Title: In re B.M.,M.R.,T.R. & M.R.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re B.M.  (93-585); 165 Vt 194; 679 A.2d 891

[Opinion Filed 03-May-1996]

       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. 93-585


In re B.M., M.R., T.R., & M.R.            Supreme Court

                                          On Appeal from
                                          Chittenden Family Court

                                          February Term, 1995


Alden T. Bryan , J.

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney,
  Montpelier, for appellant father

       Anne Locke, Burlington, for appellant grandmother

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Michael O.
  Duane, Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       DOOLEY, J.   The father of T.R., Mi.R. and Me.R. appeals an order of
  the Chittenden Family Court terminating his parental rights.  The
  children's maternal grandmother also appeals the order, which denied her
  legal custody and guardianship of T.R., Mi.R. and their brother B.M.,(FN1)
  but granted her petition as to Me.R.(FN2)  We affirm.

       We recount the facts found by the juvenile court insofar as they are
  pertinent to this

 

  appeal.(FN3)  Mother and father had been married approximately five years at
  the time of the termination of parental rights (TPR) hearings in February,
  May and June of 1993.  Over those five years, the parents separated and
  reconciled many times, and their relationship was marked by numerous
  incidents of domestic violence.  Most often, the father has abused the
  mother, but the mother has also physically abused the father.  Both parents
  have criminal histories for assault and retail theft, and both were
  incarcerated for some of the time this case was pending in the family
  court.

       In December 1991, the Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation
  Services filed a petition alleging that four-year old B.M., two-year old
  T.R. and eleven-month old Mi.R. were children in need of care and
  supervision (CHINS).  The petition recounted the parents' history of
  criminal behavior, including the incidents of domestic violence.  It
  alleged that the mother had a history of drug abuse, failed to properly
  supervise the children and abused B.M. by confining him to his room, and
  stated that her failure to properly supervise the children resulted in
  physical abuse of T.R. by B.M. and B.M.'s dangerous fire-starting behavior. 
  SRS also alleged abuse of B.M. by the father, specifically that he had
  burned B.M.'s finger to teach him not to play with fire.  Despite the chaos
  and difficulty the parents were having with the three children, they
  refused the services SRS offered, such as a visiting nurse, day care and
  Health Department services for the children.  All three children were
  removed from the home and placed in shelter care pending the hearing on the
  merits of the petition.

       Although the merits hearing had not been held by the following month,
  SRS drafted a case plan for the family.  The plan called for family
  reunification and required the parents to undergo individual and joint
  counseling to address the father's battering and to break the cycle of
  domestic violence.  It also required that the parents (1) make their home
  safe from hazards

 

  to the children, (2) supervise the children appropriately during visits,
  and (3) work with the home-based family services program offered by the
  Baird Center for Families and Children.

       In late January 1992, SRS increased the parents' contact with the
  children from once to twice a week.  In March, the mother gave birth to
  Me.R.  Me.R. remained at home with her parents, and over the next few
  months, SRS scheduled overnight and weekend visits with B.M., T.R. and
  Mi.R.  These visits were intended to facilitate family reunification, which
  SRS and the parties expected to take place in early May.

       On May 1, 1992, the father assaulted the mother, and shortly
  thereafter, the parents separated.  The father was arrested for the
  assault, but the charge was later dropped because the mother insisted that
  an accident, not her husband, had caused her injuries.  Because of this
  incident, the family did not reunite as planned in May.

       In mid May, Me.R. contracted salmonella poisoning and underwent
  surgery for an abscess in her pancreas caused by the poisoning.  She was
  diagnosed as a "failure to thrive" infant who was underweight and lacked
  age-appropriate muscle development and coordination. While recovering from
  her illness in the hospital, Me.R. was present during another altercation
  between her parents.  This time, the mother attacked the father and was
  consequently arrested. The mother's assault led SRS to file a CHINS
  petition on Me.R's behalf on June 1, 1992.  She was released from the
  hospital on June 8 and placed in the care of her maternal grandmother, in
  whose care Me.R. remains.

