In re L.B.

1

In re L.B., Juvenile (A.J., Mother*)

No. 23-AP-026

Supreme Court of Vermont

June 9, 2023

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

APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Windham Unit, Family Division CASE NO. 21-JV-00033 Trial Judge: Jennifer Barrett

ENTRY ORDER

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

Mother appeals the trial court's final order terminating her parental rights as to her nine-year-old daughter, L.B. We affirm.

In January 2021 the State filed a child-in-need-of-care-or-supervision (CHINS) petition and sought an emergency care order for L.B. based on allegations that L.B.'s guardians (maternal grandparents) were verbally and physically abusing her. At that time, mother was living in New York, and L.B. had been living with grandparents for four years. L.B. first came into grandparents' care when she was three years old. Mother had asked her parents to care for L.B. due to mother's mental-health struggles and housing insecurity. Grandparents gained guardianship over L.B. when she was five years old.

The court granted an emergency order, and L.B. entered custody of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) in January 2021. In March 2021, the parties agreed by stipulation or on the record that L.B. was a CHINS, and the court entered a merits order to that effect. DCF filed a proposed case plan in April 2021, which the court adopted in June 2021 following a disposition hearing. The initial disposition order had a goal of reunification with mother. The case-plan expectations for mother included seeking a mental-health assessment and treatment, engaging in family therapy with L.B demonstrating the ability to meet LB's needs, maintaining communication with L.B.'s care providers, and complying with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) process for L.B. to be placed with mother in her home state of New York.

Following initial disposition, there were some delays in the case due to efforts to determine the identity of L.B.'s father and due to mother's ICPC process in New York. The court eventually confirmed L.B.'s father through genetic testing, but it later terminated father's parental rights-he has not appealed. Mother's ICPC placement request was denied by an interstate caseworker based on multiple incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse by mother and her boyfriend. Mother and her boyfriend then moved from New York to Vermont in March 2022.

In May 2022, the State moved to terminate mother's rights. In December 2022, following a two-day hearing, the court made findings and conclusions orally on the record and issued a written order terminating mother's parental rights. The court relied particularly on the following findings. Although mother loved L.B., mother had not played a constructive role due to her lack of contact with L.B. L.B. had not lived with mother for six years at the time of the final hearing. Although mother acted appropriately and met L.B.'s needs during visits, mother attended only four of ten in-person visits that were offered. At the time of the final hearing mother had not seen L.B. in approximately six months. Mother also had made little progress toward many of her case-plan expectations. Mother had not been engaged in mental-health counseling in at least eight months, and visitations with L.B. never progressed to a level where they were able to engage in family therapy, which was one of the case-plan expectations. Mother also did not meet the expectation that she maintain communication with L.B.'s care providers.

The court noted that L.B. had experienced significant traumas and any caregiver for L.B. would need to understand a trauma-informed approach. Mother struggled to control her anger during team meetings, including when one of her children was present. DCF informed mother that her relationship with her boyfriend was a barrier to reunification due to ongoing domestic violence, but mother made clear that she would not leave her boyfriend even if leaving him was necessary to properly care for L.B. Given L.B.'s history of trauma, the court found that "being exposed to domestic violence in the home would be extraordinarily traumatic, even more so than to an ordinary child." Mother had not engaged with a domestic-violence coordinator since moving to Vermont, which was another case-plan expectation. In addition, mother was living at a homeless shelter at the time of the final hearing, but was required to leave shortly and did not have new housing secured. The court found that all of these factors undermined mother's ability to meet L.B.'s needs.

In contrast, the court found that L.B. felt safe and comfortable in her current placement, a residential therapeutic program. L.B.'s needs were generally being met there, and she had developed a strong relationship with a foster parent who would be willing to adopt her. Given all of the above, the court concluded that mother's progress had stagnated, so there was a change in circumstances warranting examination of the statutory best-interests factors. Analyzing the factors based these factual findings, the court concluded that mother would not be able to resume parenting within a reasonable period of time and that terminating her parental rights was in L.B.'s best interests.

On appeal, mother argues that the evidence does not support...