In re D.S. and W.S., Juveniles, 162 A.3d 1254

Background

Two children (D.S., ~2.5; W.S., ~5 months) were removed after unsupervised and unsafe-sleep incidents; parents stipulated to CHINS. DCF placed children with paternal grandparents.
A disposition plan (reunification by March 2015 or adoption) required parenting education, Family Time coaching, and individual counseling; DCF shifted to an adoption-only goal in December 2014 (case-plan change not submitted to court).
Family Time coaching continued into Jan–Feb 2015; father’s work schedule improved and his participation increased; coach reported improved safety when both parents attended together.
DCF closed Family Time and moved visits to a supervised Family Room after adoption-only goal, then supervision became inconsistent after a staffing change, limiting services aimed at increasing parental autonomy.
Family court found mother’s parenting ability had stagnated and terminated both parents’ rights; court also found father had addressed many prior concerns but ‘‘did not appear to want to parent on his own.’n ### Issues

Issue	Mother's Argument	Father's Argument	Held
Whether mother’s parenting had ‘‘stagnated’’ such that change of circumstances supports termination	DCF relied on her limited progress, but stagnation was caused by premature termination of services and plan defects	—	Reversed as to mother: finding of stagnation unsupported because DCF’s early shift to adoption and subsequent supervision changes prevented assessment of continued progress
Whether father’s parenting had stagnated and required individual analysis	—	Court failed to make an adequate individual finding; evidence showed father addressed mental-health and domestic-violence concerns and improved participation	Reversed as to father: record lacks clear-and-convincing findings that father was unwilling/unable to parent alone or that termination served children’s best interests
Whether DCF’s change to an adoption-only goal and service reductions deprived parents of opportunity to progress	Mother: change was premature and curtailed demonstrable progress	State: DCF changed goal because mother hadn’t made sufficient progress	Court treated DCF change as prejudicial to mother’s ability to demonstrate further progress; reversal for mother follows
Whether parents had sufficient notice of specific expectations (due process)	Mother: plan deficiencies and lack of clinical assessment undermined required changes	Father: argued lack of individualized expectations and notice of what he needed to do to reunify	Court did not rely on failure to attend counseling; held that deficiencies were harmless as to mother but found procedural/service gaps fatal to sustaining terminations; remanded

Key Cases Cited

In re S.W., 176 Vt. 517, 833 A.2d 879 (2003) (two-step TPR framework: changed circumstances then best interests)
In re D.M., 176 Vt. 639, 852 A.2d 588 (2004) (stagnation defined as failure to make plan-expected progress over time)
In re S.R., 157 Vt. 417, 599 A.2d 364 (1991) (stagnation caused by factors beyond parental control cannot support termination)
In re B.S., 163 Vt. 445, 659 A.2d 1137 (1995) (harmless-error principle in termination proceedings)
In re H.A., 153 Vt. 504, 572 A.2d 884 (1990) (court must consider each parent individually in TPR analysis)