Background
The respondent-mother had a long history of involvement with Children’s Protective Services (CPS), which culminated in the involuntary termination of her parental rights to two of her children in 2018. The termination was based on chronic issues including domestic violence, substance abuse, untreated mental health problems, and neglect. A few years later, in August 2023, she gave birth to another child, CC, who was born with cocaine in his system. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) immediately petitioned for CC’s removal and the termination of the mother’s parental rights at the initial disposition, citing the same unresolved issues that led to the prior termination.
Following a preliminary hearing, the trial court placed CC with his maternal aunt, who had previously adopted his older siblings. Despite the petition seeking termination, the court ordered DHHS to make reasonable reunification efforts and provide the mother with a case service plan. The mother was offered services to address her mental health, substance use, and parenting skills. In July 2024, the mother pleaded to the statutory grounds for termination, which included the prior termination regarding CC’s siblings. This moved the proceedings to a best-interests hearing.
The best-interests hearing took place over five days between January and September 2025. After considering extensive evidence and testimony, the trial court found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in CC’s best interests. The mother then appealed the trial court’s decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights. The mother raised two main arguments on appeal: first, that DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts for reunification by not accommodating her alleged intellectual disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and second, that the trial court erred in finding termination was in the child’s best interests.
On the first issue, the appellate court found that the mother had not preserved the issue for appeal and reviewed it for plain error. The court found no error, concluding the mother failed to demonstrate that she actually suffered from an intellectual disability or that DHHS was aware of one. Beyond “conclusory assertions,” she provided no evidence of a diagnosis. The court noted that an agency “cannot accommodate a disability of which it is unaware.” Furthermore, the mother failed to identify what specific accommodations she required or how the services provided were deficient. The record showed that DHHS provided numerous services, but the mother failed to meaningfully engage with or benefit from them.
On the second issue, the court found no clear error in the trial court’s best-interests determination. The trial court had properly weighed all relevant factors, including the child’s need for permanency and stability. Evidence showed that CC had no significant bond with his mother and was instead strongly bonded with his foster parent (his aunt). The trial court also found that the mother had failed to make “meaningful and lasting progress” on the same issues that led to her 2018 termination case. At the time of the hearing, she was still using substances, was not consistently engaged in mental-health treatment, remained with an abusive partner, and was unemployed and behind on rent. The court concluded that this instability, ongoing since 2018, demonstrated she was unlikely to be able to provide a safe home for CC in the foreseeable future, making termination in his best interest.
Key Takeaways
- A parent claiming an agency failed to accommodate a disability under the ADA must prove the disability exists, that the agency was aware of it, and what specific accommodations were necessary. An agency is not required to accommodate a disability it does not know about.
- In termination cases, a parent’s failure to make “meaningful and lasting progress” on chronic issues that led to prior state intervention will weigh heavily against them, especially when a child has been in care for a significant time.
- A child’s need for permanency, stability, and a strong bond with a long-term caregiver can outweigh a parent’s minimal or inconsistent progress toward reunification, particularly when the parent has a history of non-compliance.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the high hurdle parents face when appealing a termination of parental rights, especially in situations involving chronic, unaddressed problems and a prior termination. It underscores that while the state has a duty to provide reasonable reunification services, the parent has a “commensurate responsibility” to cooperate with, engage in, and benefit from those services to rectify the conditions that brought the family to the court’s attention.
The opinion also provides a clear application of the ADA in child-welfare proceedings. It establishes that a parent cannot simply allege a disability to challenge the adequacy of services; they must present concrete evidence of the disability and show that the services provided were insufficient in light of it. Ultimately, the ruling reinforces a core principle of child protection law: when a parent is unable to provide a safe and stable home within a reasonable timeframe, the child’s fundamental need for permanency becomes the court’s paramount concern.