Background
L.H., born in 2014, was the subject of a third CHINS petition filed by Vermont in March 2024. The petition alleged that mother K.M. exposed L.H. to domestic violence and substance abuse, left him unsupervised for extended periods, and failed to address his medical needs, including serious ear infections. Drug paraphernalia was found accessible to L.H., including a syringe packed in an overnight bag prepared by mother. The family division of Chittenden Unit Superior Court transferred custody to the Department for Children and Families (DCF), and L.H. was placed with his maternal grandparents, where he remained throughout the proceedings.
In January 2025, DCF filed a case plan recommending adoption as the permanency goal and petitioned to terminate mother’s parental rights at initial disposition. A final hearing was held over three days in May, June, and October 2025. Mother’s engagement with the proceedings was inconsistent: she appeared for only one full day of the three-day hearing and defied a court order to appear in person for the final session, arriving remotely an hour late. She also refused to return to Vermont to address active arrest warrants on multiple pending criminal charges including cocaine possession and driving under the influence.
After L.H. entered DCF custody, mother relocated to Albany, New York, where she was incarcerated in November 2024 for petit larceny and later enrolled in a transitional housing and addiction treatment program. She reported four months of sobriety in May 2025, but DCF records revealed a cocaine relapse in April 2025. By the time of the October 2025 hearing, mother lived in a recovery residence, worked part-time as a cleaner, and was four months pregnant. She had seen L.H. in person only twice since July 2024 and acknowledged she did not want him returned to her care until she secured an apartment — an event she estimated was at least eight months away.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family division’s order terminating mother’s parental rights at initial disposition. Applying the four-factor best-interests analysis under 33 V.S.A. § 5114(a), the trial court had found by clear and convincing evidence that termination served L.H.’s best interests, with the most critical factor being whether mother could resume parental duties within a reasonable time measured from the child’s perspective. The Supreme Court held that the trial court applied the correct legal standard and that its findings were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
The court acknowledged mother’s recent positive steps — achieving sobriety, engaging in substance-use and mental-health treatment, and obtaining stable housing — but held that these improvements did not overcome the substantial evidence that she could not resume full-time parenting within a reasonable timeframe. At the time of the final hearing, L.H. had been in DCF custody for eighteen months. Mother had been largely absent from his life, had no knowledge of his medical or mental-health providers, had made no effort to contact his school, and had not addressed the domestic violence and trauma issues that contributed to L.H.’s removal. Her own testimony conceded that reunification was at least eight months away.
The court further noted that mother’s unresolved criminal charges carried a real possibility of reincarceration, and her pregnancy added additional uncertainty. Citing In re B.M., 165 Vt. 194 (1996), the court reiterated that a parent’s recent personal progress does not preclude termination when the focus must remain on the parent’s ability to actually parent the child and the strength of the parent-child bond. Because L.H. still needed permanency and too many variables remained unresolved, the termination order was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Vermont courts may terminate parental rights at initial disposition — without a prior reunification period — when there is no reasonable possibility the circumstances that caused a CHINS finding can be remedied within a time reasonable from the child’s perspective.
- A parent’s genuine recent progress toward sobriety and stable housing, while relevant, does not automatically preclude termination if the parent cannot demonstrate readiness to resume full-time parenting within a reasonable timeframe and critical issues (domestic violence, criminal exposure, lack of knowledge of the child’s needs) remain unaddressed.
- The “likelihood of resuming parental duties within a reasonable time” is the most important of the four best-interests factors under 33 V.S.A. § 5114(a), and that timeframe is measured from the child’s needs — not the parent’s trajectory.
- A parent’s own estimate at the hearing that reunification is at least eight months away is powerful evidence supporting a court’s conclusion that return within a reasonable time is not feasible.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the narrow but real availability of initial-disposition termination in Vermont as a tool for achieving permanency for children with long, troubled child-welfare histories. L.H. had been the subject of three CHINS petitions spanning his entire life and had been in DCF custody for eighteen months. The ruling signals that courts will look past a parent’s recent positive steps to evaluate the totality of the parent-child relationship — including the depth of the bond, the parent’s concrete knowledge of the child’s day-to-day needs, and the number of outstanding legal and personal obstacles still standing between the parent and the ability to provide a stable home.
For family law practitioners, the case illustrates that failing to appear consistently at hearings, refusing to return to the jurisdiction to resolve criminal charges, and being unable to identify a child’s medical and educational providers are all factors that can independently undercut an otherwise improving picture. It also highlights the weight courts give to a parent’s own admissions about their timeline for reunification when assessing best interests.