Court Opinion

ID: 9397442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 15:13:49.267225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:24.527738
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

                                    2023 WY 50

                                                      APRIL TERM, A.D. 2023

                                                            May 25, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF: SRS and LS,
minor children,

JS,

Appellant
(Respondent),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee
(Petitioner).
                                                   S-22-0215, S-22-0216
IN THE INTEREST OF: SRS and LS,
minor children,

DS,

Appellant
(Respondent),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee
(Petitioner).

                   Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County
                       The Honorable Steven K. Sharpe, Judge
Representing Appellant JS:
      Brittany Thorpe, Domonkos & Thorpe, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellant DS:
      Donald E. Miller, Miller Law Firm, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee:
Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Christina McCabe, Deputy Attorney General;
Callie Papoulas, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Papoulas.

Guardian ad Litem:
Deborah L. Roden, Woodhouse Roden Ames & Brennan, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are
requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of
any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the
permanent volume.
FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] In these consolidated appeals, Father and Mother challenge the juvenile court’s
decision to change the permanency plan for their children SRS and LS from family
reunification to adoption. In Appeal No. S-22-0216, Father argues there was insufficient
evidence to support the permanency plan change to adoption, and that it was not in the
best interest of SRS and LS due to their individual high needs. In Appeal No. S-22-0215,
Mother asserts there was insufficient evidence to change the permanency plan based on
contradicted hearsay statements. We affirm.

                                             ISSUE

[¶2]   Both parents’ issues on appeal can be distilled to:

               1.     Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion when it
                      changed the permanency plan to adoption?

                                             FACTS

[¶3] The State filed a Petition Alleging Neglect against Father and Mother on October
30, 2020. The Affidavit for Probable Cause, submitted with the Petition, alleged that the
Cheyenne Police Department responded to calls at Father and Mother’s home on October
28 and October 29. The first call was for a welfare check after a school bus driver
dropped off SRS at the home, but she was unable to enter because it was locked, and no
one would answer the door. Officers arrived at the home and looked through an open
window to see Father and Mother asleep inside. It took officers several minutes of yelling
through the open window to wake them. Once they entered the house, officers discovered
a foul odor, bugs, and trash strewn throughout the house, and observed that exterior doors
were padlocked from the inside, locking LS and his maternal grandmother inside the
house with no exit. 1

[¶4] The second call came from Mother at 4:15 a.m. the following morning to report
SRS as missing. The responding officer learned that Mother allowed SRS to spend the
night at a friend’s home without coordinating the stay with the other child’s mother or
confirming SRS had arrived, even though the temperature that night was around thirty
degrees. Because of Mother’s ongoing failure to tend to the needs of her children, the
officer determined that SRS and LS should be taken into protective custody. The juvenile
court decided it was contrary to the children’s welfare to remain in the home and granted
the State legal custody of the children with a permanency plan of family reunification.

1
  Grandmother had recently suffered a stroke that left her immobile and unable to assist SRS or the
officers.

                                                1
[¶5] A Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) was formed and filed its first report in
December 2020. SRS and LS were originally put in non-relative foster care, but SRS was
moved to a facility to better address her mental health needs and to undergo
psychological evaluations. SRS was thirteen years old at the time, with significant mental
health needs, and a history of running away from home and falsely reporting crimes. LS
was almost six years old and previously diagnosed with autism. Before being placed in
foster care, LS was nonverbal, in diapers, and still drinking from a bottle.

[¶6] DFS developed a case plan in December that outlined several objectives Father
and Mother needed to achieve to regain custody of their children. The objectives included
family and individual therapy; a psychological evaluation for Mother; securing and
maintaining a clean and safe living environment for the children; demonstrating they
could provide for their children’s physical, medical, and emotional needs; and properly
supervising their children at all times. While the children were in DFS custody, Father
and Mother were allowed supervised, in-person visits with LS and supervised video or
phone call visits with SRS. Father and Mother were informed that, if SRS and LS
remained in DFS custody for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months, DFS could
file a petition to terminate parental rights.

[¶7] DFS filed a quarterly progress review report in January 2021. The report stated LS
showed substantial improvement in foster care; the highly structured environment was
beneficial, he was potty trained, he expanded his vocabulary, and was able to follow a
schedule and directives. SRS, however, struggled in her placement. She ran away on
multiple occasions, made false accusations against staff members, and struggled with her
mental health. Eventually, she was moved to the Juvenile Detention Center due to her
higher needs and safety concerns.

