In re D.F., H.F., M.F. and D.F., Juveniles, 204 A.3d 641

Four children removed in June 2016 after CHINS petition alleging medical neglect, unsanitary home, neglect of hygiene, and domestic abuse/controlling behavior by father; parents stipulated to CHINS.
Court-ordered case plan required father to complete DVRC and other services; father completed programs and attended weekly supervised visits but denied some physical-abuse allegations and resisted parts of the plan initially.
DCF limited contact: weekly supervised Family Time (2.5 hours) and restrictions on father’s presence in community locations near children/foster homes; father sought expanded visits supervised by relatives (not granted).
At permanency hearing court set a three-month reunification timeframe; a month before that period expired the State filed a TPR petition; father argued petition was premature because expanded visitation was not allowed.
Trial court credited improvements by father but found stagnation: father minimized past conduct, maintained controlling behaviors, had not fully accepted responsibility for abuse/neglect, and children were more attached to foster caregivers; court terminated father's parental rights and separately found DCF made reasonable efforts.

Issue	Father's Argument	State/DCF's Argument	Held
Was the TPR petition premature because it preceded the 3-month reunification window and DCF blocked expanded visitation?	TPR was premature; DCF’s refusal to expand visitation thwarted reunification.	Petition timely; DCF did not withdraw services and limited visits were reasonable given children's needs.	Petition not premature; court reasonably declined expanded visits and TPR filing was proper.
Did evidence support finding of parental ‘‘stagnation’’?	Father complied with case plan and acknowledged past problems; thus no stagnation.	Despite compliance, father minimized conduct, retained controlling behaviors, and had not internalized change.	Sufficient evidence supported stagnation finding.
Would father be able to resume parenting within a reasonable time?	With more/better visits father could reestablish bonds and meet timeline.	Children remained traumatized and bonded to foster families; father unlikely to be ready from children’s perspective within a reasonable time.	Court’s forward-looking best-interest analysis upheld; father not likely to resume parenting within reasonable time.
Was DCF’s separate “reasonable efforts” finding erroneous?	DCF failed to make reasonable efforts by denying expanded visits, so finding was wrong.	Reasonable-efforts finding supported; decision distinct from TPR merits.	Issue rendered moot by affirmance of TPR; no further relief available.

In re D.S., 204 Vt. 44, 162 A.3d 1254 (Vt. 2016) (withdrawing services before target reunification date can render a TPR premature)
In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287, 648 A.2d 652 (Vt. 1994) (two-step TPR analysis: changed circumstances then child's best interests)
In re J.B., 167 Vt. 637, 712 A.2d 895 (Vt. 1998) (most important best-interest factor is ability to resume parenting within a reasonable time)
In re S.B., 174 Vt. 427, 800 A.2d 476 (Vt. 2002) (appellate review defers to family court credibility and factfinding in TPR cases)
In re A.F., 160 Vt. 175, 624 A.2d 867 (Vt. 1993) (hearsay may be relied upon for probative value in termination proceedings but cannot be sole basis)
In re C.P., 193 Vt. 29, 71 A.3d 1142 (Vt. 2012) (reasonable-efforts determination is distinct from best-interest TPR decision)