In re D.S., In re M.H., 196 Vt. 325

DCF became involved in December 2008 due to substance abuse, sexualized behavior, domestic violence, and neglect concerns.
In January 2012, the children were taken into custody under an emergency care order and later a temporary care order while mothers’ and fathers’ criminal status evolved.
Mother relinquished her parental rights; the court terminated Mark and Todd’s parental rights after a disposition and concurrent reunification/adoption plan.
Mark (D.S.’s father) has extensive criminal history and was incarcerated at the time of the hearing; he had minimal, sporadic contact with D.S.
Todd (M.H.’s father) has a lengthy criminal history and has been incarcerated for most of M.H.’s life, with limited contact and ongoing supervision concerns.
Children were thriving in their current preadoptive foster home with relatives; the court found substantial change in circumstances favoring termination and permanency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was termination of parental rights in the children's best interests?	Mark/Todd contend lack of meaningful bond and external factors beyond control dictated results.	DCF argues supportive evidence shows unfitness and need for permanency outweighs preservation.	Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports termination.
Did incarceration of Todd preclude reasonable time to resume parenting?	Todd argues court misread readiness and forward-looking potential to parent.	Court properly weighed four factors and forward-looking ability within child’s needs.	No error; incarceration properly considered under best-interest criteria.
Was placement with Todd’s mother properly considered against the best interests of the children?	Todd argues kinship placement with mother should be preserved where possible.	Court adequately evaluated placement options and concluded grandmother not suitable; foster/kinship care with relatives appropriate.	Placement with grandmother not in children’s best interests; continuation in current placement affirmed.

In re B.M., 165 Vt. 331 (VT 1996) (forward-looking best-interest analysis; reasonable period of time considerations)
In re K.F., 2004 VT 40 (VT 2004) (incarceration as a factor in parental fitness; responsibility for absence)
In re S.B., 174 Vt. 427 (VT 2002) (termination not custody case; focus on statutory factors and best interests)
In re S.W., VT 2008 (VT 2008) (kinship considerations and best-interest analysis)
In re C.P., 2012 VT 100 (VT 2012) (forward-looking standard; child’s needs and age considerations)