ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015

- 239

OCTOBE R TERM, 20 1 5

In re A.G., Juvenile } APPEALED FROM: } } Superior Court, Chittenden Unit

, } Family Divisio n } } DOCKET NO. 156

- 6

- 14 Cnjv

Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine

In the above

- entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Mother appeals from the termination of her residual parental rights in A.G., born in November 2011. She argues that the court failed to adequately explain how it reached its

conclusion . We affirm.

The trial court made the following findings. Mother has long struggled with substance abuse, including intravenous heroin and cocaine use. Mother has also abused crack cocaine and prescriptio n medications. A.G. is mother’s second child. Mother’s first child died in December

2010 , while in her parents’ custody, at the age of one

- month . Because this death remained under investigation at the time of A.G.’s birth, A.G. was declared to be a chil d in need of care or supervision (CHINS) at birth. T he Department for Children and Families (DCF) assumed custody of A.G. and placed her with mother at the Lund Center. Mother success fully completed

se r vices while at Lund and received substance abuse cou nseling for a time. This first CHINS case was closed in January 2013 based on mother’s overall successful engagement in services.

DCF filed a second CHINS petition in June 2014 based on mother’s relapse and use of intravenous drugs. Mother stipulated that A.G. was CHINS. At the initial disposition i n September 2014, DCF filed a petition to terminate mother’s rights. Following a di sposition hearing, the court granted its request

. It found that while mother had a period of sobriety

between 2010 and 2013 , she relapsed in 2014 and engaged in a significant and sustained period of substance abuse in the months leading up to the CHINS pe tition. During this time, mother began living with Travis Heath, a violent drug

- user with an extensive criminal history

. Mr.

Heath assaulted mother many times. Mother continued to have contact with him despite a no

contact order imposed in connection w ith a domestic assault charge

. The court found that
mother’s dec ision to associate with Mr. Heath and allow him to stay in her home put A.G. at risk of harm given his history of drug abuse, criminal behavior, and violence.

After A.G. came into custody, m other did not make progress in treating her drug

addiction. She continued to use illegal street drugs and her lifestyle became chaoti c. Mother

was arrested for three new crimes while on probation for a 2013 retail theft conviction

. Mother was placed o n probation pursuant to a plea agreement, but struggled to comply with her probation conditions. She continued to abuse drugs; she failed to show up for appointments; she became difficult to reach. A new probation violation complaint was filed in January 2015.Mother was arrested and was held without bail. She remained incarcerated through the

beginning of February 2015. The court found that m other’s significant and longstanding

substance abuse problem likely contributed to mother’s struggles with main taining housing, abiding by probation requirements, and leading a stable and orderly lif e. It found that d espite two stints in residential treatment within the past year, mother remained in very ea rly stages of

recovery and she lacked insight into the mag nitude o f her substance abuse problem.

While A.G. was in DCF custody, mother participated in a minimal am ount of family

- time coaching and her visitation with A.G. was inconsistent . When mother did attend visits, the visits generally went well , and moth er and A.G. showed obviou s signs of love and affection. Mother missed so many visits, however, that the family time coach assigned to the case withdrew in September 2014 . Mother’s attendance remained inconsistent afte r this point.

A.G. was in a stabl e placement with a foster family. Her behavior had improved, and she

was healthy and active. A.G. had successfully integrated into her foster family and her physical, medical, and emotional needs were being met . The foster parents were prepared to adopt A.G. if

the termination petition w as granted.

Based on these and numerous other findings, the court con sidered the statutory best

interest factors , as it was required to do pursuant to 33 V.S.A. § 5114(a) 1

. The court found that

m other and A.G. loved one an other and shared a close bond. A.G. also had a loving relationship with her foster family but this bond was not as strong as A.G.’s bond with her mother. The court concluded that, on balance, this first statutory factor did not support the S tate’s request for termination of parental rights.

As to the second factor, the court concluded that A.G. was well

- adjusted to life with her foster family. She was happy, and she was benefitting from a familiar and predicable routi ne

. T he court found that this factor strongly supported the State’s request.

Turning to the most important factor, the court found overwhelming evidence that mother

would not be able to r esume parental duties within a reasonable time, if at all. It cited , among other thin gs, mother’s inability to refrain from drug use and her failure to make any progress in addressing her substance abuse problems despite two stays in residential treatment. The court found mother’s lack of insight into her treatment needs especially signif icant given that mother

had rec eive d intensive drug couns eling and other servic es in connectio n with the earlier CHINS

case. The court also found that mother failed to engage in services consistently; she did not engage in individual therapy; and her life style had become increasing ly unstable since the case began.

Finally, t he court found the fourth factor

— whether mother had played a constructive role
in A.G.’s welfare

— to be mixed. W hen mother attended visits, she displayed love, affection, and

emotion al support for A.G. and A.G. looked forward to each visit. Yet mother’s att endance was sporadic at best , and the lack of consistent visitation was hard on A.G

. T he court c oncluded that termination of mother’s rights was in A.G. ’s best int erests. Mother appeal ed from this order

.

1 Because termination was sought at initial disposition, the court was not required to consider whether changed circumstances existed sufficient to justify modifying a prior order pursuant to 33 V.S.A. § 5513(b).Mother does not challenge any of the court’s factual findings. Instead, she argues that the

court failed to adequately expla in how it reached its decision. More specifically, she faults the court for failing to explain the interplay between the statutory best

- interest factors and how much weight it assigned to each factor in reaching its ultimate conclusion that termination of her rights
was in A.G.’s best interests

.

As we have often repeated, t he court must consider four statutory factors t o determine if

termination of a parent’s rights is in a child ’s best interests . See 33 V.S.A. § 5114 . The most important factor in the court’s analysis is the likelihood that the natural parent will be able to resume his or her parent al duties within a reasonable period of time. See In re B.M. , 165 Vt. 331, 336 (1996) ( noting , in the context of terminating parental rights, the “critical factor is whether the natural parent will be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable tim e”)

. “ As long as the court applied the proper standard, we will not disturb its findings un less they are clearly erroneous, and we will affirm its conclusions if they are supported by the findings. ” In re

G.S. , 153 Vt. 651, 652 (1990) (mem.).

The cour t applied the appropriate standard here, and we find no error. I t is evident “ what
was decided and how the decision was reached.” E.J.R. v. Young , 162 Vt. 219, 225 (1994)

. As set forth above, t he court recognized that mother and A.G. shared a strong bon d , and that both enjoyed visits when they occurred

. Nonetheless, visitation was inconsistent, to A.G.’s detriment. More significantly, the evidence was overwhelming that mother could not parent A.G. within a

reaso nable period of time, if ever. A dditionally, A .G. wa s thriving in her foster home , which strongly supported termination as well

. Having explained its assessmen t of each of the statutory

best

- interest factors, t he court was not required to assign a mathematical weight to each factor.

Th e court reasonably found , on balance, that the best

- interest factors as a whole favored

termination. No additional explanation was required.

Affirmed

.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________ Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

_______________________________________ Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Harold E. Eaton, Jr. , Associate Justice