       Although no merits hearing had been held by June 1992, SRS convened an
  administrative review of the family's case plan on June 4.  At the time of
  this review, the parents were still separated, and the father was living
  with his sister in Burlington.  He was not in counseling because he had
  been suspended from a group for batterers due to the assault on his wife in
  May. Although the father did not attend the review, claiming that he did
  not receive notice, he met with the SRS caseworker soon afterward to
  discuss the plan.  Reunification by September was the plan's new goal, and
  again, it called for individual counseling for the parents, temporary

 

  supervised visitation with the children and a home free of hazards for the
  children's return.  In addition, SRS made arrangements for the family to
  begin working with the Baird Center in August.  The father agreed with the
  SRS caseworker that he would secure employment for himself and housing for
  the children.

       In August, SRS convened another case plan review to assess the
  parents' progress. Neither parent attended the review, although the record
  shows that the father's attorney was present.  It appeared that by this
  time the parents had reconciled and were again living together. The
  family's SRS caseworker discussed the plan and its goals with both parents
  in early September 1992.  The caseworker explained that SRS would change
  the case plan goal to termination of parental rights if the parents did not
  make progress with the plan.  On September 18, 1992, both parents, who were
  on probation at the time, were arrested for retail theft.

       The merits hearing occurred on October 29, 1992.  The parties admitted
  to the allegations contained in the CHINS petitions with some amendments. 
  Based on the admissions, the court concluded that B.M., T.R., Mi.R., and
  Me.R. were CHINS because all were without proper parental care necessary
  for their well-being.  See 33 V.S.A. § 5502(a)(12)(B).

       The next month, SRS filed with the court a disposition report
  recommending termination of parental rights to all children.  At the time
  SRS filed the report, the father still was not engaged in counseling for
  his battering behavior.  The disposition report noted his failure to attend
  counseling consistently since the State removed the children from his care
  in December 1991.

       The mother gave birth to another child, J.R., who has the same father
  as B.M.  J.R. is not part of this termination proceeding, but is in SRS
  custody.  Since he left the hospital, he has been placed with the
  grandmother.

       Disposition hearings for B.M., T.R., Mi.R. and Me.R. commenced in
  February 1993 and continued through May and June.  In May, both parents
  were incarcerated once again.  The father had pled no contest to retail
  theft in connection with the September 1992 arrest, simple

 

  assault on his wife in April 1993 and violation of the probation
  requirement that he participate in battering counseling.  While
  incarcerated, the father participated in a violent-offender program.

       In October 1993, the court issued its initial disposition order
  terminating the residual parental rights of both the mother and the father. 
  It found that the father was unfit, stating that this finding was based on
  clear and convincing evidence.  In support, the court found that the father
  had done "nothing to change his violent nature" and would be unable to
  parent the children in a home "free of violence and upheaval."   It
  concluded that the father would be unable to resume his parental duties
  within a reasonable time, noting that the father admitted he could not care
  for the children presently, had not completed treatment for his assaultive
  behavior and lacked basic parenting skills.  The court pointed out that the
  father's situation had deteriorated during the pendency of the disposition
  proceeding as reflected by his repeated criminal conduct.

       The court awarded custody of Me.R. to the maternal grandmother and
  custody of the other three children to SRS.  The father has appealed the
  termination of his parental rights.  The grandmother has appealed the
  failure of the court to award her custody of the other three children. 
  Following the briefing and argument in this case, we were informed that the
  mother of the children has died.  Although the mother's death, if it had
  occurred earlier, might have affected the trial court's decision,
  particularly with respect to the grandmother's claims, it has no direct
  effect on the issues before us.  We must evaluate the findings based on the
  record before the family court and then evaluate the conclusions based on
  the supported findings.

                             I. Father's Claims

       Father first argues that the court should not have terminated his
  parental rights because this case does not involve egregious physical abuse
  that justifies termination at initial disposition. Although we agree that
  termination at initial disposition should be rare because it bars "all hope
  of family reunion," In re D.R., 136 Vt. 478, 480,