In re K.B.

 
 
                                ENTRY ORDER
 
                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 88-398
 
                            JANUARY TERM, 1990
 
 
In re K.B., Juvenile              }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }          Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 62-8-86 Osj
 
 
             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:
 
     The juvenile's mother argues that the juvenile court lacked the
authority to hold an eighteen-month disposition review hearing ten months
after the filing of the original disposition order.  Soon after the original
disposition order, both the State and the juvenile moved to modify the dis-
position and thereby terminate parental rights.  The hearings for both the
dispositional review and the modification motions were scheduled for January
28, 1988.  By the time of the continued hearings of March 17 and 21, 1988,
all parties to the action had been informed for almost one year that the
court would consider the termination of residual parental rights.  At the
continued hearings, the mother had the opportunity to present evidence,
cross-examine witnesses and to make arguments to the court.  In short, the
mother participated vigorously, and opposed the termination of her parental
rights.  Therefore, we find no error in the procedure that the court used to
arrive at its termination order.  See In re H.A., No. 88-199, slip op. at 6
(Vt. Jan. 26, 1990); In re J.R.,     Vt.    ,    , 570 A.2d 154, 160-61
(1989).
 
     The findings which formed the basis for the original determination that
a child was in need of care and supervision must be proven only at the
original merits hearing, and are not required in a disposition or modifi-
cation hearing to terminate parental rights.  In re C.L. and H.L.,     Vt.
  ,    , 563 A.2d 241, 247 (1989).
 
     The juvenile court must determine on the facts of each case whether the
treatment of siblings is probative of neglect or abuse of a juvenile under
the court's consideration.  In re D.P., 147 Vt. 26, 30, 510 A.2d 967, 970,
(1986).  Where there is evidence of abuse of the juvenile, evidence con-
cerning the treatment of siblings is relevant and may be relied on by the
court to support its conclusions with respect to the juvenile.  See In re
R.M., 150 Vt. 59, 69, 549 A.2d 1050, 1056 (1988); In re D.P., 147 Vt. at 31,
510 A.2d  at 970 (1986).  Here, the juvenile court properly admitted the
decisions of the Connecticut court which terminated the mother's parental
rights to K.B.'s four older siblings due in part to her failure to protect
two of the siblings from egregious sexual abuse by their father and the
mother's refusal to obtain rehabilitation.  The court heard testimony that
indicated a serious impediment existed to the safe return of K.B. to his
mother's care because of her continued denial of the siblings' sexual abuse
and her failure to be able to recognize and therefore protect K.B. against
sexual abuse.  This evidence was relevant to the "totality of the home
environment directly impacting on the well-being of [the juvenile]."  In re
R.M., 150 Vt. at 69, 549 A.2d  at 1056.
 
     "The State's power to intervene to protect a child, and if necessary to
terminate the parent-child relationship, does not deny the parent substan-
tive due process."  In re R.B.,     Vt.    ,    , 566 A.2d 1310, 1316
(1989).  The juvenile court appropriately considered the factors set forth
in 33 V.S.A. { 667 and noted that the real test is to determine whether
there is a reasonable possibility that the natural parent will be able to
resume parental duties within a reasonable period of time.  In re J.J., 143
Vt. 1, 6, 458 A.2d 1129, 1131 (1983).  In juvenile cases, findings of fact
will stand if there exists any credible evidence to support them.  In re
C.L. and H.L.,     Vt. at    , 563 A.2d  at 244.  Examination of the record
indicates that the findings are replete with facts sufficient to find that
the mother would not be able to resume her parental duties within a reason-
able time.  These findings, in turn, support the court's conclusion that the
mother's parental rights should be terminated.
 
     Affirmed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                   BY THE COURT:
 
 
 
                                   Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice
 
 
                                   Louis P. Peck, Associate Justice
 
 
[ ]  Publish                       Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice
 
[ ]  Do Not Publish
                                   John A. Dooley, Associate Justice