Court Opinion

ID: 9949169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 22:17:21.371109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:32.961431
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPREME COURT                                                      Case No.       23-AP-329
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

                                           ENTRY ORDER

                                       MARCH TERM, 2024

In re A.B., Juvenile                                }    APPEALED FROM:
(J.D., Mother*)                                     }
                                                    }    Superior Court, Windham Unit,
                                                    }    Family Division
                                                    }    CASE NO. 21-JV-00787
                                                         Trial Judge: Robert R. Bent (Ret.)

                                In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

          Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three-year-old daughter A.B. We
affirm.

        The Department for Children and Families (DCF) began offering services to mother in
October 2020 after a report that mother was using drugs during her pregnancy and had been
arrested. Mother’s parental rights to two older children were terminated in an earlier proceeding
and mother had an extensive history of heroin use. During a scheduled home visit in May 2021,
a DCF worker observed that mother and husband appeared to be under the influence of drugs.
Mother admitted to DCF that she had recently used heroin and cocaine. The State filed a petition
alleging that A.B. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) in June 2021, and the court
transferred custody of A.B. to DCF in a temporary care order.

        In November 2021, the court found for the State on the merits of the CHINS petition.
Specifically, it found that mother was under the influence of heroin while caring for A.B. and
that A.B. was present when mother and husband overdosed. The court subsequently issued a
disposition order continuing DCF custody and establishing a permanency goal of reunification
with mother or her husband by May 2022.1 The case plan adopted by the court called for mother
to participate in mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, submit to drug screening as
requested by DCF, create a relapse prevention plan, attend weekly therapy sessions, maintain
sobriety for at least four months, keep her household free of unprescribed drugs and
paraphernalia, access supports for domestic violence, identify and change at least three parts of
her lifestyle to avoid the risk of reoffending, refrain from engaging in criminal activity, and

          1
          Husband filed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity at the outset of the case. After
genetic testing, in June 2022 the court determined that husband was not A.B.’s biological or de
facto father. A.B.’s biological father’s rights were terminated in a May 2023 order, which he did
not appeal.
engage in parent education through the Lund Residential Program or another program approved
by DCF.

        In June 2022, DCF filed a petition to terminate mother’s parental rights to A.B. The
court held a hearing on the petition over two days in May and August 2023. It subsequently
issued a written order containing the following findings.

       After A.B. was placed in DCF custody, mother completed an outpatient rehabilitation
program at Valley Vista. Her condition seemed to stabilize and she attended scheduled visits
with A.B. during the summer and fall of 2021. In October 2021, however, mother relapsed.
Both she and husband were actively using drugs and they did not have stable housing. Mother
developed endocarditis, an infection of the heart. She underwent surgery in February 2022 to
debride her heart valve. She was advised that she would need further surgery to repair her heart
valve and would need to be sober for at least six months prior to the surgery.

       During this period mother did not make much progress toward reunification. DCF
recommended mother participate in the Lund program, where she would have a place to live with
A.B. and could engage in substance-abuse and mental-health treatment. Mother began an
application to Lund after her surgery but did not complete it until April 2022. Mother attended
Valley Vista a second time in March 2022.

       Mother’s entry into the Lund program was delayed because Lund staff wanted mother to
undergo her recommended heart surgery before she enrolled. In turn, the hospital recommended
that mother undergo dental surgery before having the heart procedure. Mother spent the summer
of 2022 attempting to arrange dental treatment, but was unsuccessful.

         Between June 2022 and May 2023, mother lived with her family. DCF did not consider
this to be an appropriate residence for A.B., in part because an overdose death occurred there in
August 2022. Mother continued to have supervised visits twice a week with A.B. during this
time. Mother and A.B. were bonded and A.B. looked to her mother to meet her needs during
visits, even though A.B. had not lived with mother for most of her life. A.B. also quickly bonded
to other caregivers.

       During Easter of 2023, mother overdosed on fentanyl in an attempt at suicide. She
relapsed again in May 2023.

        Mother was not employed during the CHINS proceeding, never applied for disability
benefits, and did not have a driver’s license. She remained on probation for a 2020 conviction
for sale of heroin. Mother did complete a domestic-violence assessment, a parenting class, and a
mental-health assessment, and began seeing a therapist in 2022. Mother was finally admitted to
the Lund program in June 2023, despite her ongoing need for heart and dental surgery. DCF did
not agree to have A.B. placed with mother. Lund staff testified that mother was making progress
but were unable to predict how long mother would have to stay at Lund if A.B. were placed with
her.

        A.B. was initially placed with mother’s sister when the CHINS proceeding began. She
was moved to a foster home in November 2021. That placement ended in the summer of 2023,
after the first day of the termination hearing, when DCF learned that A.B. had been with the
foster mother during a drug transaction. A.B.’s new foster mother testified that A.B. was
adjusting well to her home and that A.B. was already calling her “mom.”

