Case Title: In re BB

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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. 92-047


 In re B.B., Juvenile                         Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Caledonia Family Court

                                              December Term, 1992



 Dean B. Pineles, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Barbara L. Crippen
   and Martha Csala, Assistant Attorneys General, Waterbury, for plaintiff-
   appellee

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   M.B., the mother of B.B., appeals from an order of the
 Caledonia Family Court terminating her parental rights with respect to her
 son.  She argues that the extended continuation of the proceedings below to
 determine how she responded to therapy was an improper procedure.  We
 agree, and reverse and remand.
      B.B. was born on January 17, 1990, and was placed in the custody of the
 Commissioner of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) in July of 1990.
 M.B. did not oppose SRS custody and stipulated to the CHINS adjudication.
 The State then sought termination of parental rights at the initial
 disposition hearing.  M.B. opposed termination. (FN1)
      The family court took extensive evidence at the disposition hearing.
 It found that, from B.B.'s birth, M.B. was helped by a number of service
 providers, but these providers became increasingly concerned about M.B.'s
 parenting.  In particular, they observed that M.B. could not control her
 temper and that she vented her anger on B.B. through verbal and physical
 abuse.  She also abused alcohol.  When social agency efforts to improve the
 situation failed, the State intervened and took custody of B.B.
      The evidence at the detention hearing detailed the above history, as
 well as a number of failed post-detention attempts to help M.B. improve her
 parenting skills.  Based on the testimony of the psychiatrist who evaluated
 M.B. for SRS, the court found that M.B. met the criteria that describe an
 individual with a mixed personality disorder, and had many of the
 characteristics of other types of personality disorders.  The court found
 that these personality traits seriously impair M.B.'s ability to parent.
      The court detailed, but did not adopt, the psychiatrist's opinion that
 M.B. would need two years of intensive therapy, and up to five years of less
 intensive therapy, before she could adequately and safely care for B.B.  It
 adopted instead the evidence of the psychologist who testified for M.B that
 (1) she was motivated to continue treatment; (2) she was demonstrating
 an increasing insight into her problems, and recognized that she had abused
 B.B. and expressed remorse; (3) she was concerned for B.B.'s well-being;
 (4) she was working diligently to restructure her life in a positive way;
 and (5) she had shown improvement.  It also adopted the psychologist's
 recommendation that the situation be reassessed at three-month intervals
 because it was impossible to say when M.B. would be ready to fulfill her
 parental responsibilities.
      The court concluded that the State "has [not] shown clearly and
 convincingly that . . . [M.B.] will not be unable to resume parental duties
 within a reasonable period of time."  Rather than denying the termination
 request made by SRS, however, the court reserved its ruling on termination
 and continued the matter, pursuant to 33 V.S.A. { 5527(e), for two or three
 months to take further evidence on M.B.'s progress.  It transferred custody
 and guardianship of B.B. to SRS.
      A renewed hearing commenced three months later.  The evidence was
 similar to that received earlier, with M.B.'s psychologist testifying that
 she was continuing to make progress.  The court's findings detail the
 efforts undertaken by social service providers between the hearings, and
 include the statement that M.B. "has not yet learned the skills necessary to
 provide adequate parental care" for B.B.  The findings also show that B.B.
 has adjusted well to his foster home and that the foster parents want to
 adopt him.
      In its conclusions, the court revisited the issue of whether M.B. could
 resume her parental responsibilities within a reasonable period of time.  It
 concluded:
         Had . . . [M.B.] resolved her own problems and been
         ready to resume her role as . . . [B.B.'s] mother at the
         end of the summer, the court would have given serious
         consideration to denying the state's petition.  However,
         despite her commendable efforts at addressing her own
         problems in therapy, and despite continued progress in
         this regard, she still has not achieved the requisite
         emotional stability.  Moreover, she has not yet devel-
         oped the necessary parenting skills, and, as a result,
         her interaction with . . . [B.B.] continues to be
         neither positive nor constructive.  And one can only
         speculate as to when she might be able to accomplish
         these twin goals of emotional stability and adequate
         parenting ability.

         [T]he focus must be on . . . [B.B.'s] needs.  He needs
         stability, and a loving, nurturing and safe environment.
         And these needs must be met now, not at some indetermi-
         nate point in the future.  [M.B.] . . . cannot meet
         these needs now, and a reasonable time has already
         expired.

 The court granted the request to terminate M.B.'s parental rights, and this
 appeal followed.
      Relying on In re A.A., 134 Vt. 41,