An act relating to termination of parental rights in an adoption proceeding
H.7 would amend Vermont adoption law to restore a factor a court may consider when deciding whether to terminate a respondent’s parental rights in an adoption proceeding. Specifically, in cases involving a child over six months old, the court could again consider whether the person asserting parental rights made reasonable and consistent child-support payments, based on that person’s financial means, when evaluating whether the person failed to exercise parental responsibility for at least six months before the petition was filed.
The bill does not create a new ground for termination; rather, it clarifies the evidence a court may weigh under the existing “failure to exercise parental responsibility” standard. The listed factors would include support payments, regular communication or visitation, and willingness to assume legal and physical custody when the child was not in the other parent’s custody. The bill would take effect immediately upon passage.
If enacted, H.7 would amend 15A V.S.A. § 3-504, Vermont’s adoption statute governing termination of the parent-child relationship. The practical effect would be to make a parent’s child-support history explicitly relevant again in adoption-related termination proceedings, after having been removed as a consideration. Courts would retain discretion and would still need clear and convincing evidence and a best-interests finding, but the statute would direct judges to consider support payments alongside other indicators of parental responsibility.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted statutory correction rather than a broad policy change. Its stated purpose suggests support from those who believe financial support should remain part of the parental-responsibility analysis in adoption cases. No contrary viewpoints are documented in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or voting history, but the bill’s presentation is straightforward and remedial in tone.
The likely point of contention is whether child-support payments should be used as a factor in deciding termination of parental rights. Supporters would view payment history as relevant evidence of parental responsibility and commitment to the child, while critics may argue that financial ability varies and that nonpayment should not weigh too heavily in a proceeding focused on the child’s best interests and parental fitness. Another possible concern is whether reintroducing this factor could make termination more likely in cases involving poverty or inconsistent income, though the bill limits the inquiry to payments made in accordance with the respondent’s financial means.