Case Title: In re C.H. and M.H.

Citation: 170 Vt. 603, 749 A.2d 20

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re C.H. and M.H. (99-352); 170 Vt. 603; 749 A.2d 20

[Opinion Filed 14-Jan-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 15-Feb-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-352

                             DECEMBER TERM, 1999

In re C.H. and M.H.	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
    	                               }	Windsor Family Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 149/150-9-96Wrjv  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       In this appeal from a termination of parental rights (TPR), father
  argues that the Windsor Family  Court erred in terminating his parental
  rights without a finding that he is an unfit parent.  We  determine that
  father failed to preserve his unfitness claim, and affirm the family
  court's decision that  termination is in the best interest of the children.

       At the July 1999 TPR hearing, the family court found the following
  pertinent facts.  Father  was  living with, but not married to, mother when
  the children, C.H. and M.H., were born.  He was not  living with mother or
  the children in September 1996, when mother attempted to smother C.H. with 
  a pillow.  As a result of mother's actions, the children were placed in
  custody with SRS on an  emergency basis. (FN1)  At a merits hearing in
  November 1996, the family court found that both  children were in need of
  care and supervision - which neither parent contested - and the children 
  were placed in foster care, where they have remained throughout this case. 
  At a July 1997  disposition hearing, the court granted custody to SRS based
  on the parties' stipulation.

       Father was adjudicated a sex offender at the age of thirteen.  He
  received treatment but did not  complete his therapy program.  As a part of
  the case plan for C.H. and M.H., it was recommended  that father undergo a
  penile plethysmograph to determine if he is still sexually aroused by
  children.  However, this test never took place, due to circumstances beyond
  father's control.  

       SRS arranged a schedule to allow father to visit the children.  Father
  visited the children on two  occasions in two-and-one-half years.  Father
  testified that he canceled scheduled visits due to  conflicts with his work
  schedule.  Father's parents visited the children on occasion.  The SRS case 
  plan required that father participate in parenting skills classes, but
  father never contacted SRS about  these classes nor attended such classes. 
  Father testified that he bought a house and remodeled it to  accommodate
  the children in the event they moved in with him, and that his parents
  would care for  the children while he was at work.  

       The court found that the foster mother has a degree in early childhood
  education and works as a  kindergarten assistant at the Perkinsville
  School.  She has taken the children to all SRS appointments  and seen to
  their medical and dental needs throughout the custody period.  C.H.'s 

 

  behavioral and emotional problems, most of which stemmed from the
  attempted smothering, have  improved during the time she has lived with the
  foster parents.  The foster parents have expressed  a willingness to adopt
  the children if they become available for adoption, and the children call
  the  them "Mom" and "Dad."  SRS case workers testified that the children
  have bonded with the foster  mother.

       The court concluded that the State had met its burden of proving, by
  clear and convincing evidence,  that (1) there had been a substantial
  change in material circumstances, and (2) termination is in the  best
  interests of the children under 33 V.S.A.  5540.  Specifically, the court
  found that: because  father visited the children only twice during a
  thirty-one month period, the children had no  significant relationship with
  him, but had bonded with their foster parents and have a significant 
  relationship with them; the children have adjusted to the environment
  provided by their foster home;  because of the lack of significant contact
  between the children and their father and the positive  interaction between
  C.H., M.H., and their foster parents, it was considered most unlikely that
  father  would be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable period
  of time; and, finally, father had  played no constructive role in the
  children's welfare, as they hardly know him and he had no  significant part
  in their lives or development.  

       The court ordered the termination of father and mother's parental
  rights and transferred legal  custody, guardianship, and residual parental
  rights to SRS.  This appeal followed.

       Father argues on appeal that the family court erred because his
  parental rights could not  constitutionally or statutorily be terminated
  without a finding that he is an unfit parent.  The State  counters that
  father's July 1997 stipulation to the initial disposition placing custody
  in SRS  essentially constituted a finding of his unfitness and that the SRS
  was not required to show his  unfitness at the July 1999 TPR hearing.  

       We decline to reach father's contention because he waived his
  unfitness argument by failing to raise  it at any point during the family
  court proceedings.  "We have often stated that '[w]e will not reverse  a
  lower court when a party's failure to raise some matter below denied the
  court an opportunity to  consider it.'"  Spencer v. Killington, 167 Vt.
  137, 140,