Opinion ID: 1933198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The award of custody to the grandmother.

Text: The hearing on the father's motion to modify custody began on July 29, 1996, and continued on sixteen different days over a period of more than fifteen months. The proceedings were held in the shadow of the finding that the father had sexually abused his two-year-old daughter. At a hearing on November 4, 1996, the father's attorney stated that his client still is formally asking for [custody] but recognizes there's not a chance in hell that this court will award it to him given what's occurred in the neglect jacket. The father therefore requested that the children be placed, at least temporarily, with a third party custodian, namely, the maternal grandmother. In response to the father's proposal, counsel for the mother filed an affidavit by the grandmother stating that the mother had been the primary caretaker of the children and that the grandmother had not sought, and would not accept, legal custody. The father's contention that the children should be removed from the mother's custody was based on two specific allegations. First, the father claimed that J.A.S. had been abused by a fifteen-year-old cousin, and that the mother had not adequately protected her daughter from the abuse. According to the father, the mother had permitted J.A.S. to have further contact with the cousin, and she had continued to display the cousin's photograph in the home. The mother vigorously denied the father's allegations, and she introduced testimony from several witnesses, including the children's therapists and the court's probation officer, to the effect that the mother had been a resourceful, effective, and responsible parent to both children. Second, the father introduced evidence showing that the mother had a heated argument with a male neighbor which so frightened J.A.S. that she called 911. The mother denied any inappropriate conduct in relation to this incident. On November 4, 1996, the trial judge issued an oral order temporarily placing both children in the custody of their maternal grandmother. On March 2, 1998, following the conclusion of the protracted proceedings, the judge issued her written Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and made permanent the interim award of custody. The judge made a number of findings favorable to the mother, e.g., by noting both children's improvement at school, but she ruled in the father's favor with respect to the two incidents on which the father had based his motion. Describing J.A.S. as an abused and fragile child, the judge found that the mother had failed to provide adequately for her daughter's needs following the alleged abuse of J.A.S. by her cousin. The judge wrote that the mother was obviously aware of the necessary steps which should have been taken in light of the new allegation of sexual abuse, but that the mother nevertheless failed to have J.A.S. medically examined. The judge further found that the mother had failed to seek counseling for [J.A.S.] specifically based on these allegations, and that the mother had disregarded her daughter's emotional well-being by failing to keep the cousin away from J.A.S. With respect to the father's second principal allegation, the judge found that the mother had subjected [J.A.S.] to a disturbance in her home that was so disturbing that the child called 911 for help. The judge found that the mother's home environment was unfit, and that but for his staying with his grandmother ... on that occasion, [J.A.S.'s brother] would have been subjected to the same unfit environment. In light of these findings, the judge held that the mother had abdicated her parental duties to the maternal grandmother; that the children ... are thriving under the current temporary custody of their grandmother; and that the grandmother has provided for the emotional and physical needs for both children over the majority of their lives. The judge concluded that specific modification of custody of the children in [the maternal grandmother] is supported by the findings, is rationally related to the changed circumstances, and is calculated to promote the children's best interest and welfare. The judge therefore awarded permanent custody of both children to the grandmother. [1] This appeal followed.