Title: In re D.C.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re D.C.  (97-210); 168 Vt. 1; 712 A.2d 902

[Filed 1-May-1998]

       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. 97-210

In re D.C., C.L., and C.L, Juveniles         Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Chittenden Family Court

                                             March Term, 1998

Linda Levitt, J.

Michael Rose, St. Albans, for Appellant-Mother.

       Charles S. Martin of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Appellant-Father.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Barbara Crippen, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for Appellee.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson, and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.  Mother and father both appeal an order of the family court
  granting the petition of the Commissioner of Social and Rehabilitative
  Services (SRS) to terminate residual parental rights.  See 33 V.S.A. §§
  5532, 5540.  Mother claims that the court erred in finding a substantial
  change of material circumstances.  Father claims that the court erred in
  concluding that termination of his residual parental rights was in the best
  interests of the children.  We affirm.

       This case involves three children: D.C., Ca.L., and Ch.L., ages
  twelve, ten, and nine respectively.  D.C. is the biological child of
  mother.  The biological father of D.C. has relinquished his parental rights
  and is not part of this appeal.  Ca.L. and Ch.L. are the biological
  children of mother and father.

       SRS initially became involved with the family in 1991, when mother
  herself reported that she had hit Ch.L, who was then two years old, with a
  spoon.  The report was investigated and

 

  substantiated as Ch.L had a bruise and a welt.  SRS next became involved in
  February 1993, when then seven-year-old D.C. was sexually abused by
  father's own father.  Prior to 1994, mother and father received in-home
  services from the Vermont Nurses Association, the Intensive Family Based
  Services program, and the Lund Family Center.

       On September 12, 1994, the State filed petitions with the Chittenden
  Family Court seeking to have the three juveniles adjudicated children in
  need of care and supervision (CHINS).  The petitions were accompanied by
  two affidavits, one by a police officer, the other by an SRS caseworker,
  describing incidents that had occurred on September 9, 1994, which had
  resulted in SRS assuming temporary custody of the three children.  In his
  affidavit, the police officer described two incidents in which the children
  had been outside playing in a road without supervision, noted that mother's
  apartment appeared to be unclean and unkept and that one child had a dirty
  face and clothing, and stated that mother was too stressed (to the point of
  having attempted suicide) to care for her children.  The officer's
  affidavit also stated that father was interested in caring for the children
  but lacked a residence.  The caseworker's affidavit recommended removal of
  the children from mother's home based on mother's stated inability to care
  for them and father's lack of residence.

       At the merits hearing held on October 10, 1994, mother, father, and
  the State agreed to a CHINS adjudication.  A disposition hearing was held
  on December 6, 1994, and an order of disposition was issued on January 25,
  1995.  The family court adopted the disposition report filed by SRS on
  January 12, 1995, somewhat modified by agreement of the parties, and
  ordered custody and guardianship of the juveniles to be transferred to SRS,
  with the residual parental rights remaining with the parents.  The report
  contained a plan of services to assist the family in reuniting in a timely
  manner.  The three facts that the court found supported SRS custody were:

 

       1.  That on 9/9/94 [mother] was emotionally unable to adequately
       care for her 3 children and she refused to continue doing so.

       . . . .

       [2]. That neither [mother] or [father] have adequate housing to
       provide a minimal level of care for the 3 children.

       [3]. That [father] has a history of explosive anger and that he
       attempted to assault [mother] and her present partner [M.H.] in 
       August of 1994.
  
       A dispositional review was held on February 26, 1996.  At that
  hearing, SRS changed its goal from reunification of the family to
  termination of the parents' residual parental rights so that the children
  could be freed for adoption.  SRS claimed that the reasons that originally
  brought the juveniles into custody had not been resolved.  The parents
  moved for a forensic evaluation and, over SRS's objection, their motion was
  granted.  The evaluation was conducted in March and April 1997 by Dr.
  William Nash, who recommended termination of parental rights.

       An evidentiary hearing commenced on April 8, 1997, and concluded on
  April 21, 1997. The court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law,
  and order on May 19, 1997.  The court made eighty-seven findings, concluded
  that a change in circumstances had occurred in that the parents had not
  improved their parenting abilities and would not within a reasonable period
  of time, and ordered the termination of parents' residual parental rights. 
  This appeal followed.

                                     I.

       In a proceeding to terminate parental rights "[t]he State must prove
  by clear and convincing evidence that there has been a material change in
  circumstances and that the best interest[s] of the child[ren] requires
  termination of parental rights and responsibilities."  In re J.R., 164 Vt.
  267, 270,