Background
W.M. was born in July 2022 to a mother with untreated schizophrenia. On the day of W.M.’s birth, the State filed a CHINS (child in need of care or supervision) petition based on mother’s untreated mental illness, delusional behavior, statements suggesting she might harm the baby, and failure to obtain prenatal care. The family division issued emergency and temporary care orders transferring custody to the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF), and in December 2022 the court formally found W.M. to be CHINS.
In February 2023 the court issued a disposition order with a goal of reunification, requiring mother to engage in mental-health treatment, take prescribed medications, maintain stable housing, attend parenting classes, participate in Family Time Coaching through Easterseals, sign releases for DCF, and attend W.M.’s medical appointments. Although mother initially engaged with services and attended visits, she required substantial prompting for basic caregiving tasks — checking and changing diapers, handwashing, and appropriate feeding — and showed little to no improvement over time despite extended coaching support.
Mother’s progress deteriorated further in 2024 when she stopped taking her medications, was hospitalized at Rutland Regional Medical Center, and subsequently left a supportive housing program that provided in-home mental health support and medication monitoring. She relocated to live with a companion in Cornwall, severing access to her medications. By the time of the January 2026 termination hearing — which mother did not attend — DCF had lost contact with her since August 2025, she had not attended any of W.M.’s medical appointments since 2022, and she had never completed a parenting class. W.M.’s father’s rights had already been terminated in January 2026 after he failed to participate in the proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the termination of mother’s parental rights. The court held that the record supported both prongs of the termination analysis: (1) mother’s parenting ability had stagnated over the life of the case, constituting a change in circumstances sufficient to justify modifying the original disposition order; and (2) termination was in W.M.’s best interests because mother was unlikely to be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable time.
On appeal, mother argued that DCF provided insufficient services to ensure medication adherence — a known risk for individuals with schizophrenia — and that DCF should have advocated for alternatives such as long-acting injectable medications. The court rejected this argument, finding that DCF had offered extensive services from the outset and that mother’s lack of progress was attributable to factors within her own control. Critically, the court found that even during periods when mother was compliant with medication and receiving parenting coaching, her caregiving skills did not meaningfully improve and she remained unable to safely meet W.M.’s basic needs.
The court also rejected any implicit ADA-based defense, consistent with its prior ruling at the trial level and with established Vermont precedent holding that denial of a termination petition is not an appropriate remedy for ADA violations and that the focus of the proceeding must be the best interests of the child. Because mother had not appealed the initial disposition order or the case-plan requirements, any collateral attack on those requirements was also barred.
Key Takeaways
- Stagnation in parenting ability over the life of a case — not merely deterioration — is sufficient to establish the change in circumstances required to modify a disposition order and proceed to a best-interests analysis under Vermont law.
- DCF’s reasonable efforts to assist a parent are a relevant factor in the termination analysis, but extensive services that a parent fails to utilize or benefit from support — rather than undermine — a finding that the parent cannot resume parental duties within a reasonable time.
- An ADA violation by DCF is not a cognizable defense to termination of parental rights; the child’s best interests remain the paramount consideration, and Vermont courts will not deny a termination petition as a remedy for alleged disability-accommodation failures.
- Parents who do not appeal an initial disposition order are barred from collaterally attacking the case-plan requirements in a subsequent termination proceeding.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Vermont’s framework for termination cases involving parents with serious mental illness: the adequacy of DCF’s services matters, but it does not override the court’s obligation to act in the child’s best interests when a parent has failed to make meaningful progress toward reunification despite years of support. Practitioners representing parents with psychiatric disabilities should note that arguing DCF failed to accommodate a disability — even framed in terms of case-planning obligations rather than as an explicit ADA defense — is unlikely to succeed unless the parent can show that better services would have led to materially different outcomes.
The opinion also illustrates the evidentiary weight courts may place on a parent’s voluntary choices during the case, such as leaving a supportive housing program or failing to maintain contact with DCF, even where an underlying mental illness complicates the picture of volition. Because this is an unpublished three-justice panel entry order, it carries no precedential value before any Vermont tribunal.