Background
In May 2022, Vermont’s Department for Children and Families filed a petition alleging that C.W., then two years old, was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) after her seven-month-old brother died of a drug overdose while in the parents’ custody. Both parents had substance-abuse disorders and had inadequately supervised their children. In December 2022, the parents stipulated to CHINS status, and the court established a permanency goal of reunification with the parents by September 2023. The case plan required the parents to engage in substance-use treatment, demonstrate sobriety, maintain safe housing, avoid domestic conflict, and meet all expectations of criminal court and probation.
In August 2023, the court granted the parents a conditional custody order (CCO). However, in September 2024, the family experienced a crisis when C.W. was injured during a violent altercation in a hotel room where the family was living. The father, under the influence of crack cocaine, physically assaulted the mother, injuring both her and C.W. The mother suffered deep cuts, bruising, and strangulation marks; C.W. had abrasions on her shoulder, ribcage, and back. Law enforcement responded to the scene and observed extensive blood throughout the room. The court immediately transferred custody of C.W. back to the Department for Children and Families and scheduled a hearing on termination of parental rights.
The parents were charged with manslaughter in the death of their infant son and pleaded guilty in January 2024 to a sentence of one to fifteen years, all suspended, with probation. Following the September 2024 assault, the father was also charged with and admitted to violating his probation by engaging in criminal behavior. In February 2025, after his release from incarceration, he was involved in another bar fight while drinking with the mother, resulting in another incarceration until May 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights, finding a substantial change in circumstances and determining that termination was in C.W.’s best interests. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father physically assaulted the mother and C.W., relying on testimony from the responding police officer who observed the mother’s injuries and bloodstains throughout the hotel room, corroborated by the mother’s consistent statements at the time of the incident and physical evidence of the child’s injuries. The court rejected the parents’ testimony that the mother was the aggressor, finding it implausible given the father’s larger size and greater physical strength.
The court found that while the parents initially engaged with their case plan—securing housing, employment, and sobriety by the time of the termination hearing—they fundamentally failed to provide a safe, violence-free home as required. Critically, neither parent addressed or took responsibility for the father’s pattern of domestic violence, which recurred as recently as the February 2025 bar fight. The mother appeared unwilling to protect C.W. from potential harm by prioritizing her relationship with the father over the child’s safety. The court noted that the mother failed to seek a restraining order, did not disclose the assault to DCF, and later minimized the father’s behavior. The father refused to acknowledge his abuse or engage in domestic-violence counseling.
The court further found that the parents would not be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable time. C.W.’s relationship with both parents had deteriorated: she expressed fear of her father and no longer wished to see her mother due to missed and inconsistent visits. C.W. was well-bonded with her foster family and thriving in her foster home, school, and community. The court concluded that termination served C.W.’s best interests and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Hearsay evidence is admissible in termination proceedings as long as it is not the sole basis for termination; the court must find corroborating non-hearsay evidence. Here, police testimony, observed injuries, and the mother’s consistent statements at the incident scene provided clear and convincing evidence of the assault.
- Vermont’s termination standard applies best-interests factors rather than requiring an explicit finding of parental “unfitness.” The best-interests analysis necessarily encompasses consideration of parental fitness.
- A parent’s own criminal conduct, incarceration, and resulting separation from the child are within the parent’s control and cannot be attributed to the state child-welfare agency.
- Partial progress in some areas of a case plan—such as obtaining housing and employment—does not preclude a finding of changed circumstances warranting termination if fundamental safety issues remain unaddressed.
- A parent’s failure to address a pattern of domestic violence, combined with unwillingness to protect the child from that violence, supports termination even when the parent has achieved sobriety and financial stability.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the intersection of domestic violence and parental rights termination in child-welfare cases. The court emphasizes that achieving some milestones in a reunification case plan—sobriety, employment, stable housing—is insufficient if a parent fails to address root causes of risk to the child. The decision particularly underscores that when a parent’s relationship with an abusive partner poses ongoing danger to a child, the child’s safety must take precedence over parental rights, especially when the at-risk parent shows no willingness to prioritize the child’s protection.
The court’s treatment of the domestic-violence evidence is significant: it found that even a single violent incident, when combined with evidence of a pattern of violence and a parent’s refusal to accept responsibility, justified severing contact between the child and abusive parent and ultimately terminating parental rights. This reflects a modern understanding that children’s exposure to domestic violence constitutes harm requiring protective intervention, and that parents must take active steps—including accountability and specialized counseling—to mitigate documented violence risks before reunification can succeed.