In re C.M. & a., 166 N.H. 764

DCYF filed neglect petitions against Larry and Sonia in circuit court on April 12, 2011, alleging unsafe home conditions, inadequate supervision, and exposure to domestic violence.
The circuit court found neglect and ordered DCYF custody; each parent received court-appointed counsel at the neglect proceedings.
A de novo appeal to the superior court was pursued; in the interim (July 2011) Laws 2011 abolished the statutory right to counsel for indigent parents in neglect cases.
The superior court later held that neither parent was constitutionally entitled to appointed counsel, but the dispositional order remained substantially aligned with the circuit court’s order.
After a de novo review, the superior court adjudicated neglect again on January 16, 2013, ordering the children remain in DCYF custody and outlining conditions for reunification.
DCYF filed termination petitions on March 21, 2013, alleging failure to correct neglect conditions within 12 months despite reasonable efforts; the circuit court held a three-day termination hearing in September–October 2013 and terminated parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 12-month period begin for termination under RSA 170-C:5, III?	Larry/Sonia: clock restarts from superior court’s de novo finding.	Court should start at superior court’s adjudicatory order or, in this case, circuit court’s order.	Twelve-month period runs from circuit court’s adjudicatory order when de novo is not significantly different.
Should Judge Cardello have recused himself from the termination case?	Sonia argues bias due to presiding over neglect.	No deep-seated bias; same judge can preside; no per se disqualification.	No recusal required; no demonstrated deep-seated bias.
Did DCYF make reasonable efforts to reunify the parents with the children?	DCYF failed to provide adequate or timely services.	DCYF provided ample services; parents bore responsibility for limited engagement.	DCYF proved reasonable efforts; parents failed to utilize services adequately.
Was termination in the children’s best interests?	Bond with parents and extended family favorable to reunification.	Children safe, well-cared-for in foster care; long-term stability favors termination.	Termination in the children’s best interests.

In re C.M., 163 N.H. 768 (2012) (creates framework for counsel appointment in neglect cases; de novo review considerations)
In re Sophia-Marie H., 165 N.H. 332 (2013) (terminations; twelve-month correction standard; best interests)
In re Michael E., 162 N.H. 520 (2011) (reasonable efforts; accessibility and adequacy of services)
In re Juvenile 2006-671, 156 N.H. 1 (2007) (expedited appeals; family rehabilitation goals)
In re Lisa H., 134 N.H. 188 (1991) (child’s bond with foster parent as factor in best interests)
In re Doe, 123 N.H. 634 (1983) (early framework for best interests and termination standards)
In re Antonio W., 147 N.H. 408 (2002) (child welfare priority; welfare of the child over parental interests)
Hale v. Wyatt, 78 N.H. 214 (1916) (judicial testimony and witness considerations; deference of judge’s role)
L.C. v. Dyfs, 788 A.2d 330 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002) (one judge hearing both protective services and termination cases; policy reasons)