In re I.K. and J.K., Juveniles
2016-400
| Vt. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- DCF began involvement in 2011; children (born 2010 and 2012) were adjudicated CHINS in March 2013 and returned under a conditional custody order; custody was later vested solely with father in October 2013.
- Children were removed from father in July 2014 for safety concerns after incidents of parental violence, untreated mental-health needs, and substance abuse; amended case plan (Sept. 2014) recommended concurrent goals of reunification or adoption.
- DCF filed to terminate parental rights in January 2015; contested hearings occurred in Jan. and Mar. 2016. Father had sporadic treatment, limited releases, aggressive incidents (including being banned from daycare and relatives’ homes), and last contact with the children in May/June 2015.
- Father had some later stabilization efforts (psychiatric admissions, detox, maintained employment, suboxone maintenance) but remained in early stages of counseling and had positive drug tests; he declined supervised visits at one point.
- Children were placed in a preadoptive home and showed progress and attachment; court found stagnation in parents’ progress, concluded termination was in children’s best interests, and found father unlikely to resume parenting within a reasonable time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances since the disposition order | DCF: parent progress stagnated/deteriorated since disposition (considering time through final hearing) | Father: no change between most recent disposition (July 22, 2014 per father) and filing (Jan 2, 2015) | Court: change may be assessed from the CHINS/disposition timeframe through final hearing; factual record supports changed circumstances |
| Whether DCF prematurely filed termination petition / failed to give adequate notice of expectations | DCF: prior case plans and longstanding goals put father on notice; ample time since 2013 to address goals | Father: DCF filed before estimated case-plan completion (April 2015) and withdrew revised plan, causing uncertainty | Court: not premature here—initial plan dated April 2013, Sept. 2014 plan was unapproved proposal, and father had long opportunity to comply |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests (including likelihood father could resume parenting in reasonable time) | DCF: children need permanence; father’s mental illness, aggression, substance abuse, and lack of contact show low likelihood of timely reunification | Father: has taken steps toward stabilization and treatment suggesting possible reunification | Court: clear and convincing evidence supports finding that father would not resume parenting within a reasonable period given children’s needs; termination in best interests |
| Whether trial findings are supported by the record / standard of review | DCF: trial court’s credibility and fact findings should stand unless clearly erroneous | Father: challenges factual findings on stagnation, notice, and likelihood of reunification | Court: findings are supported by credible evidence and are upheld under the clearly erroneous standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.F., 160 Vt. 175 (1993) (standards for modifying disposition orders and burden for termination)
- In re S.W., 176 Vt. 517 (2003) (consideration of parental progress from CHINS adjudication through final hearing)
- In re J.G., 188 Vt. 562 (2010) (emphasis on providing permanence and stability to children)
- In re C.P., 193 Vt. 29 (2012) (reasonableness of time to resume parenting measured by child’s needs)