Title: In re E.B.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-402


 In re E.B., Jr. and J.B.,                    Supreme Court
 Juveniles
                                              On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

                                              November Term, 1991




 Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Michael O. Duane,
   Assistant Attorney General, and Keith Aten, Law Clerk (On the Brief),
   Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellee

 E. M. Allen, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate Attorney,
   for defendant-appellant P.B.

 Michael Rose, St. Albans, for defendant-appellant E.B.

 Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for juveniles



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
           Specially Assigned



      GIBSON, J.   The parents and the guardian ad litem of two boys appeal
 from the juvenile court's order terminating residual parental rights.  We
 affirm.
                                     I.
      In March of 1987, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
 (SRS) filed a petition alleging that the boys, then one-and-one-half and
 two-and-one-half years of age, were children in need of care and supervision
 (CHINS) because of their parents' instability and failure to meet their
 medical and physical needs.  At the merits hearing, the parties signed a
 stipulation stating that the boys were CHINS, that SRS would assume custody
 of the children, and that the boys would be placed with the parents as soon
 as the parents found appropriate housing.  It was further agreed that the
 parents would maintain stable housing and employment, attend parenting
 classes, visit with the children as scheduled, attend alcohol counseling
 sessions, and comply with a medical plan as recommended by the children's
 physician.  Pursuant to the stipulation, the boys were adjudicated CHINS,
 and SRS assumed custody in July of 1987.
      That same month, SRS placed the boys with their parents and referred
 the parents to various social programs to assist them in providing for the
 children's medical needs, developing parenting skills, and coping with
 alcohol abuse.  In January of 1988, SRS removed the boys from the home
 because of the parents' failure to follow up on the children's eye problems
 and early education needs, and because of a number of unexplained bruises
 found on the boys.  SRS informed the parents that reunification would still
 be possible if they participated in the social programs suggested by the
 case plan and visited the children regularly.  Despite encouragement from
 SRS, the father did not enroll in an alcohol treatment program, the mother
 dropped out of the family support program, and neither parent visited the
 boys on a regular basis.
      In June of 1988, the parents moved to Arizona without seeing the
 children first or informing SRS of the move.  A few weeks later, the parents
 asked SRS to send the boys to Arizona or, in the alternative, to allow them
 to work on the case plan through Arizona agencies.  SRS insisted on working
 toward reunification with the parents in Vermont.
      In August of 1988, the parents returned to Vermont for the eighteen-
 month dispositional review hearing, wherein it was decided that SRS would
 retain custody of the children while the parents continued regular
 visitation and participated in certain social services programs.  Between
 August of 1988 and January of 1989, when the parents again left the state
 without informing SRS or seeing the boys, the parents' visits with the
 children were sporadic.  In mid March of 1989, the mother informed SRS that
 she and her husband were in Florida.  In the next nine months, the parents
 moved from Florida to Arizona, and then to Utica, New York.  During that
 time, the mother contacted SRS two or three times to inquire about the
 children.
      In August of 1989, citing the parents' failure to participate regularly
 in the required programs or to contact the children on a regular basis, SRS
 petitioned for termination of residual parental rights.  Hearings were held
 on three days between January and May of 1990.  Noting that, as a direct
 result of the parents' actions or inaction, the relationship between the
 boys and their parents had deteriorated between the time SRS assumed custody
 of the children and the time of the termination hearing, the juvenile court
 concluded that the best interests of the children required the termination
 of residual parental rights.  On appeal, appellants argue (1) that SRS
 violated the parents' constitutional right to travel by not allowing them to
 work with out-of-state agencies on their case plan; (2) that the court's
 decision was improperly based on its findings regarding the positive envi-
 ronment of the preadoptive foster home; and (3) that the court improperly
 terminated residual parental rights without first making a determination
 that both parents are unfit and incapable of caring for their children.
                                     II.
      Appellants first argue that SRS's refusal to work with the parents on
 an out-of-state basis, or to refer their case plan to social service
 agencies in the states where the parents were located, led to the conditions
 that resulted in the termination of parental rights and violated the
 parents' constitutional right to travel freely from state to state.  We
 disagree.
      In the stipulation transferring custody of the boys to SRS, the parents
 made a commitment to obtain and maintain stable housing and employment, to
 visit the children regularly, and to attend various counseling programs.
 The parents failed to meet any of these commitments, and, on at least two
 occasions, they left for another state without contacting SRS and without
 seeing their children.  Under these circumstances, SRS was justified in
 refusing to work toward reunification while the parents were far away from
 the children and without the funds to visit them on a regular basis.  See
 Rowsey v. Rowsey,