Title: In re K.F.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re K.F., Juvenile (2003-477); 176 Vt. 636; 852 A.2d 584

2004 VT 40

[Filed 28-Apr-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 40

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-477

                              APRIL TERM, 2004

  In re K.F., Juvenile	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
      	                               }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 484-10-02 CnJv

                                                Trial Judge: David Jenkins

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

       ¶  1.  Father appeals from the family court's order terminating his
  residual parental rights over K.F.  He argues that the court erred by
  failing to recognize that the Department of Social and Rehabilitation
  Services bore substantial responsibility for the circumstances alleged to
  support the termination order.  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  Mother and father, who have never married, are the parents of
  K.F, born in October 2002.  Shortly after K.F.'s birth, father was
  incarcerated on probation violations related to domestic violence toward
  mother.  December 2002, K.F. was adjudicated as a child in need of care and
  supervision.  At that time, mother admitted that she did not possess all of
  the skills necessary to provide appropriate care and supervision to K.F. 
  In December 2002, mother was accepted into the Lund Family Center's
  Residential Program where she was joined by K.F. for a trial reunification. 
   
       ¶  3.  In January 2003, the family court held an initial disposition
  hearing.  SRS indicated that it was seeking to assist mother in developing
  parenting skills so that she could live independently with K.F.  SRS noted,
  however, that mother had demonstrated an inability to incorporate new
  learning into her care of K.F. and she had shown resistance to the parent
  education offered at Lund.  Given this, and K.F.'s age and fragile
  stability, SRS explained that it concurrently planned to seek the
  termination of mother and father's parental rights if significant progress
  was not made within two months.  Father did not object to SRS's case plan. 
  In March 2003, mother was discharged from Lund, and K.F. was placed in
  emergency foster care.  Shortly thereafter, father was released from
  prison, and he contacted SRS seeking visitation with K.F.  The SRS
  caseworker sent a letter to the court, with a copy provided to father,
  explaining why she did not support visitation.  The caseworker stated that
  since his release, father had been living with mother despite a no-contact
  order, father had not engaged in any type of parent education services
  since being incarcerated, and father had seen K.F. on only one occasion. 
  Based on this information, and because SRS was filing a petition for
  termination of parental rights, the caseworker expressed her belief that
  contact between father and K.F. was not in K.F.'s best interests.  In
  response to the letter, the family court indicated that there would be no
  hearing on visitation except on motion. 

       ¶  4.  In April 2003, SRS filed a petition to terminate parental
  rights.  In its petition, SRS stated that over the past six months, mother
  had demonstrated her inability to parent K.F. in a consistently safe and
  appropriate manner and she continued to struggle with self care.  SRS noted
  that father had been in prison from November 2002 through March 2003, and
  he had previously been charged with domestic assault, disorderly conduct,
  and numerous probation violations. 

       ¶  5.  Two months later, at a June 2003 status conference, father's
  attorney asked the family court to impose visitation with K.F. "today." 
  The court responded that, given its earlier order, father needed to file a
  motion to establish visitation.  Father's attorney then made an oral motion
  for visitation, and the court stated that the matter could be set for a
  hearing.  Father's attorney responded that he did not see the necessity for
  a hearing when "we're so close to a termination."  It does not appear that
  the question of visitation was set for a separate hearing.  Father returned
  to jail in June 2003; he remains incarcerated. 

       ¶  6.  In August 2003, mother voluntarily relinquished her residual
  parental rights.  After a hearing, the court terminated father's residual
  parental rights.   The court found that father had not assumed any
  caretaking responsibilities for K.F. nor provided any financial or parental
  support after her birth.  While in jail, he did not participate in any
  programming with the Department of Corrections, nor did he contact SRS to
  inquire about K.F.'s well-being or play any role in her life.  When he was
  released from prison, he failed to keep in consistent contact with K.F.'s
  caseworker.  Shortly after his release, he was charged with numerous
  violations of an abuse prevention order, and with violating probation, and
  he returned to jail.  The court found that father had seen K.F. only twice
  since her birth, and that SRS had been unable to set up any consistent
  contact between father and K.F. due to father's frequent incarceration. 
  The court also noted that father's parental rights had recently been
  terminated over another child, A.C., due in part to his substantial failure
  to comply with the requirements of SRS's case plan.  Based on its findings,
  the court concluded that there was no likelihood that K.F. could be
  reunited with father in the foreseeable future.  The court stated that
  father had demonstrated a pattern of unavailability due to incarceration,
  criminal behavior, and nonparticipation in Corrections programming, and he
  had not played a constructive role in K.F.'s life.   The court recognized
  that K.F. had a need for stability, and that she was thriving with her
  foster parents.  The court thus concluded that termination of father's
  parental rights was in K.F.'s best interests.  Father appealed.      

       ¶  7.  On appeal, father asserts that the family court erred by
  failing to take into account that SRS "in substantial part engineered the
  circumstances alleged to support termination." Father maintains that SRS
  failed to shoulder its responsibility to provide services to him, and it
  denied him visitation with K.F.  Under these circumstances, father argues,
  his lack of contact and his lack of a bond with K.F. cannot be held against
  him. 
        
       ¶  8.  When the termination of parental rights is sought, the trial
  court must conduct a two-step analysis.  In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287, 291,