July 2, 2023
AC 46183
Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights as to her older daughter. DCF had obtained an order of temporary custody after Mother was arrested in connection with an intimate partner violence incident; Mother thereafter agreed to commitment, and the trial court ordered specific steps for reunification. Several months later, Mother gave birth to another child, T, who remained in the hospital for three months due to health issues. While T was hospitalized, Mother was arrested for various motor vehicle and drug related charges. DCF was not aware of T’s birth until a DCF social worker conducted a home visit and discovered baby supplies at Mother’s residence. DCF thereafter filed the TPR petition with respect to her older child in care.
The Court here held that Mother could not prevail on her claim that the trial court incorrectly concluded that she had failed to rehabilitate sufficiently. Contrary to Mother’s claim that the court could not have reached its conclusion because a younger child remained in her care, an argument premised on the contention that she assumed a responsible position in that child’s life, a trial court’s consideration of parenting abilities with respect to another child/children is not dispositive of the court’s analysis. Rather, the court is required to analyze a parent’s rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child for whom the petition had been filed, and may reasonably conclude that a parent is unable to assume a responsible position in the life of one child, even though another child remains in that parent’s care.
In the present case, the record contained sufficient evidence for the court to reasonably conclude that Mother failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation so as to assume a responsible position in the older child’s life and, although DCF had not sought the removal of the younger child from her care at the time of the termination trial, DCF had filed a neglect petition, which was granted; the younger child remained in Mother’s care only under DCF’s protective supervision. Moreover, regardless of DCF’s decision not to seek custody of the younger child, the court expressed concern about Mother’s ability to care for her in the long-term, making a variety of findings supporting such. Furthermore, the court found credible the opinion of a psychologist who conducted a court-ordered evaluation of Mother, that she had failed to make significant progress toward personal rehabilitation given her continued issues with substance use, intimate partner violence, and involvement with the police. Accordingly, because Mother’s ongoing care of her younger child was not free of concerning incidents, the trial court appropriately determined that the fact that that child remained in her care did not outweigh all of the other significant evidence evincing Mother’s lack of progress, and the Court here declined to second-guess the trial court’s weighing of the evidence.