[¶8] Father and Mother made some progress on the case plan. They removed the
padlocks on the doors and replaced them with door alarms. They both began therapy but
missed several sessions, which hindered their progress. Father was more willing to
engage in therapy than Mother. Mother believed therapy was unnecessary and that
showing up but not participating was enough to satisfy her case plan. During visits with
LS, Father was engaged with LS and often played on the floor with him. Mother did not
do this but rather showed LS videos on her phone or bought him gifts. Extra supervision
was required for visitation with SRS as Mother engaged in inappropriate conversations
with her which may have contributed to SRS’ escalated behaviors. Mother completed her
psychological evaluation which advised she engage in intensive dialectical behavior
therapy treatment, social skills group, family therapy, parenting courses, and consistent
drug testing. The progress report recommended the permanency goal remain family
reunification.

                                            2
[¶9] A second MDT Report was filed in March 2021. It noted that both SRS and LS
were doing well and improving. Father and Mother, however, had recently been evicted
from their home, although through no fault of theirs. Mother had been dropped by her
therapist because of too many missed appointments, but Father was given the option to
continue. Father and Mother were frequently late to supervised visits with LS and they
continued to show troubling patterns of neglect and lacked follow-through on case plans.
The MDT recommended legal and physical custody remain with the State. The quarterly
progress report filed in April echoed the MDT Report.

[¶10] The juvenile court held a six-month review hearing in April 2021 and considered
the MDT and DFS case reports. The court found no progress had been made in
alleviating the causes that required the children to be placed in State custody. It found
that returning the children home at that time would be contrary to the welfare and best
interest of the children. The permanency plan remained family reunification.

[¶11] A second case plan was created in June 2021 with additional goals. The plan listed
Mother’s goals as: continue to work on stabilizing her mental health and her familial
relationships; attend all therapy sessions and be open and honest in those sessions; take
all medication prescribed; maintain one therapy provider for a six-month period; arrive at
all individual and family therapy sessions on time; and ensure she can adequately provide
for SRS and LS’ physical, mental, and emotional needs. Father was given similar goals
and an additional goal of continuing to develop family intervention and self-advocating
techniques.

[¶12] The quarterly progress report filed in July 2021 stated Father and Mother had
made some progress towards their goals but had several setbacks. Father and Mother
attended therapy but missed several appointments with their new provider and Mother
was eventually discharged as a client because of her absences. Mother completed a
psychological evaluation while still in therapy but did not complete a required
Psychological Assessment of Parental Capacity. DFS was providing transportation to
facilitate visits through a DFS aide; however, Mother began contacting the aide in the
middle of the night and on her personal cellphone. Therefore, the aide refused to work
with the family. Father and Mother were evicted twice, once for failure to pay rent. They
informed DFS they obtained employment but were unable or unwilling to submit proof of
employment. The permanency goal remained family reunification.

[¶13] The September quarterly progress report described signs of regression by Father
and Mother. Mother continued to miss or be late to “theraplay” sessions with LS and did
not engage or provide physical or emotional support for LS during sessions. Mother
failed to complete her Psychological Assessment of Parental Capacity and misled DFS
about completing a sufficient assessment. Father and Mother were unable to provide
housing information after their most recent eviction. Mother had been calling the
Cathedral Home, where SRS had been transferred after completing her time at Wyoming

                                            3
Girl’s School (WGS), alleging the Cathedral Home was torturing SRS, threatening her
safety, and that Mother had video proof of it. Mother also called the police to conduct a
welfare check on SRS at Cathedral Home. Father and Mother missed or were excessively
late to several visits with SRS. They returned late with SRS from the visit they did attend
because of Mother’s insistence they stay out an extra hour. Father and Mother also had
immense difficulty following scheduling and transportation guidelines for visits with LS,
often failing to show or to pick up LS despite consistent communication by DFS. Father
and Mother allegedly secured an RV to live in, but they did not provide DFS with any
information confirming it. The report continued to recommend family reunification but
recommended a concurrent plan of adoption.

