In re J.R.

Argued: February 23, 2023

6th Circuit Court-Concord Family Division

Pearlman Legal Enterprises, of Boston, Massachusetts (David A. Pearlman on the brief and orally), for father.

Sommers Law, PLLC, of Concord (Eric M. Sommers on the brief and orally), for mother.

John M. Formella, attorney general, and Anthony J. Galdieri, solicitor general (Laura E. B. Lombardi, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families.

DONOVAN, J.

The appellants, father and mother, challenge multiple orders of the Circuit Court (Luneau, J.) (McIntyre, J.) finding that both parents neglected their children and ordering the children's removal from their home. On appeal, mother and father argue that both findings were unsupported by

the evidence. Father also argues that the court's orders failed to provide specific written findings as required by RSA 169-C:6-b, III (2022). We affirm.

I. Facts

The following facts were found by the trial court or are supported by the record. The appellants are the parents of B.R., S.R., and J.R. Both parents have a significant history with the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), including reports of concern in both 2015 and 2019 due to allegations that one or both parents were manufacturing or selling methamphetamines in the home with the children present. The 2019 report of concern resulted in the children's removal from the home and neglect findings against both mother and father. In March 2020, the parents and the children were reunified and the case closed.

In October 2020, December 2020, and March 2021, DCYF received three separate reports of concern from the children's school district regarding absences at school. In each case, the school district informed DCYF that it had difficulties contacting the parents to address the attendance issues. Ultimately, DCYF closed each report as either incomplete or unfounded because either it could not investigate the school district's concerns or the mother agreed to engage in services with a third party. Nevertheless, on December 8, 2021, DCYF received another report of concern from the school district regarding each of the children's lack of attendance at school. In the ensuing investigation, DCYF discovered that all three children had been absent or tardy for a significant portion of the 2021-2022 school year. Specifically, by December 8, 2021, B.R. had already missed 43 out of 62 days of the school year.

A child protective services worker (CPSW) contacted the mother and arranged to visit the home on December 13, 2021. Mother informed the CPSW that on November 30, she had enrolled B.R. in six courses through the Virtual Learning Academy Charter School (VLACS) for the purpose of homeschooling the child. She shared a letter of intent to homeschool B.R. with the CPSW and represented that she had mailed it to the school district. On January 20, after the school district refuted mother's homeschooling representation, the CPSW conducted an unannounced home visit. Mother again stated that B.R. was being homeschooled through VLACS courses, but admitted that B.R. was currently only participating in two courses. When asked about her other two children's lack of attendance at school, mother acknowledged that S.R. and J.R. had frequently been absent from or tardy to school and were not engaged in homeschooling.

Between December and February, the CPSW also made repeated attempts to contact father by phone and mail. Despite mother confirming father's phone number and his receipt of the CPSW's letter, father did not

respond to the CPSW. Father was not present for the first home visit and, during the second home visit, mother stated that father was sick and could not speak with the CPSW.

On January 21, the school district - which had access to B.R.'s VLACS account - informed the CPSW that B.R. was not participating in any VLACS courses. The assistant superintendent responsible for the homeschool registration process also informed the CPSW that she had not received a letter of intent from mother to homeschool B.R. On February 4, 2022, DCYF filed neglect petitions against both mother and father alleging educational neglect of all three children. Thereafter, the school district informed the CPSW that on February 5 it had received from the mother a letter of intent to homeschool B.R. On February 9, the trial court held a preliminary hearing on the neglect petition and found that B.R., S.R., and J.R. were "neglected children pursuant to RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b)." The court granted DCYF legal supervision of the children and permitted the children to continue to reside with mother and father with certain conditions, including cooperation with DCYF.

On March 4, DCYF learned from law enforcement that mother had been arrested on February 17 for possession and conspiracy to sell methamphetamine. Mother's arrest resulted from an investigation by state and federal agencies that targeted thirteen individuals in a multi-month, crossborder drug trafficking ring. The CPSW spoke with mother about the arrest. Mother confirmed that she had been pulled over and that law enforcement searched her car, but denied any methamphetamine possession or knowledge of the other twelve individuals identified in the drug trafficking investigation. Thereafter, law enforcement provided the CPSW with the underlying facts surrounding the mother's arrest, and the CPSW had the opportunity to view a video of mother's post-arrest interview with law enforcement. In the interview, mother admitted that on three occasions between November 2021 and February 2022 she purchased an ounce of methamphetamine from a dealer she believed to be associated with a drug cartel. Mother stated that on at least two occasions after she purchased the methamphetamine, she either transported the drugs to her home or had been on her way home prior to being detained by law enforcement. Mother also stated that when she had friends over to her house, they would take the methamphetamine together.

On March 10, the CPSW conducted an unannounced home visit. The CPSW spoke with father, who denied having any knowledge of mother's arrest. Father also assured the CPSW that neither he nor mother used illegal drugs or interacted with anyone involved in the drug trafficking investigation. Mother again denied any involvement in drug trafficking and disavowed her post-arrest admissions to the police. On March 11, based upon the criminal allegations...