|
The parents
in this termination of parental rights appeal had a long and significant
history with DCF due to ongoing substance abuse, domestic violence
and ongoing child abuse and neglect issues. The two children involved
in this case were the mother's ninth and ten children and the father's
fourth and fifth. None of the respondents' other children lived
in the parents' care.
After
a series of allegations of domestic violence, physical abuse of
the children, physical neglect and abandonment, and substance abuse
by both parents, DCF removed the two children in 2004. In November,
2005, DCF filed to terminate the parents' parental rights on the
ground that they had not sufficiently rehabilitated and could not
resume a responsible position in the lives of their children in
a reasonable period of time. After 4 days of trial, in June 2006
the superior court approved termination of the respondents' parental
rights.
The
parents appealed the decision arguing that they had substantially
rehabilitated and that the court erroneously found that they could
not fully rehabilitate within a reasonable period of time. The record
demonstrated that the parents had complied with some of the court
ordered specific steps. The mother had no ongoing criminal justice
involvement, she maintained housing, she attended an outpatient
parenting class and provided regular urine and hair sample tests
for substance abuse. She also visited with her children regularly.
However, the mother had positive hair tests until late, 2005, refused
to participate in a program for domestic violence services because
she claimed there was no violence in her relationship with the respondent
father, never obtained a job and remained financially dependent
on the father for support. The father maintained housing, engaged
in parenting classes and substance abuse treatment, completed a
domestic violence program and engaged in individual and couples
counseling. He did not participate in family counseling and was
not employed consistently.
The appellate
court found that the record amply demonstrated that the respondents
had not sufficiently rehabilitated. The father continued to demonstrate
inappropriate and controlling behavior towards the mother and the
children, maintaining surveillance cameras both in and outside of
the home to control the mother's conduct. The mother continued to
be completely financially and emotionally dependent on the father
despite his abusive and controlling conduct. Additionally, the court
found that the parents' true progress with services was minimal
and that they contributed to the lack of progress by failing to
fully comply with services or be fully candid with service providers.
The court
also relied on the testimony of two expert clinicians who performed
evaluations of the parents. The father was determined in 1996 to
have anti-social personality a disorder; a condition that the psychiatrist
testified at trial does not improve over time. While the father
argued that the trial court should not have credited the doctor's
opinion given the date of the evaluation, the appellate court noted
that additional evidence in the record amply demonstrated the father's
lack of progress with his disorder. Another expert evaluated the
parents in 2004 and 2005 and testified that the mother's history
of relationship problems, substance abuse and irresponsibility would
continue to have a significant and negative impact on her parenting
ability. Accordingly, the appellate court held that the record supported
a finding that the parents failed to rehabilitate.
The
parents also contended that termination of parental rights was not
in the best interest of the children because they maintained a strong
bond with the children and a consistent visitation relationship.
The court acknowledged that although the children did have an attachment
to their parents and enjoyed visits, that this affection would not
preclude termination. The appellate court noted that even the children's
attorney recommended termination of parental rights. The trial court
made all of the requisite statutory findings and the parents' lack
of progress with services rendered them unable to care for the children
on a day to day basis.
Additionally,
the parents argued that the court's failure to appoint a separate
guardian ad litem affected the outcome of the trial. The father
had previously moved for the appointment of a separate GAL on the
grounds that the children's attorney was not advocating for J.'s
express wish to return to his father's care. The court denied the
motion after the child's attorney indicated that her client was
inconsistent in his statements and developmentally incapable of
rendering a decision on his needs or desires. The appellate court
determined that there was an insufficient record to determine whether
a GAL was warranted. The father offered no proof in support of his
motion nor did he ask for an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
Furthermore, the absence of a GAL did not affect the outcome of
the trial in that the GAL is not obligated to represent the stated
interest of the child, but rather is compelled to make recommendations
regarding the child's best interest. The trial court having already
found that termination was in the best interests of the child, the
appellate court could not see how the appointment of a separate
GAL would have furthered the father's cause.
Finally,
the parents contended that the trial court erred when it failed
to qualify the children's therapist as an expert. The therapist,
who testified at trial regarding the bond between the children and
their parents, worked at the group home where the children resided.
She had thousands of hours of supervised experience, but had obtained
her counselor's license only weeks prior to trial. Accordingly,
while the court accepted her testimony and considered it, the court
declined to qualify the therapist as an expert. The appellate court
held that the trial court has wide discretion to in ruling on the
qualifications of expert witnesses.
|