                                                   2
       The court determined that mother had completed some steps recommended by the case
plan, but her relapses in the spring of 2023 demonstrated that she had stagnated in her progress
toward reunification. It assessed the criteria set forth in 33 V.S.A. § 5114(a) and determined that
termination of parental rights was in A.B.’s best interests, primarily because it could not
conclude that mother would be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable amount of
time. Mother appealed.

        When considering a petition to terminate parental rights after an initial disposition order,
the court must first determine whether there has been a change in circumstances sufficient to
justify modifying the existing disposition order. In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287, 291 (1994); 33 V.S.A.
§ 5113(b). If it finds a change in circumstances, the court must then consider whether
termination is in the child’s best interests using the factors set forth in 33 V.S.A. § 5114(a). “As
long as the court applied the proper standard, we will not disturb its findings unless they are
clearly erroneous, and we will affirm its conclusions if they are supported by the findings.” In re
N.L., 2019 VT 10, ¶ 9, 209 Vt. 450.

        On appeal, mother first argues that the court erred in finding that she had stagnated in her
progress toward reunification. Mother asserts that the evidence showed she had completed
almost every step required by the case plan and argues that relapses are to be expected as part of
her recovery.

        We have held that stagnation may be “found in cases in which parenting skills improve,
yet the improvement is so insignificant that it is unlikely the parent will be able to resume
parental duties in a reasonable time.” In re D.M., 162 Vt. 33, 38 (1994). The family court
essentially found such a situation to exist in this case. It acknowledged that mother had recently
completed some of the steps required by the case plan: she had engaged in mental-health
treatment, undergone a domestic-violence assessment, and finally enrolled in the Lund program.
However, the court found that mother’s progress had come late in the case and that her recent
relapses indicated that she had not made the progress expected of her. As we have explained, the
“fact that a parent has shown some progress in some aspects of his or her life does not preclude a
finding of changed circumstances warranting modification of a previous disposition order.” In re
A.F., 160 Vt. 175, 181 (1993). Mother testified that she overdosed on fentanyl on Easter
Monday of 2023 and used drugs at least three more times after the May 2023 hearing. This
evidence demonstrates that mother had not made sufficient progress in addressing one of the
primary issues that led to A.B. entering state custody, namely, her use of heroin and other
unprescribed illegal substances. Although mother’s condition appeared to stabilize once she
entered the Lund program, it could take at least six months for her to be able to safely parent
A.B. on a full-time basis. Mother’s progress, though significant, came much later than
anticipated. Given these circumstances, we see no error in the court’s finding of stagnation. See
In re B.M., 165 Vt. 331, 336 (1996) (“From the child’s perspective, at least, the earlier period of
stagnation is not necessarily wiped out by the later improvement.”); see also In re D.M., 2004
VT 41, ¶ 7, 176 Vt. 639 (mem.) (“[E]ven if a parent participates in every program set forth in
[the case] plan, the main concern must always be whether the individual parent has demonstrated
the improvement contemplated at the time the children were removed from the parent’s care.”).

       Mother further argues that the court erred in concluding that termination was in A.B.’s
best interests because she and A.B. have a strong bond and A.B. did not have a potential
permanent placement. We see no error. The court analyzed the statutory best-interests factors
and found that “the most important factor,” which is “the likelihood that the parent will be able
to resume parental duties within a reasonable time,” weighed in favor of termination. In re J.B.,

                                                     3
167 Vt. 637, 639 (1998) (mem.). The court’s findings are supported by the evidence and in turn
support its conclusion that termination was in A.B.’s best interests. As described above, the
evidence showed that mother was not likely to be able to resume parenting any time soon. She
had not progressed beyond supervised visits with A.B. or demonstrated an extended period of
sobriety. She also had serious unaddressed health issues and lacked stable housing. The court
acknowledged mother’s bond with A.B. but found that it was outweighed by the uncertainty that
mother would be able to resume parenting within a reasonable time. See In re M.B., 162 Vt.
229, 238 (1994) (“Public policy . . . does not dictate that the parent-child bond be maintained
regardless of the cost to the child; [the CHINS statute] recognizes that severance of that bond
may be in the child’s best interest.”).

        We note that the evidence does not support mother’s assertion that A.B. had no potential
permanent placement. A.B.’s current foster mother testified that A.B. was adjusting well to her
foster family and home and that she would be willing to adopt A.B. But even assuming A.B.’s
permanent placement is uncertain, “we have repeatedly stated that a valid termination of parental
rights does not depend on the availability of permanent foster care or adoption.” In re S.B., 174
Vt. 427, 430 (2002) (mem.). We therefore see no reason to disturb the decision below.

       Affirmed.

                                              BY THE COURT:

                                              Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

                                              Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

                                              Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

                                                   4