2026 N.H. 29
N.H.2026Background
- DCYF removed H.H. and B.H. after reports that their guardians abused them and Father was living with them despite probation conditions requiring separation and treatment compliance. 1
- The trial court adjudicated Father responsible for neglect based on the abuse allegations and his unsafe living conditions. 2
- At disposition, Father was ordered to secure sobriety, safe housing, parenting skills, probation compliance, and protective caregiving, with DCYF providing referrals and services. 3
- Father initially substantially complied, but he never obtained adequate housing, so the court granted a 90-day extension to complete housing and ICPC requirements. 4
- During the extension, Father regressed by cancelling visits, using marijuana and alcohol, and delaying ICPC paperwork, and the court later found reunification foreclosed. 5
- After the TPR hearing, the court terminated Father’s rights, finding he failed to correct neglect conditions within twelve months despite reasonable efforts and that termination served the children’s best interests. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Father fail to correct neglect conditions within twelve months? 7 | Father corrected the conditions, or at least substantially complied. | Father regressed and never met the housing and sobriety requirements. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported failure to correct. 8 |
| Could the court consider Father’s overall compliance during the 90-day extension? 9 | Only the original housing deficiency mattered. | The extension allowed full review of the dispositional order. | Yes; the full dispositional order remained relevant. 10 |
| Did DCYF make reasonable reunification efforts? 11 | DCYF unilaterally canceled the ICPC and failed to assist him. | DCYF provided extensive services and assistance. | Yes; DCYF made reasonable efforts. 12 |
| Was termination in the children's best interests? 13 | Termination was premature and unnecessary. | The children needed permanency in their pre-adoptive foster home. | Yes; termination served the children’s best interests. 14 |
| Did any ICPC cancellation error require reversal? 15 | DCYF’s unilateral withdrawal from ICPC was reversible error. | Any error was harmless because other evidence independently supported termination. | No; any error was harmless. 16 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.O., 177 N.H. 558 (N.H. 2025) (standard for termination review; compliance with dispositional orders is relevant; best-interest analysis 17)
- In re C.O., 171 N.H. 748 (N.H. 2019) (RSA 170-C:5 requires a neglect finding and failure to correct conditions within twelve months 18)
- In re S.A., 174 N.H. 298 (N.H. 2021) (reasonable efforts means accessible, available, appropriate assistance 19)
- In re J.H., 176 N.H. 238 (N.H. 2023) (statutes are construed as a whole to effectuate purpose and avoid absurd results 20)
- In re G.W., 177 N.H. 676 (N.H. 2025) (an error is harmless when it does not affect the outcome below 21)
- In re C.M., 166 N.H. 764 (N.H. 2014) (children need and deserve permanent living arrangements 22)
- In re Alexis O., 157 N.H. 781 (N.H. 2008) (ICPC governs interstate placement of dependent children 23)
- State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47 (N.H. 2003) (undeveloped arguments are not addressed on appeal 24)