Title: In re B.H.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re B.H., Juvenile (2002-253); 174 Vt. 554; 811 A.2d 213

[Filed 23-Oct-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-253

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


  In re B.H., Juvenile	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. F13-1-00 CnJv

                                                Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       The State, the juvenile, B.H., and his custodial guardian appeal the
  family court's order dismissing the State's petition to terminate father's
  parental rights with respect to B.H.  We reverse and remand.

       The relevant facts of the case are not in dispute.  Father and B.H.'s
  mother, who voluntarily relinquished her parental rights and is not a party
  to this appeal, met in 1995 and married in the summer of 1996.  B.H. was
  born on September 12, 1996.  Each parent had significant problems.  Father
  had a chronic drinking problem that resulted in (1) multiple convictions of
  driving while intoxicated and with a suspended license, (2) a domestic
  assault charge, and (3) several periods in jail for parole and probation
  violations.  The parents depended heavily on the maternal grandmother for
  support.  They moved into grandmother's home in April 1996 and stayed there
  off and on over the next couple of years.  In the fall of 1998, while
  father was incarcerated for a parole violation, grandmother filed a
  petition to be B.H.'s legal guardian.  The probate court denied the
  petition, based partly on the fact that father had been released from jail
  and was working at the time.  B.H. continued to live at grandmother's
  house, however.  In December 1998, father filed for divorce.  Initially,
  the parties agreed to share parental rights and responsibilities, but when
  B.H. acted out after visits with his father, the family court restricted
  father to weekly supervised contact with the child.  In the September 1999
  final divorce order, the family court awarded mother parental rights and
  responsibilities, and incorporated the prior contact order into the final
  order, noting that father could move for modification if circumstances
  changed.
          
       On January 14, 2000, grandmother contacted the police when the parents
  arrived at her home to take B.H.  She was concerned about B.H.'s safety,
  primarily because his mother, who was the custodial parent, had recently
  attempted suicide.  That same day, the state's attorney filed a petition
  alleging that B.H. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS).  The
  petition focused on mother's inability to care for B.H., but also indicated
  that father had not seen B.H. in months and 

 

  was permitted to have only supervised contact with the child.  Following a
  hearing on January 17, 2000, the family court granted grandmother temporary
  custody of B.H.  On April 4, 2000, the court made a CHINS finding, ordered
  that B.H. remain with grandmother, required the Department of Social and
  Rehabilitation Services (SRS) to file a disposition report, and scheduled a
  disposition hearing.  Following the July 31, 2000 disposition hearing, the
  court adopted SRS's disposition report, noting that, except for father's
  request for more visitation, the parties agreed with the report.  The
  report called for custody to remain with grandmother, but with a goal of
  reunification with both parents so long as they successfully participated
  in the recommended services within the next six months.  Under the plan of
  services, father was to, among other things (1) participate in specified
  parent-support programs; (2) adhere to his conditions of probation,
  including that he obtain individual counseling, take domestic abuse
  classes, and remain sober; and (3) follow through on all recommendations
  resulting from an evaluation he was required to complete.

       On March 30, 2001, SRS filed a petition to terminate the parents'
  residual parental rights.  At the termination hearing, SRS presented
  evidence that father had failed to engage in any of the recommended
  services, had failed to remain in consistent contact with B.H., and would
  be unable to resume parental duties within a reasonable period of time.  In
  its May 21, 2002 order, the family court dismissed the termination petition
  without considering its merits, concluding that it could not entertain the
  petition because the underlying disposition order was invalid.  The court
  noted that (1) during the disposition hearing, neither father nor his
  attorney ever indicated agreement with the factual allegations in the
  disposition report or its recommendation of custody to grandmother; (2)
  even if all of the allegations in the report were assumed to be true, they
  would not demonstrate that father was unfit; and (3) the judge who entered
  the disposition order failed to make any finding that father was an unfit
  parent.  The court stated that because the State never proved that father
  was an unfit parent, there was a legally insufficient basis for the
  disposition order, and thus father had no obligation to undertake the
  services recommended in the disposition report.

       The State, B.H., and grandmother appeal.  The State argues that (1)
  the family court had no authority to set aside the disposition order, which
  was not appealed by father; (2) even if the court had such authority,
  father effectively stipulated to his parental unfitness by agreeing at the
  disposition hearing that custody and guardianship of his son could be
  transferred to grandmother, and the evidence in the disposition report
  demonstrated that father was not fit to assume parental duties at that
  time; and (3) even if the disposition order was invalid, the court abused
  its discretion by refusing to treat SRS's petition as a request for
  termination at an initial disposition proceeding.  In a separate brief,
  B.H. argues that several of the court's findings and conclusions were
  unsupported by the evidence.

       In response, father contends that the family court considered SRS's
  termination petition on its merits and rejected it.  We disagree.  Although
  the court indicated briefly in its decision that the State had failed to
  present convincing proof of father's unfitness either at the CHINS
  proceeding or the termination hearing, it explicitly stated that it would
  not entertain the petition because the underlying disposition order was
  invalid.
   
       The court's reasoning is flawed and requires reversal.  Instead of
  focusing on whether the disposition order was valid or invalid, the court
  should have accepted the unappealed order for what 

 

  it was and considered SRS's petition to terminate father's parental rights
  in light of that order.  Notwithstanding the family court's finding to the
  contrary, the record shows that father agreed at disposition to the
  temporary transfer of custody of B.H. to grandmother pending a transition
  period during which he and his son could be gradually reunited.  Father
  also agreed to engage in the services recommended in the disposition
  report.  At the end of the hearing, the court stressed the necessity of the
  parents engaging in the recommended services to assure reunification with
  their child.  Under these circumstances, the disposition court was not
  obligated to make findings to support its order.  Cf. In re A.O., 161 Vt.
  302, 308,