Opinion ID: 2317131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Stephen and Manuel

Text: DCYF contends that reasonable efforts were made to reunite Milner with her sons, Stephen and Manuel, and that in ruling to the contrary, the trial justice overlooked services that were offered during the first twelve months in which the children were in state custody. The department asserts that the court misconceived material evidence when it failed to give the necessary weight to services DCYF did provide, specifically its referral of Milner to the Community Counseling Center (CCC) for mental health consultation and to Blackstone Valley Community Action Program (BVCAP) for parent education classes. With regard to the parent education program at BVCAP, the trial justice commented that this service was not particularly suited to Ms. Milner's individual needs and cognitive deficits. Although she diligently attended all classes, she gained little insight from the program. Other approaches were suggested  an in-home parent aide and parent support group  but there was no follow up by DCYF. The trial justice also discussed DCYF's referral of Milner to CCC for mental health counseling. Although he considered it to be an appropriate service, the trial justice criticized the way in which the counseling was handled. He noted that the mental health professional who met with Milner administered no tests nor did she utilize any other psychological tools [and] [a]lthough she was apparently aware of Dr. Parsons' evaluation, it is clear that she had never actually read it. Even more troubling to the court was that subsequent to CCC's finding that Milner was not a candidate for insight-oriented therapy because of her limited intellectual functioning, DCYF made no referrals for alternative services such as cognitive behavioral therapy, as suggested by Dr. Parsons, or parent aide services, as recommended by Ms. Youch and Ms. Gregor. The trial justice concluded that [a]ll of the professionals involved in this case indicated that there are [additional] services from which Ms. Milner might benefit and which might assist her to achieve at least a basic level of parenting skills. Based upon DCYF's failure to refer Milner to such services, the trial justice ruled that DCYF had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to reunite Milner with her two sons, Manuel and Stephen. We are satisfied that the court did consider the services provided, but found them to be insufficient in relation to the sons. DCYF also contends that its efforts were reasonable in light of Milner's noncompliance with the case plan. We have stated in the past that this court does not expect the impossible from the various agencies that deal with child protection and placement. In re Kristen B., 558 A.2d 200, 204 (R.I.1989). Nor do we desire to burden the agency with the additional responsibility of holding the hand of a recalcitrant parent. Id. Here, the trial justice found that Milner had not been fully compliant with her obligations under the case plans. Moreover, [o]n several occasions Ms. Milner flat out denied that either she or her children had any need for treatment. However, we agree with the trial justice's ruling that Milner's noncompliance [did] not obviate the need for DCYF to provide appropriate services in the first place. Finally, DCYF argues that its efforts at reunification were reasonable in light of Milner's limited mental capabilities. The department relies heavily on Dr. Parsons' testimony that it is highly doubtful that any intervention can be formulated that will make any significant changes in this woman's behavior, attitude, or level of functioning. However, our case law mandates that when DCYF is required by statute to pursue reasonable efforts before filing for termination, it is required to do so `regardless of the unlikelihood for success.' In re Christopher B., 823 A.2d 301, 311 (R.I.2003). DCYF's contention that its efforts were reasonable because it was unlikely that any services would help reunite the family flies directly in the face of our well-established case law in this area, and we afford it no value. Our review of the record reveals that there is legally competent evidence to support the trial justice's findings. Moreover, the trial justice was not clearly wrong and did not misconceive or overlook material evidence. Therefore, we affirm his decision not to terminate Milner's parental rights with regard to Stephen and Manuel.