Case Title: In re TR and LC

Citation: 163 Vt 596, 653 A.2d 777

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_TR_AND_LC.93-308; 163 Vt 596; 653 A.2d 777

[Filed 13-Dec-1994]

                                    ENTRY ORDER

                          SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-308

                                OCTOBER TERM, 1994


In re T.R. and L.C., Juveniles            }         APPEALED FROM:
   and                         }
In re S.R. and C.R., Juveniles }
                               }          Franklin Family Court
                               }
                               }
                               }          DOCKET NO. F55/56-8-88FJv and
                                           F8/10-2-92FJv


                 In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

 Mother and father appeal termination of residual parental rights to their
children, S.R. and C.R.  Mother argues that the family court's findings were
clearly erroneous, that the State failed to make reasonable reunification
efforts, and that long-term foster care was not considered.  Father
additionally contends that the Department of Social and Rehabilitation
Services (SRS) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act's notice
requirements, 25 U.S.C.  1912(a), and that SRS failed to provide sufficient
notice that it was seeking to terminate parental rights.  Father also appeals
termination of his residual parental rights to T.R. and L.C., his two other
children from a previous relationship.  He contends that absence of counsel
for T.R. and L.C. during the disposition hearing and the court's failure to
guarantee cross-examination of T.R. and L.C.'s foster mother require
reversal. (FN1) We affirm. 

 SRS received custody and guardianship of T.R. and L.C. following their
parents' stipulation to a finding that the juveniles were children in need of
care or supervision (CHINS). SRS subsequently petitioned the court for
termination of residual parental rights.  T.R.'s and L.C's mother voluntarily
agreed to the termination of her rights and does not join in this appeal.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, and based on the best information father
could provide concerning his Indian parentage, SRS sent notice of the
juvenile court proceedings to regional tribes, the United States Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and the Canadian office for Indian and Northern Affairs. 
Responses indicated that father's Indian parentage and eligibility for tribal
membership could not be established. 

 

 Before the evidentiary hearings on the termination of father's rights to
T.R. and L.C. concluded, SRS filed a CHINS petition on behalf of the father's
youngest children, S.R. and C.R.  After the parents stipulated to a finding
of CHINS, SRS recommended termination of parental rights to S.R. and C.R. 
The court consolidated the disposition hearings for all four children.  When
T.R.'s and L.C.'s attorney was absent one day, the court asked S.R.'s and
C.R.'s attorney to assume representation for all four children.  The  
guardians ad litem agreed.  The family court found that the parents abused
and neglected the children, failed to protect them, were hostile to SRS's
intervention, and were unwilling to change even when faced with the prospect
of permanently losing their children.  It ordered the termination of parental
rights to the four children. 

 We address mother's argument that the family courts' findings were clearly
erroneous, and the father's arguments that SRS failed to comply with the
Indian Child Welfare Act and failed to provide sufficient notice that it was
seeking to terminate parental rights.  We decline to address the parents'
other arguments because they did not raise them before the court below, and
hence, they did not preserve them for appeal.  In re B.L., 145 Vt. 586, 590,