Case Title: In re D.B.

Citation: 161 Vt. 217, 635 A.2d 1207

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_DB.92-539; 161 Vt. 217; 635 A.2d 1207

[Filed 10-Dec-1993]

 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. 92-539


 In re D.B., T.B., J.B., and S.B.,            Supreme Court
 Juveniles
                                              On Appeal from
                                              Chittenden Family Court

                                              October Term, 1993

 Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Michael O. Duane,
    Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellee

 Paul D. Jarvis of Jarvis & Kaplan, Burlington, for defendant-appellant
    father

 Norman R. Blais, Burlington, for defendant-appellant mother


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

      MORSE, J.   Biological parents appeal the family court's order
 terminating their residual rights to parent their four daughters.  33 V.S.A.
 {{ 5532, 5540 (TPR proceeding).  At the time of hearing, the girls were aged
 12, 8, 6, and 5.  The parents take issue with the court's essential finding
 that their progress was insufficient to warrant further rehabilitation
 efforts toward reuniting the family.  They also maintain that less drastic
 alternatives to termination of parental rights were not adequately explored
 and that the court improperly denied them a hearing on motions to reopen the
 evidence.  We affirm.
      In February 1990, all four girls were adjudicated children in need of
 care and supervision (CHINS), pursuant to 33 V.S.A. { 5501(12)(A), (B), in
 part because of sexual abuse, including an older brother's sexual contact

 

 with two of the girls and three of the girls viewing pornographic acts in
 their parents' presence and with their encouragement.  Consequently, legal
 custody and guardianship of the daughters were transferred to the Department
 of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS).  In January 1992, after multi-
 ple foster care placements, the girls were placed together with foster
 parents willing to adopt them.  In May 1992, SRS brought termination pro-
 ceedings, which resulted in termination of parental rights with respect to
 all four girls.
      In early 1990, SRS's case plan was designed to reunite the girls with
 their parents by providing for psychological evaluation of the parents,
 parental education in properly disciplining and protecting the children, and
 counseling for all family members.  Then, in August 1990, two of the girls
 alleged their father had sexually abused them, behavior that was later
 confirmed by his admission.  Mother admitted she was involved in the abuse
 by encouraging the girls to touch father's penis on numerous occasions.  In
 October 1990, the parents moved to Florida, despite SRS's attempt to dis-
 suade them because of the adverse impact the move would have on rehabili-
 tation efforts.  The children remained in foster care in Vermont.  Mother
 returned a few months later while father remained in Florida.
      Meanwhile, father had been charged here with lewd and lascivious
 behavior with two of his daughters and sexual assault on a relative.  When
 he eventually returned from Florida in January 1991, he was incarcerated
 until spring when the criminal charges were resolved by plea agreement.  He
 was placed on probation with conditions aimed at controlling his sex
 offending.  Mother admitted using cocaine but refused treatment until
 February 1992, when she entered a drug program.  At the time of the May 1992

 

 hearing, she had experienced alternating periods of abstinence and relapse,
 but had been cocaine-free for the five previous days.  Father began general
 counseling in March 1991 and sex offender treatment in August 1991, but,
 given his parenting deficiency, the family court determined he would need "a
 minimum of one and up to two years" of treatment to develop parenting
 capacity.  Moreover, for father "to realistically reassume or assume his
 parental responsibilities at the end of that time," mother would have to be
 free of drug addiction.  The court concluded that "for (father) to parent
 the children successfully, he must have the assistance of the children's
 mother . . . they must function as a unit or not at all."
      During the time between the transfer of the girls' custody to the
 State and the TPR hearing, progress toward unification of the family was
 hampered by the parents' erratic visits and their inconsistent commitment to
 treatment.  The court found the girls have adapted well to the family wish-
 ing to adopt them and that the children need to settle down with responsible
 parents.  The family court concluded that any further delay would exacerbate
 their emotional instability and would not be in their best interests.
      A court may terminate parental rights at a modification hearing if it
 finds that there has been a substantial change in material circumstances
 since the disposition order and that termination is in child's best
 interests.  In re A.F., ___ Vt. ___, ___,