Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2014-464

APRIL TERM, 2015

In re B.H. and A.H.B., Juveniles } APPEALED FROM:

}

} Superior Court, Chittenden Unit,

 } Family Division

}

} DOCKET NO. 256/257-8-12 Cnjv

Trial Judge: James R. Crucitti

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

Father appeals termination of his parental rights to his children B.H. and A.H.B., born in 

April 2001 and September 2002, respectively. On appeal, father argues that the court’s findings

that his contact with his children has been inconsistent and that he does not have a fatherdaughter relationship with his daughters are not supported by the record. We affirm.

Until 2004, father assisted with the children’s care, but when he resided with their mother 

he was physically and emotionally abusive. Father has a criminal history, including domestic 

assaults and exploitation of a vulnerable adult. He has mental-health, substance-abuse, and anger 

problems. He moved to North Carolina in 2004. Since his move, he has visited the children

once, when he came to Vermont in 2013. His other contact with the children has been by

telephone or video chat.

In August 2012, a petition was filed alleging the children were in need of care or 

supervision (CHINS). The children were subsequently removed from mother’s care based on a 

risk of sexual abuse from mother’s boyfriend. The children were both initially placed with their 

maternal grandmother, where their sister (who is not part of these proceedings) resides. A.H.B. 

was later moved to a foster home because she behaved aggressively toward her sister. Father 

requested that his home in North Carolina be considered as a placement for the children. A

home study was conducted and concluded that father’s home was too small. In July 2013 the 

court approved a disposition plan that called for concurrent goals of reunification with mother or 

termination of parental rights. The plan noted that father would participate in the home study 

noted above, obtain a substance-abuse assessment, undergo a mental-health evaluation, and work 

with parenting groups. Father did not object to this plan, and the court approved it at a 

September 2013 post-disposition review.

DCF filed a motion to terminate the parental rights of both mother and father in January 

2014. Mother voluntarily relinquished her rights in October 2014. Following a contested 

hearing, the court found that there was a change of circumstances because mother relinquished 

her rights. The court found that termination of father’s rights was in the children’s best interests

based on the following findings. Father lacks stability in his life. Father currently resides with 

his mother, and is unemployed, although he hopes to obtain employment. At the termination 
2

hearing, father acknowledged that he could not care for the children in his present housing 

situation. The children have made progress since coming into custody, but need consistency and 

stability in their lives. Father’s absence from Vermont and his lack of contact has negatively 

impacted his relationship with his children, and his lack of stability in housing and employment 

made it impossible for him to assume parental duties in a reasonable time. Father has not played 

a constructive role in the children’s lives. Further, father has failed to provide information to 

DCF on whether he has addressed his substance-abuse, domestic-violence, or mental-health 

issues, and these issues have negatively impacted the children. Father appeals.

In determining whether to terminate parental rights, the court employs a two-step 

analysis, inquiring first whether there was a substantial change in material circumstances and 

second whether termination is in the children’s best interests. In re M.M., 159 Vt. 517, 521 

(1993). In determining the children’s best interests, the court must consider the four statutory 

factors. 33 V.S.A. § 5114. “As long as the court applied the proper standard, we will not disturb 

its findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and will affirm its conclusions if they are supported 

by the findings.” In re D.S., 2014 VT 38, ¶ 22, ___ Vt. ___ (quotation omitted).

On appeal, father claims that the record does not support the court’s finding that, even 

though father had contact with his daughters by telephone, father’s contact “was not consistent 

enough to establish a father/daughter relationship with them, as evidence by his daughters’ 

regarding [mother’s boyfriend] as their father.” Because the parent-child relationship is integral 

to two of the statutory factors—the “interrelationship of the child with his or her parents” and 

whether the parent has played a constructive role in the child’s welfare, 33 V.S.A. § 5114(a)(1), 

(4)—father claims that the court’s failure to properly assess father’s relationship with his 

daughters prejudiced the outcome.

Father points to the following facts to demonstrate that the court erred in finding that 

father’s contact with the children was inconsistent: mother testified that before the children 

entered DCF custody, father sent them gifts and spoke to them on the telephone or through video 

chat; father had telephone contact when the children were at the maternal grandmother’s home; 

father communicates with B.H. on social media or through text messages; and father has 

telephoned A.H.B. in her foster home. Father also claims that the fact that his daughters called 

mother’s boyfriend “daddy” does not indicate that he does not have a father-daughter 

relationship with his daughters. He claims that there is no evidence to indicate that the girls 

currently view the boyfriend as their father, and points to the fact that the DCF caseworker 

testified that the girls refer to father as “dad.”

We conclude that the court’s findings were adequately supported. It is up to the family 

court to judge the credibility of witnesses and to weigh the evidence. D.S., 2014 VT 38, ¶ 22. In 

addition to the evidence highlighted by father, there was other evidence in the record regarding 

the extent of father’s relationship with his daughters. Mother testified that since 2004 father had 

not supported the children and not had much contact with the children. She stated father 

telephoned, had video chat “every now and then” and had seen them in person once. They had 

never spent a vacation with him. Father testified that he has recently had more regular contact 

through text messages and social media, but acknowledged there were periods of time when his 

contact was “sporadic.” Further, the DCF caseworker testified that M.H. did not view father as 

her “daddy.”

This evidence is sufficient to support the court’s findings that father’s contact with the 

children has been inconsistent, and that he does not have a father-daughter relationship with 
3

them. See In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287, 291-92 (1994) (explaining that findings will stand unless 

clearly erroneous). While father has contacted the daughters by electronic means more 

consistently since they have been in DCF custody, his presence in their lives has not been 

consistent over time. Father has seen the children in person only once since 2004. He has not 

been involved in their daily care, and has done little to ensure their safety or address their needs. 

On the quality of his relationship with them, the court found that he lacks insight into how his 

lack of contact with his daughters has negatively impacted them, and he has not played a 

constructive role in their lives.

In addition, the facts support the court’s conclusion that father will not be able to assume 

parental responsibilities within a reasonable period of time given the children’s need for stability 

and consistency. Father lacks any stability in his housing or employment situation. His past 

substance abuse and domestic violence negatively impacted the children, and he has not provided 

information to DCF that he has addressed these issues. Therefore, the court properly assessed all 

of the statutory factors, and there is no basis to disturb its termination decision.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

_______________________________________

John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

_______________________________________

Beth Robinson, Associate Justice