Background
The Department of Children and Families sought to terminate the parental rights of A.M. and the fathers of her four children after years of dependency proceedings, repeated removals, and reunifications. The record described domestic violence, substance abuse, alleged physical abuse of J.H., and repeated out-of-home placements. A.M. pleaded guilty to aggravated child abuse after a 2023 incident involving J.H.; after another reunification, the children were removed again in 2025.
DCF alleged prospective neglect and, as to A.M., three or more out-of-home placements, among other grounds. It alleged abandonment and prospective neglect against the fathers. At the close of DCF’s case, the trial court granted the parents’ motions for judgment of dismissal of the termination petition, while also adjudicating the children dependent. DCF appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District reversed the dismissals and remanded for further termination proceedings. Because the dismissals were entered at the close of DCF’s evidence, the appellate court viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in DCF’s favor and asked whether any proper view of that evidence could sustain termination.
That standard was met, the court held. As to A.M., the evidence could support termination based on three or more out-of-home placements and prospective neglect, including a repeated cycle of partial compliance, reunification, and further harmful conduct despite services. As to both fathers, their conceded lack of visitation, relationship, and financial contribution could support abandonment, and the evidence could also support prospective neglect. The court did not decide DCF’s separate argument concerning the simultaneous dependency adjudication.
Key Takeaways
- A judgment of dismissal in a termination case must be assessed by viewing the evidence and inferences in DCF’s favor.
- Repeated removals and unsuccessful reunifications after services may support prospective-neglect and multiple-placement grounds.
- A parent’s lack of meaningful contact, care, and support may establish a prima facie abandonment case.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes review of a dismissal at the close of DCF’s case from ordinary deferential review of a completed termination judgment. At that stage, a court may not weigh competing evidence where DCF’s proof and favorable inferences could support termination.
The ruling sends the case back for the termination proceedings to continue; it does not itself terminate any parent’s rights.