In re O.D.; In re B.D.; In re G.D.

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the termination of the parents’ parental rights over three children based on their failure to correct the conditions leading to a finding of neglect. The court held that termination under RSA 170-C:5, III did not require the parents to have been named respondents in the original neglect proceedings or require new neglect petitions after the children were removed from the parents’ home. The court also held that challenges concerning the parents’ entitlement to counsel in the neglect proceedings were foreclosed because they had not appealed the relevant neglect orders.

Holdings

1. RSA 170-C:5, III does not require that the parent whose rights are terminated have been named as a respondent or identified as an offending parent in the original RSA chapter 169-C neglect petition. The statute requires that the parent fail to correct the conditions leading to the neglect finding within the statutory period despite reasonable efforts under the court's direction.
2. DCYF's failure to file new neglect petitions after the November 2016 removal did not foreclose termination of parental rights because the original neglect proceeding remained operative and the original conditions of neglect had not been conclusively corrected.
3. The parents' challenge was foreclosed because they did not appeal the orders entered in the neglect proceedings, including the order directing DCYF to file termination petitions. Those orders became final and binding as to issues raised or that could have been raised, including entitlement to appointed counsel.
4. The evidence supported the circuit court's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the parents failed to correct the conditions leading to the finding of neglect, including problems involving substance abuse, domestic violence, parenting deficits, and the ability to meet the children's physical and emotional needs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 170-C:5, III permits termination of a parent's rights when the parent was not named as a respondent in the original RSA chapter 169-C neglect petition.
2. Whether DCYF was required to file new abuse or neglect petitions after the children were removed from the parents' home in November 2016.
3. Whether the parents' due process rights were violated by the absence of appointed counsel during the underlying neglect proceedings.
4. Whether the evidence supported the circuit court's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the parents failed to correct the conditions leading to the finding of neglect.

Disposition

affirmed