Stagnation of Parental Progress as Ground for Termination of Parental Rights

Introduction

In Re F.R. & A.R., Juveniles (Vt. 2025) addresses the termination of parental rights of B.B. (father) and T.R. (mother) to their twins, F.R. and A.R., born June 2020. The State filed petitions on day-one of the twins’ lives under Vermont’s “Children in Need of Care or Supervision” (CHINS) framework, citing the parents’ history of substance-abuse, domestic violence, and prior terminations. The central issues on appeal are: (1) whether parents’ progress toward reunification had “stagnated” so as to establish a change in circumstances under 33 V.S.A. § 5113(b); (2) whether termination was in the children’s best interests under 33 V.S.A. § 5114; and (3) whether the trial court violated mother’s due-process rights by shifting the burden of proof in her conditional custody motion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Vermont Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the family court’s termination order. Finding by clear and convincing evidence that (a) the parents’ efforts to remedy the conditions prompting state intervention had stalled despite extensive services and two trial reunifications, and (b) the twins were thriving in a stable foster home, the court concluded termination was in the children’s best interests. The Court further held that placing the burden on mother, as the party seeking modification of custody, did not constitute reversible error, particularly since she did not object at trial or demonstrate prejudice on appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• In re K.F. (2004 VT 40): Established the two-step test for post-disposition termination petitions—(1) change in circumstances; (2) best interests inquiry under § 5114.
• In re J.B. (1998): Declared the “most important” best-interests factor is whether the parent can resume parenting within a reasonable time.
• In re D.M. (2004 VT 41): Clarified that mere attendance at services is insufficient—the court must see concrete amelioration of the conditions that led to removal.
• In re D.C. (1991 & 1998): Addressed preservation of procedural objections in juvenile proceedings and affirmed that a party seeking modification of disposition must show changed circumstances.

These authorities guided the court’s analysis of “stagnation” in parental progress and underscored that the paramount concern is the child’s need for stability and timely permanency.

Legal Reasoning

1. Change in Circumstances (33 V.S.A. § 5113(b))
The court found that after nearly three years and two trial reunifications, neither parent demonstrated meaningful behavioral change. Father persisted in minimizing or denying his violent and threatening conduct—recorded in DCF calls—and violated a court-ordered conduct agreement. Mother failed to acknowledge domestic violence’s impact and repeatedly neglected her children’s medical needs (e.g., missing F.R.’s critical appointments; failing to seek treatment for A.R.’s serious ear infection). This stagnation, not sporadic program attendance, satisfied the “change” requirement by showing no forward movement on the conditions that triggered state intervention.

2. Best Interests (33 V.S.A. § 5114)
Applying the statutory factors, the court emphasized that the twins had formed strong bonds with their foster parents, were fully adjusted medically and emotionally, and that reunification within a reasonable period was impossible given parental stagnation. The decision placed the twins’ need for safe, nurturing care above parental rights.

3. Procedural Due Process and Burden of Proof
Mother argued on appeal that the trial court erred by requiring her to bear the burden in her conditional custody motion. The Supreme Court held that, in family court proceedings, unpreserved objections to burden allocation are waived and that a parent moving to modify custody must demonstrate changed circumstances. The Court found no reversible error, especially since DCF, as legal custodian, originally bore the burden in termination proceedings.

Impact

This decision clarifies that:

• “Stagnation” in parental progress is established not by mere program participation but by the absence of tangible improvements in the conditions leading to removal.
• Courts may consider a parent’s failure to acknowledge or address domestic violence when evaluating stagnation.
• A parent seeking a custody modification after disposition must shoulder the burden of proof and show a genuine change in circumstances.
• When statutory reunification timelines stall, the child’s right to permanency outweighs parental hopes of reunification.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• CHINS: “Children in Need of Care or Supervision”—a finding that a child requires state intervention for safety or welfare.
• Termination of Parental Rights: A legal process severing all parental obligations and rights.
• Conditional Custody Order (CCO): A court-supervised arrangement allowing parents to care for their children under specified conditions.
• Stagnation of Progress: Lack of real, measurable improvement in parental behavior or capacity that originally led to state involvement.
• Clear and Convincing Evidence: A higher standard than “preponderance,” requiring a firm belief in the truth of the allegations.

Conclusion

In Re F.R. & A.R. establishes a robust benchmark for evaluating parental progress in termination proceedings. The Vermont Supreme Court reinforces that superficial compliance with services is insufficient absent genuine behavioral change. By affirming that the burden falls on parents seeking custody modifications and confirming the primacy of the child’s need for timely permanence, this decision will guide future cases toward prioritizing children’s stability and well-being over protracted reunification efforts.