Background
D.P. entered Department for Children and Families custody in June 2023 after police found father in mother’s bedroom despite no-contact conditions and observed drug paraphernalia within the two-year-old child’s reach. Mother admitted using methamphetamine. After the family court found D.P. to be a child in need of care or supervision, it adopted a reunification plan requiring both parents to address substance use, maintain a safe home, demonstrate sobriety and parenting ability, and comply with other parent-specific requirements.
DCF sought termination in December 2024. Following a three-day hearing, the family court found that both parents had stagnated. Mother had achieved six months of sobriety by January 2026 and maintained regular, positive contact with D.P., but she had not completed recommended substance-use treatment, advanced beyond supervised visits, or secured housing suitable for reunification. Father had not seen D.P. in person for more than two years, had not meaningfully addressed his severe substance-use disorder or completed parenting and domestic-violence services, and had several outstanding arrest warrants.
The family court further found that D.P. was thriving with foster parents and a foster sister, while neither parent could resume parental duties within a reasonable time. It terminated both parents’ residual parental rights, and both appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. It upheld the finding that mother’s progress had stagnated, explaining that her sober residence, daily AA or NA meetings, and work with a sponsor and recovery coach were important supports but were not equivalent to the substance-use treatment recommended by her provider. The record supported the finding that she was not actively engaged in that recommended treatment when the hearing occurred.
The Court also rejected mother’s claims that DCF caused her stagnation by obstructing admission to the Lund program or limiting visitation. Mother initially declined Lund, later delayed completing the application, and had experienced relapses and other setbacks within her control. DCF maintained supervised visits after inconsistent attendance and a cocaine relapse, later lengthened the visits, and accommodated mother’s treatment schedule. Mother did not seek a court order increasing visitation.
As to father, the Court held that an initial two-month delay in visitation while parentage was disputed did not cause his later lack of progress. His relocation, refusal of transportation assistance, inconsistent virtual visits, untreated substance use, incomplete services, difficulty cooperating with DCF, and outstanding warrants were factors within his control. The Court declined to consider his separate Lund-placement theory because it was not preserved below. Neither parent challenged the family court’s best-interests analysis.
Key Takeaways
- A court may distinguish recovery supports such as sober housing and peer-support meetings from clinically recommended substance-use treatment.
- DCF-related delay or disagreement does not defeat a stagnation finding when the parent’s own conduct primarily caused the failure to progress toward reunification.
- An appellate challenge in a termination case must be preserved in the family court; the Supreme Court would not consider father’s unpreserved Lund-placement theory.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Vermont courts assess whether a parent’s progress has stagnated after an initial reunification disposition. Recent sobriety and positive visits matter, but they may be insufficient when the parent has not completed recommended treatment, obtained appropriate housing, or advanced toward unsupervised care within a time frame responsive to the child’s need for permanency.
The ruling also underscores that alleged agency interference must be connected to the parent’s failure to progress. Courts will examine the full course of the case, including missed opportunities, delayed participation, relapses, relocation, and refusal of offered assistance.