Note: Decisions of a three

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

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2014

- 189

SEPTEMBER TERM, 20 1 4

In re M.W. and C.W., Juveniles } APPEALED FROM: } } Superior Court, Lamoille Unit

, } Family Divisio n } } DOCKET NO. 44/45

- 6

- 11 Lejv

Trial Judge: Timothy B. Tomasi

In the above

- entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Mother appeals termination of her parental rights to her children M.W. and C.W., born in July 2009 and October 2010, respectively. Mother argues that the court erred in assess ing her parenting ability in isolation when grandmother played a significant role in assisting mother with

childcare. We affirm.

The court found the following by clear and convincing evidence. Mother first came to

the attention of t he Department for Children and Families (DCF) in July 2009, around the time of M.W.’s birth, when it received reports that mother was drinking and using drugs

. DCF investigated and monitored mother’s care of M.W. Th e DCF social worker observed that M.W. was delayed in motor functions and verbal skills. Mother did not follow recommendations for improvement and cancelled visits with providers. In May 2010, DCF filed a petition alleging

M.W. was a child in need of car e or supervision (CHINS). The court issued a conditional custody order requiring mother to undergo a substance

- abuse assessment, to enroll M.W. in a special daycare center , and work on M.W.’s development delays. In October 2010, C.W. was

born

, and he exp erienced similar delays in his motor and verbal development. He also failed to properly gain weight.

In June 2011, DCF filed another CHINS petition, and the court issued several conditional custody order s over the ensuing months , requiring mother to enr oll the children in a specialized daycare, follow recommendations for services for M.W. and maintain C.W.’s medical appointments. Mother brought the children to only half of their scheduled daycare visits, was inconsistent in ensuring the children went to medical appointments, and failed to fill out forms so the children could receive special services.

In March 2012, the court granted DCF’s request for custody based on the children’s lack of progress and mother’s failur e to follow the conditional custody orders. DCF placed the children in a foster home, where they have remained. Over the next months, mother was offered visits with the children with the assistance of family

- time coaching. Mother missed several visits

a nd was frequently late. She did not consistently attend pre

- visit planning and became defensive and angry during post

- visit evaluations. She did not attend the children’s medical appointments. A psychological evaluation of mother was done that found she was cognitively impaired. The2

family

- time coach attempted to use alternative strategies to communicate appropriate parenting

skills to mother, but mother continued to need prompting to address the children’s needs and to set proper boundaries.

In March 2013, DCF filed petitions to terminate the parents’ rights. A hearing was held in December 2013. The court granted the request in a written order in February 2014.  The court found that there was a change of circumstances based on stagnation. Although the court recognized that mother had made some occasional progress, the court found that the progress was not consistent or significant. The court explained that mother had not addressed the issues that led to the required family

- time coaching

— she contin ued to require prompting of necessary parenting skills, she left the children unattended, she was not responsive to C.W.’s needs when M.W. was present, she failed to engage in pre

- visit planning and was hostile to comments on improving her parenting skills . The court also found that mother continued to have little insight into the reasons for state intervention, believing that she could adequately parent and not appreciating the importance of attending medical appointments.

The court further found that t ermination was in the children’s best interests . T he court found that there was no likelihood that mother would be able to make the necessary substantial progress to allow her to parent within a reasonable period of time. The court explained that

mother had failed to make progress on necessary skills and the children require d immediate stability given their young age and length of time in state custody. The c ourt also found that

mother did not play a constructive role in the chi ldren’s lives because she could not meet their

needs. The c ourt found that the children were well adj usted in their foster home, had made significant improvements in their development and speech issues

, and their foster parents hope d to adopt them. In assessing the children’s relationships, the court noted that the children’s grandmother often assisted mother in caring for the children.

To modify an existing disposition order, the court must engage in a two

- step analysis by first determining if the re is a substantial change in material circumstances and then analyzing
whether termination is in the children’s best inter e sts. In re S.M. , 163 Vt. 136, 138

- 39 (1994); 33 V.S.A. § 5113(b) (allowing court to mod ify an existing order based on change in

cir cumstances). In assessing the child ’ s best interests, the court must consider the statutory

factors

. See 33 V.S.A. § 5114 (listing statutory criteria)

. The most important factor is whether the parent will be able to resume parenting duties within a reas onable period of time. In re J.B.

, 167 Vt. 637, 639 (1998) (mem.)

. On appeal, we will uphold the family division ’ s conclusions if supported by the findings and affirm the findings unless clearly erroneous. Id

.

On appeal, mother argues that the court’s best

- interests analysis was flawed because the court considered mother’s ability to parent “in a vacuum” without considering the assistance of the grandmother. According to mother, the evidence at trial indicated that grandmother assisted mother in paren ting the children and mother’s ability to provide parental care should be viewed with grandmother’s contribution in mind.

There was no error. The family court is not required to determine the fitness of a parent’s relatives in assessing whether terminatio n is in a child’s best interests. See In re S.W. , 2008 VT 38, ¶ 13, 183 Vt. 610 (mem.) (concluding that court was not required to make findings on parental fitness of father’s mother and sister). The critical questions at termination are whether

 The petition to terminate father’s parental rights was also granted and is not challenged on appeal.3

there wa s a change of circumstances and whether termination is in the child’s best interests, which is demonstrated most significantly by whether the parent will be able to resume parenting duties within a reasonable period of time. Grandmother’s relationship wit h the children was relevant to assessing the best interests of the children insofar as the court must consider “[t] he interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, siblings, foster parents, if any, and any other person who may sig nificantly affect the child's best interests .” 33 V.S.A. § 5114(a)(1). The family court properly considered grandmother’s relationship with the

children , noting that she had often helped mother care for the children when mother still had custody and that she loved the children.

The focus o f the statute is on the “likelihood the parent will be able to resume or assume parental duties within a reasonable period of time” and “[w]hether the parent has played and continues to play a constructive rol e.” Id . § 5114(a)(3)

- (4) (emphases added). Even with grandmother’s support and assistance, mother was inconsistent in getting the children to their doctor’s appointments and day care and, over an extended period, demonstrated no ability to

meet their nee ds. The court’s findings on these critical factors

, which were detailed a nd are not challenged on appeal, support the court’s conclusion to terminate mother’s rights.

Affirmed

.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________________ ___ John A. Dooley , Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Beth Robinson, Associate Justice