Note: Decisions of a three

- justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015

- 344

JANUARY TERM, 20 1 6

In re L.C., Juvenile } APPEALED FROM: } } Superior Court, Chittenden Unit

, } Family Divisio n } } DOCKET NO. 76

- 3

- 13 Cnjv

Trial Judge: Thomas J. Devine

In the above

- entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Father appeals from the termination of his parental rights in daughter L.C. * He argues that the evidence does not support the court’s conclusions that he stagnated in his ability to parent and that termination of his rights was in L.C.’s best interests. We affirm.

L.C. was born in December 2005. In March 2013, she was taken into em ergency custody of t he Department for Children and Families (DCF). Parents later stipulated that L.C. was a child in need of care or supervision

. After about three months in foster care, L.C. was placed in her maternal grandmother’s care, where she remai ns. In September 2014, DCF moved to terminate father’s rights. F ollowing a hearing , the court granted its request.

The court found as follows. Parents were involved in a long

- term on

- and

- off

- again relationship. Mother was L.C.’s primary care provider , and father has never been L.C.’s custodial parent for any extended period of time. Parents engaged in explosively loud and angry confrontations throughout L.C.’s childhood. Mother was physically aggressive

, and the police were summoned on numerous occa sions. The ongoing exposure to c onflict was traumatic for L.C. Mother also appears to have mental health issues, and there were periods of time in which mother would become hyper

- sexualized. It was unclear if L.C. was exposed to sexual activity in the h ome , but L.C. has since manifested sexualized behaviors and exhibited a high degree of interest and anxiety about sexual topics.

During the parties’ relationship, mother abruptly left with L.C. several times, once moving from Maine to New Hampshire

, and then to San Francisco. Father did not know where mother and L.C. had gone unt il mother called and said they were staying at a shelter. F ather then joined them in San Francisco, but mother later left again, taking L.C. in the family van to Oregon

, wh ere they again stayed in a shelter. Eventually, the parties returned to Maine . In 2010, mother moved to Vermont with L.C. Father was absent from L.C.’s life for about two years thereafter. During this time, mother and L.C. came to DCF’s attention on a number of occasions

. In December 2012, father relocated to Vermont, and parents again became embroiled in conflict

.

* Mother voluntarily relinquished her rights.2

L.C. began struggling a cademically and behaviorally . P arents resisted having L.C. evaluated for special educational services, and she was subsequently placed in DCF custody.

DCF initially sought reunification with mother or father

, but later changed its plan to include a concurrent goal of adoption by grandmother. The case plan recommended , amo ng other things, that father continue in individual counseling and have regular parent/child contact with L.C. under a family time coaching model. Although father consistently attended visits during L.C.’s first year in custody , L.C.’s interactions with f ather were largely on a surface level

, a nd L.C. did not “push limits.” Father was resistant and argumentative with the family time coach , and exhibited challenging behavior at shared parent meetings as well. While the family time coach found father easie r to work with after the first year, L.C. had also begun to “push limits,” and her behaviors had intensified. Father consistently s truggled to read L.C.’s cues, and L .C. in turn became frustrated. Father also had a t endency to speak to L.C. in a long

- win ded and pedantic way. Despite the family time coach’s assistance, father did n ot make progress in this

area. L.C. has consi stently s tated t o others t hat she does not want to visit with father

, and she has told father that she does not want to live with h im.

The court found that father had been secretive and guarded in his interactions with DCF. While father insisted to DCF that his relationship with mother was over, for example, he was allowing mother to stay in his home overnight. Father also did not provide DCF with a release form to allow it to confirm his participation in therapy until mid

- February 2014. The court found that father’s lack of candor with the social workers had impeded case planning and delayed

measures which wer e b eing designed to i mplement re un i fication.

