Background
Mother D.M. appealed an order terminating her parental rights to B.H. and R.H., two children with significant developmental, medical, and behavioral needs. The case had previously reached the Supreme Court of Appeals, which vacated an earlier termination order because the circuit court’s findings conflicted with the evidence and relied on a ground for which the mother had not been adjudicated.
On remand, the mother received a post-dispositional improvement period and services that included parenting and adult-life-skills instruction, drug screening, and supervised and unsupervised visitation. Evidence later showed repeated failures to transport the children to crucial medical and therapy appointments, inadequate supervision that allowed the children to abscond, and incidents in which B.H. was returned from visits in a heavily soiled diaper. After the Department of Human Services filed an amended petition, the circuit court adjudicated the mother as a neglecting parent and terminated her parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that clear and convincing evidence supported the neglect adjudication because the mother repeatedly failed to provide adequate supervision and care, including proper diaper changes, and failed to meet the medically fragile children’s appointment needs. The court rejected the contention that the circuit court had improperly shifted the burden of proof to the mother.
The court deemed waived the mother’s arguments that services were untimely or insufficiently specialized because she had not objected to the improvement-period terms or requested additional services below. It also upheld termination without a less restrictive alternative, concluding that her sobriety, employment, and participation in classes did not overcome her continuing inability to apply what she learned and meet the children’s needs after extensive services and four years of proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A neglect adjudication may rest on clear and convincing evidence that a parent failed to provide necessary supervision and medical care.
- Compliance with selected case-plan requirements does not establish successful improvement when the parent remains unable to correct the underlying parenting deficiencies.
- Objections to the adequacy of services or improvement-period terms generally must be raised in the circuit court to be preserved for appeal.
- Termination may be ordered without a less restrictive alternative when the conditions of neglect cannot reasonably be corrected soon and termination is necessary for the children’s welfare.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that courts assess whether services produce meaningful improvement in parenting capacity, not merely whether a parent attends classes or satisfies discrete requirements. For children with extraordinary medical and behavioral needs, persistent failures involving supervision, hygiene, transportation, and treatment may support termination even when the parent has achieved sobriety and maintained employment.
The ruling also underscores the importance of preserving challenges to case plans and reunification services by objecting or requesting additional assistance in the trial court.