Opinion
No. 16–P–563.
12-14-2016
ADOPTION OF OKSANA (and a companion case).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The mother appeals from decrees issued by a judge of the Juvenile Court terminating her parental rights with respect to her twin daughters and denying postadoption visitation. See G.L. c. 119, § 26. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Background. We summarize the judge's findings, which the mother does not dispute.
The mother gave birth to twin girls, Oksana and Olivia, in November, 2000. The family came to the attention of the Department of Children and Families (department) when, starting in November of 2008, multiple reports of abuse and neglect were filed concerning the children. See G.L. c. 119, § 51A. The first report alleged abuse and neglect by the girls' father, who was an alcoholic and abusive. Ultimately, the mother separated from the father and obtained a permanent restraining order against him. The department closed the case in 2009.
1. Substance abuse and mental health issues. The mother remarried in 2010. In November of 2011 and again in June of 2012, the department reopened the case due to the mother's ongoing alcohol use, mental health issues, and reports of domestic violence. Diagnosed with depression and a nerve disorder, the mother was prescribed Trazadone, Cymbalta, Valium, and Percocet. The mother drank heavily and frequently mixed the prescription medication with alcohol. For example, in June of 2012, she took two of the prescribed medications and was unconscious. Police came to the home, the mother was in bed and unable to answer the door, and a bottle of beer was on her nightstand. The mother denied she had substance abuse issues, but her husband also reported that she mixed alcohol and prescription medication, and the judge did not credit the mother's denials.
The mother drank when she was caring for the girls. Although the girls initially denied any abuse, they later admitted that the mother hit them when she got drunk, admissions explicitly credited by the judge.
In June of 2012 the mother was hospitalized for suicidal tendencies and for mixing alcohol with prescription medication. The girls stayed with a neighbor during the mother's hospitalization. The department did not take steps to remove the girls from the mother's care at this time, because it appeared that she was participating in treatment and making progress. In July and August, however, the mother was repeatedly hospitalized for mental health and substance abuse issues. The girls remained in the care of their neighbor, and as the summer progressed, the mother failed to visit for weeks at a time. The most recent care and protection proceeding was initiated, and the girls were placed in foster care with the neighbor in August of 2012.
The department assigned the mother a social worker and provided the mother with a service plan. The service plan required her to remain sober, meet with her psychiatrist and therapist to address her mental health and substance abuse issues, refrain from domestic violence, visit with her children, and meet with the social worker once per month.
From September of 2012 until November of 2012, the mother complied with some of her service plan tasks. She attended individual therapy sessions, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and engaged in some outpatient treatment. She also met with the social worker on a monthly basis. However, she never stopped drinking or mixing alcohol and prescription medication. She was not truthful with her therapist about her substance abuse.
Beginning in November of 2012 and continuing through April of 2013, the mother's downward slide continued. She missed therapy sessions and refused to attend recommended day treatment programs. The department changed the goal for the children to adoption. In May of 2013, the mother again was hospitalized after threatening to commit suicide. In June of 2013, the mother was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence and was hospitalized.
In April of 2014, the mother did not attend any of her scheduled appointments. Her cases were closed by her medication provider and her therapist. She has not attended treatment since. Beginning in April of 2014, the mother also stopped contacting the social worker on a regular basis. The mother's last contact with the social worker was on September 26, 2014. Between November of 2014 and September of 2015, the social worker attempted to contact the mother by letter, a "Family Find" search, and through the mother's attorney, but the mother did not respond.
2. Visitation. From August of 2012 to November of 2013, the mother attended only six visits with the girls. She canceled or failed to appear at nine visits. When she did attend the visits, the girls refused to speak to her and fled at the sight of her. The mother did not visit the girls after November 25, 2013. Monthly visits were scheduled after November of 2013, but the mother either canceled or failed to appear for them. In April of 2014, the social worker asked the mother to write a letter of apology to the girls, but the mother did not write the letter.
Between October 1, 2015, and November of 2015, the mother requested and was given four continuances of the trial date in this case. She did not appear for trial.
Discussion. "In deciding whether to terminate a parent's rights, a judge must determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit and, if the parent is unfit, whether the child's best interests will be served by terminating the legal relation between parent and child." Adoption of Ilona, 459 Mass. 53, 59 (2011). "We give substantial deference to a judge's decision that termination of a parent's rights is in the best interest of the child[.]" Ibid. We "reverse only where the findings of fact are clearly erroneous or where there is a clear error of law or abuse of discretion." Ibid.
1. Termination. The mother contends that the finding of unfitness cannot be sustained because the department failed to use reasonable efforts to strengthen the relationship between her and the girls. She maintains that in order to strengthen the relationship, the department should have intervened earlier to provide services to the family, such as a referral for a family therapist or specialist. If the department had provided these services, the mother argues, she might have been able to reestablish her relationship with the girls.
The judge did not abuse her discretion or otherwise err in finding the mother unfit. The mother failed to comply with the central component of her service plan, that is, to refrain from alcohol and substance abuse. Moreover, the department did offer mental health services to the mother, who was not candid with the therapist while she attended sessions, discontinued her sessions, and failed to follow up on recommended treatment. The department also suggested one concrete step toward improving her relationship with the girls, a letter of apology, but the mother did not follow through. In the absence of a sustained effort to maintain sobriety, or to participate in individual therapy, the department was not compelled to require the children to participate in family therapy with the mother. "[T]he judge did not abuse [her] discretion in finding that the best interests of [the children] were served by terminating [their] mother's parental rights." Adoption of Ilona, supra at 62.
2. Postadoption visitation. The mother also contends that the judge erred by not ordering postadoption visitation. Where children have "formed strong, nurturing bonds with [their] preadoptive family, and there is little or no evidence of a significant, existing bond with the biological parent, judicial exercise of equitable power to require postadoption contact would usually be unwarranted." Adoption of Vito, 431 Mass. 550, 563 (2000). Here, such a bond has been formed with the adoptive parent, and there is no bond with the biological parent. The judge did not abuse her discretion.
The girls have lived with the same family since June of 2012, and attend school, receiving mostly A's and B's. They attended therapy from late 2012 to mid–2014 to address coping skills. They are no longer attending therapy and have no behavioral problems in the preadoptive home. Both children refuse to see the mother.
Decrees affirmed.