[¶14] DFS again updated the case plan in January 2022, with the permanency plan
remaining family reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption. The plan outlined
similar goals as the previous plan, including individual and family therapy, providing
appropriate care and support to LS and SRS, and continuing to improve Father and
Mother’s mental health. It added requirements that Mother engage in drug testing and
Father obtain a driver’s license and actively seek employment. The plan also gave Father
and Mother three months to complete 80% of the case plan, and if they failed to do so,
warned that DFS may request a change of permanency plan to adoption.

[¶15] Another MDT Report was filed in March 2022. It stated Father failed to pass his
driver’s license test, was frequently late to therapy appointments, and had regressed in
implementing the skills learned in therapy to voice his own opinions and help Mother
control her emotions. Mother’s family therapy sessions at Cathedral Home were
discontinued in February because she became argumentative and disruptive with SRS.
Mother missed numerous drug tests but tested negative on all tests she completed. Father
and Mother missed several visits with LS, leading to visits being canceled. Law
enforcement was called to Father and Mother’s RV where they found chemicals in the
toilet, jars of feces and urine throughout the RV, no plumbing, running water, or heat, and
an open gas flame stove with oxygen tanks in the vicinity. Law enforcement reported if
LS and SRS had been present, they would have been taken into protective custody. The
ongoing concerns of mental health, consistency, scheduling, communicating, household
instability, and overall safety led DFS to recommend the permanency plan be changed to
adoption. The quarterly report reflected these concerns. The MDT Report recommended
a permanency plan change to adoption.

[¶16] The juvenile court held an evidentiary permanency hearing on April 22, 2022. The
court heard testimony from the DFS primary case worker, a clinical psychologist who
evaluated Mother, a DFS social services supervisor, Father, and Mother. The caseworker
testified that Father and Mother were missing medication appointments which created
significant mental health concerns. She testified that Mother and SRS’ relationship was
strained, there was an unhealthy parenting dynamic, and that SRS said she lacked a
connection with Mother. The case worker described Father’s progress as “hit or miss”

                                            4
and there was no documentation to support any progress Mother claimed to have made.
The caseworker distinguished between Father and Mother, testifying that if Father were
the only parent in the home, family reunification may be accomplishable. But Father and
Mother had no plans to separate and DFS could not feasibly make separate permanency
plan recommendations. If the children were reunified with one parent, they would
undoubtedly be reunified with both. 2 Based on the totality of the circumstances the case
worker was unable to estimate how long it would take to achieve family reunification and
she recommended the permanency plan change to adoption.

[¶17] A psychologist who conducted an evaluation of Father and Mother testified that
family reunification would be an “uphill battle,” but not an impossibility. Mother would
require extensive time, instruction, and practice to learn proper parenting skills to meet
her children’s needs. Father was motivated and capable of improving to the point that
would allow for family reunification. However, Mother engaged in somewhat delusional
thinking and showed signs of paranoia which Father was unable or unwilling to counter.
Mother also asserted to the psychologist that there were no issues with her parenting or
lifestyle, and she did not need help; rather the issue was with DFS and its
misrepresentations of the situation.

[¶18] A social services supervisor testified to her experience with the family throughout
the case plan and a separate proceeding with SRS. She testified that working with Mother
was difficult and inconsistent. The supervisor was informed on the day of the hearing that
another therapy provider had dropped Mother due to missed appointments. She further
testified Mother had been dropped by numerous visitation, therapeutic, and medical
providers because of missed appointments. Mother’s relationship with SRS was strained
and tumultuous. Mother called Cathedral Home and made threats and other inappropriate
comments which led to Mother being barred from the premises. SRS did not want to do
family counseling with Mother but had a great relationship with Father and would
happily do family counseling with just him. The supervisor did not believe it was in SRS’
best interest to return home.

[¶19] Father and Mother both testified and expressed their love for and desire to have
their children back in their custody. Father testified he was unsure if he was ready for LS
to come back home because of the work the RV needed. He also testified SRS had
previously told him she did not want to return home because of Mother. Mother testified
that they were moving the RV to a place with utilities, and she was also going to look at
several houses. She also reported to DFS that they had secured an apartment but did not
provide DFS any documentation to confirm this.

2
  DFS never suggested or took the position that Father and Mother should or were required to separate to
regain custody of their children.

