SUMMARY: The court violated the parents’ rights when it failed to adopt DHHS’ plan of reunification because there was no evidence to show that the plan of reunification was not in the children’s best interest. Failure to adopt the plan and denial of the parents’ visitation with the children results in the court effectively proceeding toward terminating parental rights.
The children, Sierra W. (DOB 8/1/95), Baylee W. (DOB 5/8/97), and Skye J. (4/23/00), were removed from the home on April 30, 2007, on allegations of excessive discipline by the parents. The children were adjudicated on August 23, 2007, and disposition was held on October 12, 2007. At disposition, evidence submitted included psychological assessments of the parents, and reports from the children’s counselor, the mental health therapist supervising visits, and the CASA. DHHS also submitted a case plan and court report that recommended reunification.
The psychological assessments reported that the mother was at risk for reversing roles between parents and children and was likely to treat children as peers. It noted that the father had past alcohol problems that appear to be resolved but that an updated chemical dependency evaluation would be appropriate. Family therapy was recommended. The report from the children’s counselor documented interviews with the children, which included Sierra’s discussions of the punishment she received, i.e., sleeping on the floor, writing sentences, and Baylee’s and Skye’s knowledge of Sierra’s punishment. The mental health therapist noted in her report that the children’s visits with the parents were positive, with the children appearing happy and connected, but that the parents hold resentment against Sierra. The CASA’s report included a discussion on the children’s difficult and unhappy attitudes after returning from visits with the parents. The DHHS court report and case plan recommended visitation to remain therapeutic at twice per week, that the parents participate individually in therapy and follow psychological evaluation recommendations and that the father complete an updated chemical dependency evaluation. On October 24, 2007, the court issued an order deny adoption of the DHHS plan of reunification, directed DHHS to create a new plan and denied visitation between the parents and children. A three-judge review panel affirmed the court’s order. The parents appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the court’s decision and held that no party introduced evidence that showed the DHHS plan was not in the children’s best interest, as required by law to deny the proposed case plan, and that the court’s failure to adopt the plan was a violation of the parents’ rights. The Court of Appeals noted that: In effect, by failing to adopt the Department’s plan of reunification and not allowing John and Lisa visitation with the children, the juvenile court effectively began to proceed toward terminating John and Lisa’s parental rights. The trial court did not have the authority to do so given that no party produced any evidence showing that the Department’s plan to reunify John and Lisa with the children is not in the children’s best interests.