In re K.F., 72 A.3d 908

Background

KF was born April 2011; father was incarcerated for most of KF’s life and had limited contact when not incarcerated.
Prior TPR involving KF’s older siblings found substantial criminal history, mental-health issues, and domestic-violence history; court in that case found risk and lack of treatment; appellate affirmance cited.
Mother relinquished parental rights in April 2012; DCF sought termination of father’s rights in July 2012.
Trial court found father had not improved in parenting and had no meaningful relationship with KF; suggested obstacles like housing and mental health would persist after release.
Father moved at hearing to replace counsel due to alleged conflict; counsel denied conflict and trial proceeded; findings by court affirmed termination.
Court concluded the best interests of KF required termination and adoption by foster family; kinship placement evidence deemed irrelevant to termination outcome.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether replacement counsel was required due to conflict	Father asserts conflict because counsel adopted a child previously in DCF care.	Counsel had no current relationship with DCF and no conflict; adoption five years earlier is insufficient.	No reversible conflict; denial of replacement counsel affirmed.
Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance	Counsel failed to pursue strategies and evidence; demonstrated sympathy to DCF could amount to ineffectiveness.	Counsel adequately represented father; performance met standard; any alleged shortcomings did not prejudice outcome.	No ineffective assistance; Strickland standard not met.
Impact of kinship placement on termination decision	Failing to pursue kinship options could undermine chances of placement and affect best-interests analysis.	Kinship options are not controlling; best-interests and substantial change in circumstances support termination regardless.	Kinship placement diligence not required to negate termination findings.
Record on appeal and admissibility of proffered evidence	Additional materials should be considered to show lesser criminal history and other factors.	Struck because not part of trial record; post-trial submissions cannot alter findings.	Proffered materials struck; do not alter termination ruling.
Procedural approach to ineffective-counsel claims in TPR	TPR defendants should have a right to challenge counsel effectiveness; direct appeal post-judgment remedy discussed.	No established procedure; need for definitive rules; referral to family rules committee considered.	Court discusses potential procedures; does not decide creating a rights-based remedy in TPR.

Key Cases Cited

In re S.W., 183 Vt. 610 (2008 VT) (ineffective-assistance standard; record-based review in TPR context)
In re M.B., 162 Vt. 229 (1994 VT) (ineffective-assistance standard discussion in TPR context)
In re T.T., 178 Vt. 496 (2005 VT) (kinship placement irrelevance at termination; best interests analysis)
In re Estate of Perry, 191 Vt. 589 (2012 VT) (evidence-striking procedure in appellate context)
In re Margaret Susan P., 169 Vt. 252 (1999 VT) (adoptive parent disqualification not presumed bias)
Hoover v. Hoover, 171 Vt. 256 (2000 VT) (review confined to trial-record sources in appellate procedure)
In re Crannell, 192 Vt. 406 (2012 VT) (lengthy PCR proceedings in criminal context; procedural caution)
State v. Tribble, 193 Vt. 194 (2012 VT) (trial strategy and professional judgment in admissibility decisions)
In re Russo, 187 Vt. 367 (2010 VT) (standard for ineffective assistance in Vermont)
Grega, 175 Vt. 631 (2003 VT) (expert testimony required for IA claim in some cases)
Davignon, 152 Vt. 209 (1989 VT) (foundational Strickland framework)