In re Michael E.
162 N.H. 520
N.H.2011Background
- DCYF filed an ex parte neglect petition seeking out-of-home placement for Michael E. and Andre E.; the court granted it on April 3, 2009.
- May 26, 2009 adjudicatory and dispositional hearings resulted in a final order finding neglect due to the respondent selling drugs from her home and in the children’s presence; DCYF was awarded legal custody and conditions were set for return.
- Conditions included refraining from drugs/alcohol, attending counseling, working with a parent aide, and undergoing a neurological evaluation; DCYF to provide a parent aide, drug screening, and assist with services.
- Review hearings through August 2009 and February 2010 showed partial compliance; by February 10, 2010 the respondent was found not in compliance, with missed visits, lack of cooperation with the aide, missed drug tests, and admitted cocaine use.
- A May 26, 2010 permanency hearing found continued noncompliance, including failure to complete counseling/parenting classes, unstable housing due to incarcerations, and ongoing drug/alcohol use; DCYF then petitioned for termination of parental rights.
- The trial court granted the TPR petition, finding failure to correct the neglect conditions and that termination was in the best interests due to the respondent’s current inability to care for the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel bars challenge to neglect findings? | DCYF: estoppel applies; respondent litigated neglect previously and did not appeal. | Daly: location of issue challenging neglect should be de novo. | Collateral estoppel bars challenging neglect findings. |
| Were DCYF's efforts to reunify reasonable under 169-C:24-a, III? | DCYF provided case management, a case plan, and access to services and screening. | Respondent argues services were not provided by DCYF and relied on her own efforts. | Yes, reasonable efforts given constraints. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that respondent failed to correct neglect conditions? | Respondent never acknowledged neglect; largely uncooperative with aides and failed drug testing. | Respondent disputes persistence of neglect conditions. | Sufficient evidence to prove failure to correct. |
| Termination of parental rights proper under RSA 170-C:5, III? | Respondent failed to fix neglect conditions within 12 months despite court-directed efforts. | Respondent contends termination unwarranted given still-cooperative service history. | Termination affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jack L., 161 N.H. 611 (2011) (monopoly of clear-and-convincing standard for termination; standard applied)
- In re Zachary G., 159 N.H. 146 (2009) (elements of collateral estoppel in TPR context)
- In re Juvenile 2006-833, 156 N.H. 482 (2007) (reasonable efforts framework and state's role in services)
- In re Diane R., 146 N.H. 676 (2001) (final dispositional order as basis for collateral estoppel analysis)