                                                   5
[¶20] Upon hearing testimony and reviewing case plans and reports, the court found
DFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and because Father and Mother made
little to no progress, it was in the best interests of the children to change the permanency
plan to adoption. Father and Mother had a long history of issues with ample time to
resolve them, but they consistently failed to do so and had not shown this instance to be
any different. The court determined that despite immense help from DFS, Father and
Mother failed to provide a safe living environment for the children; both parents failed to
pursue employment; they failed to consistently attend or engage in counseling; and
although Father had improved, his relationship with Mother would unavoidably cause
both children to be reunified with Mother, which was adverse to LS and SRS’ best
interests. The court highlighted the substantial strides LS and SRS made in their
respective environments. LS was using the bathroom, drinking from a glass, and had
become much more verbal during his placement with his foster family. SRS made
immense progress in her mental and emotional health during her time at WGS and
Cathedral Home. The juvenile court relieved DFS of its efforts to reunify the family.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶21] “We review a juvenile court’s change in permanency plan for abuse of discretion.”
Interest of SMD, 2022 WY 24, ¶ 27, 503 P.3d 644, 652 (Wyo. 2022) (citing Interest of
GC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 18, 351 P.3d 236, 242 (Wyo. 2015)). A court abuses its discretion if
“it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.” Id.
(quoting Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119, ¶ 9, 497 P.3d 914, 918 (Wyo. 2021)). When
sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, giving every reasonable inference to the prevailing
party below, assuming all evidence favorable to the prevailing party is true, and
discounting any conflicting evidence brought by the unsuccessful party. Id. (quoting
Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119, ¶ 9, 497 P.3d at 918).

                                      DISCUSSION

[¶22] Father and Mother bring distinct issues and their arguments will be analyzed
separately. “To change a permanency plan, the juvenile court must determine whether the
current plan is in the child’s best interests and whether DFS has made reasonable efforts
to finalize the plan.” Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119, ¶ 11, 497 P.3d at 918 (quoting
Interest of SW, 2021 WY 81, ¶ 17, 491 P.3d 264, 269 (Wyo. 2021)). Throughout the plan,
“the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-
440(b) (2021). To change the permanency plan, “the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the current plan is not in the child’s best interests and
that DFS has made reasonable, but unsuccessful, efforts to finalize the plan.” Interest of
BP, 2022 WY 128, ¶ 17, 518 P.3d 698, 702 (Wyo. 2022) (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-
431(k)(i)). If the court determines the burden was met, “it may order a change in the

                                             6
permanency plan.” Id. at ¶ 17, 518 P.3d at 703 (quoting Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119,
¶ 11, 497 P.3d at 918).

I.     The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when changing the
       permanency plan to adoption.

A.     Father

[¶23] Father’s challenge to the permanency plan change contains two arguments:
whether there was sufficient evidence to change the permanency plan change to adoption
and whether that change was in the best interests of the children. Both are reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Interest of SMD, 2022 WY 24, ¶ 27, 503 P.3d at 652 (citing Interest
of GC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 18, 351 P.3d at 242).

[¶24] Father argues that he made substantial progress in his case plan, he simply needed
more time to complete it, and the permanency plan should not have been changed. Father
argues he has a great relationship with LS and SRS, engaged and behaved appropriately
with LS during visits, and made progress in therapy. Father also had unsupervised visits
with LS and improved in addressing situations where Mother acted inappropriately.

[¶25] By many accounts, Father was improving and progressing early in the case plan.
Parents are not afforded an indefinite period to achieve their case plan goals, however.
See Interest of GC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 38, 351 P.3d at 246; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v)
(2021). Even when progress has been made during some point of a case plan, a juvenile
court does not abuse its discretion in a case such as this when sufficient progress is not
made within a reasonable time. Matter of JPL, 2021 WY 94, ¶ 63, 493 P.3d 174, 186
(Wyo. 2021). LS and SRS were first taken into custody in October 2020 and the juvenile
court changed the permanency plan to adoption in April 2022. The State had legal
custody of the children for eighteen consecutive months and many of Father’s case
objectives were not completed during that time. In the last MDT Report, as the potential
of the permanency plan changing to adoption became closer to reality, Father began to
regress. He did not obtain his driver’s license; missed several visits with LS; and failed to
secure adequate housing for his children, instead he lived in an RV with no heat,
plumbing, or running water.

