Background
S.O. was born in October 2020 and was placed in the emergency custody of the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) in April 2024 after the State filed a CHINS petition. At the time, S.O. was in his mother’s care; his father had had no contact with him for a significant period and was not confirmed as S.O.’s parent until December 2024. Following a hearing in October 2024, the court adjudicated S.O. as CHINS based on findings of accessible drug paraphernalia in the mother’s home and her untreated substance abuse. A December 2024 disposition order continued S.O. in DCF custody with a permanency goal of reunification with either parent, and set out case-plan action steps for both parents.
In April 2025, the State moved to terminate both parents’ rights. The evidence showed that mother had minimal contact with DCF, was largely unreachable, and saw S.O. only once between August 2024 and February 2026. She made no progress on substance-abuse treatment, mental-health assessment, or parent education, and her living situation remained unknown. Father maintained regular visitation — ninety-minute visits three times per week — and developed a positive relationship with S.O., but he refused to cooperate with DCF’s efforts to assess his home, failed to complete a substance-use evaluation despite repeated appearances at visits while intoxicated, and tested positive for cocaine and high levels of alcohol during one screening visit.
At the time of the termination order, S.O. had lived with the same foster parent for over a year, had a close and loving relationship with her, and was having all of his needs met in that placement. The Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Family Division (Judge Rachel M. Malone) granted the State’s motion, finding a material change in circumstances as to both parents and concluding that termination was in S.O.’s best interests. Both parents appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the termination of both parents’ parental rights. Applying the two-step framework requiring (1) a substantial change in material circumstances and (2) a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests, the court held that the trial court’s findings were supported by the record and that its conclusions were not clearly erroneous. The court rejected mother’s argument that the trial court failed to give adequate weight to her prior role as S.O.’s primary caregiver, noting that the court expressly acknowledged that history but properly focused on her complete absence from S.O.’s life after his removal — including only a single visit in over a year — and her failure to address any of the case-plan goals.
As to father, the court rejected his contention that playing a “constructive role” during supervised visitation precluded a finding of stagnation. The court found that father’s refusal to cooperate with DCF’s home assessment over the course of several months was a significant impediment to reunification that he alone caused, and that the housing issue remained unresolved as of the termination order. The court also found that despite father’s late-breaking indication at the termination hearing that he would cooperate, the trial court was not obligated to credit that change of heart, and had no basis to assess the safety or suitability of his home or to determine how long it would take to become appropriate for S.O.
The court reiterated its standard of review — findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, and conclusions will be affirmed if supported by the findings — and concluded that both parents’ arguments amounted to disagreement with the weight the trial court assigned to the evidence, which does not establish an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Stagnation in parental ability can be found even where a parent maintains consistent visitation, if that parent refuses to take steps necessary to progress beyond supervised contact toward independent care of the child.
- A parent’s last-minute offer to cooperate with DCF requirements does not require the trial court to credit or rely on it, particularly where unresolved safety concerns remain outstanding as of the termination hearing.
- A prior history as the child’s primary caregiver does not override a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests where the parent has had virtually no contact with the child during the period of DCF custody and has made no progress on case-plan goals.
- This decision is an unpublished three-justice panel entry order and carries no precedential weight before any Vermont tribunal.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates how Vermont courts assess parental stagnation in termination proceedings, particularly where one parent is engaged in visitation but obstructs other components of the reunification plan. The court’s treatment of father underscores that consistent in-person contact, standing alone, is insufficient to forestall termination when a parent refuses to permit home assessments, declines substance-abuse evaluation, and fails to progress toward independent caregiving over a sustained period.
For practitioners, the decision also reinforces the deference appellate courts extend to trial court credibility determinations and evidentiary weight assessments in best-interests analyses. A parent’s eleventh-hour shift in position at the termination hearing will not automatically reset the calculus where the court cannot independently verify the changed circumstances or project a timeline for compliance.