In re C.O. In re G.L., 203 A.3d 870

Background

DCYF removed two children (C.O. and G.L.) after child-pornography images recovered from C.O.’s father’s computer showed sexual conduct involving the respondent and G.L.; Tennessee indicted the respondent.
Circuit court adjudicated the respondent for abuse (G.L.) and neglect (both children), issued dispositional conditions including participation in services and to “accept responsibility” for conduct, and limited discussion of the criminal case with the children.
Visitation was initially supervised but terminated after the respondent discussed the criminal matter with G.L. and C.O. refused visits; DCYF continued limited contact and service-related communications.
After 12 months the permanency hearing found the respondent had not corrected the conditions (criminal matters unresolved; did not acknowledge wrongdoing); DCYF filed TPR petitions under RSA 170-C:5, III.
At the TPR hearing the respondent largely invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege; the court found DCYF made reasonable reunification efforts and permitted an adverse inference from the respondent’s silence as probative of failure to correct conditions, and terminated parental rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State/DCYF)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent)	Held
Whether DCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify after visits were suspended	DCYF: It continued ordered services and monthly contact, provided updates, verified counseling and housing — efforts reasonable given court-ordered suspension of visits	Respondent: DCYF provided no services after suspension and could have done more; evidence of inadequate efforts	Held: Substantial evidence DCYF made reasonable efforts under constraints; court need not detail staffing/financial limits
Whether dispositional condition to “accept responsibility” violated right against self-incrimination and barred using silence in TPR	DCYF: Challenge should have been raised earlier in the abuse/neglect proceedings; failure to acknowledge is relevant to correcting conditions; adverse inference permissible where relevant	Respondent: Condition forced choice between constitutional right against self-incrimination and reunification; invoking the privilege should not be held against her	Held: Appeal of TPR cannot relitigate final dispositional order; court may draw adverse inference from silence where relevant to whether conditions were corrected; termination upheld
Whether circuit court improperly considered DCYF’s alleged threat to report admissions to law enforcement	Respondent: DCYF told her disclosures would be reported, chilling admissions	DCYF: RSA 169-C:12-a bars use of dispositional testimony in criminal proceedings; court informed respondent of that protection	Held: Court properly disregarded the claimed chilling effect given statutory protection and lack of challenge during abuse/neglect proceedings

Key Cases Cited

In re Adam R., 159 N.H. 788 (N.H. 2010) (parental rights are fundamental but terminable with due process; standard for TPR)
In re S.T., 169 N.H. 441 (N.H. 2016) (petitioner must prove statutory ground for TPR beyond a reasonable doubt)
In re C.M., 166 N.H. 764 (N.H. 2014) (DCYF must provide services that are accessible, available, and appropriate; abuse/neglect and TPR are separate proceedings)
In re Michael E., 162 N.H. 520 (N.H. 2011) (reasonableness of DCYF efforts judged against staff/financial constraints; failure to acknowledge neglect is probative)
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1976) (Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences in civil proceedings from refusal to testify)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents’ rights receive heightened protection; burdens of proof in TPR)
In re Samantha L., 145 N.H. 408 (N.H. 2000) (parent’s refusal to acknowledge abuse can justify transfer of custody)