 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Jonathan T.9/16/2002
Cheshire County Probate Court
Argued: June 12, 2002
The respondents, Bethany L. and Troy L., Sr., appeal an order of the Cheshire County Probate Court (Patten, J.) terminating the parental rights of Bethany L. over her sons, Jonathan T., Troy L., Jr., and Caleb L., and the parental rights of Troy L., Sr. over his son, Caleb L., pursuant to RSA 170-C:5, III (2002). The respondents argue that the probate court erred in: (1) admitting reports into evidence without requiring the persons generating the reports to be present and available at the termination hearing; (2) failing to consider the respondents' cognitive and financial limitations in assessing the reasonableness of the State's efforts to assist them and in terminating the respondents' parental rights; and (3) allowing expert testimony despite non-compliance with Superior Court Rule 63(G). We affirm.
The record supports the following facts. On February 4, 1997, the Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court (Runyon, J.) entered an adjudicatory order ruling that Jonathan T., Troy L., Jr., and Caleb L. (the children) were neglected children under RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b) (2002). The order included a consent agreement, signed by the respondents and representatives of the State, acknowledging the neglect and enumerating various guidelines designed to correct the conditions of neglect. As part of the consent agreement, the division for children, youth and families (DCYF) was granted legal supervision of the children.
DCYF then provided counseling services to the family through Familystrength, a local service agency. Although these services were initially successful, the respondents' progress in correcting the conditions of neglect began to decline. As a result, at the first review hearing on August 5, 1997, the district court accepted DCYF's recommendation that the family be referred from Familystrength, a short-term service provider, to Monadnock Family Services (MFS), a long-term service provider.
Over the next two and one-half years, the district court held review hearings at approximately six-month intervals. Although the reports offered at these hearings indicated some progress, they also indicated that, without direct involvement and prompting (e.g., from DCYF or MFS), the respondents were unable and unwilling to follow through in their efforts to cure the neglect. As a result, at the hearing on October 27, 1998, the court ordered that the children be placed in foster care, but maintained a variety of services to help the family.
Subsequent reports showed largely positive results for the children in foster care, but also showed the respondents' continuing inability and refusal to correct the conditions constituting neglect. Thus, three years after the finding of neglect, the district court ruled on February 29, 2000, that any further efforts to correct the conditions of neglect and to reunify the family would be futile and detrimental to the children's needs. The court ordered DCYF to cease reunification efforts and proceed with a termination of the respondents' parental rights in the probate court.
The termination hearing in the probate court took place over five days in March and June of 2001. The probate court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents had failed and refused to correct the conditions constituting neglect within eighteen months of the initial finding of neglect. The court ruled that termination of the respondents' parental rights was in the children's best interests, and granted the petition for termination pursuant to RSA 170-C:5, III.
The respondents first argue that the probate court violated RSA 170-C:10 and Rule 804 of the New Hamps
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Hampshire Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|