Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed termination of a mother’s residual parental rights over her sixteen-year-old daughter. The court held that the family court could consider the older child’s preference under the statutory best-interest factors but was not required to give that preference controlling or inordinate weight. The court concluded that the family court acted within its discretion because the evidence showed prolonged neglect, lack of parental progress, and no reasonable prospect of reunification within a reasonable time.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the family court abused its discretion by terminating the mother's residual parental rights despite S.B.'s stated preference that the termination not occur.
- Whether the family court gave adequate consideration to S.B.'s preference and properly applied the statutory best-interest factors under 33 V.S.A. § 5540.
- Whether termination was improper because S.B.'s consent might prevent adoption and therefore the termination order might not produce a permanent placement.
Holdings
- The family court may consider an older child's preference when applying the statutory factors concerning the child's relationship with natural and foster parents and the role played by the natural parents, but the preference is not entitled to inordinate weight and does not override the other statutory best-interest factors.
- The family court acted within its discretion in terminating the mother's residual parental rights because it considered S.B.'s stated preference, carefully applied the statutory best-interest factors, and relied on unchallenged findings showing substantial neglect and no reasonable prospect that the mother would resume parental duties.
- A valid termination of parental rights does not depend on the availability of permanent foster care or adoption.
Key quotations
“As we have stated on numerous occasions, however, the most important of the statutory factors is the third one — whether the parents will be able to resume them parental duties within a reasonable period of time.” (174 Vt. at 429)
“Upon review of the record, we conclude that the court acted within its discretion in terminating mother’s parental rights with respect to S.B., notwithstanding S.B.’s stated opposition to termination and her desire to reunite with her mother.” (174 Vt. at 430)
“that a valid termination of parental rights does not depend on the availability of permanent foster care or adoption.” (174 Vt. at 430)
Factual background
S.B., a sixteen-year-old, experienced repeated sexual abuse and significant emotional and behavioral difficulties while in her mother's care. The mother repeatedly failed to participate in reunification services, violated a protective order by leaving Vermont with the children, and had very limited contact with S.B. after the children returned to Vermont. After the termination hearing, S.B. expressed a desire to return to her mother and opposed termination, but the family court found that the mother had substantially neglected the children, had not assumed a constructive parental role, and was not likely to resume parental duties within a reasonable time.
Procedural history
S.B. and her half-sister were adjudicated children in need of care or supervision, and the family court initially approved a reunification plan. After the mother violated a protective order, failed to participate in services, and maintained only minimal contact with the children, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services changed the case goal to termination. Following an August 2001 termination hearing, the family court denied a motion to reopen the proceedings to permit S.B. to testify, considered S.B.'s changed opposition to termination in applying the statutory best-interest factors, and terminated the mother's residual parental rights. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed.