In re W.C., R.C., B.C. and B.C., Juveniles
2016-324
| Vt. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Four children were taken into DCF custody in May 2014 after long-standing concerns (inadequate supervision, unstable housing, parental substance abuse, domestic violence, failure to meet children’s needs); parents stipulated CHINS.
- DCF had worked with the family since 2010 and made referrals for mental health, substance abuse, and domestic-violence services; parents engaged inconsistently and made little sustained progress.
- Parents lived in unstable housing, remained with a couple after a child disclosed sexual abuse by the husband, and did not protect the children from further abuse; one child experienced physical abuse in mother’s presence.
- Father had longstanding alcohol and marijuana use, sporadic engagement in substance-abuse and domestic-violence programs, and continued positive tests; mother had untreated/late-addressed significant mental health and cognitive issues and failed to follow through with recommended supports.
- Children were placed with a relative foster family, had improved materially and emotionally, and the trial court found parents’ ability to parent had stagnated; the court terminated parental rights after a multi-day hearing in response to DCF’s TPR petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents’ ability to parent stagnated (substantial change in material circumstances) | Parents: failures were due to poverty and lack of state-funded supports (rent, utilities, transport); father points to recent stability and treatment engagement | State/DCF: parents, not DCF, were responsible for following through; DCF had provided services since 2010 but parents failed to engage or improve | Court: Parents stagnated; substantial evidence they failed to comply with disposition expectations despite long-term DCF involvement, so stagnation established |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests (statutory factors) | Parents: court relied impermissibly on economic status and prior resource allocation; analysis was backward-looking | State: court considered statutory factors and current/prospective parental capacity, children’s adjustment to foster home, and parents’ inability to meet needs | Court: Best-interest finding affirmed — children well-adjusted in foster home; parents not able to resume duties within reasonable time; termination appropriate |
| Whether court improperly based decision on poverty or allocation of resources | Parents: decision reflected bias against their economic status and assumption state had done enough | State: decision rested on parents’ noncompliance and lack of progress, not poverty per se | Court: Rejected claim — findings show focus on parents’ conduct, service nonengagement, and lack of insight, not economic status |
| Whether court engaged in impermissible backward-looking or predetermination | Parents: court looked at past failures and effectively ended case before hearing | State: court evaluated current and prospective ability to parent based on evidence at hearing | Court: Analysis was forward-looking and based on present inability to meet children's needs and uncertain future improvement; no predetermination found |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287 (stagnation/deterioration standard for substantial change)
- In re B.M., 165 Vt. 331 (best-interest analysis focuses on parent’s ability to resume duties within reasonable period)
- In re G.S., 153 Vt. 651 (appellate review limited to clear-error standard for factual findings)
- In re S.B., 174 Vt. 427 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence in termination appeals)
- In re S.R., 157 Vt. 417 (parental stagnation not excused by agency involvement where parents show no improvement)
- In re A.F., 160 Vt. 175 (trial court’s exclusive role to assess credibility and weight of evidence)
- Meyncke v. Meyncke, 186 Vt. 571 (2009) (disagreement with court’s reasoning does not alone establish abuse of discretion)