Opinion ID: 2556516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: December 2008 Permanency Plan Review Hearing

Text: For approximately the next two years, the Department crafted services for Ms. B. and Mr. T. aimed at reunification. It referred Mr. T. to substance abuse treatment after he admitted to a 20-year crack cocaine habit and his urine tested positive for cocaine at the time the Children were removed from their parent's care. He was also advised to seek counseling for domestic violence. Mr. T., however, [did] not follow[] through with any of these referrals. Similarly, Ms. B. was offered an intervention program for victims of domestic violence, but she never made herself available for any such meetings despite the program administrator's willingness to work around her schedule. In June 2008, the parents' lack of progress prompted a juvenile master to recommend that the Children's permanency plans be changed from reunification with Ms. B. to adoption. The master observed that, despite the Department's reasonable efforts, Ms. B. had not made much movement towards reunification[.] Both parents filed exceptions to this ruling, and on December 2, 2008, the juvenile court held a de novo review hearing. At the hearing, Natalie Gimperling, a Department social worker assigned to the case, testified that all four children were making progress and were receiving the help they needed to encourage their educational and personal development. Regarding Ms. B., Gimperling believed that Ms. B.'s primary barrier to reunification was her cognitive limitations. Gimperling also testified that when she spoke with Mr. T., he informed her that he had been living with the Ms. B the whole time[,] a direct violation of an earlier court order that stated he could not be present at any of Ms. B.'s unsupervised visits with the Children. Despite agreeing with Gimperling's opinion that it was not in the best interests of the Children to return to Ms. B., the juvenile court sustained the exceptions and determined that the goal of the permanency plan should continue as reunification. The court believed that it was significant that none of the evaluations . . . or the reports absolutely stated that the mother would not be able to parent. The court did find, however, that the [D]epartment [had], indeed, made reasonable efforts towards achieving reunification and that Ms. B. needs specialized parenting classes that are only available through the Developmental Disabilities Administration [DDA [4] ] or Melwood[ [5] ] in light of her diagnosis and the special needs of each child. The court also warned that though it supported reunification, its decision did not necessarily mean that once services [were] provided and [were] in place that the [c]ourt would be satisfied that reunification [was] viable. The juvenile judge simply believed that the mother need[ed] a chance, and [that time was] not the time to cut off that chance to reunify.