Title: In re C.L., Juvenile

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re C.L., Juvenile (2004-362); 178 Vt. 558; 878 A.2d 207

2005 VT 34

[Filed 15-Mar-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 34

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-362

                             JANUARY TERM, 2005

  In re C.L., Juvenile	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
        	                       }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 503-10-02 Cnjv

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

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

       ¶  1.  Father appeals from a family court order terminating his
  parental rights to the minor C.L.  He contends the court committed
  reversible error because the evidence failed to show that either: (1) he
  was an unfit parent; or (2) granting him custody would be contrary to the
  child's best interests. We affirm. 

       ¶  2.  C.L. was born on October 31, 2002.  The Department of Social
  and Rehabilitation Services (now known as the Department for Children and
  Families, or DCF) immediately took custody of C.L. and placed her in a
  foster home, where she has remained to this day.  Mother's oldest  child
  resides with her father. The middle child, T.L., was already in DCF custody
  at the time of C.L.'s birth as a result of mother's on-going substance
  abuse, mental health, and parenting problems.  Mother voluntarily
  relinquished her parental rights to T.L. in January 2003.  Her parental
  rights to C.L. were terminated in July 2003.  C.L. was then nine months
  old.

       ¶  3.  The identity of C.L.'s father was initially unknown, although
  one man identified by mother as the putative father had been tested and
  proven not to be the biological father. K.L. (hereafter "father") testified
  that he ran into mother around the time of her termination hearing in July
  2003, and learned for the first time about C.L.'s existence and that he
  might be the father.  Father had known mother for nearly twenty years. 
  They had been involved romantically many years earlier, for a period of six
  months to one year, and renewed their sexual relationship in 2002.  Father
  acknowledged that he had contact with mother on two or three occasions
  after C.L. was conceived, but claimed that she never told him about the
  pregnancy.  After learning about C.L, father contacted DCF, which scheduled
  a paternity test for September 2003.  Father failed to appear for the test
  (he later claimed not to have received notice), and a second test was
  scheduled for October.  The results showed him to be the biological father.  
   
       ¶  4.  At a status conference on November 14, 2003, two weeks after
  the test results, father's attorney informed the court that father had  met
  C.L. and the foster mother, and that there had been some discussion about
  working things out "so that [C.L.] is free for adoption." Accordingly,
  counsel suggested continuing the matter for thirty days "to resolve the
  matter amicably."  At the rescheduled conference in December, however, the
  court learned that father had apparently changed his mind, and now wanted
  custody of C.L.  

       ¶  5.  A one-day termination hearing was held in February 2004. 
  C.L. was then almost sixteen months old.  As noted, father testified that
  he was unaware of C.L. for about nine months. Father acknowledged that he
  had offered no financial or other support to C.L. after learning of the
  child, but asserted that he had "mentioned" to his lawyer that he was
  "willing to pay child support."  Prior to the hearing, father had two
  one-hour visits with C.L. and her foster mother.  From his observations
  during these visits, father concluded that the two had "a mother-daughter
  relationship." He also conceded that C.L.'s foster parents appeared to have
  taken extremely good care of her, that it would take six months to one year
  for C.L. to adjust to a change of custody, and that it was not in C.L.'s
  best interests to separate from the only parents she had ever known. Under
  further examination by his own attorney, father amended his testimony to
  claim that a change of custody would be in C.L.'s best interests.  Father
  testified that he was ready and able to assume parental responsibilities. 
  Although he has a lengthy criminal record-including convictions of unlawful
  mischief, disorderly conduct, retail theft, and simple assault-father
  claimed to have attained a stable lifestyle; he had recently been given
  custody of his two young children by his former girlfriend, and owned a
  taxi service. 

       ¶  6.  The minor's DCF social worker also testified. She stated that
  the child was thriving in her foster home, was deeply attached to her
  foster parents and their two older children, whom she viewed as her
  siblings, and would be emotionally traumatized by a change of custody.  The
  social worker had observed that the foster parents provided a loving home,
  attended diligently to C.L.'s special medical needs, which included an
  allergy to all dairy products, and hoped to adopt the child.  

       ¶  7.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court indicated
  that it wished to hear from an expert concerning the potential impact of a
  move on a child of C.L.'s age, and the parties agreed to have a
  court-appointed expert provide such an opinion. A pediatrician specializing
  in child development submitted a written statement to the court in March
  2004.  The expert stated that a child of C.L.'s age would have formed a
  strong attachment to her parents, and opined that a change of custody from
  the only parents a child has known since birth would put the child at
  longterm emotional risk and could lead to depression, developmental delay,
  and disruptive behavior.  
 
       ¶  8.  The court issued a written decision in July 2004.  The court
  found that father had  overcome his past difficulties, was ably parenting
  two children from another relationship, and had the skills and desire to
  parent C.L.  Nevertheless, the court noted that C.L. was nearly two years
  old and had virtually no relationship with father or his family; that C.L.
  was deeply attached to the only parents and siblings she had ever known;
  and that any change of custody would cause long lasting emotional damage to
  C.L. resulting from the loss of her family.  Applying the statutory factors
  set forth in 33 V.S.A. § 5540, the court found that C.L. was bonded with
  her foster family, with whom she had a close, loving relationship; that she
  was fully adjusted to her home, school, and community; that father had
  played no role in her life; and that father could not resume parental
  responsibilities within a reasonable period of time, as any attempted
  transition would be emotionally devastating to C.L, and the time required
  for any such change would be unreasonably lengthy measured in terms of the
  child's needs.  Accordingly, the court concluded that termination of
  father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child, and
  granted the State's petition.  This appeal followed.
   
       ¶  9.  Father contends that termination was improper absent an
  express finding of parental unfitness.  The claim raises broader questions
  concerning the interests of otherwise fit biological fathers who, through
  ignorance of a child's existence, have established virtually no personal,
  custodial, emotional, or financial relationship with the child during its
  early development.  The rights of unwed biological fathers have a
  constitutional as well as a statutory dimension. We have addressed both
  dimensions in only one modern case, In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294,