Case Title: In re B.S.

Citation: 166 Vt. 345, 693 A.2d 716

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re B.S.  (96-137); 166 Vt. 345; 693 A.2d 716

[Filed 28-Mar-1997]

       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. 96-137

In re B.S., Juvenile                              Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
                                                  Chittenden Family Court

                                                  November Term, 1996

James R. Crucitti, J.

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate
  Attorney, Montpelier, for appellant mother

       Charles S. Martin of Martin & Associates, Barre, for appellant
  juvenile

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Michael O.
  Duane, Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for appellee SRS

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.  The mother in this case appeals the termination of her
  parental rights with respect to her son, B.S., arguing that the family
  court (1) improperly allowed the Department of Social and Rehabilitation
  Services (SRS) to recommend the termination of her parental rights in
  violation of an agreement not to make such a recommendation, and (2) failed
  to resolve her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  before terminating her parental rights. We affirm.

       The mother is a moderately retarded woman with a verbal I.Q. of 75 and
  a performance I.Q. of 87.  She gave birth to her third child, B.S., on
  December 30, 1993.  On the same day, SRS intervened because the mother and
  the father had been found responsible for physical abuse of their two other
  children and those children had been removed from their home.  SRS
  initiated a petition alleging B.S. to be a child in need of care or
  supervision (CHINS) and successfully sought temporary custody of him.

 

       On January 13, 1994, SRS and the parents entered into a written
  agreement which kept B.S. in SRS custody, but placed him at the Lund Family
  Center to reside there with the mother. Both parents agreed to accept the
  extensive and intensive services of the Lund Family Center. On January 31,
  however, the mother left the Center to be with the father, leaving B.S. at
  the Center with no arrangements for his care.  SRS returned the child to
  foster care.

       At a merits hearing on March 29, 1994, the parties entered into an
  oral agreement (FN1) that: (1) the parents would not contest a merits
  adjudication of CHINS, (2) custody of B.S. would remain with SRS, (3)
  certain parts of the affidavit of the SRS worker in support of the CHINS
  petition would be stricken, (4) the family would be enrolled in intensive
  family-based services at the Baird Center, (5) the disposition hearing
  would be held in sixty days,(FN2) and (6) SRS would not recommend termination
  of parental rights at the first disposition hearing.  The court found CHINS
  "based upon the agreement of the parties and their admissions," and ordered
  a disposition hearing to be set in sixty days.

       Thereafter, the mother enrolled in the Intensive Family-Based Service
  Program at the Baird Center to learn parenting skills.  The parents were
  granted, under the supervision of the Baird Program, twenty hours of
  visitation each week.  Despite assistance from a social worker at the Baird
  Center, the mother made minimal progress in learning parenting skills.

       The initial disposition hearing was held on August 31, 1994,
  substantially beyond the sixty-day time period agreed to in March, due
  primarily to delays in obtaining SRS's disposition report and a report from
  the Baird Center.  SRS submitted the disposition report to the court on
  August 29 and, in compliance with the parties' agreement, did not recommend
  termination of

 

  parental rights.  Instead, SRS recommended that B.S. remain in the foster
  home where he had been living for several months.  The mother requested
  placement with B.S.'s paternal great aunt, who resided in New Hampshire. 
  SRS objected to this placement.

       In response to the mother's request, the court ordered a continuance
  of the disposition hearing to allow for a study by the New Hampshire
  Department of Children and Youth Services of the great aunt's home.  The
  SRS social worker requested, and was granted, permission to file a
  supplemental disposition report.

       By December 1994, it became apparent that the home study by the New
  Hampshire department would not be ready for several months.  At a status
  conference on December 6, the SRS caseworker indicated that he would be
  seeking termination of the mother's parental rights. As a result, the
  mother sought an immediate interim placement for the child with the
  mother's sister.  On January 15, 1995, SRS filed a supplemental disposition
  report, in which it recommended termination of parental rights. Combined
  hearings on disposition, the petition to terminate parental rights, and the
  mother's motion to transfer custody to the mother's sister were held on
  February 1, April 10, April 13, October 12 and October 13, 1995.  In a
  written order issued March 6, 1996, the court denied the mother's motion to
  transfer custody.  Finding that the mother's ability to care for her child
  had stagnated between August 1994 and October 1995, and that termination of
  parental rights would be in the best interests of the child, the court
  granted the State's petition to terminate parental rights and transferred
  all remaining residual rights to SRS.

       The mother's first claim of error is that the court improperly allowed
  SRS to recommend termination of her parental rights (TPR) in its
  supplemental disposition report of January 1995 in violation of the oral
  agreement under which she admitted B.S. was CHINS.  She seeks specific
  performance of the SRS's agreement not to recommend TPR, or in the
  alternative, an order vacating the CHINS adjudication.  SRS responds that
  it fulfilled the terms of the stipulation because it did not recommend
  termination at the first disposition hearing held in

 

  August 1994.  The court concluded that changed circumstances relieved SRS
  of its obligation not to recommend termination of parental rights.

       We need not decide whether SRS violated the agreement between the
  parties because we agree with the family court that the agreement was
  subject to modification and could be modified in this case.  We have
  consistently held that agreements involving the interests of children are
  subject to the overriding supervision of the family court to protect the
  children's interests.  See Barbour v. Barbour, 146 Vt. 506, 509,