“Beyond-Control” Limits in Parental‐Rights Terminations:
Vermont Supreme Court Defines the Parent’s Evidentiary Burden in Stagnation Cases

1. Introduction

In In re A.B. & B.B., Juveniles, 2025 VT ___ (July 11 2025), the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Family Division’s order terminating a father’s parental rights to two young children. Although termination cases are fact-intensive, the decision carries statewide significance because it clarifies how courts evaluate the “stagnation” prong of 33 V.S.A. § 5113(b) when a parent claims that personal progress was thwarted by circumstances “beyond the parent’s control.”

The father argued that poverty, work demands, transportation barriers, and a tight housing market explained his failure to meet case-plan goals. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that a parent must demonstrate—based on the actual record—that barriers were truly uncontrollable and that the Department for Children and Families (DCF) failed to offer reasonable assistance. Absent such proof, persistent non-compliance constitutes stagnation warranting termination.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Father appealed only the first step of the termination analysis—whether a “substantial change in material circumstances” (stagnation) existed.
• The Court found ample evidence that father made no meaningful progress on case-plan steps (housing, visitation, substance assessment, parenting education, engagement with providers).
• Father’s claim that external hardships caused his stagnation was unsupported by the record; DCF offered transportation, housing-application support, flexible meetings, and visitation scheduling that father ignored.
• Because the record showed opportunities within father’s control, the Family Division correctly found stagnation and proceeded to best-interests analysis, ultimately terminating rights. The Supreme Court affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. In re D.S., 2016 VT 130 – Restates the two-step termination framework under § 5113(b) and § 5114(a). The Court relied on this structure to separate the stagnation inquiry from best-interests.
2. In re S.W., 2003 VT 90 – Defines “changed circumstances” as stagnation or deterioration over time. The opinion quotes this standard directly.
3. In re R.W., 2011 VT 124 – Clarifies that the State bears the burden at each step by clear and convincing evidence and introduces the harmless-error doctrine in TPR appeals. The Court used R.W. to dismiss father’s argument that errors about housing/visitation were prejudicial.
4. In re D.M., 2004 VT 41 (mem.) – Explains that stagnation cannot be based on factors outside the parent’s control. This case formed the backbone of father’s appeal, and the Court distinguished it by pointing to record evidence of choice rather than constraint.
5. In re D.M., 162 Vt. 33 (1994) – Re-affirms the discretionary nature of TPR decisions; cited for standard of review.
6. In re N.L., 2019 VT 10 – Provides the “clearly erroneous” standard for factual findings.
7. In re G.F., 2007 VT 11 & In re D.C., 157 Vt. 659 (1991) – Discusses harmless-error and preservation doctrines.

Collectively, these authorities supplied the doctrinal scaffolding for the Court’s decision and allowed it to articulate a precise evidentiary threshold for “beyond the parent’s control” arguments.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Burden Allocation. The Court reiterated that the State must prove stagnation by clear and convincing evidence but noted that a parent asserting uncontrollable barriers must identify record support for such barriers. Mere assertions on appeal are inadequate.
2. Record-Based Inquiry. The justices combed the transcripts:
   • Father conceded he skipped meetings because he “wasn’t prioritizing this right.”
   • Transportation vouchers and free bus service were available.
   • Housing forms were provided; father never filed them and allowed them to be “ruined by weather.”
   • DCF attempted monthly meetings; father became unreachable.
   These findings demonstrated agency support + parental non-engagement, not external impossibility.
3. Harmless-Error Safeguard. Even if certain findings (e.g., housing) were flawed, others (failure to attend parenting classes, substance assessment refusal) independently supported stagnation; thus any error would be harmless.
4. Discretion and Appellate Deference. Because the Family Division applied the correct legal standard, its factual findings were upheld unless clearly erroneous. Nothing in the record met that threshold.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

This decision sharpens Vermont jurisprudence in four ways:

1. Clarified Evidentiary Burden. Parents must marshal concrete evidence that external factors wholly prevented compliance. Courts will examine agency efforts and the parent’s initiative.
2. Expands “Within Control.” Failures to apply for housing, use free transportation, or communicate with case workers are now explicitly within a parent’s control, even amid poverty and employment obligations.
3. Guidance for DCF and Trial Courts. Agencies should document all offers of assistance; trial judges should make specific findings about those offers to insulate orders from reversal.
4. Predictive Effect. Future litigants invoking the “beyond control” defense will need robust, contemporaneous evidence (e.g., wait-list letters, denied applications, unfulfilled service referrals) or risk summary rejection.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Termination of Parental Rights (TPR): A legal action permanently severing a parent’s rights and responsibilities toward a child.
• Stagnation: Lack of measurable improvement by the parent in remedying issues that led to state intervention.
• “Beyond the Parent’s Control” Limitation: A parent cannot be faulted for stagnation if external, unmanageable forces (e.g., lengthy service wait-lists, hospitalization) truly prevented progress.
• Clear and Convincing Evidence: High civil standard requiring the fact-finder to believe that the truth of the claim is highly probable.
• Harmless Error: Even if a lower court makes a mistake, the appellate court will not reverse if the error did not affect the outcome.

5. Conclusion

In re A.B. & B.B. breaks new ground by converting a usually implicit expectation into an explicit rule: a parent who blames external hardships for non-compliance must substantiate that claim with record evidence showing diligent effort and agency failure. The decision harmonizes compassion for socioeconomic realities with a child-centered focus on timely permanency. Going forward, Vermont courts are likely to cite this case when evaluating whether stagnation truly lies “beyond the parent’s control,” ensuring both accountability and fairness in the delicate balance between parental rights and child welfare.