## Facts

- Mother and Father were A.G.’s parents. A.G. lived primarily with Mother.
- When A.G. was seven, the family court adjudicated her a child in need of care and supervision based on concerns tied to Mother’s binge drinking and resulting instability and inadequate supervision.
- The court initially allowed A.G. to remain with Mother under a disposition order approving a social-services case plan that recommended services to address parenting risks and family instability.
- About two weeks later, Mother was arrested, and the department removed A.G. from Mother’s home and placed her in an out-of-home placement, where she remained for years.
- The department later sought termination of Mother’s parental rights. The family court denied the request, finding Mother had made progress on key conditions (including alcohol use, mental-health needs, and unsafe relationships), and concluding reunification efforts should continue even though Mother had not fully shared treatment details with the department.
- Father later sought visitation and engaged in violent conduct toward Mother. After Father used information from court filings to locate Mother at a crisis center, Mother relocated farther away and became unwilling to disclose her address, employment information, and mental-health records to the department due to safety fears.
- Because of Father’s threatening behavior toward A.G.’s caregivers, the department changed A.G.’s placement and, at one point, did not provide Mother information about A.G.’s location.
- Mother established greater stability in her new community (including housing and employment). The department, viewing the matter as stalled, again petitioned to terminate Mother’s rights. The family court denied termination a second time, finding no deterioration in Mother’s parenting capacity and no circumstances justifying termination at that stage.
- After a later parent-child visit (including a problematic Christmas visit) and continued conflict over Mother’s refusal to provide requested information, the family court found changed circumstances and modified disposition: A.G. would remain in long-term out-of-home care rather than reunification, while Mother’s parental rights were not terminated.
- In the same overall proceedings, the family court terminated Father’s residual parental rights.
- Mother appealed the long-term placement disposition, arguing the finding of changed circumstances and the selected permanency option were erroneous and did not provide A.G. adequate permanence. Father appealed the termination order.

## Issues

1. Whether the family court erred in finding changed circumstances and modifying disposition from reunification efforts to long-term out-of-home care for A.G., over Mother’s objection.
2. Whether the family court erred in selecting long-term out-of-home care as the permanency disposition, given the child’s need for stability and permanence.
3. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination of Father’s residual parental rights as consistent with A.G.’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family court’s orders.
- The Court upheld the determination that circumstances had changed sufficiently to justify modifying disposition to long-term out-of-home care rather than reunification with Mother.
- The Court upheld the permanency disposition as consistent with A.G.’s best interests given the child’s extended time in out-of-home placement and need for stability.
- The Court affirmed termination of Father’s residual parental rights.

## Legal Principles

- The child’s best interests control disposition and permanency decisions in CHINS proceedings, including decisions that move away from reunification after extended time in out-of-home care.
- A family court may modify a disposition order upon a supported finding of changed circumstances, and the appellate court will not reweigh evidence where findings are supported by the record.
- Time matters in evaluating a child’s welfare: prolonged uncertainty, repeated litigation, and repeated shifts in planning can themselves harm a child and can justify a permanency decision that prioritizes stable placement.
- Parental progress does not automatically require reunification when the overall circumstances—viewed over time—show reunification is not achievable within a time frame consistent with the child’s needs.
- Termination of residual parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence and a best-interests determination, including whether the parent can assume parental duties within a reasonable period given the child’s developmental needs and need for stability.

## Conclusion

In *In re A.G.*, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed orders placing A.G. in long-term out-of-home care as to Mother (without terminating Mother’s rights) and terminating Father’s residual parental rights, holding that the family court’s changed-circumstances findings and best-interests determinations were supported by the record and warranted the permanency outcomes ordered.


In re A.G., 868 A.2d 692 (2004)