The New Hampshire Supreme Court has affirmed a Circuit Court decision terminating parental rights in *In re K.O.*, a child welfare case that raised complex questions about disability accommodations and state intervention standards. The opinion, issued Sept. 4, 2025, rejected appeals from both parents who challenged the lower court's determination that they failed to correct conditions leading to child neglect findings.
The case originated in the 6th Circuit Court-Concord Family Division, where Judge Luneau presided over proceedings involving the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court terminated both parents' rights under RSA 170-C:5, III, which allows termination when parents fail to correct conditions that led to neglect findings within 12 months.
Both parents mounted separate legal challenges to the termination order. The father, represented by Jorel V. Booker of Dover, argued the trial court erred by failing to determine whether DCYF provided reasonable accommodations for his disability during the underlying child neglect proceedings. His appeal centered on rights protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 12132, which prohibits discrimination by public entities.
The father's argument highlighted ongoing tensions in child welfare cases involving parents with disabilities. Federal law requires state agencies to provide reasonable modifications to policies and procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination against individuals with disabilities. However, courts must balance these protections against child safety concerns and statutory timelines for permanency.
The mother, represented by Kimberly A. Shaughnessy of Shaughnessy Allard, PLLC in Bedford, challenged the trial court's findings on different grounds. She argued the court incorrectly determined she failed to correct the conditions that led to the child neglect finding. Additionally, she contested the court's conclusion regarding DCYF's efforts to assist her in addressing those conditions.
Her appeal focused on the reasonableness of state efforts to help parents correct deficiencies identified in neglect proceedings. New Hampshire law requires DCYF to make reasonable efforts to preserve families before pursuing termination, though the extent and adequacy of these efforts often becomes contentious in termination proceedings.
The state's case was presented by the Attorney General's Office, with Attorney General John M. Formella and Solicitor General Anthony J. Galdieri leading the legal team. Assistant Attorney General Mary A. Triick handled the written memorandum and participated in oral arguments, defending DCYF's actions and the lower court's legal conclusions.
The Supreme Court's decision to affirm the termination orders suggests the justices found the trial court properly applied New Hampshire's child protection statutes. The court apparently concluded that both parents failed to demonstrate they had corrected the conditions that initially brought state intervention, despite any accommodations or assistance provided.
This case reflects broader challenges in child welfare law, where courts must navigate competing interests of parental rights, child safety, and federal disability protections. Termination of parental rights represents the most severe intervention available to state agencies, permanently severing the legal relationship between parents and children.
The timing requirements in RSA 170-C:5, III create particular pressure in cases involving parents with disabilities. The 12-month correction period may not account for additional time needed to implement disability accommodations or address underlying conditions that contributed to neglect findings.
The appeals process in *In re K.O.* followed standard procedures for family court matters. The case was argued before the New Hampshire Supreme Court on June 18, 2025, with the written opinion released approximately two and a half months later. Justice Donovan authored the court's opinion, though the full reasoning and analysis remain subject to the court's standard editorial review process.
The opinion includes the court's standard notice regarding potential revisions before final publication in the New Hampshire Reports. This preliminary status allows for corrections of editorial errors and potential rehearing motions under Rule 22 of the state's court rules.
For families involved in similar proceedings, the decision reinforces the importance of compliance with court-ordered services and timelines. Parents facing potential termination must work diligently to address identified deficiencies while also asserting any rights to reasonable accommodations when disabilities are involved.
The case also demonstrates the state's commitment to child protection through its legal system. DCYF's successful defense of the termination suggests the agency met its burden of proving both that conditions warranted intervention and that reasonable efforts were made to preserve the family before seeking permanent separation.
Moving forward, this decision will likely influence how similar cases are handled in New Hampshire's family courts, particularly those involving disability accommodation claims in the context of child protection proceedings.