[¶26] As the juvenile court noted, being poor is not a disqualification to parenthood;
however, Father failed to make adequate strides, as outlined in his case plan, to
demonstrate he could provide for his children’s financial needs. See id. at ¶¶ 51-52, 61,
493 P.3d at 184, 186 (requiring parents to attempt to provide financial stability for their
children). Father eventually found part-time work but consistently failed to meet plan
goals requiring him to search for full-time work, to work with Wyoming Workforce
Services to find work, and to send out five job applications per week. By the March 23

                                             7
MDT Report, DFS had only received confirmation of one job application. Father failed to
pursue full-time work even with DFS’ best efforts to assist, which directly affected his
ability to provide a safe and stable home for his children.

[¶27] Father’s mental health progress was “hit or miss.” Although Father made progress
on the surface, he missed several therapy sessions and medication appointments, and
missed or arrived late to family visitation sessions, affecting his overall progress. Father
also missed three months of domestic violence victim advocate sessions from June to
September 2021, and again failed to attend these sessions beginning in February 2022.

[¶28] In Interest of SMD, both parents made some progress early in the case plan, then
regressed until, after two years, little progress had been made. 2022 WY 24, ¶ 35, 503
P.3d at 654. The parents struggled with mental health, housing, and employment, and
asked for more time to comply with their case plan. Id. The juvenile court determined
that because little progress was made over the course of the plan, the permanency plan
should be changed to adoption, and we affirmed. Id. at 654, 658.

[¶29] Here, Father had ample time to make progress on his case plan yet substantial
progress still needed to be made after eighteen months of assistance. Father regressed as
the case plan prolonged even though he was aware the permanency plan could change to
adoption. The record supports the finding that Father made little progress, and the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give Father more time.

[¶30] Additionally, Father’s argument that the juvenile court abused its discretion
because adoption was not in the best interest of his high-needs children fails. Father
argues it was in SRS and LS’ best interest to continue the permanency plan of family
reunification for an unspecified period of time because he was making progress in his
case plan and parental custody was a better solution for his children than adoption. The
juvenile court, however, disagreed, finding that both children made substantial progress
while in DFS custody. LS was no longer wearing a diaper or drinking from a bottle, he
was receiving help for his autism disorder, and he had become much more verbal. SRS
made substantial strides in her mental and emotional health and made excellent grades at
Cathedral Home, all of which were commended by the juvenile court. Continuing to
leave the children in a state of uncertainty while Father and Mother attempted to make
progress on their case plans would negatively affect their progress:

              [C]hildren have a right to stability and permanency in their
              family relationships. Section 14-2-309(a) recognizes there
              must be limits on the amount of time [the Department] will
              attempt to rehabilitate a parent while the children remain in
              foster care. The time limits recognize that the children’s right
              to stability and permanency is superior to the parent’s right to
              familial association.

                                             8
Matter of JPL, 2021 WY 94, ¶ 62, 493 P.3d at 186 (quoting In re A.D., 2007 WY 23,
¶ 31, 151 P.3d 1102, 1109-10 (Wyo. 2007)). “When the rights of a parent and the rights
of a child are on a collision course, the rights of the parent must yield.” Id. (quoting SD v.
Carbon Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 2002 WY 168, ¶ 27, 57 P.3d 1235, 1241 (Wyo.
2002)).

[¶31] LS benefited from a highly structured environment with clear and consistent
discipline, a defined schedule, and direction. He made immense strides with his foster
family and Father could not provide the same structured environment. LS’ improvement
in foster care and Father’s lack of improvement supports the finding that adoption is in
LS’ best interest.

[¶32] Similarly, SRS returning home would create a high risk of regression due to
Mother’s emotional instability and Father’s lack of progress in responding properly to
Mother’s emotions, regardless of Father’s positive relationship with SRS. Such an
environment had negative effects on SRS and led to many of her disciplinary issues. The
record supports the finding that it was in SRS’ best interest not to return to an
emotionally unstable environment.

[¶33] Father failed to provide a safe place for his children to live, directly endangering
their health and safety, which is of paramount importance in permanency plan
proceedings. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-440(b). Cheyenne Police were called to Father’s RV
and found unsafe living conditions to the degree that SRS and LS would have been taken
into protective custody. Father failed to offer any proof he acquired a safer home for his
children or that he took any steps to remedy the hazardous living space. The record thus
supports the finding that returning SRS and LS to such a living environment would not be
in their best interest.

