In re A.P.

1

In re A.P., Juvenile (E.R., Mother*)

No. 23-AP-110

Supreme Court of Vermont

September 15, 2023

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.

APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Addison Unit, Family Division CASE NO. 22-JV-00308 Trial Judge: David R. Fenster

ENTRY ORDER

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

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

Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights in A.P at initial disposition. We affirm.

The trial court made the following findings. A.P. was born in June 2006 and they are the youngest of mother's three children.^[1] A.P. was the subject of child-protection proceedings in New York and removed from mother's custody in 2012. A.P. lived with relatives in New York from 2012 to 2019. Custody was subsequently returned to mother, and mother and A.P. moved to Vermont. In late 2020, the State filed a petition alleging that A.P. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) due to allegations of physical abuse by A.P.'s stepfather, neglect due to mother's mental health needs, and A.P.'s failure to receive the services recommended by the New York Family Court. A.P. was taken into the emergency custody of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and mother stipulated that A.P. was CHINS. A.P. was eventually returned to mother's custody in August 2021 and the case was closed.

In February 2022, A.P. expressed concern about harming themself to a clinician and psychiatrist on a video call. Although mother was home at the time, she did not appropriately respond to A.P.'s statements. The clinician immediately drove to A.P.'s residence where A.P. had cut themself severely enough to require medical attention. A.P. was transported to the emergency room by ambulance. Mother did not respond to A.P.'s emotional or medical needs and did not prevent A.P. from cutting themself. A.P. was discharged from the emergency room to the Northeastern Family Institute Hospital Diversion program. During a discharge meeting with a clinician, mother was experiencing an extended manic episode. Mother was disorganized in her thinking and erratic in her interactions with others. Mother did not recognize A.P.'s need for a safety plan before discharge. Mother removed A.P from the program after only five days, much earlier than recommended.

That month, the State filed a petition alleging that A.P. was CHINS and A.P. was placed in DCF custody. Between March 2022 and July 2022, DCF attempted to work with mother toward reunification with A.P. DCF tried to communicate with mother about action steps necessary to achieve reunification, but mother could not focus on A.P. or address A.P.'s needs during her communications with DCF. Mother did not abide by DCF's expectations regarding her contact with A.P. Mother inundated A.P. daily with text messages, emails, and phone calls. Mother also shared personal information about A.P with numerous individuals, including strangers; mother would copy A.P. on many of these messages. She accessed A.P.'s social media accounts and shared information from the accounts with strangers. A.P. felt violated by mother's actions and mother's behavior had a negative impact on A.P.'s mental health.

In May 2022, the court issued a juvenile protective order to protect A.P. from mother. Mother nonetheless continued to contact A.P. With one minor exception, A.P. had no in-person contact with mother after February 2022. The one in-person contact began well but mother then became agitated, and ultimately A.P. wanted to leave without further contact with mother. A.P. initially had phone contact with mother but mother's phone calls became overwhelming for A.P. and had a negative impact on their mental health. As a result, in April 2022, mother's phone contact with A.P. was required to be conducted in the presence of a support person for A.P. Since then, A.P. changed their phone number and did not want contact with mother.

The court found A.P. to be CHINS in a July 2022 order and it adopted the CHINS findings in its termination order. At the time the CHINS petition was filed, A.P. was in a serious mental-health crisis as evidenced by serial incidents of self-harm requiring hospitalization and intensive follow-up care. A.P. was in mother's care and mother's mental health had taken a dramatic turn for the worse, rendering mother unable to focus on A.P.'s needs. Mother could not focus on anything in a coherent, rational way. Mother could not effectively communicate with A.P.'s service providers given her lack of focus and the fact that she was sending numerous messages to them in very short timeframe. While mother loved A.P., the court found A.P. at risk of harm and experiencing harm at the time of the petition due to mother's declining mental health and resulting inability to provide A.P. with reasonable care.

The initial disposition case plan called for Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA). A.P. initially wanted the APPLA case plan because they wanted a relationship with mother. In October 2022, however, DCF amended the disposition case plan goal to adoption given mother's failure to make progress in meeting any of the case plan goals, A.P.'s need for permanence, and A.P.'s desire to be adopted.

A.P. was almost seventeen years old at the time of the trial court's termination decision in March 2023. A.P. had been in the same foster placement since June 2022 and was doing very well there. A.P. had not engaged in any self-harm since entering DCF custody. A.P.'s foster parents were very supportive.

The court found that A.P. needed a custodian who was emotionally in tune with their needs. A.P. had experienced physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and disrupted attachment. During A.P.'s prior placement in DCF custody, A.P. was identified as a high risk for suicide given the severity of their attempts at self-harm. A.P.'s foster parents had been providing appropriate support and safety planning for A.P. when required.

The court considered the statutory best-interests factors and concluded that they all supported termination of mother's rights. As to the most important factor, the court found that mother could not resume her parental duties within a reasonable time. The court found little change in mother's conduct since A.P. was taken into custody in February 2022. Mother remained preoccupied with her own needs and unable to focus on A.P.'s needs. A.P.'s specific need for safety and stability made mother's parental shortcomings even more significant. The court added that mother had been unable to parent A.P. for long periods of time in the past. It noted that DCF had attempted to engage mother in case planning with a goal of reunification. While mother had been consistently engaged with her counselor, mother could not work with DCF, other team members, or A.P.'s service providers given her inability to focus on A.P. In evaluating what constituted a reasonable time from A.P.'s perspective, the court also considered that A.P. would turn eighteen years old in fifteen months. It found that A.P. had a high need for stability and permanence while mother had a short window in which to be able to resume parenting. Given this history and mother's current conduct, the court found no likelihood that mother could...