Case Title: In re J.T.

Citation: 166 Vt. 173, 693 A.2d 283

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re J.T. (96-051); 166 Vt. 173; 693 A.2d 283

[Filed 10-Jan-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 96-051

In re J.T. and C.T.                               Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
                                                  Caledonia Family Court

                                                  June Term, 1996

Alan W. Cook, J.

       Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for appellant mother

       Michael Rose, St. Albans, for appellant father

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Michael O.
  Duane, Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for appellee Department of
  Social and Rehabilitation Services

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
  Montpelier, for appellees juveniles

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       GIBSON, J.   J.T.'s and C.T.'s mother and father separately appeal a
  family court order terminating their parental rights to both children.  The
  mother argues that the court erred in terminating parental rights without a
  prior approved case plan and that the court improperly incorporated CHINS
  findings in the disposition findings.  The father argues that the court
  failed to determine whether the Vermont Department of Social and
  Rehabilitation Services (SRS) made reasonable efforts to assist him.  Both
  parents contend that the court should have provided notice under the Indian
  Child Welfare Act (ICWA) as soon as it had reason to believe that the
  children were of Indian ancestry.  We remand for the court to give
  notification of the proceeding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  If a tribe
  responds, further proceedings consistent with the ICWA will be necessary;
  otherwise, we affirm the court's finding that it is in the best interests
  of J.T. and C.T. that parental rights be terminated.

 

       SRS first became involved with the family in May 1989, when the
  parents' failure to maintain telephone service while C.T. suffered from a
  breathing disorder posed a serious medical threat.  From that date through
  1993, SRS became increasingly involved with the family.  Between 1989 and
  early 1991, two attempts were made to improve the mother's and father's
  parenting skills through the Family Intensive Program and a parent
  education program. Both counselors terminated the programs when the
  mother's mental health issues made working on parenting skills impossible. 
  The mother began participation in a mental health program in 1989, but
  dropped out in January 1990.  From late 1992 to early 1993, the mother
  again entered counseling, both individually and with the children, but
  attempts to improve parenting skills were unsuccessful.

       In spite of the services offered by SRS, the condition of the family
  deteriorated steadily. By 1993 SRS had substantiated physical and sexual
  abuse to both children by family members and persons living with family
  members.  There was also extensive evidence of physical neglect and
  emotional abuse to both children, particularly J.T.  The children were
  taken into temporary custody by SRS in September 1993, and after a merits
  hearing in November 1993, they were found to be children in need of care
  and supervision (CHINS) due to lack of proper parental care.

       A case plan was developed by SRS in March 1994 and given to both
  parents.  Although the case plan set a goal of family reunification, the
  parents were informed at a case plan review on March 31, 1994 that failure
  to follow the plan could result in a change in the goal. Following the
  CHINS order and distribution of the case plan, both parents continued to
  receive family services through SRS.

       After completion of a family evaluation by an independent
  psychologist, a disposition hearing was scheduled for July 27, 1994.  At
  the start of the hearing, the parents informed the court that they planned
  to separate.  Deciding that the existing case plan, which called for
  reunification of the children with both parents, was not appropriate if the
  parents separated, the

 

  court discussed development of new case plans, ended the hearing, and
  issued an order maintaining custody of both children with SRS.  When SRS
  was unable to confirm that the mother and father had separated as
  announced, alternative case plans were not developed. Instead, a new SRS
  case plan dated September 9, 1994 called for termination of parental
  rights.

       In October 1994, SRS filed a petition to terminate parental rights;
  hearings began in December.  Following eight days of hearings, the court
  terminated parental rights.

                                     I.

       Mother and father both raise several issues on appeal.  The mother
  first argues that the trial court erred in finding a change in
  circumstances when there had been no previously approved case plan.  But
  termination of parental rights can occur in one of two ways.  Where there
  has been a prior disposition order and an approved case plan, the court
  must find a substantial change in material circumstances and that it is in
  the best interests of the child that all parental rights be terminated.  In
  re M.M., 159 Vt. 517, 521, 621 A.2d 1276, 1279 (1993). Parental rights may
  also be terminated at the initial disposition hearing if the court finds it
  to be in the best interests of the child to do so.  In re B.M., 7 Vt. L.W.
  131, 132 (1996); 33 V.S.A. § 5540.  The first method is preferred, In re
  B.M., 7 Vt. L.W. at 132, but the court's findings in either situation will
  be upheld unless clearly erroneous.  See In re J.M., 160 Vt. 146, 149,