[¶34] The State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that adoption was in the
children’s best interest and therefore, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
changing the permanency plan to adoption. Father was given ample time to make
progress on his case plan but failed to alleviate many of the major concerns that led to his
children’s placement in protective custody. Additionally, SRS and LS improved
substantially while in DFS’ protective custody. The juvenile court’s decision did not
exceed the bounds of reason under the circumstances and therefore it did not abuse its
discretion in ordering the permanency plan change to adoption.

                                              9
B.     Mother

[¶35] Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion because there was
insufficient evidence to change the permanency plan to adoption. 3 Mother’s argument
stems from SRS’ statement to the juvenile court that she wanted to return home to her
parents so they could be a family despite the difficulties they faced up to that point. SRS’
testimony conflicted with DFS’ testimony and Father’s testimony that SRS had expressed
her desire not to do family therapy with Mother and her concern that being back with
Mother would cause her to regress and “restart the cycle that she’s already been in for the
past few years.” 4

[¶36] Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we must
determine whether the juvenile court could reasonably have found that it was in SRS’
best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption. The juvenile court gave serious
consideration to SRS’ wishes but determined that Father and Mother did not make
adequate, if any, progress in their case plans, and returning SRS and LS home would not
be in the children’s best interest.

[¶37] Mother consistently failed to attend therapy and counseling, and when she did
attend, she stated she did not need counseling and did not participate. She was dropped
by multiple providers because of missed appointments, inappropriate behavior, and
aggression. Mother saw no issue with her parenting or behavior and instead blamed DFS
for misrepresenting the family’s situation. She engaged in delusional thinking and
believed several agencies were conspiring against her to take her children away. Her
failure to see her conduct could be improved was troubling and conflicted with the
original goal of family reunification.

[¶38] DFS provided evidence that Mother was not taking her medication which hindered
her mental health progress. She failed to secure adequate and safe housing for her
children, she made little to no progress in improving her mental and emotional health,
and she often acted inappropriately with SRS specifically, and did not adequately engage
with LS during “theraplay” sessions.

[¶39] Mother engaged in family therapy with SRS at Cathedral Home but quickly
became argumentative and disruptive with SRS and accused SRS’ therapist of
brainwashing her. When Mother was given an opportunity to visit with SRS while SRS
was at Cathedral Home, Mother persuaded SRS and Father to return late, contrary to
3
  Mother’s brief stated the issue was whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by relying on
contradicted hearsay testimony in its decision to change the permanency plan. At oral argument, Mother
abandoned this argument, instead arguing the issue above.
4
  The juvenile court recognized SRS’ testimony conflicted with DFS’ testimony and made a credibility
determination when concluding it was in SRS’ best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption.

                                                 10
instructions. Cathedral Home terminated family therapy with Mother because of these
issues and eventually barred her from the property for making threats and other
inappropriate contact with Cathedral Home.

[¶40] The evidence showed Mother was also unable to meet LS’ physical and emotional
needs. Mother’s inability to regulate her own emotions had an impact on LS and often
caused significant escalations. Mother struggled with scheduling and promptness with
visits with LS. Mother was late picking up and dropping off LS, which disrupted his
routine, and she consistently missed or failed to confirm visits. Mother attempted to
intrude on Father’s supervised visitation with LS and was warned this behavior was
inappropriate and unacceptable. Eventually, these supervised visits were terminated due
to Mother’s behavior and lack of progress.

[¶41] Like Father, Mother failed to secure adequate housing for her children. Her current
housing was unsuitable, and she failed to provide evidence of any other housing
arrangements. Mother testified that she occasionally worked for a business partner but
did not have a permanent job and did not attempt to find employment, which adversely
impacted their housing stability.

[¶42] There was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to determine it was not in SRS
or LS’ best interest to return home to Mother. Mother made little, if any, progress over
the eighteen months SRS and LS were in DFS custody. Despite SRS’ comment to the
juvenile court that she wanted to return home, there was sufficient evidence that Mother
was unable to provide a safe environment for her children and it was therefore in the
children’s best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption. The juvenile court did
not abuse its discretion.

                                    CONCLUSION

[¶43] The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan
from family reunification to adoption. Affirmed.

                                           11