Title: In re A.W.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re A.W.  (96-481); 167 Vt. 601; 708 A.2d 910

[Filed 21-Jan-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-481

                             OCTOBER TERM, 1997

In re A.W., K.W. & A.T., Juveniles  }   APPEALED FROM:
                                    }
                                    }
                                    }     Caledonia Family Court
                                    }
                                    }
                                    }     DOCKET NO. 79/80/81-9-93CaJv

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

       Mother appeals from a Caledonia Family Court decision terminating
  mother's residual parental rights to her three children and transferring
  custody and guardianship of the children to the Department of Social and
  Rehabilitation Services (SRS) without limitation as to adoption.(FN1)
  Mother contends that the court erred (1) in finding sufficient evidence to
  warrant a determination of stagnation and, therefore, justify an order to
  terminate her parental rights, (2) in relying on the merits findings, which
  were based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, to make findings to
  terminate parental rights (TPR), which are required to satisfy the stricter
  standard of clear and convincing evidence, and (3) in relying on the
  findings of sexual abuse from the disposition order.   We affirm.
  
       Mother has three children, A.W., K.W., and A.T., ages ten, eight, and
  five, respectively.  In September 1993, SRS received information that one
  of the children had been sexually molested and, after a detention hearing,
  the children were placed in SRS custody on an emergency detention order. 
  Prior to the merits hearing in April 1994, the State gave notice that it
  intended to introduce statements made by K.W. and A.W. to others concerning
  the alleged sexual abuse of K.W. and A.W. by A.T.'s father.  At a
  competency hearing, K.W. and A.W. were found to be incompetent to testify. 
  The court accordingly ruled inadmissible any hearsay statements of the
  children referring to the allegation of sexual abuse and excluded any
  reference to sexual abuse from the merits proceeding.  At the merits
  hearing, the children were found by a preponderance of the evidence to be
  children in need of care and supervision (CHINS) because they were (1)
  physically abused within the meaning of 33 V.S.A. § 5502(a)(12)(A) and (2)
  without proper parental care within the meaning of § 5502(a)(12)(B).

       A disposition hearing, presided over by a different judge than the
  judge who conducted the merits hearing, was held on September 1 and
  November 10, 1994.  Prior to the disposition hearing, the children's
  attorney gave notice that she intended to present evidence concerning the
  alleged sexual abuse and requested that the competency of K.W. and A.W. be
  reevaluated. Over mother's objection, the court held a second competency
  hearing and determined that both

 

  K.W. and A.W. were competent and available witnesses.  After determining
  that the criteria of V.R.E. 804a were met, the court allowed hearsay
  statements of the children to be presented as substantive evidence of the
  alleged sexual abuse.  Neither K.W. nor A.W., however, were called as
  witnesses.  After sixteen witnesses testified, the court concluded that
  there was clear and convincing evidence that mother was "unfit and
  demonstrably incapable of providing an appropriate home for the three
  children and that separation is necessary for the children's welfare."  In
  addition, the court concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence
  to find that A.T.'s father had sexually abused K.W. and that mother's
  inability or unwillingness to recognize any danger to her daughters from
  A.T.'s father demonstrated that she could not protect her daughters from
  further sexual abuse.  The court concluded, based on all the evidence, that
  the mother was an unfit parent and incapable of providing a home free of
  the danger of sexual abuse to the children.  Therefore, based on the
  findings of both physical and sexual abuse of the children and mother's
  unfitness, the court ordered the transfer of legal custody and guardianship
  of the children to the SRS.

       Mother appealed the disposition order to this Court contending that
  the court erred by reopening the sexual abuse issue and finding that K.W.
  had been sexually abused.  In an unpublished entry order, we found it
  unnecessary to "decide the issue regarding the evidence of sexual abuse"
  because we concluded that "the evidence of physical abuse and neglect was
  sufficient alone to support removal of the children" and was adequately
  supported by the evidence and findings.  In re A.W., No. 94-256, slip op.
  at 2 (Vt. Mar. 20, 1996).

       Following the placement of the children in SRS custody, SRS developed
  several case plans.  The goal of the first two case plans, dated February
  and August, 1994, was reunification of the children with mother and A.T.'s
  father.  Mother and SRS counsellors worked for a number of months with no
  or minimal improvement in mother's parenting skills.  Furthermore, although
  mother attended an individual counselling intake meeting in April 1994, she
  did not start meaningful individual counselling sessions until September
  1994, about the same time the disposition hearing was commenced.  In
  February 1995, due to mother's lack of progress in improving her parenting
  skills and abiding by the requirements of SRS case plans, SRS changed the
  case plan goals for each of the children to TPR.

       A TPR hearing was conducted on September 23, 1996 and was presided
  over by a third judge.  In its TPR order the court concluded that
  "[e]xhaustive, prolonged and reasonable efforts were made under the terms
  of reasonable case plans, to provide the parents with an opportunity for
  reunification with the children who had been very seriously and chronically
  abused and neglected while within their care" and it was in the best
  interest of the children to terminate all of the residual parental rights
  with the children.  This appeal followed.

       When termination of parental rights is sought at a modification
  proceeding, 33 V.S.A. § 5532 requires the court to conduct a two-step
  analysis.  See In re J.M., 160 Vt. 146, 148,