 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Dept. of Children's Services v. J.S.10/25/2001
ertheless, he did not take any actions to obtain visitation with his son, and his only contact with A.R.P. while incarcerated was two birthday cards. Mother did attempt to maintain contact with A.R.P. by sending him cards, letters, toys, and tape recordings of stories; however, when she was released in April, 1999, and given an opportunity to regain regular contact with her son, she wasted that opportunity by using drugs and violating her parole, and she was re-incarcerated in July, 1999.
In the past four and one-half years of A.R.P.'s life, neither parent has established a meaningful relationship with their son. However, during the past three years, A.R.P. has established a meaningful relationship with his current foster parents, with whom he has lived since February, 1998. He is now in a stable, steady home with foster parents who wish to adopt him. During his stay with his foster parents, A.R.P. has seen both his Father and Mother, yet he considers his foster parents his family. As a result of A.R.P.'s connection with his foster parents, the trial court found that changing caretakers would have a negative effect on A.R.P., and we agree. According to the testimony of his foster mother, A.R.P. experienced increased nightmares after his two visits with Father, following the latter's release in July.
The trial court also found that the homes of Mother or Father may be inappropriate because of prior criminal activity. At the time of trial, Mother was still incarcerated and could not provide a home for her child, and Father had only been out on parole approximately eight weeks. Both parents have used drugs and alcohol in the past, and both parents have extensive criminal histories. Furthermore, both parents have been through drug treatment programs and relapsed.
Lastly, the court found that neither parent has paid support consistent with the child support guidelines. Father was incarcerated from March 1997 to July 2000, and Mother was incarcerated from August 1997, until the time of trial. During that time, both Mother and Father held jobs while in prison. Even though their income was minimal, neither parent made any effort to provide any monetary support for A.R.P.
Under these circumstances, we decline to disturb the trial court's conclusion that termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights is in the child's best interest. The trial court accurately captured the essence of this case when it said the following in its termination order:
Although both parents appear to love their child and both parents appear to have taken advantage of the available educational opportunities in prison in an effort to turn their life around, they cannot erase their past criminal problems and substance abuse, and the damage caused by same to their relationship with their son. They have been absent physically, emotionally and financially for fifty-two (52) of the fifty-eight (58) months of their child's life. The child should not be uprooted and have his life turned upside down because his parents now claim they are ready to act like parents.
V. Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons stated. This case is remanded for enforcement of the trial court's judgment and for collection of costs assessed below, all pursuant to applicable law. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellants, J.S. and T.P.
|