While in custody, L.C. continued to exhibit challenging behaviors at school and in her foster placement , including verbal and physical aggressiveness as well as sexualized behaviors

. Her behavior worsened as she began having expanded visits with p arents

. A trauma assessment concluded that L.C. was likely exposed to trauma from a variety of sources, inc l u d ing extreme parental conflict, multiple moves, possible parental mental ill ness , and exposure to police intervent ion at her home. The report re commended that L.C. have a treatment team to oversee a host of therapeutic interventions. Dr. Sharon Lamb conducted a family forensic evaluation , and the court gave her assessment great weight. Dr. Lamb determined that L.C.’s attachm ent to her parents was “disorganized” and had been negatively impacted by her unstable upbringing. She saw signs that L.C. had significant attachmen t to her grandmother, and that grandmother was a source of comfort and stability to L.C. L.C. was clear th at she did not want to live with her father. Dr. Lamb did not observe signs of attachment between L.C. and father, although there were times L.C. showed spontaneous affection for father. Dr. Lamb concluded that father did not have the ability to take on a child with L.C.’s special needs , and she was specifically concerned tha t father would put his own need for closeness over L.C.’s needs.

Consistent with Dr. Lamb’s additional testimony, the court found that L.C. has an overwhelming need for stability and consistency in her life given the upheaval she experienced prior to com ing into DCF custody. She needed a caregiver who wa s reliable and predictable. The court also credited Dr. Lamb’s conclusion that father had cognitive distortions that directly im pact ed his parenting ability ; he was un able to appreciate the significance of L.C.’s own separate psychological and behavioral challenges and address those needs. The court found Dr. Lamb’s conclusion supported by other evidence in the record as well. Al though father had housing and employment, the court found that he was not ready to assume full

- time caretaking3

responsibilities for L.C. then , or at any point in the foreseeable future, given L.C.’s extensive special emotional needs, father’s minimization of those needs, and his absence over many years.
Turning to L.C.’s relationship with grandmother , the court found that grandmother had been a source of support and stability for L.C. Grandmother had ensured that L.C. attended appointments with her treatment providers, and she had worked closely with L.C.’s therapist to learn about L.C.’s needs. L.C. and grandmother had a close and loving bond, and grandmother has been able to put L.C.’s ne eds ahead of other priorities. Grandmother was willing to adopt L.C.

Based on these and numerous other findings, the court first concluded that father had stagnated in his ability to parent. The court recognized that, since the disposition order, father had engaged in many of the identified services in the disposition plan. He had attended visitation regularly using a family time coach. He participate d in individual therapy, and hi s t h erapist confirmed father had made some good progress. There was also evidence that father was now less secretive and guarded in hi s interactions with DCF. Father had also recently ended his relationship with mother. Despite superficial progress, how ever, the court concluded that father’s core ability to meet L.C.’s needs remained in doubt. The family time coach noted that father stil l struggled to read L .C.’s cues ; it took months of redirection before father could change certain behaviors during vis itation; and he continued to show a lack of sensitivity to L.C.’s anxiety about sexuality. When L.C. arrived at one visit in crisis, father w as unable to respond effectively and seemed unaware t hat she was in crisis. The court reiterated that f ather main tained unrealistic expectations about his ability to meet L.C.’s ne e ds and work with her service providers

. They noted that f ather ha d never provided sustained d aily care of L.C. He has not attended team meetings or worked with her special education team . At the height of L.C.’ s explosive be h a viors in school, at a time when even her one

- on

- one aide could not restrain her, father was lobbying for L.C. to attend traditional r eligious instruction classes. The court emphasized that f

ather continued to show a lack of ins ight into L.C.’s condition. L.C. had been in DCF custody for almost two

- and

- a

- half years during which time there had not been substantial
progress , such that there was a substantial change in material circumstances.

The court next considered if termination o f father’s parental rights was in L.C.’s best interests. It found that f ather loved L.C., and on a certain level, L.C. enjoyed portions of her time with father. Her relationship was conflicted, however, and she did not d isplay signs of

a ttachment to father

. L.C. did not turn to father for comfort, care and solace , and she had been steadfast in her desire not to live with father. By contrast, L.C. was s trongly attached to grandmother

, and they had a close and loving relationship. Her needs for a rel iable and consistent caretaker we re met in this relationship.

