SUMMARY: There was no merit in a challenged to the juvenile court’s suspension of a mother’s visitation, nor was there inadequate notice that DHHS was seeking suspension of visitation.
The mother failed to make a written motion for continuance and supporting affidavit as required by law, but she alleges that since the suspension of visitation “emerged during the course of a hearing, [that] there was no time for [her] to” make such a written motion. However, the record indicates that the mother received a copy of DHHS’s report recommending visitation suspension on Thursday, prior to the Monday hearing. Also, the caseworker testified that she and the mother had discussed the topic of discontinuing visitation several weeks before the review hearing. Even though the formal report arrived on Thursday, there was nothing in the record to indicate why the mother was unable to file a motion on that Friday or at the hearing. Further, there was no evidence that the mother was prejudiced by the “alleged late notice.” Her attorney was still able to cross examine the witnesses, and there was “no showing made concerning the evidence [she] might have produced had she had more time to subpoena or otherwise examine additional witnesses, such as [her daughter’s] counselor and pediatrician. “
The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence that suspension of visitation was in this child’s best interests. The evidence “demonstrated that [the child’s] contact with both [parents had] resulted in extreme anxiety, manifesting itself in ways detrimental to [the child’s] mental and physical well-being. Finally, suspension of visitation is “not tantamount to a constructive termination of” parental rights. There are many goals and services contained in the case plan that can still be actively pursued, and further the trial court indicated “a willingness for future hearings on visitation, leaving open the possibility of restoring visitation.”