Case Title: In re D.M. & T.P.

Citation: 176 Vt. 639, 2004 VT 41, 852 A.2d 588

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re D.M. & T.P. (2003-452); 176 Vt. 639; 852 A.2d 588

2004 VT 41

[Filed 28-Apr-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 41

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-452

                              APRIL  TERM, 2004

       	

  In re D.M. and T.P., Juveniles	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
                          	        }	Caledonia Family Court
                                        }	
          	                        }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. 29/30-5-02 Cajv

                                                Trial Judge: M. Kathleen Manley

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

       ¶  1.  Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights in her
  two sons, D.M. and T.P., now almost three and six-years old respectively. 
  Mother argues that the court's finding of changed circumstances due to
  stagnation did not consider factors beyond mother's control.  Mother also
  argues that termination was improper in light of the loving bond she shares
  with the children.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  In May 2002, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation
  Services (SRS) received information that T.P. had reported, to his daycare
  provider, that his uncle Chris had been sexually abusing him.  At the time,
  mother and the children were living with her mother, stepfather, and her
  brother Chris.  SRS's investigation revealed that more than one member of
  mother's family had a history of sexual abuse.  Chris is a substantiated
  sex offender having molested two young children, including a four-year-old
  boy.  Mother's stepfather sexually abused mother's sister, who in turn
  sexually abused Chris.  Mother's other brother, Gerald, is a convicted sex
  offender.  Mother's then boyfriend, who is D.M.'s father and who was living
  in the house at the time as well, was also convicted of a sex offense after
  impregnating a fourteen-year-old girl when he was twenty-one years old. 
  Concerned that the children were at risk of further abuse, particularly in
  light of mother's living situation, SRS sought custody of both T.P. and
  D.M.  The juvenile court adjudicated the children in need of care and
  supervision in June and granted custody to SRS.

       ¶  3.  The plan of services developed for mother required numerous
  things, including therapy to help mother understand how the abuse had
  affected T.P. and how to protect both children.  Mother was also required
  to engage with a parent educator and participate in other programs intended
  to improve her parenting skills.  Mother had difficultly controlling T.P.'s
  aggressive and out-of-control behaviors, and she had inadequate supervision
  skills.  The court noted that mother had been convicted of cruelty to
  children sometime in 2000 after leaving two-year-old T.P. alone in the
  house at 2:00 a.m. so she could buy doughnuts and cigarettes.  The plan was
  also designed to help mother gain independence because she had a history of
  intimate involvement with abusive and controlling men who presented a risk
  of harm to herself and to the children.

       ¶  4.  Although mother complied dutifully with the case plan, she
  was unable to consistently and meaningfully employ the parenting lessons
  she was given during the fifteen months the children were in SRS custody. 
  SRS sought termination, which the court granted in a lengthy and detailed
  order.  The court found that mother's progress in addressing the reasons
  for SRS intervention had stagnated.  It found mother lacked the ability to
  live independently and was consistently unable to utilize the parenting
  techniques she was taught.  She blames her own mother for Chris's sexual
  abuse of T.P. because the abuse occurred while she and the children were
  living at her mother's home.  The court found that though mother was
  finally able to acknowledge that her brother had abused her son, 

    [s]he was not, however, able to acknowledge the multi-generational
    sexual abuse so pervasive in her family.  Because of that denial,
    [mother] was not able to begin a process of understanding the
    impact the sexual abuse had on [T.P.]; nor is the court persuaded
    that she has the ability to protect against the very same type of
    abuse occurring again to either [T.P. or D.M.]. 

  The court concluded that the best interests of both children necessitated
  that they be freed for adoption.  This appeal followed.
 
       ¶  5.  The juvenile court has broad discretion when deciding whether
  to grant SRS's petition to terminate a parent's rights in a child.  We will
  affirm the court's decision if the findings are based on the evidence and
  support the court's conclusions.  In re A.F., 160 Vt. 175, 178,