Case Title: In re J.M.

Citation: 170 Vt. 587, 749 A.2d 17

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re J.M. (99-386); 170 Vt. 587; 749 A.2d 17

[Filed 13-Jan-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-386
					
                             JANUARY TERM, 2000
						

In re J.M.	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     	                               }	Chittenden Family Court
	                               }	
	                               }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 375-7-98Cnjv         

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

       The parents of J.M. appeal from a family court order terminating their
  parental rights.  They  contend: (1) the court lacked subject matter
  jurisdiction; and (2) the Department of Social and  Rehabilitation Services
  failed to provide mother with reasonable services.  We affirm. 

       Mother and father have an extensive history of involvement with SRS. 
  In 1995, their two older  children, N.M. and C.M., were taken into SRS
  custody following reports of physical abuse and  drug and alcohol use by
  father.  Both children were adjudicated CHINS based upon findings by  the
  court that mother, who had an I.Q. in the sixties, had repeatedly refused
  parenting and  counseling services, that father was chronically intoxicated
  and abusive, and that neither parent  had even basic parenting skills. 
  Parental rights were terminated in June 1998, based on the  court's
  conclusions that the parents' circumstances had stagnated due to their
  refusal to accept  parenting assistance and substance-abuse counseling,
  that neither parent could resume parental  responsibilities within a
  reasonable period of time, and that the children had adjusted well to 
  their foster home and were thriving.  This Court affirmed the judgment. 
  See In re N.M. and  C.M., No. 98-299 (Dec. 31, 1998) (unpub. mem.).
 	
       During the TPR proceedings, the parents' SRS case-manager became aware
  that mother was  pregnant.  In July 1998, SRS filed a petition and
  affidavit setting forth the court's findings in the  recently completed TPR
  proceedings, and seeking an order for temporary custody of the child at 
  birth.  A detention order providing for SRS custody was issued on August
  26, 1998.  The child,  J.M., was born on September 2, 1998.  Two days
  later, following an emergency hearing, the  court again ordered temporary
  custody to SRS.  The child was released from the hospital that  day and
  taken into foster care, where he has remained ever since.
	
       Following the merits hearing in January 1999, the court found by clear
  and convincing evidence  that J.M. was CHINS.  The court relied on the
  findings in the earlier TPR proceedings  concerning N.M. and C.M, as well
  as evidence that since J.M.'s birth, mother had consistently  rebuffed her
  case manager's enouragement to accept parenting, battered-women, and
  alcohol-abuse services. The court also found that mother had not acquired
  any basic parenting knowledge  and skills since the previous TPR, and that
  domestic violence remained a significant risk to  mother and child.  

 
       	
       The State sought to terminate parental rights at the initial
  disposition hearing in May and June,  1999.  The court found that mother's
  parenting abilities had not changed significantly since the  previous TPR
  proceedings, and that those abilities were inadequate to provide proper
  care for the  child.  The court also noted that the child remained at risk
  of abuse by father, and that mother  did not comprehend the risk.  In the
  meantime, J.M. had developed a good relationship with his  foster family
  and was thriving.   Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no
  likelihood  either parent would be able to resume parental duties within a
  reasonable period of time, and  terminated the parents' residual parental
  rights.  Mother and father filed separate notices of  appeal, and mother
  filed an appellant's brief in which father has joined.

       Mother first contends the trial court lacked subject matter
  jurisdiction because J.M. had not yet  been born, and therefore was not a
  "child" under our statutory scheme when the court issued its  original
  detention order in response to the State's petition.  See 33 V.S.A. §
  5503(a) (family  court has "exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings
  concerning any child").  Although the court  may have lacked jurisdiction
  prior to the child's birth, any error in this regard was harmless.   Two
  days after J.M. was born, the court issued a new emergency detention order
  based upon the  petition and supporting affidavit outlining mother's recent
  history with her other children, and  her complete lack of progress since. 
  Furthermore, the merits and disposition hearings both  occurred later, and
  evidence was adduced at both hearings concerning mother's incapacities both 
  before and after the child's birth.  The decisions cited in mother's brief, 
  In re Valerie D., 613 A.2d 748, 750 (Conn. 1992) and State v. Kruzicki,
  561 N.W.2d 729, 736 (Wis. 1997), are  distinguishable, as both concerned
  the validity of CHINS adjudications based upon evidence of  prenatal abuse
  and neglect of an unborn child through the mother's use of illegal drugs. 

       Mother also claims that SRS failed to render adequate assistance to
  mother after J.M.'s birth.   Although a court is not required to find that
  SRS made reasonable efforts to assist a parent, such  assistance is a
  factor in determining whether SRS met its burden of showing that a parent
  is  unlikely to be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable
  period.  See In re J.T., 166 Vt.  173, 180 (1997).  In its decision, the
  court clearly and reasonably relied upon mother's well-documented history
  of resistance to SRS services in connection with the recently-completed TPR 
  proceedings involving N.M. and C.M..  See E.J.R. v. Young, 162 Vt. 219, 224
  (1994) (family  court may rely on evidence in connection with sibling to
  conclude that child is CHINS).  The  court also noted mother's continued
  failure to profit from SRS services after J.M.'s birth.  In this  regard,
  the court relied upon its finding from the merits hearing that mother had
  continued to  resist her social worker's encouragement to participate in
  parental-assistance services.  The court  also found that despite the
  mentoring of a parent educator during mother's visits with J.M.,  mother's
  parenting abilities remained inadequate to care for the child. 
  Accordingly, we conclude 

 

  that the evidence of SRS services was sufficient to support a finding that
  mother could not  resume her parental duties within a reasonable period of
  time.

       Affirmed.
  	

	                         BY THE COURT:

	                         _______________________________________
	                         Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

	                         _______________________________________
	                         John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

	                         _______________________________________
	                         James L. Morse, Associate Justice

	                         _______________________________________
	                         Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice
	
	                         _______________________________________
	                         Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice (Ret.)
	                         Specially Assigned