Opinion ID: 2380270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Foster-Home Placement

Text: ¶ 15 The mother next urges the trial judge abused his discretion when he failed to order a change of foster placement, changed the permanency plan from reunification to long-term out-of-home placement, and ordered supervised visitation. According to the mother, the foster mother's failure to support reunification, the lack of assistance from DHS, and the unflagging litigation brought by the appellants is the primary cause of BTW's anger towards, fear of, and alienation from her. This has served to undermine her relationship with BTW and efforts toward successful visitation and reunification with the child. [41] Motivated by these thoughts, she now urges the trial judge erred when he found the foster mother is acting in the best interest of the child, DHS has attempted to make reunification work, and supervised visitation was proper. The appellees respond there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. ¶ 16 Abuse of discretion is the standard of review for the conclusion we reach here. When reduced to articulate and meaningful simplicity, abuse of discretion as a legal standard of appellate review means exceeding the outer range of permissible judicial choice-making. [42] A trial court's findings concerning visitation and placement of a child previously adjudicated as deprived are matters of equitable cognizance. [43] Its paramount consideration is the best interest of the child. [44] While an appellate court will examine and weigh the record proof, it must abide by the law's presumption that the nisi prius decision is legally correct. [45] It is beyond the appellate court's power to disturb that decision unless it is found to be clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence or to some governing principle of applicable law. [46] ¶ 17 The record in this appeal is lengthy. Divergent views of the situation and its cause are again pressed by the parties. There is evidence to support the mother's contention. The child, when initially placed with the foster mother, loved and missed her mother. [47] It was shortly thereafter that BTW began to express a fear of her. The court in BTW I noted the record evidence supported the mother's contention that the foster mother interferes with the mother-child relationship and does not promote reunification. [48] The court-appointed guardian ad litem has consistently held this view ever since her appointment in that capacity in 2005. [49] She has and continues to urge the child be removed from the current foster home because of this factor. [50] Indeed, the close attachment of the foster mother to the child and the impact of this relationship upon reunification efforts was noted by the current trial tribunal in its June order regarding visitation. [51] ¶ 18 Until the recent visits, upon which the April 2008 emergency motion to terminate visitation was based, the child has been unable to provide specific information about what is stressful about her visits with her mother. [52] BTW has and continues to express her desire that visitations stop and she be allowed to continue to live with her foster mother. [53] ¶ 19 The record further reveals the most recent reports and testimony of the two treating psychologistsone who works jointly with mother and child and one who works solely with BTW. The child's counselor, although originally concerned about the foster mother's negative impact on the child's relationship with her mother, has since the May/June 2008 hearing on visitation testified that he doesn't now believe the foster mother tries to harm the child's relationship with her mother. [54] The psychologist who jointly treats mother and child, when queried whether this was a case of parental alienation, testified he did not have sufficient information to make that determination. [55] ¶ 20 According to both counselors, BTW has a genuine fear of her mother and of being returned to the latter's care. [56] Her adamant opposition to visitation and possible reunification with her mother impacts their interactions. [57] According to the family counselor, the mother, while having made earnest efforts to moderate her behavior and improve the situation, believes BTW's fears of her are more displays for effect and not genuine concerns. [58] She is unable to find an effective means of responding to or handling the child's behavior. [59] Her anger and foul language frighten the child. [60] The child's therapist recommends that efforts toward reunification cease. [61] The counselor for mother and child reports the current therapeutic efforts are unproductive. [62] Because of the deficiencies in the parent-child bond, less far-reaching goals would currently be more appropriate. [63] ¶ 21 A district court has the duty to remove a child from foster care when the circumstances do not promote an opportunity for reunification. [64] Although there is conflicting evidence here concerning whether the foster mother supports family reunification, we cannot say the trial tribunal's decision to continue the child's placement in the current foster-home was clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. The mother and child have attended joint and individual counseling sessions for almost a year. Unfortunately, little progress towards establishing a healthy parent-child bond has been made. Both counselors believe the child's fear of the mother is genuine. Further, they now advise that to continue the current therapeutic efforts may be injurious to the child's functioning. [65] Additionally, testimony from teachers and the child's school counselor support the notion that the child is progressing well in school and socially. [66] She feels secure in her current foster-home placement. [67] In light of record evidence, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered no change in foster-home placement.