Background
W.M. was taken into state custody on the day of her birth in July 2022 after the state filed a petition alleging the child was in need of care or supervision (CHINS). The state alleged that the mother, C.M., had untreated schizophrenia, exhibited delusions, made statements during pregnancy suggesting she might harm the baby, and had not engaged in prenatal care. In December 2022, the family court found the child met the CHINS criteria and issued a disposition order in February 2023 with the initial goal of reunification.
The case plan required the mother to: engage in mental-health treatment and take prescribed medications; demonstrate stable mental health and ability to care for herself; participate in family coaching through Easterseals; maintain safe housing; attend parenting classes; and attend the child’s medical appointments. The initial deadline for achieving these goals was July 2023, but the court extended this deadline multiple times. In January 2025, the child’s attorney filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights, joined by the Department for Children and Families (DCF) in November 2025 after a psychological evaluation.
The family court held a final hearing in January 2026. The court found that although the mother had engaged in mental-health treatment and was compliant with medications for a significant portion of the case, her parenting skills showed little meaningful improvement despite receiving extended coaching services. The mother required prompting for basic caregiving tasks such as changing diapers and hand-washing. She struggled with housing stability, stopped taking medications in 2024 and was hospitalized, then left a supportive housing program (where medication was monitored) to live with an individual named Vinny. After Vinny’s death, her housing situation became unstable. DCF had no contact with the mother since August 2025, and the mother had not seen the child since that same month.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights. The court applied the two-step standard for termination: first, determining whether there was a change in circumstances sufficient to modify the original disposition order, and second, assessing whether termination was in the child’s best interests. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the mother’s ability to care for the child had stagnated over time, constituting the required change in circumstances.
Addressing the mother’s argument on appeal that DCF failed to provide adequate services regarding medication management, the court held that while reasonable efforts by DCF are a relevant factor, the findings demonstrated that the mother received extensive services from case inception through at least 2024. Critically, the court found that even during periods when the mother was medicated and receiving parental coaching, her ability to provide safe, basic childcare did not improve meaningfully. The mother’s inability to perform simple caregiving tasks posed a safety risk to the child.
The court concluded that the mother’s lack of progress was attributable to factors within her control rather than DCF’s failure to provide services—particularly her decision to leave supportive housing where her medications were monitored and dispensed. The court assessed the best-interests factors and found that the child was closely bonded to her foster family and community, had not had meaningful contact with the mother in months, and that the mother was unlikely to be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable time. The court therefore concluded termination was in the child’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- A parent must affirmatively demonstrate the ability to resume parental duties within a reasonable time; stagnation in progress over time, even with extensive services provided, can justify termination.
- Mental illness alone does not preclude termination of parental rights; the focus remains on the parent’s actual ability to provide safe, competent childcare and on the child’s best interests.
- A parent’s voluntary choices (such as leaving supportive housing) may constitute factors within their control for purposes of establishing that lack of progress stems from the parent’s decisions rather than service deficiencies.
- Medication compliance, while important, is not sufficient to prevent termination if fundamental parenting skills remain absent and the child’s safety is at risk.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the burden on parents in reunification proceedings and reaffirms that courts will prioritize a child’s best interests and actual safety over parental status. The opinion addresses the tension between accommodating a parent’s mental illness and protecting a child: while the state must offer reasonable services, it is not obligated to guarantee a parent’s compliance with treatment or to indefinitely delay permanency planning. The court rejected the mother’s argument that DCF’s failure to mandate specific medication alternatives (such as long-acting injectables) should require reversal, establishing that DCF has discretion in case planning and that parents cannot collaterally attack case plans they failed to appeal from the initial disposition.
For family law practitioners, the decision underscores that termination can be appropriate when a parent, despite access to services and periods of stability, demonstrates persistent inability to meet a child’s basic needs. The opinion emphasizes that the “reasonable time” for resumption of parental duties is measured from the perspective of a child’s developmental needs, not a parent’s potential for eventual recovery or improvement.