The court rejected fa th er’s contention that place ment with grandmother h ad not gone well, finding that this argument u n dersc o r ed father’s lack of insight into the nature of L.C. ’s special needs. While father had many good attribut e s, the court concluded that the length of time required for him to learn about L.C.’s needs, engage with her service providers, demonstra te competency in reading her cues

, and learn sensitivity in man a ging her be havior needs , remained profoundly unclear. It found that L.C. had an o verriding need for stability and permanency, and given the amount of ti me that had already passed and the uncertain amount of time that father required, there wa s li ttle likelihood that father could assume parental duties within a reasonable period of time

. Finally, the court found that father loved L.C., and cared deeply for her well

being. At the same time, however, he and mother had exposed L.C. to conflict, instability, and4

turmoil. After a two

- year absence, father’s re

- entry into L.C.’s life had been a source of great challenge for her

, during a time when she had also been adapting to other significant changes in her living situati on. Thus, c onsidering the statutory best

- interest factors, the court concluded that termination of father’s rights was in L.C.’s best interests. This appeal followed.

Father first argues that the court erred in finding stagnation , citing the progress tha t he made in addressing the case plan goals . In a similar vein, he asserts that the court erred in assessing L.C.’s best interests. He points to the court’s findings that he loves L.C., and that on a certain level, L.C. enjoys time with him. He cites other positive findings as well, and asserts that he is ready to resume parenting L.C.

When the termination of parental rights is sought, the trial court must conduct a two

- step analysis. In re B.W. , 162 Vt. 287, 291 (1994) . The court must first find t hat there has been a substantial change in material circumstances; second, the court must consider if terminat ion of parental rights is in a child ’ s best interests. Id . To determine the best interests of the child, the court must consider four statutory factors. 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 parental duties within a reasonable period of time. See In re B.M. , 165 Vt. 331, 336 (1996). As long as the court applied the proper standard, we will not disturb its findings on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous; we will affirm its conclusions if they are supported by the findings. In re G.S. , 153 Vt. 651, 652 (1990) (mem.).

We find no err or here . With respect to stagnation, we have recognized that t he mere fact that there has been some progress in some aspects of a p arent’ s life “ does not preclude a finding of changed circumstances warranting modification of the disposition order. ” See I n re A.F. , 160 Vt. 175, 181 (1993)

. In a similar vein, we have emphasized that the DCF case plan “is not intended to be a mere checklist the parent must satisfy to ensure the automatic return of [a child] to the parent’s care.” In re D.M. & T.P. , 2004 V T 41, ¶ 7, 176 Vt. 639, 640 (mem.). In this case,
t he court recognized the positive factors identified by father. It acknowledged that father had engaged in many of the services identified in the disposition plan. Notwithstanding this superficial progre ss however, the court concluded that father’s core ability to meet L.C.’s needs remained in doubt. The court’s findings , set forth above, support this conclusion, and its findings are supported by the evidence. While father argues that the court should h ave reached a different conclusion, i t is for the trial court, not this Court, to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence

. In re S.B. , 174 Vt. 427, 429 (2002) (mem.)

. We will not reweigh the evidence on appeal.

We reach a similar conclusion as to the court’s assessment of L.C.’s best interests. As with his first argument, father simply challenges the trial court’s assessment of the weight of the evidence. A gain , the trial court recognized the p ositive factors cited by father. It nonetheless concluded that the statutory best

- interest factors supported termination. As reflected above, the court found, among other things, that father had never served as L.C.’s primary custodial parent for any extended time period; he exposed L.C. t o conflict, instability, and turmoil during her childhood and then was absent for several years; he needed prompting and direction to help L.C. during visits; he had an unrealistically optimistic view of his abilities to provide care for a child whose need s remained complex ; L.C. had an overriding need for stability and permanency, and these needs were satisfied in her relationship with grandmother. The court made numerous additional findings, which we need not reiterate here. The findings are supported b y the record,5

and they support the court’s conclusion that termination of father’s rights was in L.C.’s best interests.

Affirmed

.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________ Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

_______________________________________ John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Beth Robinson, Associate Justice