Opinion ID: 4549156
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Parenting Skills

Text: -19- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court Respondent-mother next challenges the trial court’s findings of fact concerning her parenting skills. The trial court made the following findings of fact with regard to this issue: 30. Prior to a hearing in October 2018, GCDHHS informed the Mother that [respondent-father] had notified GCDHHS that he was going to attend the hearing. GCDHHS recommended to the Mother that she advise her daughter [, Brooke,] of [respondent-father’s] intentions and encourage the daughter to stay away since the daughter had been sexually assaulted by [respondent-father]. The Mother did not elect to act on the recommendation of [GCDHHS]. The Mother’s explanation as to why she did not act on [GCDHHS’s] recommendation caused the [c]ourt grave concerns as to the Mother’s ability to protect any juvenile. .... 37. The Mother has not demonstrated the ability to care for the juvenile without GCDHHS’[s] involvement. The Mother has shown a selfish preoccupation with her romantic attachments even when those attachments are unhealthy and harmful to the Mother and her children. The Mother’s mindless attachments will in all likelihood subject the juvenile to repeated harm and result in the juvenile’s eventual removal. . . . 38. The juvenile has been in the custody of GCDHHS since August 26, 2016 and the Mother has only progressed to supervised visitation. Respondent-mother challenges the trial court’s finding that she disregarded GCDHHS’s recommendation to discourage Brooke from attending the hearing in October 2018, which respondent-father was expected to attend. Respondent-mother testified that she “told [Brooke and Becky] not to come” to the hearing, “but they -20- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court insisted on coming.” Neither GCDHHS nor the guardian ad litem has identified any evidence in the record contradicting respondent-mother’s testimony on this issue, nor have we located any such evidence. The record does support the trial court’s finding that respondent-mother was never allowed unsupervised visitation with Kirk during the pendency of this case. But, as respondent-mother observes, she “could not force the trial court to give her unsupervised visits with her child” despite having complied with her case plan and having displayed appropriate parenting techniques in her supervised visitations with Kirk. The record shows that the trial court temporarily suspended Kirk’s visitations with respondent-mother and his siblings in 2017 on the recommendation of Kirk’s therapist. The therapist sought to avoid Kirk’s “re-traumatization” through contact with his family members pending his adjustment to foster care. As acknowledged by the GCDHHS supervisor, the suspension of respondent-mother’s visitation with Kirk did not result from any inappropriate action by respondent-mother during the visits. The record also includes a letter from Kirk’s therapist dated 9 January 2018 recommending that Kirk’s supervised visits with respondent-mother and his siblings resume. Once again, there is no indication that this recommendation was based on concerns about respondent-mother’s parenting ability. The record demonstrates that respondent-mother resolved all of the apparent risks posed to her minor children by divorcing and obtaining a DVPO against -21- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court respondent-father, avoiding any subsequent abusive romantic relationships, completing therapy, obtaining suitable housing, cultivating greater independence and additional social support, and otherwise fully complying with her case plan. Dr. McColloch, who performed respondent-mother’s psychological evaluation and parenting assessment in November 2016, concluded that “it is appropriate to return the children to this mother in the near future—if [respondent-father] or another abuser is not in the home. The current interventions appear appropriate for this mother’s needs.” Respondent-mother’s March 2017 discharge summary from Peculiar Counseling & Consulting, PLLC, reported that she “has made tremendous progress” and “has met all [treatment] goals.” Ms. Hudson likewise reported that she did “not recommend[] any further treatment” for respondent-mother, that respondent-mother “has made a great deal of progress,” and that respondent-mother “presents as more confident, more knowledgeable about the issues that brought her children into foster care, and more prepared to resume full-time care of her youngest son.” Respondentmother’s treatment providers were thus consistent in their assessment of her positive response to treatment and her prospects for resuming a parental relationship with Kirk.