## Facts

- On the day B.S. was born, the state child-protection agency obtained temporary custody based on the parents’ prior physical abuse of two older children and removal of those children from the home.
- The mother had an intellectual disability and asserted she could parent with appropriate supports.
- The parents and the agency agreed early in the case that B.S. would remain in agency custody while the mother and child resided at a family center with extensive services aimed at reunification.
- The mother left the family center to be with the father, leaving B.S. there without arranging for his care; the child was returned to foster care.
- At the merits stage, the parents did not contest the adjudication that B.S. was a child in need of care or supervision; the court continued custody with the agency and ordered intensive family-based services with reunification as the goal.
- After additional involvement, the agency later recommended termination of parental rights rather than continued reunification efforts.
- Despite intensive services, the mother did not make sufficient progress in parenting skills, and professionals concluded she could not parent B.S. within a reasonable time.
- The family court terminated the mother’s parental rights based on changed circumstances and the child’s best interests, while also criticizing aspects of the agency’s conduct and services.
- On appeal, the mother argued (1) the agency’s termination recommendation violated an earlier agreement and (2) the court should have resolved her Title II ADA claims regarding disability accommodations before terminating her rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the agency was barred from recommending termination of parental rights due to an earlier agreement associated with the disposition plan.
2. Whether alleged noncompliance with Title II of the ADA required the family court to resolve ADA claims before terminating parental rights, or otherwise provided a defense to termination.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the termination order.
- The court held that changed circumstances permitted the agency to alter its recommendation from reunification to termination notwithstanding any earlier understanding.
- The court held that alleged ADA violations did not preclude termination and did not require the family court to adjudicate ADA compliance before deciding termination.

## Legal Principles

- In a child-protection case, dispositional plans and recommendations may be modified when changed circumstances show reunification is no longer realistic within a reasonable time.
- An agency’s prior position in the disposition process does not permanently bar it from later recommending termination when later developments warrant a different permanency plan.
- Termination proceedings are governed by the statutory criteria for termination (including changed circumstances and the child’s best interests), and alleged failures to provide ADA-compliant accommodations do not operate as an affirmative defense to termination.
- ADA claims concerning a public child-protection agency’s services may be pursued through the ADA’s remedial mechanisms, but the family court need not resolve those claims as a prerequisite to entering a termination order.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights, concluding that the case record supported a shift from reunification to termination based on changed circumstances and that alleged failures to accommodate the mother’s disability under the ADA did not bar termination or require prior adjudication of ADA compliance.


In re B.S., 693 A.2d 716 (Vt. 1997)