In Re Chronesca D., 126 Conn. App. 493

Commissioner of Children and Families filed motion for order of temporary custody on April 29, 2010; petition of neglect had been filed March 17, 2010.
Ex parte order vested temporary care and custody in Denise R. under § 46b-129(b).
Contested hearing on May 12, 2010; court found child was not in immediate physical danger and vacated the ex parte order.
Despite finding no immediate danger, the court designated Denise R. as continuing temporary custodian until an appropriate court determined placement elsewhere.
Respondent father appealed, challenging the propriety of vesting temporary custody in Denise R. given the lack of imminent danger.
Appellate Court reversed, holding that without immediate danger a temporary custody transfer to nonparents is improper; remanded for set aside of the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Denise R. could be named as temporary custodian without immediate danger	Father argues no immediate danger, so order was improper.	State argues temporary custody can continue pending proper placement despite danger finding.	Order improper; reverse and remand to set aside.

In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD), 455 A.2d 1313 (1983) (temporary custody requires imminent danger unless parental custody preserved)