grandfather was killed in an anti-Mayan massacre during the Guatemalan civil war in the 1980s. The family did not have much money. The petitioner's father owned a small piece of land where he grew crops and kept animals. He earned barely enough to feed the family. The respondent was primarily a homemaker. The family's small home was made out of mud and the petitioner shared a small room with three of his brothers. In 2009, when the petitioner was twelve years old, his father left Guatemala and moved to Connecticut in order to send financial support back to the family in Guatemala. One year later, the petitioner's father was killed in an accident involving a train.

After his father died, the respondent was unable to provide adequately for her large family, including the petitioner and his siblings. There was not enough money or enough food to eat, and the respondent had trouble paying tuition for all of the children to attend school. Working in the fields exhausted the respondent. Because the petitioner was the oldest son who still lived at home, he would usually go alone to work in the fields, where he performed tasks such as caring for animals, planting, and harvesting. He planned to work for half a day so he could still attend school, but sometimes he had to spend all day working and did not attend school.

To reach his family's land, the petitioner had to cross a field that belonged to an older neighbor who had fought against the Mayans during the civil war. The neighbor did not like it when the petitioner crossed his field and often yelled at and insulted the petitioner. Once he threatened to kill the petitioner. The petitioner was afraid, but it was difficult to avoid crossing the neighbor's land. In addition, people from another village did not like the petitioner's family. The respondent rarely left the house because she was fearful, but the petitioner felt he was in the most danger because he had to leave home to work in the field. The petitioner fears he will be harmed if he returns to Guatemala.

In October, 2012, the petitioner told the respondent that he was afraid to continue living in Guatemala, where he felt surrounded by people who threatened him. His adult siblings lived close to the respondent's house, so he felt he had nowhere safe to go. He wanted to go to the United States to get an education, make a better life, and support the family back in Guatemala.

The respondent, although afraid something could happen to the petitioner on the way, borrowed approximately $3000 to pay a person known as “a coyote”⁴ to take the petitioner to the United States illegally. The petitioner embarked on this journey, accompanied mostly by strangers from another village and one neighbor, Don G. At times, he did not have enough to eat. He was often fearful of failing to be attentive and losing contact with his travel companions. He was unable to sleep because he was terrified of being left behind. The trip to the United States–Mexico border took fifteen days, and then the petitioner waited at the border for one month before attempting to cross it. He waited with other migrants in a house in a place he did not know.

Finally, in November, 2012, it was the petitioner's turn to cross the border into Arizona with Don G. and some of the strangers in his group. After crossing, the group walked for five days, climbing steep, rocky mountains and crossing a desert.

The petitioner was very tired and thirsty. One night, as the group stopped to rest, officers with the United States Border Patrol found them and the petitioner was arrested. One officer grabbed him roughly and hurt his arm. The border patrol officers took the petitioner to a jail with a holding area for children, so he was separated from his neighbor, Don G. Even though the officials said they would help the petitioner, he was very afraid and could not stop crying. After he spent two days in Arizona, the petitioner was put on a plane and sent to a home for children in Texas. He continued to be fearful because he did not know what was happening or where the officials were taking him.

In Texas, federal authorities placed a call to the respondent in Guatemala. She was asked if there was anyone in the United States who could take care of the petitioner. The respondent told authorities of a godfather, but when this person was contacted, he declined to take care of the petitioner. Eventually, the respondent contacted the petitioner's cousin, MacDonal J., an undocumented alien living in Connecticut, who agreed to let the petitioner live with him.

The petitioner was released to the sponsorship of MacDonal J. by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services, of DHS in February, 2013, and sent to Connecticut.⁵ MacDonal J. was required to execute a Sponsor Care Agreement, promising, inter alia, to provide for the physical and mental well-being of the petitioner; to keep the petitioner's whereabouts known to the local Immigration Court or the Board of Immigration Appeals, and DHS; to ensure the petitioner's presence at all future proceedings before the DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); to ensure the petitioner reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal or voluntary departure order; and to notify local law enforcement or the state or local child protective services if the petitioner has been or is at risk of being abused, abandoned, neglected, or if he learns that the petitioner has been threatened, sexually or physically abused or assaulted, or that the petitioner has disappeared, been kidnapped or run away. Most significantly, the Sponsor Care Agreement requires that the sponsor “make best efforts to establish legal guardianship with your local court within a reasonable time.”

The petitioner, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–129 (a), filed a petition in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Bridgeport on July 29, 2013, alleging that he was a neglected and uncared for child.⁶ As required by § 46b–129 (a), the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner) was notified of the time and place of the initial hearing on the petition.⁷ Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend his petition, which was granted by the court. The amended, operative petition alleged two grounds for neglect, claiming that, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–120 (6)(B) and (C), the petitioner was denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally and that he was being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well-being. The summary of facts annexed to the petition contained affidavits of the petitioner and his cousin, MacDonal J., in support of the neglect allegations. As the...