Title: In re J.S. & S.S.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re J.S. & S.S.  (97-201); 168 Vt. 572; 719 A.2d 865

[Filed 17-Jun-1998]

                             ENTRY ORDER

                    SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-201

                             MAY TERM, 1998

In re J.S. & S.S., Juveniles        }     APPEALED FROM:
                                    }
                                    }
                                    }     Franklin Family Court
                                    }
                                    }
                                    }     DOCKET NOS. 39/40-2-95Frjv

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

       Father and Mother appeal the family court's order terminating their
  parental rights with respect to their son, J.S.  We affirm.

       Father and mother were married in February 1989.  Their marriage was
  fraught with domestic violence from the beginning.  Father was convicted of
  domestic assault on three occasions in 1994 and 1995.  In 1995, he was also
  convicted of violating a relief-from-abuse order and violating pre-trial
  conditions of relief.

       Father and mother's daughter, S.S., was born in October 1989, and
  their son, J.S., was born in September 1992.  By the fall of 1994, the
  Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) began receiving
  reports of suspected child abuse and neglect involving S.S. and J.S.  The
  Department referred the family to the New Horizons Program, an intensive
  home-based parent education program.  Shortly thereafter, a New Horizons
  caseworker observed bruises around S.S.'s eyes, which led to the filing of
  a CHINS petition.  Both children were taken into SRS custody in February
  1995.  Following a merits hearing, and based on the admissions of the
  parties, in April 1995 the family court found that both children had been
  neglected and abused and were in need of care and supervision (CHINS).  In
  May 1995, SRS filed a disposition report outlining a plan of services aimed
  at reunification.  After mother withdrew her admissions at the disposition
  hearing, a second merits hearing was held in September 1995, and the court
  found the children to be CHINS based on mother's admissions to neglect and
  her no-contest plea to abuse.  In November 1995, at a second disposition
  hearing, the court transferred custody to SRS and approved the updated case
  plan, which set forth the same goal and plan of services as contained in
  the original case plan.

       SRS changed the case plan goal from reunification to termination in
  February 1996 at the twelve-month administrative review.  The change was
  made based upon the parents' minimal participation and progress with
  respect to the required services, and the children's need for stability and
  permanence.  The Department filed for termination of parental rights in
  July 1996, and hearings were held in March and April 1997.

       Following the hearings, the family court adopted the State's detailed
  findings regarding (1) the abuse the children had suffered; (2) the
  parents' minimal progress in achieving the goals set forth in the plan of
  services; (3) the problems with visitation; and (4) the children's fragile
  condition and special needs.  The court found that the two young children
  had been in foster care for over two years, and yet the parents had still
  not made significant progress toward achieving

 

  the level of stability and parenting skills needed to provide for the
  children's special needs.  The court further found that the parents had not
  taken responsibility for the prior abuse, were still in denial regarding
  much of the abuse, and did not have a stable living situation suitable for
  the children.  Based on these and other findings, the court concluded that
  there was a substantial change in circumstances, and that the children's
  best interests required termination of parental rights.

       On appeal, father argues that (1) the State failed to prove by clear
  and convincing evidence that a substantial change in circumstances had
  occurred and that termination of his parental rights was in the best
  interests of J.S.; and (2) the trial court failed to exercise its
  discretion by adopting the State's proposed findings and conclusions before
  he had filed his own proposed findings and conclusions.  Mother joins in
  these arguments and also argues that (1) the court's finding of stagnation
  is unsupported in light of SRS's failure to make reasonable efforts to
  provide parent-education services; and (2) the termination order is an
  abuse of discretion because the effect of termination on J.S.'s best
  interests is speculative at best.

       Regarding the finding of changed circumstances, we conclude that the
  record supports the court's determination that the parents' minimal
  progress in achieving the goals set forth in the plan of services
  constituted stagnation.  The parents' situation need not regress for
  stagnation to occur.  Changed circumstances occur when any improvement in
  parenting skills fails to conform to the expectations and goals set forth
  in the case plan.  See In re D.B., 161 Vt. 217, 220,